What Determines A Good Match Play Course?

[Jaeger Kovich]

An interesting matchplay course should probably have its best string of holes around the 14-16, rather than 17 or 18, because the match is often over before #18. These can be risk/reward or half par or super difficult, whatever... But if the match doesn't make it to the best hole on the course then what good is it?!

[Pete_Pittock]

An interesting matchplay course should probably have its best string of holes around the 14-16, rather than 17 or 18, because the match is often over before #18. These can be risk/reward or half par or super difficult, whatever... But if the match doesn't make it to the best hole on the course then what good is it?!

It could also return to the area of the clubhouse on the 2nd or 3rd hole.

[John Kirk]

David,

Thanks for the comments.  David and I talked about match play during our round together; he'd had a memorable comeback in a recent match, which reminds me of the one time I came from well behind to win a match on the 18th hole.  In that case, my opponent made me very frustrated, including a 45 minute rules dispute on the 11th hole.  I'm not that well suited to match play.  I have to either practice "casual indifference" well, or am feeling vengeful, which happens sometimes.  I've always been that way.  Make me mad, give me a reason to beat you, and I lose my inhibitions about making putts to win holes.

Rich,

I'm aware that we've discussed "match play courses" vs. "stroke play courses" many times.  I am generally in agreement that a good golf course is good for both types of games, and that there a distinction between the two is questionable.  However, I don't remember anybody explaining why that is so.  Looking at it another way, why not?  Why can't there be a specific match play course?  Why doesn't somebody build a golf course full of "half-par" holes, say 230-290 yards, and 400-470 yards, with a couple different holes thrown in for good measure?

[Phil McDade]

Looking at it another way, why not?  Why can't there be a specific match play course?  Why doesn't somebody build a golf course full of "half-par" holes, say 230-290 yards, and 400-470 yards, with a couple different holes thrown in for good measure?

John:

William Langford did, here in Wisconsin:

http://www.springvalleyccgolf.com/aboutus/scorecard/

I think this course comes pretty close to meeting your criteria, and it does something that I think you are seeking out of a good match-play course -- it allows the lesser player (me, twice) to keep up with the better player, in part because of its design elements and variety of holes. I twice took match-play contests to the final hole on this course against opponents with much superior games to mine, in part because my occasional tendency to hit awful shots simply cost me a given hole, and the remaining holes allowed me to play my (admittedly mediocre) game at near-even levels with my opponent. For me, a bogey golfer at my best, this course for the most part plays as a "tough par/pretty-achievable-with-decent-shots bogey" course, with the holes placed on a pretty wide spectrum across that range.

Details:

-- Not quite 6,500 yards from the tips;
-- Par of 70, with 3 par 5s and the traditional Langford assortment of 5 par 3s, with tremendous variation in those one-shotters;
-- Two par 4s at 450 (+), and another three par 4s between 420 and 435;
-- A truly reachable 278-yd, Sahara-esque par 4 (hole #14, natch), and four other par 4s between 340 and 393;
-- Two true three-shot par 5s (540 and 560, and for match-play purposes they are interestingly two of the first four holes you play);
-- The final par 5 a reachable 505 that comes at a crucial juncture in the match (hole #12);
-- Five par 3s ranging from 138 to 230 (the latter often played into the wind, and over a pond)

No bunkers of any kind, some penal water but it's limited and pretty avoidable, and some wicked Langford greens (which here, I think, tends to level the playing field between the better and lesser golfer, because they are not stimped at crazy-fast speeds).

I think Spring Valley is a really terrific match-play course; not surprising a very good collegiate golfer (Langford), who probably played a lot of match play, designed it.

[Joe Bausch]

A course full of temptations.

[John Kirk]

A course where difficult holes have a "bogey strategy", where the weaker player receiving a stroke has a way to intentionally play to the green in one extra shot, challenging the stronger player to make par.

Back to David Davis,

I'm not sure I agree that a good match play course should tighten the screws on the final few holes.  It's inspiring to make birdies down the stretch.  But I respect the alternate view, that the course should present a increasingly exacting challenge, and test the player's fortitude.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm thinking of the 5th at Strandhill. The fairway contours make match play of the hole highly unpredictable and exciting. Is that what you want in a great medal play hole? Or, do you want a hole where choosing a strategy, and having success or failure dependent on your play, not on the golf hole, what you want for a great medal play hole?

It seems to me that blindness creates more unpredictability. Whereas, it can ruin your strategy for playing the hole medal play. Think the 3rd at Old MacDonald.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the most insulting comment on a course would be, "It's a good scramble course."  Basically implies that you are lucky if one of a typical foursome of amateurs might end up with a good result on any given shot. Or a single player may need up to 4 mulligans a shot.


I agree with John Kirk's bogey strategy, although, I think MacKenzie used that on most designs, and to a degree, we all allow for the relatively easy bogey. Never thought about RTJ's "hard par, easy bogey" comments in this way, but I guess that kind of design would work in match play.  I thought match play was basically done at least mid way through his career, but maybe a carryover philosophy from earlier?  Anyway, add up that thought together with Mac's "Never make a plus player pile up a big score" and you get a pretty compelling idea of why post WWII courses mostly ended up looking the same.

[Tony Ristola]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I think a lot of banal designs occur because they're designed around stroke play. You're less likely to have risky, quirky holes because of it as they could blowup the scorecard.


With match play, it's a lost hole.


This is why I think Europe should have more interesting courses. They play a lot of stableford. You blow up a hole and all it means is you get no points for that hole. Unfortunately, they don't.

[Carl Rogers]

Tobacco Road because there are a lot of aggressive "go for it" shots as well as "play it safe" shots.

[Jason Topp]

I recall Kiawah Ocean Course as an outstanding match play course.  We spent a weekend playing a Ryder Cup format event and found that the weaker player always had a chance if he executed well and used his strokes.  The stronger player needed to mindful of his limitations and execute as well.  In match play you do not need to worry about making an 11.  The greens did not have a ton of slope so you could get hot with the putter.


It was much more pleasurable than it would have been trying to post a score.

[Jason Thurman]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I think a lot of banal designs occur because they're designed around stroke play. You're less likely to have risky, quirky holes because of it as they could blowup the scorecard.


With match play, it's a lost hole.

I get the logic behind this theory. Match play courses can be riskier, quirkier, and places where blow-up holes are more likely because it's "just a lost hole."


But man, the most boring matches I've ever played are on courses where guys routinely go in-pocket. There's nothing exciting about tapping in a triple bogey to win a hole, or having a hole conceded 200+ yards before reaching the green.


I almost go the other direction. It's really satisfying to grind out a medal score on a pitfall-laden course. Admittedly, that's harder than what the average golfer might desire, but the average golfer also doesn't actually play medal play, hardly ever if at all. I mean, I know. They THINK they play medal play. But the next time I see a guy who's not playing a tournament walk/ride back to retee after a lost ball will be the first time.


Whereas match play is MUCH more exciting when a guy can go from "screwed" to "putting to win the hole" in the span of a shot or two.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I think a lot of banal designs occur because they're designed around stroke play. You're less likely to have risky, quirky holes because of it as they could blowup the scorecard.


With match play, it's a lost hole.

I get the logic behind this theory. Match play courses can be riskier, quirkier, and places where blow-up holes are more likely because it's "just a lost hole."


But man, the most boring matches I've ever played are on courses where guys routinely go in-pocket. There's nothing exciting about tapping in a triple bogey to win a hole, or having a hole conceded 200+ yards before reaching the green.


I almost go the other direction. It's really satisfying to grind out a medal score on a pitfall-laden course. Admittedly, that's harder than what the average golfer might desire, but the average golfer also doesn't actually play medal play, hardly ever if at all. I mean, I know. They THINK they play medal play. But the next time I see a guy who's not playing a tournament walk/ride back to retee after a lost ball will be the first time.


Whereas match play is MUCH more exciting when a guy can go from "screwed" to "putting to win the hole" in the span of a shot or two.

I know I have told the story about the course where a Mafia hit occurred on the 8th tee.  Turns out his playing partners set him up, telling the hitman to shoot the first guy on the tee (it was next to an open lot) While investigating the crime, police learned it was his buddies and wondered how they knew he would be the first guy to tee off, knowing they were all of similar skill.  One of them told the court, "It wasn't easy.  When the mark topped his tee shot, we all had to scramble, so I also topped mine, another guy hooked it OB, a third whiffed completely."


The victim's last words on the 8th tee were, "I can't believe I won that hole with a 9."


Your comment makes me wonder why the others didn't reach a point where they just pocketed their ball instead of carrying the charade all the way through.

[Sean_A]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I agree. A good course is a good course. How one chooses to keep score is another issue altogether.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

When after the event you recall a great match, one that say you've either been involved in or witnessed, are you more likely to recall the details of the match or the details of the course?
atb

[Tom_Doak]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I agree. A good course is a good course. How one chooses to keep score is another issue altogether.

I don’t entirely agree.  A shorter course can be great for match play, but would be easily dismissed by good golfers as “too easy” to be great for stroke play.  North Berwick is one example of a course that used to be dismissed by better golfers.

[Sean_A]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I agree. A good course is a good course. How one chooses to keep score is another issue altogether.

I don’t entirely agree.  A shorter course can be great for match play, but would be easily dismissed by good golfers as “too easy” to be great for stroke play.  North Berwick is one example of a course that used to be dismissed by better golfers.

Being too easy may simply mean some don't think the course is good. How score is kept doesn't alter the nature of the course. It may alter how one plays the course.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Or even a course like Lincoln Park in San Francisco with several par 4s under 300 yards and its epic location.  Who wouldn't absolutely love to watch a Match Play event there, and its generally poor conditions would make it all the more interesting with bad lies and bumpy putts.

[Steve Lang]

   Yeh Kalen, and don't forget the trees and tree lines attempting to separate holes at Lincoln Park... I can attest to match play challenge there needing to navigate between the trees after aggressive/errant shots!


I appreciate John Kirk's analysis starting this old thread, but have to lean more towards Pat Mucci's right brain "Two ferocious, sporting competitors" reply.   Never played match play where emotions and PsyOps weren't in play, independent of the course.   

[Garland Bayley]

  Yeh Kalen, and don't forget the trees and tree lines attempting to separate holes at Lincoln Park... I can attest to match play challenge there needing to navigate between the trees after aggressive/errant shots!


I appreciate John Kirk's analysis starting this old thread, but have to lean more towards Pat Mucci's right brain "Two ferocious, sporting competitors" reply.   Never played match play where emotions and PsyOps weren't in play, independent of the course.

[Jason Thurman]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I agree. A good course is a good course. How one chooses to keep score is another issue altogether.

I don’t entirely agree.  A shorter course can be great for match play, but would be easily dismissed by good golfers as “too easy” to be great for stroke play.  North Berwick is one example of a course that used to be dismissed by better golfers.

Is that a match play vs medal play thing, or a strong player vs weak player thing?


I don't begrudge a plus-handicapper who gets a little tired of hitting flip wedges all the time, and I think that can get tiresome regardless of scoring format. I think those plus-handicappers tend to have too much influence on how a lot of players define "good design" sometimes, but that's a separate issue to me.


I don't doubt that a gang of club golfers can (and do) have a lot of fun playing medal at North Berwick. I haven't been there to really evaluate for myself, but like, I think I'd have a blast playing medal at Cape Arundel and maybe that's not a totally idiotic comparison. A low handicapper might have even more fun playing at Muirfield or Brookline, but that's what makes 19th hole conversations interesting.

[Tony Ristola]

John,
Can you name a great golf course that is not both great as a match play course and as a stoke play course?  I happen to think the greatest courses are great for both! 
Mark

I think a lot of banal designs occur because they're designed around stroke play. You're less likely to have risky, quirky holes because of it as they could blowup the scorecard.


With match play, it's a lost hole.

I get the logic behind this theory. Match play courses can be riskier, quirkier, and places where blow-up holes are more likely because it's "just a lost hole."


But man, the most boring matches I've ever played are on courses where guys routinely go in-pocket. There's nothing exciting about tapping in a triple bogey to win a hole, or having a hole conceded 200+ yards before reaching the green.


I almost go the other direction. It's really satisfying to grind out a medal score on a pitfall-laden course. Admittedly, that's harder than what the average golfer might desire, but the average golfer also doesn't actually play medal play, hardly ever if at all. I mean, I know. They THINK they play medal play. But the next time I see a guy who's not playing a tournament walk/ride back to retee after a lost ball will be the first time.


Whereas match play is MUCH more exciting when a guy can go from "screwed" to "putting to win the hole" in the span of a shot or two.

Risky doesn't have to be overbearing. Just really tempting.


You can always opt to play it safe... and hope your opponent does too, or doesn't pull off the risky shot.


As we all know from matchplay... it ain't over 'till it's over, as guys with nothing to lose don't have to play safe on their recoveries, and end up hitting miracle shots that stun their opponents and steal victory from the jaws of defeat.

[mike_malone]

I think a good match play course has a variety of holes and allows for recovery. So each player is in the hole.

[Phil Burr]

A course that’s very close to the top of my list of those I’d most like to play is the Horse Course at the Prairie Club.  It seems to me the epitome of a course and format suited for match play. If I win a hole, I earn the right to dictate the playing field for the next one.I keep that right until I lose a hole, at which point I have to play a hole established to flatter my opponent’s strengths.  It would be interesting to see if this approach could be adapted to regular play.