Match play just doesn't do it!

[Carl Johnson]

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.

Mark, sorry for the misunderstanding.  I've deleted my post.

[Peter Pallotta]

"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."

Thanks, TD - I learned/realized something about your design philosophy that I hadn't before.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

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!!   

Kalen:


This reminds me of the people who spend so much brain damage trying to decide which should be the #1 stroke hole, and all the way down to #18.  It scarcely matters.  Even if you do something stupid, like make the #1 stroke hole an easy par-3, all it means is that the bogey player will likely win that hole ... and then lose the hole where he's not getting a stroke.  It all tends to even out, as long as you don't put the stroke holes at the end so the higher-handicap player is closed out before he gets to use them.

[Tom_Doak]

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.   

Sean:


I do agree with you more than I've been saying.  In the past ten years, I've decided I'd rather put the tee for a hole closer to the previous green, instead of at a better vantage point ... actually the 6th hole at Ballyneal was my "aha" moment there.  But I wouldn't have done so if I'd thought it really made the 6th a substantially worse hole; I just decided the "perfect" view from the tee didn't make as much difference as some others think it does.  The blind tee shot there actually gives the course more variety.


As to your example, I agree that Machrihanish would be a better course if they had mixed up the holes better so that some of the best ground was on the back nine rather than the front ... as long as they still came up with the same number of great holes that way.  I don't know if that would have been possible or not ... although it seems that the present 1st tee was once the site of the 18th green [perhaps a crossover, with the 1st tee in tighter to the clubhouse], and they went away from that.  But, you don't think it would be a better course if they just built the clubhouse up at the other end, so the back nine was the front, do you?


Likewise, to Archie's example, Royal County Down is often knocked because those last three holes aren't as good as the rest.  It IS a disappointing finish, and they keep messing with it to try and fix that, but all those bunkers on the 18th didn't help a bit ... they'd need to be a lot more clever to make that ground into something compelling.  But, again, would the course really be any better if you took the same 18 holes, and just put the clubhouse out by #6 green?  It wouldn't make much difference to my opinion of the course.