Match play just doesn't do it!

[Greg Chambers]

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?

It can't be quantified if it's completely subjective...which is exactly what these match play exercises are.

[archie_struthers]

I'm with Mark on this one !  You could build 18 spectacular and or challenging holes that played in succession would be awful . Great golf courses ebb and flow . Some easier holes plugged in with more difficult . The sequence of these is often the key to greatness in a golf course.

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
AMEN!

[Jason Topp]

I think it is a useful tool, not so much because of the result but because of the way it forces you to compare and contrast the merits of different golf holes and then defend the comparison.  That process helps one to define what constitutes a quality golf hole.

Of course the tool is limited and other factors can impact the quality of a golf course.  I suppose it is possible for a course with 18 outstanding golf holes to constitute a poor golf course but I really cannot think of any examples.

Mark - can you think of any match play comparisons that you would do that would lead to the opposite result using the approach you advocate?

[Jimmy Chandler]

One alternative, that would admittedly take more work: rank two courses' holes from best to worst, then compare them in matchplay format. I think you'd get a more "accurate" comparison doing it this way.

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.

Yes this is a flaw if you are only comparing hole-by-hole, and consider the issue closed. If you use the hole-by comparison as one part of an evaluation, then IMHO it's ok. And, as others have noted, it's fun.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm with Mark on this one !  You could build 18 spectacular and or challenging holes that played in succession would be awful . Great golf courses ebb and flow . Some easier holes plugged in with more difficult . The sequence of these is often the key to greatness in a golf course.

Of course, there are a lot of courses which lack finesse holes.  I don't think those courses win match play all that often, unless it's refereed by 1-handicaps with no imagination.


Please name a couple of courses where the same holes, in a different sequence, would be so much better.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
There is too much subjectivity in the match play comparison.  How are you defining great?  Take as one example the Tour 18 course in Houston.  It might be a great “collection” of holes but is it a great golf course?  The first hole for example at Merion is a nice hole.  Is it a great hole?  Some like me would say yes because of where it is in the rotation.  The same would go for the 1st at Pebble and the first at St. Andrews.  Put those holes elsewhere in the rotation and maybe they aren’t so great? 


Once again, it might be a fun exercise but it by no means should be used to compare the greatness of a design. 


Jimmy,
For the same reasons stated above, taking the “best” holes and listing them in order might be a fun exercise but it is just that, fun, and not sure any worthwhile conclusions can be gained from it. 


Tom,
Not sure I understand your question?  You of all people know how important sequence and ebbs and flows of different kinds of holes are to a golf course. 

[Peter Pallotta]

You do tend to surprise one, Tom. I would've thought you'd hate "match play".


Many of the qualities that folks praise your  courses for strike me as the very ones that get under-valued or go virtually unrecognized in match play.


A variety of recovery options, flowing and walkable routings, seamless integration of fairways and rough/blurred mowing lines, and a "looks like it's been here 100 years" aesthetic just to name a few -- all these qualities are less obvious and (seemingly) of less import on a hole-by-hole match play basis.


Sometimes I think you ike to throw a wrench into the gears more than just about anything else!

[Carl Johnson]

deleted

[Mark_Fine]

Carl,
Just to be clear this thread has zero to do with match play vs medal play.  This is match play of hole by hole comparisons of two different courses to assess which course is better.

[Tom_Doak]

You do tend to surprise one, Tom. I would've thought you'd hate "match play".


Many of the qualities that folks praise your  courses for strike me as the very ones that get under-valued or go virtually unrecognized in match play.


A variety of recovery options, flowing and walkable routings, seamless integration of fairways and rough/blurred mowing lines, and a "looks like it's been here 100 years" aesthetic just to name a few -- all these qualities are less obvious and (seemingly) of less import on a hole-by-hole match play basis.

Peter:


I'm not saying that a course cannot be greater than the sum of its parts, for all of the reasons you cite.  Many of those reasons are actually part of the golf holes themselves, of course, and the appropriate credit could be distributed there; some, like variety or walkability, cannot.


However, I am saying I don't think a course can be WAY BETTER because of those things, enough to overlook a lack of interesting holes.  Interesting holes are the most important aspect of a great course, no matter what order they come in.  That's why I'm doubting that someone is going to offer up a course which would be great if you just changed the sequence and made it tighter.  [I'm still waiting for that post.] 


I've always said that you have to be willing to give up a great hole in order to get a better routing ... but that other routing is only going to be better if it lets you build more great holes.


A real world example:  the 7th at Streamsong (Blue).  I've heard some people suggest I should have passed it by, because coming back from the green to the 8th tee is a real break in the flow of the routing.  None of them seem to understand that our other alternatives were to try and cram a bad par-3 into the land between 6 green and 15 Red green, or, have a long walk from the 6th green to the 8th tee, without the 7th as compensation for the break.




The three things about discussing "flow" that bother me so much are:


1)  It's even more subjective than discussing individual holes; some people have a prescribed "flow" in mind [building to the difficult finish] and are dismissive of any other approach;


2)  In real life, the sequence of holes on a course is not so easily changed.  Only certain solutions are possible on any given piece of ground; letting someone argue that some course would be even better if the 14th and 15th holes were backwards is pointless, because it may never have been possible to begin with; and


3)  Honestly, when guys start telling you they're not just architects, but composers of symphonies, I tend to go deaf on the first three letters of that word. 




Surely, when I am routing a course, part of the final selection process is based on how the holes fit together, from the standpoint of variety and walkability and feel.  But would you really have me leave out two or three better holes because they aren't as easy to walk to, or because two of the par-3's play north, or some other silly rule that someone else has come up with?

[V. Kmetz]

Hello,


(I admit that I was confused by the nomenclature and thought at first it was that enduring thread of "design" features of "match" or "medal" courses)...

Now that I'm squared up to what you are all talking about, I think:

1. Well, it's for fun, isn't it...?
2. Matches, whether tournament style or not, have that unique flaw..."on any given sunday..." Were the 2007 NY Giants "better" than the New England Patriots that season?...Couldn't they have been reasonably bested by many of the teams New England beat to go 18-0 prior to that day...but honestly, if they were two golf courses, which one would you play, even on reflection now 8 years later?`
2a. I can accept that, on mean average, Shinnecock is a "better" course and has more to recommend it than say...(I'm picking anything I can think of near the water)...Newport, but I can imagine (with a smidge of experience and examining on both) that there are days when Newport is equal or better.
3. And there would seem to be even greater equanimity (anti-triumph) when you start discussing drastically different lands and designers (Oakmont to Cypress, Chambers to Inverness, Merion to Riviera...)

But see #1 again

cheers
vk

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
If you don’t like my analogies, sorry.  Actually Shackelford and I discussed that analogy years ago and I think it makes a lot of sense.  You also seem to have a complex about “difficulty” as well as with low handicappers.  Just an FYI - not all low handicappers are bias to only thinking about a course in terms of their own game.  Also, great finishes don’t have to be difficult, they just have to be great and difficulty is only one aspect of what can make a hole great.  It is easy to make a hole difficult, it is something else to make it truly special. 

Anyway, back to your question about making a course great by changing the sequence of the holes?  Who ever said you could do that?  What I said and I think Archie agreed is that you could take a great course and change the sequence of the holes and afterward it might not be so great.  And what I mean by that is not changing the sequence by simply changing the hole you start on but by changing the entire order of the holes. 


One question for you or anyone else here, how well does a course like Cypress Point stack up in a match play format?  Is the course not as great as most of us think it is?

[JC Jones]

All course rankings are 100% subjective, no qualifiers possible.  The idea that one methodology whether it be categories, hole-by-hole, sum of the parts, flow, etc. can be more or less subjective is a ridiculous one. 

Also, all low handicappers were high handicappers at some point.  Most high handicappers were never low handicappers

[Garland Bayley]

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 

You're on! Let's see the reordering. Of particular interest is the reordering that makes it lousy.

[Kalen Braley]

All course rankings are 100% subjective, no qualifiers possible.  The idea that one methodology whether it be categories, hole-by-hole, sum of the parts, flow, etc. can be more or less subjective is a ridiculous one. 

Also, all low handicappers were high handicappers at some point.  Most high handicappers were never low handicappers

JC,

I disagree that some qualitative judgments can not be made about varying processes and their results.

Think of an assembly line in a factory.  There can be hundreds of variables that all contribute to the quality, speed to build, cost, ease of use, etc... that can be factored in when deciding which assembly process is best to use.

The same can be done when evaluating golf courses...some methods are more effective than others. Its not an all or nothing, and various methods are certainly not created equal.

[archie_struthers]

 




I'm all in on flow and sequence of holes .  Royal County Down was just voted best in the world by golf digest but I'm not on board . It's so cool , I just loved it in my one visit and can distinctly remember the experience. But for me the back nine just doesn't equal the front .


. The last two holes are just ok , much like the finish at Portrush. So, if you are really talk about the best golf course architecture,  how do you not acknowledge this? 


So , I'd disagree that you just build the best holes wherever the land says. Much like music , there are bridges . I'm with Mark !








 

[Garland Bayley]

Does this "ebb and flow" have more meaning to medal play than match play. As a match play player, I take each hole on it's own merits and seldom care about what came before, and what will come after. I suppose the medal play guy welcomes the hole that eases the demands presented after having been beat up for a few holes.

[Sean_A]

You do tend to surprise one, Tom. I would've thought you'd hate "match play".


Many of the qualities that folks praise your  courses for strike me as the very ones that get under-valued or go virtually unrecognized in match play.


A variety of recovery options, flowing and walkable routings, seamless integration of fairways and rough/blurred mowing lines, and a "looks like it's been here 100 years" aesthetic just to name a few -- all these qualities are less obvious and (seemingly) of less import on a hole-by-hole match play basis.

Peter:


But would you really have me leave out two or three better holes because they aren't as easy to walk to, or because two of the par-3's play north, or some other silly rule that someone else has come up with?

Tom


It depends on how much the walk messes up the flow and how good are the few holes we are talkig about. Generally speaking, I would much prefer if the walk and flow of the round were given precedence over a few better holes.


As for the matchplay deal, I do find it useful as an eye test.  It has helped me in the past when comparing courses.  The big minus of matchplay is precisely issues like the walk, how well the house utilized in the routing, the views offered.  So if I do matchplay, I usually have "extra holes" which take into account glaring weaknesses or strengths of a course which don't easily show up in matchplay.


Your great course challenge, what about Machrihanish?  I have no idea of a better routing could be had, but I always feel the back nine seriously peters out causing a flow issue for me.  Its not good enough that there ar X amount of good holes when talking about the best courses.  The spacing and flow is also important and this is where I find Machrihanish sorely lacking when I compare it to a course like Pennard with its cool holes spread wonderfully through the round.   


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

As an experiment....

A few days ago, I originally did the Pebble VS PD, with the holes in sequential order and came up with PD as the winner at 3 up.

So I went back and ranked all the 3s, 4s, and 5s at each course according to which ones were the best...and then did a match play where the #1 par 3 at PD, went against #1 par 3 at Pebble, and so forth down the list. (PD has an extra par 3, so I took the last place par 3 at PD and matched it up against the last place par 4 at Pebble)

So to recap sequentially, the holes in order, I had PD winning 3 up.  And when I compared the holes as ranked and sorted by par....

...I had PD winning by a bigger margin...4 UP!!   

Sorry Pebble, you got owned!!

P. S.  Before you go there, I know many will disagree, this is fine....just thought it was an interesting exercise...

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
You could do this just as easy as me.  As one example, list your favorite holes at Pebble Beach from best to worse.  Then play them in that order starting with your most favorite and finishing your round with your least favorite.  My guess is in this new sequence, your original 18 golf course isn't quite as great any more .  Remember this a theoritical sequence and not a practical sequence that you would actually try to play.  The point I am making (at least hope I am making) is if #8 at Pebble is for example your favorite hole, you probably wouldn't want to play it first followed by your second favorite hole and so on.  Doing the same at Cypress Point as well as at many other great courses would be similar.  The over all golf course would greatly suffer. 

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
You could do this just as easy as me.  As one example, list your favorite holes at Pebble Beach from best to worse.  Then play them in that order starting with your most favorite and finishing your round with your least favorite.  My guess is in this new sequence, your original 18 golf course isn't quite as great any more .  Remember this a theoritical sequence and not a practical sequence that you would actually try to play.  The point I am making (at least hope I am making) is if #8 at Pebble is for example your favorite hole, you probably wouldn't want to play it first followed by your second favorite hole and so on.  Doing the same at Cypress Point as well as at many other great courses would be similar.  The over all golf course would greatly suffer.

Except it is not me playing the course to observe this ordering, it is me playing a match against my adversary, and I don't mind the course being front loaded with all the good holes.

[Mark_Fine]

But Garland that is just an comparison of holes and nothing more.  What purpose does it serve other than a fun exercise?  #8 at Pebble is my favorite hole but as a first hole in a real routing it would suck! 

[Garland Bayley]

But Garland that is just an comparison of holes and nothing more.  What purpose does it serve other than a fun exercise?  #8 at Pebble is my favorite hole but as a first hole in a real routing it would suck!

I haven't played Pebble Beach, but my recollection is that #8 is less than driver off the tee, followed by mid iron to green, or bail out left on the approach depending on your cajones.
Why does that suck as an opener?

[Garland Bayley]

Now if I'm a medal player thinking PB #8 is a short hole so I am looking for birdie right off the bat, then maybe I would think it sucked as being too demanding for such a short hole right off the bat.