What makes a good/interesting par 3 for matchplay?

[Jon Wiggett]

Well here the first in a series of questions/threads.



Is it length?
An heroic trait?
Small green or large?

Is there a big difference between a good matchplay par 3 and a good strokeplay par 3. Can the same hole be both. Is it possible for a hole to be great for the one but terrible for the other?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jon,

This becomes plain when we consider a golfer faced with a vital problem of strategy. He must first decide how much of it his skill is capable of answering. Not only must he understand, but literally his skill must become coherent. Great strategic holes primarily challenge thought. Knowledge of what to do is not immediate. It must be sought. The line of skill is not obvious but is concealed in the line of thought. This first has to be determined, and thought is fallible. Sight is rarely so. On a penal course we see what to avoid. A good shot is the mere evasion of evil. But on a strategic course we must study what to conquer. There are indeed optional safe routes that may be taken. In most cases the ball may be kicked to the hole without encountering a hazard. But the shot must weather Hell.

At 245 yards, this hole is a prime candidate for a GREAT par 3 match play hole.



Further, this image also shows the meaning of a term that some people like to misuse here--The Line of Charm. You see, it's not "all about the Line of Charm" like some people think. It's also about the Line of Skill and the Line of Thought. This hole shows us those two very important lines, one for a safe play, the other for the guts and the glory, so-to-speak.

Yes, this is a reverse Redan to some extent. But it's also a hole of it's own varying character. It has an element of blindness, and iwhen one imagines this hole as the 18th, (which it was at one time in history) The thought of good/interesting par 3 for match play comes directly to mind.

In this case, the line of skill is "charming." The bunkers aren't the main point of this fascination, but more the strategic mounding/shaping that's in the fairway which comes into play. It infuses the Line of Thought on how to play a shot safely to the left side. However, the bunkers do add an element of thought that makes a good player think twice about taking them on, whereas a lesser skilled player can still have a go for it towards the left.



Once again:
Great strategic holes primarily challenge thought. Knowledge of what to do is not immediate. It must be sought. The line of skill is not obvious but is concealed in the line of thought. This first has to be determined, and thought is fallible.

This would ring true with #11, The Eden at the Old Course and Pine Valley #5. These holes can instill heavy thought at first glance because thats what the human mind does. Max Behr realized this.

[Sean_A]

Naccers

What is appealing about the hole you have pictured is that it appears to have a way to access the flag without directly challenging the bunkers.  This is the aspect in which I disagree with Behr.  Sight can often be fallible.  Now I say it appears that one can swing a shot in from left to right and let the ball feed toward the hole, but its still a a gamble to try this shot for two reasons.  First, I don't know if the ball swings toward the hole once on the green.  Second, if the ball does swing I am more worried about the LEFT bunkers.  Why?  For me, a recovery from the front sand is likely easier than from the left sand because I know I am better at shorter explosions then trying to do a long explosion or picking the ball out and letting it run.  

Now for the killer question and one that needs to be answered.  You have qualified that the hole could be a great match play hole.  Why is the hole better for match rather than medal play?  I have often wondered why people divide the two types of play to determine the value of a hole.  I can understand if its a do or die situation with no bailout, but these are fairly rare holes.

Ciao

 

[Rich Goodale]

I agree with you, Sean.  The hole looks like a two-trick pony--wimp out to the left and have a difficult 2-putt/chip and putt due to the L-R slope of the green, or; go for the pin and at worst have an easier up and down wedge from the bunkers back into the slope.  Given the length (245) 95% of all golfers haven't a hope in hell of making the carry over the right-hand bunkers, so their choice is do I wimp out or do I wimp out.  Boring!

And, as you rightly say, what the hell does this have to do with match play vs. medal play?  Calling the Emperor, or any of his sycophants!

[Sean_A]

Rich

The length of the hole was the next aspect I was gonna go after once Naccers or whoever responded.  I know for me, there is only one shot on the table at 245 yards: a driver out to the left and hope it fades and/or catches a slope.  In fact, for nearly everybody at this length there is only one play - out to the left.  OK, one could choose to layup, but that still doesn't take the left bunkers out of play.  If I were the archie, the far right bunker would go - or at least be reduced.  This lets the player see some green over there and perhaps may entice him into doing something beyond his capability.  Personally, I am not usually keen on driver par 3s.  Now if the hole were 175 yards then I have to think about what to do.  

Ciao  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Arbs,
You are correct in your views, it is more open to the left and that is what Behr is saying TO YOU, but a carry over the bunkers is doable--IF the skillful player is willing to accept the challenge. The Line of Skill, which in this case is begging you to try it. You know, like when your drawn to that side by what you see.

If your playing a match against Tiger Woods or Robert Duruntz, Jamie or Sully, how are they going to play it, and are you going to play your game or theirs?

If you look at the image with the crosshair, and then look back at the image without it, you'll see where your eyes take you at first glance. What Behr is saying is, "Hey! Look at me!" But the statement, Sight is rarely so. On a penal course we see what to avoid. A good shot is the mere evasion of evil. But on a strategic course we must study what to conquer. This is where the hole talks back at you, "hey, who do you think your looking at?" It's a scrapper of a golf hole. It wants to fight you, but to do that, it has to entice you.

That imaginary line to the hole is saying to a good or skillful player Go ahead, I dare you, and it welcomes the challenge.
How its great match play hole is that it equals both the Tiger and the Rabbit. (so-to-speak) You can go for the left side and either make the green when you pull off a really good shot--if you can't carry the bunkers, or you can rely on a good chipping game to get it close with a chance at par.

Simply put, a great/interesting par 3 for match play is one that equals players of variable skills and deficiencies.

Both players are capable of par or better or bogie or worse. A lot of mid to high handicappers rely on a short game to keep them in it. They can skillfully put the ball near the pin should they miss the green, and still achieve par, whereas a skillful player who can get it on the green, should he miss or err in judgment when sizing his opponent, will be forced to get par or better to win or half the hole. Such is the case with half-par holes. Which this is a perfect example of par 3 1/2. It may say three on the scorecard, but that 3 is going to be a well-earned 3. You know, one of those types of holes that has you pissed-off, walking off the green that you pared the hole or happy you bogied it.

[Rich Goodale]

Tommy

If you are playing any of those guys listed above in match play, you are getting at least one stroke (probably two in the case of Tiger), so you have NO CHOICE!  You wimp out left, probably short with a 5 or 6 iron so you are in Lob Wedge range.

BORING!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Ichr,
Anything but that! It's a great hole, mind you one that was once the finishing hole on the course. I didn't figure you the type that would hate a reverse Redan/Nader. Or are you just disagreeing because the use of Max Behr's quotes? (After all, he is a charleton, correct?)

Arbs, if you hate drier par 3's then don't ever bother playing Riviera #4!

[Rich Goodale]

Ichr,
Anything but that! It's a great hole, mind you one that was once the finishing hole on the course. I didn't figure you the type that would hate a reverse Redan/Nader. Or are you just disagreeing because the use of Max Behr's quotes? (After all, he is a charleton, correct?)

Arbs, if you hate drier par 3's then don't ever bother playing Riviera #4!

Thanks for the detailed architectural analysis, Tommy.  That's what makes this website great.

[Sean_A]

Arbs,
You are correct in your views, it is more open to the left and that is what Behr is saying TO YOU, but a carry over the bunkers is doable--IF the skillful player is willing to accept the challenge. The Line of Skill, which in this case is begging you to try it. You know, like when your drawn to that side by what you see.

If your playing a match against Tiger Woods or Robert Duruntz, Jamie or Sully, how are they going to play it, and are you going to play your game or theirs?

If you look at the image with the crosshair, and then look back at the image without it, you'll see where your eyes take you at first glance. What Behr is saying is, "Hey! Look at me!" But the statement, Sight is rarely so. On a penal course we see what to avoid. A good shot is the mere evasion of evil. But on a strategic course we must study what to conquer. This is where the hole talks back at you, "hey, who do you think your looking at?" It's a scrapper of a golf hole. It wants to fight you, but to do that, it has to entice you.

That imaginary line to the hole is saying to a good or skillful player Go ahead, I dare you, and it welcomes the challenge.
How its great match play hole is that it equals both the Tiger and the Rabbit. (so-to-speak) You can go for the left side and either make the green when you pull off a really good shot--if you can't carry the bunkers, or you can rely on a good chipping game to get it close with a chance at par.

Simply put, a great/interesting par 3 for match play is one that equals players of variable skills and deficiencies.

Both players are capable of par or better or bogie or worse. A lot of mid to high handicappers rely on a short game to keep them in it. They can skillfully put the ball near the pin should they miss the green, and still achieve par, whereas a skillful player who can get it on the green, should he miss or err in judgment when sizing his opponent, will be forced to get par or better to win or half the hole. Such is the case with half-par holes. Which this is a perfect example of par 3 1/2. It may say three on the scorecard, but that 3 is going to be a well-earned 3. You know, one of those types of holes that has you pissed-off, walking off the green that you pared the hole or happy you bogied it.

Naccers

At 245 yards I and most everybody has no choice in the matter.  Intellectually, we know the shot over the bunker is not feasible.  If you are saying the position of the flag draws our eye this way, I agree.  However, that is the case for every hole - no?  

I don't hate driver par 3s, I question why we need them.  We have the opportunity to use driver off the tee on plenty of holes.  Why ask the player to do it on a par 3?  Now, there are times when it is cool - especially in f&f conditions or in windy driver par 3s areas - think Turnberry's 6th, but there aren't many driver par 3s in this class.  

Ciao

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tommy nice thoughts. You are a step ahead of me on this but I am keeping it simple given I have Tigers to root for this week. I think a well done Redan makes for a great match play par 3 as well.

[Jon Wiggett]

Naccers


Now for the killer question and one that needs to be answered.  You have qualified that the hole could be a great match play hole.  Why is the hole better for match rather than medal play?  I have often wondered why people divide the two types of play to determine the value of a hole.  
Ciao

 

Sean,

this is to a certain extent at the heart of my question. To state the obvious, in strokeplay you are playing the course and in matchplay your opponent. Surely in matchplay your opponents abilities are more relevant than in strokeplay. Matchplay courses have been talked about before on the site but no real discussion on what makes a good or bad matchplay hole. Prestwick or Cruden Bay make great matchplay rounds and I would fancy my chances against anybody in any weather on them but I wouldn't want to have to shoot a good round on them in strokeplay. Why?