Match play just doesn't do it!

[Mark_Fine]

I am not sure where the group here stands on match play comparison of golf courses but frankly it is a poor way to compare and/or to reach any consensus of which is the best design.  The critical flaw in the match play process is that it DOES NOT take into consideration the flow of the course/orientation and order of the holes. 


In an earlier thread I compared a great golf course/routing to a great symphony.  I can't think of a single great symphony or composition that is constantly at the max decibel level for the entire duration or one that doesn't end well. 

[Bill_McBride]

I am not sure where the group here stands on match play comparison of golf courses but frankly it is a poor way to compare and/or to reach any consensus of which is the best design.  The critical flaw in the match play process is that it DOES NOT take into consideration the flow of the course/orientation and order of the holes. 


In an earlier thread I compared a great golf course/routing to a great symphony.  I can't think of a single great symphony or composition that is constantly at the max decibel level for the entire duration or one that doesn't end well.

I think the only way you can do that is par 3s vs par 3's, etc.  Comparing #7 at Pebble Beach to #7 at Pacific Dunes makes no sense, but #2 at Pebble vs #3 at Pacific Dunes would be a reasonable comparison. 

[Josh Tarble]

Match play is a fun way of comparing two courses.  That doesn't mean one is better or worse than the other.  It's just fun. 

For 95% of all of us on here, GCA is fun.  Let the other 5% figure it out for real.

[Mark_Fine]

Josh,
Totally agree it is fun!  Just trying to point out that it is not conclusive. 


Bill,
Comparing types of holes is a whole different animal. 

[Joe Hancock]

Why the need to compare courses rather than discuss the merits and weaknesses of each course individually?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
People love to compare things.  It is human nature.  My point was this technique is not great for that comparison process. 

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,

You're right x 3. I was just being a bit facetious, and shouldn't have been.

[JC Jones]

Why the need to compare courses rather than discuss the merits and weaknesses of each course individually?

Because everything is relative.  Like, you're known for being a good putter.  But that's only because you play golf with the human Brillo pad.

[Joe Hancock]

Why the need to compare courses rather than discuss the merits and weaknesses of each course individually?

Because everything is relative.  Like, you're known for being a good putter.  But that's only because you play golf with the human Brillo pad.

That proves the fallacies that mere men perpetuate. Putting is the weakest link in my game, and you use the word "good" to describe it. How can I ever trust anyones' match play comparison of golf courses, which are far more complex than my figure 8, finishing with a toe-strike putting stroke?

[Kalen Braley]

Why the need to compare courses rather than discuss the merits and weaknesses of each course individually?

C'mon Joe,  if you just talk about it, words are subjective and hard to compare.

But if you put in numbers, so it at least has the appearance of being quantitative, then everyone will accept it!!   

[JC Jones]

Why the need to compare courses rather than discuss the merits and weaknesses of each course individually?

Because everything is relative.  Like, you're known for being a good putter.  But that's only because you play golf with the human Brillo pad.

That proves the fallacies that mere men perpetuate. Putting is the weakest link in my game, and you use the word "good" to describe it. How can I ever trust anyones' match play comparison of golf courses, which are far more complex than my figure 8, finishing with a toe-strike putting stroke?

I think you just proved my point.

[Jason Thurman]

Match play comparisons for kicks are fine. Still, I'll add two more things that they get wrong:


1. People who use the match play comparison tactic are too reluctant to halve holes.


2. It doesn't account for holes that are so colossally great that they take a course to another level, or so pathetically bad that they ruin the experience a bit.


Those two things open the door for some homer to award every close hole to his butt-buddy course because he thinks a tap-in par wins the hole over a 3-footer for the same score, while mitigating the damage that the clearly superior course can do on the holes that it wins by consensus. This is how you end up with people making a case for Rustic Canyon over Pinehurst #2 in a match play comparison, for example.


I much preferred the boxing scorecard comparison that Kavanaugh pulled out for Dismal Doak vs Ballyneal a few years ago. I like the excitement of the possibility of knockout blows and knockdown rounds.

[Tom_Doak]

Does anyone know when the match play comparison thing started?


I ask because I remember many years ago arguing with Ran about a comparison between two courses, and just blurting out off the top of my head that course X "would win that match 5 and 3," without thinking about actually doing it.  And then he made me go through it, hole by hole.  I wonder if we invented it here?


For me it is a useful tool when I am trying to decide if some course is worthy of the top 100 or not, or trying to place a course on the Doak scale.  If one course doesn't convincingly beat another course in match play, it probably shouldn't be rated higher on the Doak scale, no matter how much I prefer the surroundings or stylings of one course to the other.  But it's not for splitting hairs, because as others have noted, there is so much room for bias in the match-ups.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


I suspect the match play comparison started soon after the first handful of guys had played the same two courses.  Perhaps right after the first away match by some Honorable Company or other.


Sven

[BCrosby]

I had never seen it before I saw Ran use it here back in the early days.


I have always had misgivings about its usefulness. Sven expressed reservation on another thread which I think are on the mark. Exhibit A is TOC. I'd guess it would lose most head-to-head matches.


Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Match play around here reminds me of a line that David Mamet did use and that John K might've used, which went sort of like this:


When anyone ever talks to you, they're not trying to share of themselves or to enlighten you, they're trying to SELL you something.

[Sven Nilsen]

I had never seen it before I saw Ran use it here back in the early days.


I have always had misgivings about its usefulness. Sven expressed reservation on another thread which I think are on the mark. Exhibit A is TOC. I'd guess it would lose most head-to-head matches.


Bob

Only if Joshua Crane was refereeing.


Sven

[Kalen Braley]

Not to defend the system, because it has its worts for sure...

But what quantitatively better??

[BCrosby]

Kalen -


Do we really need a "quantitative" basis for comparing golf courses?


Bob

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen -


Do we really need a "quantitative" basis for comparing golf courses?


Bob

Assuming we want a good result, I think yes.

Exhibit A is the current thread on the latest GD World Rankings.  Folks in here are haggling over the numbers, the deltas, the methodology, the consistency of scores, etc.....

I think people very much care about a reliable method to evaluate one course against each other that is both measurable and repeatable

[Greg Chambers]

Wouldn't a match play between two courses be considered qualitative, rather than quantitative?

[Kalen Braley]

Wouldn't a match play between two courses be considered qualitative, rather than quantitative?

ITs both...

Using qualitative properties to come up with a quantitative result.  This occurs all the time in various types of studies/surveys.....

P.S.  I've already stipulated the current method isn't perfect...but what's better?

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Hole by hole match play is as Josh said - Fun!  But it is no way to compare great golf courses.  As one example, I am sure I could take an acknowledged "great" course and reorder the holes and it would no longer be nearly as great in fact it might be down right lousy.  Maybe another analogy is like playing the card game Hearts; some cards that might not seem like they are great can be great if they are played in the right sequence 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I never read the hole by hole match play threads. It is an absurd way of comparing courses.

[Steve Lang]

I never read the hole by hole match play threads. It is an absurd way of comparing courses.

agree, but on the whole course comparisons and take away thoughts... I like The Kingsley Club over GreyWalls 2 & 0 for the nip of scotch available at the 18th tee mailbox in the wall and the close walk back to #1 tee!