[David_Tepper]

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/what-makes-a-great-match-play-course

[Dave August]

(For the sake of discussion)


Match play, as discussed in the above article, played between the best golfers in the world, may not be the greatest yardstick to  make the argument that golf courses do not, but players do, make the best match play courses.


I think that most amateurs, playing for fun, might have a different view - where risk reward holes later in the round, make for a more "fun" match. In my experience, hard courses (where a blow up hole won't hurt as much in match v metal play) are conducive to match play and more parkland style courses, make for less interesting matches.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Not a very insightful article. Of course the players determine the quality of the match. Nonetheless, courses with half pars and risk reward shots make for compelling matches as well.

[Tom_Doak]

Not a very insightful article. Of course the players determine the quality of the match. Nonetheless, courses with half pars and risk reward shots make for compelling matches as well.

I spent years building lots of half-par holes, because MacKenzie had done so, and so had Pete Dye.  But I am less interested in that approach nowadays.  Concentrating the lengths of holes around certain distances, creates a clear bias in favor of players who hit it long enough to capitalize on the half-stroke in their favor, against a shorter-hitting opponent.


A low-handicap player may say, "What's wrong with that?"  But add 30-40 yards to every hole and make them play against a Tour player, and they might quickly deduce an answer to their question.

[K Rafkin]

Does anyone believe that a course can be a great match play course and not a great stroke play course?  If so would you please explain why?


I hear about courses with large heavily contoured greens described as "great match play courses" all the time, but it mostly sounds like an excuse for three putting to me.








Most of the golf played in the GB&I is match play.  What is it that their courses have that make them so much better for match play, or are they just playing the wrong type of golf?


Honestly, i just don't think there is a difference between a "good match play course" and a "good medal play course".  There are just great courses, bad courses, and everything in between.

[Tom_Doak]

K Rafkin:


I'll nominate Prestwick as a great match play course that a lot of people don't like as a stroke play course.


Good players think the short finishing loop holes are a letdown.  The 18th is only a good hole in the context of match play, and needing to make 3 to make sure you don't get beat at the wire.


The main thing that seems to disqualify courses as a "good stroke play course," though, are severe hazards that might cost you more than 3/4 of a shot.  Many players don't think it's fair that certain hazards or certain holes can ruin their round, instead of costing them just one hole.  These same hazards are not vilified in match play.

[K Rafkin]

Tom


Unfortunately I haven't played Prestwick, which is one of my biggest golf related regrets, so it'll be hard for me to discuss its merits.  Im sure some people feel that way, but do you think Prestwick doesn't work as a stroke play course?


Honestly it sounds like the 18th hole at Prestwick just ins't a very good hole.  If you need a specific scenario to play out in order for a hole to be be considered a good hole, then i have my doubts.  Anyway, most matches are over before the 18th hole so is it really that prudent to have a great match play 18th? It really seems that people are quick to bestow the title of "great for match play course" on a course or hole that that don't like yet feel they need to compliment it somehow.  I'm sure you've heard the exact same thing.


Person A:  "So how did you like the course?"
Person B:  "Well....Umm...I think its a really great matchplay course"


I get how "fairness" has become associated with medal play, and the lack thereof is associated with match play, but it all just all seems a bit hypocritical.  It's just a guess, but i imagine that playing a blind shot out of the rough at Prestwick is a lot easier than playing out of the water at Sawgrass.  If so, why hasn't water been vilified in the same way?  I still think calling a course a "great match play course" while implying that it isn't a great stroke play course is either just a way of delivering a backhanded compliment or making an excuse for poor play.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Obviously a good course is good for both medal and match play. Some courses, however, work really well as match play courses. I have enjoyed match play Pine Valley. Some holes are won with double bogies. I usually keep medal score as well but match play is about who won and not "what did you shoot?"

[Adrian_Stiff]

K Rafkin:


I'll nominate Prestwick as a great match play course that a lot of people don't like as a stroke play course.


Good players think the short finishing loop holes are a letdown.  The 18th is only a good hole in the context of match play, and needing to make 3 to make sure you don't get beat at the wire.


The main thing that seems to disqualify courses as a "good stroke play course," though, are severe hazards that might cost you more than 3/4 of a shot.  Many players don't think it's fair that certain hazards or certain holes can ruin their round, instead of costing them just one hole.  These same hazards are not vilified in match play.

Tom - First thing came into my head was Prestwick 15th. I think the 15th would be the prime good match play/ bad stroke play hole. As a loop of 4; 16 and 18 are those half pars. 17 might be the hole mainly won with a par 4. I think 16-17-18 are still good stroke play holes though, 18 might be dullish but a three is still good.

[Tom_Doak]

I get how "fairness" has become associated with medal play, and the lack thereof is associated with match play, but it all just all seems a bit hypocritical.  It's just a guess, but i imagine that playing a blind shot out of the rough at Prestwick is a lot easier than playing out of the water at Sawgrass.  If so, why hasn't water been vilified in the same way?  I still think calling a course a "great match play course" while implying that it isn't a great stroke play course is either just a way of delivering a backhanded compliment or making an excuse for poor play.

I agree that the phrase is sometimes used as a back-handed compliment.  Which is pretty sad, since I personally think it's more important for a course to be good for match play than for stroke play.


In fact, one of the reasons I hate water hazards so much is that they are terrible for match play.  Anytime a two-stroke penalty is handed out, the hole is generally lost, so there is even less reason to flirt with trouble than usual.    It's weird that many of the courses discussed in the article are water-laden, but how water hazards factor into the game for the pros is much, much different than how they affect everyone else.

[jeffwarne]

A great course is a great course
a great course qualified for any format/reason, isn't

[Colin Shellard]

I think Tom has hit the nail on the head - it's down to the severity of the punishment for a bad shot. A course which overly punishes a poor shot (whether that be brutal rough or water) tends to make a course favour matchplay, or perhaps more correctly makes it less likely to be enjoyable for strokeplay.


A place where one poor shot might cost you 2 or 3 shots you can live with loosing a hole, but might ruin your entire card in strokeplay.


I can give you a particular example: Here in Aberdeenshire there is a tournament called the Jubilee shield that is played every year at Murcar Links. Each local club sends 8 players and the combined handicap must be over 55, all gross scores count with the lowest cumulative team score winning - so these are much better than the average club golfer. Last year I was asked to play in the event, which was held a few weeks after the European Tour had staged the Paul Lawrie Matchplay on the same course, I have played the course many times before and have scored well in the past. Last year I didn't. In fact if you took out our best player, the rest of the team of 7 had a total score of 699! Yes it was windy, but there are a lot of tee shots where you can't see you ball land and a LOT of very thick rough, close to the edge of greens / fairways. (I took three shots to get my ball back on the green when I went 3 yards off the back of the putting green at the 3rd hole!). It was the worst round I can ever remember scoring in the last 20 years of my golfing life, and I nearly ran out of golf balls!


The same course was highly praised for being a great traditional venue during the ET event, and the players loved it "as a matchplay course". I love it as a matchplay course, but I wouldn't want to be a member and have to play all my medals around there, it would be far too depressing!

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Honestly it sounds like the 18th hole at Prestwick just isn't a very good hole."

Told the story before, but played Prestwick with Pete Dye, who mentioned that was the hole that inspired his whole style, specifically the straight ditch down the hole, to look different than RTJ and all his landscape architecture curves lines.  So, it had a big impact on gca hundreds of years after it was built!

When I saw the title, my first comment was "back handed compliment" as well.  Although, I do agree that less severe hazards make for a better match, as they prolong the outcome of any given hole.  You might hit that great bunkers shot to save a half.  In Scotland, if you skull that bunker shot, you pick up as the hole is over.  But, the same is true if you do find water, the hole is over, and you simply move to the next tee.  It's how they play in half the time vs. the US.

And speaking of back handed compliments, its not nearly as bad as calling a course "A good scramble course."

[John Kirk]

A great course is a great course
a great course qualified for any format/reason, isn't

I agree.

First, define what makes a great match play course.  I argue a good definition is a course which yields the most "hole wins", where two players of similar ability, on average, post a dissimilar hole score the most times.  This results in the most exciting and volatile matches, with the greatest likelihood of a "big comeback".  In theory, this course has holes with a larger standard deviation in scores, and an average score halfway between integers (3.5, 4.5, etc.).

An argument can also be made for a course that rarely separates two players of similar ability, often yielding a close match decided in the final few holes.  In theory, this course has holes with a small standard deviation in scores, and an average hole score of close to par.

One problem with the first approach is the increased advantage a player playing well, over an opponent who brings his "B-" game to the match.  This would lead to short, non-competitive matches.  Similarly, the "neutral" course may not sufficiently separate the hot player from the cold player.

Regardless, the primary issue is the sliding scale of difficulty for players of differing ability.  As a 4-5 handicapper, I will average about 3.5 on a difficult par 3, and 3.0 on short or easy par 3s.   Two examples:

#5 at Pumpkin Ridge: Witch Hollow - 187 yards over water - 3.6 average
#2 at Kingsley - 130-150 yards with severe penalty for missing green - 3.4 average

I average 4.0 on easy par 4s and about 4.5 on medium-difficult par 4s.  Think a relatively easy 450 yard hole, a 390 yard hole with significant challenges, or even a little 310 yard bastard hole with trouble everywhere, are examples of 4.5 holes for me.

I average 4.9 - 5.0 on easy par 5s, and about 5.5 on long or difficult par 5s.  A scratch or better player has a huge advantage over me on these holes.  I estimate a scratch player beats me by perhaps .25 - .5 strokes on par 5s, but only .1 - .2 on par 3 holes.

Enough about me.  The point is that average scores and scoring deviations differ dramatically for players with varying abilities, and any attempt to maximize or minimize scoring deviation seems futile.  A course that maximizes scoring deviation will be too tricky and too demoralizing, while a course that minimizes scoring deviation lacks sufficient intrigue.  A grand variety of golf holes works best, and one's enjoyment of golf is mostly correlated to the quality and variety of the shots required, regardless of match or stroke play.   
 

[Jim Franklin]

Obviously a good course is good for both medal and match play. Some courses, however, work really well as match play courses. I have enjoyed match play Pine Valley. Some holes are won with double bogies. I usually keep medal score as well but match play is about who won and not "what did you shoot?"

I was fortunate to play in Pine Valley's member guest one year. It was the year that they made the event stroke play and not match play. We played really well for 53 holes. We made a better ball 11 on #13 and lost our flight by 2 strokes. I have a feeling we may have won if we were playing match play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Franklin,
 
As great a course as Pine Valley is, you're only one swing away from an X.
 
For me, it's been # 14.
 
Tom Doak,
 
Would it be fair to say that the introduction of "quirk" enhances the match play aspect of a course ?

[Jeff Taylor]

What a great thread. Thanks to Mr. Kirk especially. Put me down for grand variety.
JT

[Jeff Taylor]

Is Yale a good match play course?

[Sean_A]

Great holes. A hole is a hole. How one keeps score is a completely different subject.


Ciao

[Sam Andrews]

Great thread folks (enough to divert me from cooking the silver wedding anniversary supper while herself is out picking up the daughter!).


Last year, discussing Rory McIlroy's event at Royal County Down, our retiring secretary at Rye, James Laidler (himself a former secretary at RCD), responded to our delight at how the pros were struggling with the running game by suggesting that perhaps the course was "too hard" for a stroke play event and was better suited to match play. I have not played in Northern Ireland but James is a fine judge of a golf course and fine golfer himself. Perhaps those who have played it could comment further.


Could I also second the view that there is no place for water on a golf course unless it comes out of a tap and has a dog bowl nearby.


Back to the supper before the years of bliss end in divorce.

[V. Kmetz]

Hi,


A match play course seeks to level the competitors, and in so doing, more tests "fortune" than "skill"... it usually has elements called by its critics, "unfair." The best players in the world do not generally play on such courses and when they do (like in USGA events), they are altered to produce a medal play number within proximity to 280 for four rounds.


1. A match play course will have blind shots and instances of partial vision...this levels competitors to imprecise judgements.
2. A match play course offers/invites a ground option on most of its holes...this levels competitors to the vagaries of roll on uneven ground
2. A match play course features greens with audacious contours...especially on its short, one shot holes...this levels the edge of a player coming to rest on a green 40 feet away from the flag, over his competitor 40 feet away--but in a bunker.
4. A match play course will usually have fearsome "land hazards"...deep pitted bunkers, 40 yard run offs, large mounds, etc...
(these Following Dependent on property)
5. A match play course will invite the wind to blow, unimpeded by trees or protected by landforms.
6. A match play course will have an absence of penalty, stroke hazard, or out of bounds
7. A match play course will incorporate incongruous local forms (rock walls, bluffs, quarry hollows, cliffs, land bridges, former uses) right into the course, where they can (and do) come into play.


I don't think there's some decisive "notion" to "intend" to build a match play course, but I do think there is intent and consideration to building a "tough" medal play course. (by following the reverse of the previous 7 points)


cheers
vk

[Bill Seitz]

I would think "Great match play course" is a euphemism for a course with a couple or more holes where you're probably going to be tempted to just pick up during a round.  A loss of hole certainly a steep penalty to pay for one missed shot, but it's not nearly as bad as losing three to five shots to the field.  Though with equitable stroke control, outside of tournament play it probably doesn't matter all that much.


A course that excels at both is probably one that includes holes with significant penalties for missed shots, but allows players to mitigate damage by missing smartly.  An island green doesn't leave much room for strategy.  A missed shot is usually a two stroke penalty.  John brought up #2 at Kingsley.  I'd argue that it can be a tough par, but an easy four (same could be said for #9) assuming the player is trying to mitigate damage.  But an aggressive play can lead to much worse than bogey, and I think #2 in particular lends itself to poor decision making even after a bad tee shot (especially to a front pin).  Of course, those are one shotters, so it's a decision a player needs to make off the tee. Having played each countless times in both stroke and match play rounds, I think the type of scoring definitely impacts my strategy, regardless of pin position, in a way that, for example, the 17th at Sawgrass probably wouldn't (though admittedly I've never played it). 

[Sean_A]

Bill


The scoring system may impact your strategy, but does it impact the quality of the hole?


Ciao

[Charles Lund]

This link describes some issues related to separate indexes on holes for stroke versus match play.  I encountered this while traveling in Australia.   It attempts to compensate for hole sequences with vary difficult holes according to stroke index falling early or late.

http://www.golf.org.au/newsdisplay/the-whys-and-wherefores-of-handicap-stroke-index/93290

Charles Lund

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()