[Jeff_Brauer]

22.2% on a typical 10-4-4 routed course, just to be technical.  (I had the same thought you did and pulled out a calculator.)

[Tom_Doak]

I guess my point is that not all formula is by default bad.  Pete probably had very definite reasons for the 5-3-4 combo to finish his courses.  And, design form follows function, not whim or cries from the peanut gallery....

When he described to me the finish he wanted for the Stadium course at PGA West, I asked Mr. Dye if what he was looking for was holes where there could be as much as a three-shot lead change, and he said that was exactly what he wanted:  the short par-5 or long 4 where you could make anything from 3 to 6, or a par-3 where double bogey was in play.  It wasn't about match play at all, because the tournaments Pete designed for were not going to host a match play event.

[Jeff_Brauer]

So, basically the half par holes bunched up at the end?

[Tom_Doak]

So, basically the half par holes bunched up at the end?

There are a lot of half-par holes there, but I would not describe the 17th at the Stadium Course as a "half-par" hole.  For a par-3 at the end, Pete was looking for the possibility of a train wreck, though he never used those exact words.

[Michael Whitaker]

I can see where the difference in planning for matchplay vs stroke play could effect design choices and hole sequencing. In the UK where the foresomes game is popular the 3s and 5s tend to be sequenced with half odd numbered and halve even numbered to make sure just one player doesn’t have to hit the tee shot on the majority (or all) those holes. It forces both players to contribute equally. This is not always the case, of course, but it seems to have been on their minds when the old classics were created. 🤷‍♂️

[Jeff_Brauer]

To be honest, thinking in that much detail is hard to do.  The first priority will always be finding the best holes on the land, but when several combos are possible (like Flat, Florida swamp Pete had to work with) then you can start thinking about that ideal finish for events or even the odd/even sequence for typical scrambles and fourballs.


That said, golf matches are so random, how many would it really affect?

[Jeff Schley]

Match play is so rare in the US, I can't think Dye, Fazio, Nicklaus etc. designing courses with match play in mind. Tournament or championship golf has been in their mind for hosting tournaments and marketing since the 80's. Ohoopee is unique in that it puts it into the name which gets people's attention and a brilliant idea for carving themselves our a niche. I haven't played it, but it does fashion itself as a course designed for match play.

[Jeff_Brauer]

That the big names were designing everything to host some mythical tournament that might show up is a big problem.  That said, I think Fazio made his name designing playable courses for aging memberships at a time when the others were designing those mythical tournament courses.


The idea of make or break holes near the end of the round does make sense for any course where there will be even friendly daily competitions between foursomes.  I believe the risk-reward ratio alters towards the risk side as the round goes on.  Who typically takes a big carry, do or die, risk on the first hole?  Too many holes to make it up to make it worth the risk.  *(Yes, Arnie won his US Open by doing so)  But, getting towards the end of a $5 bet match, trying to drive a green, feather closer to a pin, or make the heroic carry starts to be more necessary if you are down, and there isn't a second place paycheck, just the satisfaction of winning or sorrow of losing to your best golf bud.  That thought process probably starts somewhere on the back nine, and more likely as each hole is played, given averages.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()