Tommy, Tom -
your posts reminded me of an aspect of match play that I don't think is ever mentioned around here, i.e. that match play reinforces a seemingly natural/human tendency to think in terms of "parts" instead of the "whole" -- and therefore tends to negatively highlight (in the mind of the better/longer/straighter golfer) those individual golf holes that don't clearly and overtly provide him the advantage he (probably rightly) thinks he deserves.
A golf course, and a design, and game of golf, is or at least in my mind should be "cumulative". We use many terms for this: we enjoy 'the journey' (over 18 holes) and praise 'the flow' of a particularly good routing and appreciate the 'variety' of hard holes and easier holes following each-other in engaging ways etc.
But what we rarely seem to note is that the scoring is cumulative as well -- at least in stroke play it is. Over 18 holes, all the good/bad shots and long/short drives and wise/foolish choices will result in the better golfer that day shooting a lower cumulative score than the average golfer.
We all know that; we have all experienced that, countless times. And the courses - classic and modern -- that we tend to enjoy and value the most are the ones that manage to test the better player but not demoralize the average one. In other words, a course where the lower score will not be too low and the higher score won't be too high.
Now, in that context -- i.e. the stroke play context -- even a very long hitting and better player (let's called him "Matt") will be satisfied that he is "being rewarded" for his ability to hit the ball a long way and to hit it fairly straight. He can look at the scorecards at the end of the round and have proof -- by the numbers -- that he has scored better than his lesser skilled and/or less long hitting opponent.
Some holes would've been "easier" and "more forgiving" and some holes harder, and some holes would've been too short to have given him a big advantage while a couple of the Par 5s might've been long enough to have given him a real edge; but all in all he is satisfied with the story that the final scorecards tells -- especially since the scorecards will also likely show that, on occasion, the golf course proved to work markedly in his favour, i.e. holes where he got a "3" and his opponent a "6".
Sure, the "Bad and Sadistic Matt" might wish for more punishments and more severe punishments for the wayward driver or short hitter; but the "Matt We Know and Love" would have had enough instances where his superior length and accuracy were rewarded that he won't demand that others fail miserably/are embarrassed to boot -- and in fact, he'll probably rate the golf course quite highly because of this.
But now, let's take either Matt (the sadistic or the loveable one) and put him in a match play contest, where each individual golf hole counts/is worth exactly the same, and where the better player can't possible go up 2 or 3 strokes on a single hole, but only and always by 1.
In that context, the tendency to look at the "parts" and not the "whole" suddenly and dramatically comes to the fore. Now, that easy/short hole isn't part of a lovely routing or wonderful journey -- instead, it becomes the vehicle by which the weaker/shorter/more errant golfer "is not punished enough" and/or where the longer/straighter/better golfer is "not rewarded enough". And it's not surprising that "Matt" would think that -- because now in match play the reward for good/long hitting play is reduced to a "1 Up" on the scorecard; and indeed, if his average (but lucky) opponent manages to recover after a short, crooked drive to hit the green and make a long birdie putt, old "Matt" might actually be looking at - egad! - "All Square".
Suddenly, "Matt" will get to each new tee box not with a genteel impression that, overall, this is a good golf course and a fine design, content in the feeling that all is right and fair with the world. No - now each hole has to be designed and clearly be shown to provide "an advantage" to the better golfer (good Matt) or at the very least severely "punish" the weaker/crooked/shorter golfer (the sadistic Matt). Now each hole is highlighted, its importance in the overall scheme magnified, and thus becomes that by which the entire course might be judged.
And at the end of that round, if "Matt" has 'only' won 2 and 1, watch out. When he writes about that course and rates it, he might try to be kind (like a policeman patting a stray dog's head), but he can never call it a "great" or "championship" course.
Peter
(jeez louise that's a long post - sorry)