[Kyle Harris]

One of the consistent undercurrents of the GCA.com ideology is that of the supposed superiority and purity of match play as opposed to medal play - especially as it pertains to golf architecture.

I don't get it.

Just what makes Match Play the superior form of play? How is it more pure than medal play? Let's look at some of the occurrences in Match Play that will not happen in Medal.

1. The concession. Perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy in the purity argument comes from the concession. Here, an opponent may concede the next shot. Allowing his competitor to physically remove his ball from play without holing out. In certain instances, this can effectively make the target much larger than 4.5 inches. Especially considering strokes are not counted but instead holes.

2. The golf course is almost a tertiary concern to the situation at hand. A missed shot by an opponent can all but remove temptation from a design.

3. The "flow" of the game in interrupted by each hole ending. Since shots do not carry over from hole to hole, the flow of the game can be interrupted. A player looking at 8 or 9 need only concede the hole to his opponent and move on to the next tee. The game is interrupted through conscious decision and not the skill of the player in holing out. The penalty for touching the ball in this instance? Loss of Hole...

Can someone please try to explain how a method of play where consciously touching the ball, removing ones self from the architecture and basing success on the ability of an opponent is the more "pure" or "superior" form of play?

[Bill_McBride]

Kyle, you probably wouldn't have enjoyed the Buda Cup, it was all match play.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle, you probably wouldn't have enjoyed the Buda Cup, it was all match play.

I do enjoy Match Play - I just don't view it as superior to Medal Play.

[Adam Clayman]

Kyle, There are evils associated with the proliferation of Medal. Slower play is likely the most evil. I haven't thought it all through yet, but I think the ridiculously high green fees that are now common place may just derive from the need to play out every hole every shot. More to follow I'm sure.

[Wade Whitehead]

Match play demands more gamesmanship than medal play.  That's appealing to some.

WW

[Kyle Harris]

Match play demands more gamesmanship than medal play.  That's appealing to some.

WW

Certainly true... but the GCA.com crowd?

[Paul Carey]

It is more fun.

[Kyle Harris]

It is more fun.

Definitely is at times.

But again, the fun factor isn't what I'm debating.

It's the superiority and purity in relation to Medal Play that I cannot quite grasp.

[Mike McGuire]

From John L. Low "Concerning Golf" 1903

The natural egotism of men and and nations joining in the game made popular, however, for a time the single form of the sport. The beginner wished to know his own worth as a player day by day, and conceived the plan of writing his own autobiography on small pieces of paper planned for the purpose. Golf became for him of interest only in so far as his own total of hits and misses was concerned. The battle proper was of small account; even victory and defeat were terms of mild comparison. The one and one interest lay in the daily attempts to reduce the the total strokes which were required to compass a given number of holes. In this selfish struggle it is little wonder that the position and very life of golf as a game was for a time assailed. It became no longer a friendly affair of the skill of one man as compared to another, or of two men as compared to two, but rather an individual attempt to perform some feat irrespective of rivalry or contest.

[Tommy Williamsen]

When I was younger, I preferred medal play.  I was consistent and rarely made a double bogey.  I hit it in the fairway and probably hit 12 greens a round.  I am 62, hit the ball almost as far as I used to, play the up tees, putt better than I did 30 years ago, and my handicap is three shots higher than it used to be.  I fall asleep on two or three holes many rounds.  I just can't keep my concentration level as high as I used to.  Match play keeps me in the game.  I don't know if it is superior but it works better for me now.

[Mike McGuire]

maybe a better quote from Low

[Rob Rigg]

Reasons I enjoy match play:

1) Each hole is an individual battle - If you go for broke on one hole and put up a big number, it does not end your round

2) It allows the indepth exploration of the course over many rounds. When playing for "score", I tend to play more conservatively and consistently. In a match, if an architect provides several options of the tee, I will likely try the different options in different matches depending on where the game stands at that juncture.

3) Depending on the course, the day, and the conditions, par is an arbitrary number. Match play is "freeing" because it takes par out of the question and becomes a test between two (or four) golfers over the same terrain in the same conditions.

4) I do not see how the flow of the round or game is interrupted? I see the match as a great novel that slowly builds from hole to hole into a crescendo somewhere on the back nine. Usually, a match is a battle that goes to late into the round. If you are a single digit golfer who finishes the front with a few bogeys or doubles, the round can feel like it is lost before you even make the turn. Unless I am going to shoot somewhere in the 70s, I don't really care what I finish with. 81 or 85 - same difference.

5) Match Play, like links golf, provides a dynamic of "thinking" that rarely occurs on a Parkland course or in stroke play. The golfer is not only playing the course, but his opponent as well. There is another dimension to the challenge.

I think the obsession that many golfers have with score, especially in the US, has been detrimental to the game. People will be on their 10th shot and still plugging away instead of picking up which leads to pace of play issues.  The obsession with distance and technology has also been driven by score - if we are all using similar equipment, whatever that may be, it is all good for a match.

[Jason Topp]

From a GCA standpoint, stroke play makes "fairness" more of an issue because if a penalty is severe, one hazard on the third hole can pretty much decide the outcome for the day.

[Matt_Cohn]

One of the consistent undercurrents of the GCA.com ideology is that of the supposed superiority and purity of match play as opposed to medal play - especially as it pertains to golf architecture.

I don't get it.

Just what makes Match Play the superior form of play? How is it more pure than medal play? Let's look at some of the occurrences in Match Play that will not happen in Medal.

1. The concession. Perhaps the ultimate hypocrisy in the purity argument comes from the concession. Here, an opponent may concede the next shot. Allowing his competitor to physically remove his ball from play without holing out. In certain instances, this can effectively make the target much larger than 4.5 inches. Especially considering strokes are not counted but instead holes.

2. The golf course is almost a tertiary concern to the situation at hand. A missed shot by an opponent can all but remove temptation from a design.

3. The "flow" of the game in interrupted by each hole ending. Since shots do not carry over from hole to hole, the flow of the game can be interrupted. A player looking at 8 or 9 need only concede the hole to his opponent and move on to the next tee. The game is interrupted through conscious decision and not the skill of the player in holing out. The penalty for touching the ball in this instance? Loss of Hole...

Can someone please try to explain how a method of play where consciously touching the ball, removing ones self from the architecture and basing success on the ability of an opponent is the more "pure" or "superior" form of play?

1. Putts conceded are usually of no consequence anyway. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't seem like a great loss. It's not like you're letting a player skip shots that are challenging. If you thought they were interesting or challenging shots, they wouldn't be conceded in the first place.

2. Conversely to your argument, a hole that you'd play in exactly the same way in every stroke play round might be played in several different ways during match play, depending on the score, your opponent's situation, etc., and that plan can change shot-to-shot. In addition, extremely risky lines that would be stupid during stroke play (because they would likely cost the player two shots) are more available during match play (where they would only cost a maximum of one hole). I think one can make the case that golfers interact with the architecture more, not less, during match play.

3. You're assuming that "the flow of the game" means getting the ball into each of the 18 holes in succession. That's a stroke-play mentality. The flow of match play is somebody winning each hole. It's like complaining that the home team not batting when they're ahead in the bottom of the 9th compromises a baseball game because only 8.5 innings are played. It's irrelevant, because the winner has already been determined. If the object were to score the most runs possible, fine. That's like a stroke-play mentality. But the point of baseball is simply to win, and that's the mentality in match play too.

[Sean_A]

The best thing about matchplay is the opponent is stood next to you.  None of this "old man par" rubbish - you can watch the guy(s) you need to beat.  That is sport at its best. 

Matchplay is quicker.

I like how in matchplay the subtleties of how the other guy plays can effect how you play.  Kyle seems to think this is a weakness, but I disagree.  Because of the other guy's play (either good or bad), you can be dragged out of comfort zone and challenged to play a course or at least some shots differently than you may want to.  This can present the course in an entirely different light.

I believe that for a well designed course it doesn't matter what game you play on her, but I also think some courses have been dumbed down because of the medal play. 

The only reason to use medal play is when the field all competes at once and even in this case, stableford was invented to overcome the slow play issues and card killing aspects of medal play.   

In match play, there is no need to trick up courses to"protect par".

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

I think I've played one round this year with a card in my hand, at least 50% of my games have been alternate shot. To be honest I rarely even consider how I'm doing to par. On the final tee at Sandwich in last weeks BUDA Scott Warren asked me how I was scoring as I was playing pretty well, I had to stop and count up as I hadn't a clue but we had won our match even prior to me making eagle on 7.....sorry Scott!!

Yesterday at Deal I stood on the 16th tee needing three 4s for a 73, needless to say I finished 5,5,5 not that it mattered as I'd won 5&4.

IMO matchplay rewards good GCA as risk and reward is usually taken on as opposed to fearing a 6 or 7 and playing the 4 iron, wedge sensible play.

[Mark Pearce]

I think I've played one round this year with a card in my hand

A man with a handicap to be marked with a star (indicating inactive) next year?  Probably the most active inactive golfer I know.

[James Boon]

Kyle,

For me the issue of matchplay or medal in relation the GCA is all about fairness (as Jason mentions) and the dumbing down (as Sean mentions) of courses, to give an even playing field.

I dont believe golf is supposed to be fair, but many do, and so we end up with some courses being designed or set up to make it play the same for the guy that plays at 8 in the morning or at 3 in the afternoon, no matter the weather etc.

In matchplay, its only about you and the guy standing next to you, so it doesnt matter if a hole is playing into a 3 club wind with a bit of drizzle around, when the rest of the day has been still and dry. Its about can you play the hole in those conditions better than your opponent.

I suppose to some extent we can see the origins of matchplay as a game for links golf, when say Tiger guy gets blown away in the morning of the Open, then the tide turns and so does the weather, and in the afternoon Padraig shoots in the low 60s. Is that fair? Probably not? But the weather wouldnt have mattered if they were standing next to each other.

Cheers,

James

[Martin Toal]

The word 'fair' has a range of meanings. Same for all is one, but another meaning is that the challenge is not arbitrary.

A flag placed on a peak on a green with a 45 degree fall off a foot away from it in all directions is the same for all, but few would consider it fair.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

You ask some good questions about why match play golf should be considered more "pure" or "superior" to medal or stroke play.

Having read through this thread I'd say James Boon gives you some of the best reasons some think it so including the fact there does not seem to be the inclination or demand to make the course or the architecture as "fair" in match play as in medal play. In my opinion, and apparently in James Boon's, that in and of itself is very much a defense and preservation of some of the best things that golf course architecture can offer----eg its natural randomness producing both sides of the coin and currency of "luck" which just might be one of the most important and unique facets inherent in what golf was originally meant to produce and to be!

However, when one considers the mentality or sentiments of the original purists of the game (pretty well refected in the remarks of John Low above) we need to remember he was really not even talking about "singles" match play; he was very much talking about foursome match play, a format that most of us today are hardly familiar with since we have so little opportunity to play it today even if it is still dedicatedly used by a small and perhaps shrinking band of golfers abroad.

The old purists of the 19th century who were sometimes called the "Conservative Party" of golf and of the Rules of Golf as compared to the newer and more modern so-called "Party of Equity" were men who pretty much thought of the game of golf as a match play game of not singles match play but foursome match play.

Furthermore, Kyle, notice what Low said above about the unique fact of golf (as compared to other sports or games) that the ball is not vied for in golf and all that means to the essence of golf (something you and I have talked about before).

[Tony_Muldoon]

There's only one thing more tedious than watching someone putt out an 8 for his scorecard, and that's listening to his explanation of it in the bar afterwards. But if his 8, with a stroke, is for a half -then you're involved. Much better if you're in a position where he conceeds and you can both move onto the next mini contest.

[Kyle Harris]

Good responses. I need to get to Huntingdon Valley, but I'll respond in kind this afternoon.

One word for thought: Handicapping.

Thanks to those who have dug up the John Low quotes.

[Mike McGuire]

TEP is right about John Low's opinion that foursomes macthplay is the best form of golf

Google books has  the entire book online http://bit.ly/pv50k

[Rich Goodale]

Kyle

I understand what you are saying and please do not listen to the dilletantes who think that match play is something that the working classes can never comprehend.  Listen to Bob Jones, for example whose dictum was to "play the course, not the man" when playing matches.  Of course he was not only probably the finest match player of all time, but he also played matchplay largely competetively rather than socially.

Give me match play when playing in a BUDA or in a bounce game, for example, where camaraderie is more important than athletic excellence, but if I want to play golf as a sport, give me stroke play every time, for I know that what I get out of the game, athletically, will be what I put into it.

If you never play competitive stroke play golf, you are never playing the game at its most intense and revealing level.

Rich

[Brent Hutto]

If you never play competitive stroke play golf, you are never playing the game at its most intense and revealing level.

I'll agree completely with that formulation. And frankly, the "most intense and revealing level" holds no appeal whatsoever for this 18-handicapper. All there is to reveal in my game is that once or twice (or on a bad day maybe half a dozen times) per round I will get so completely out of sync and out of position that it will take 7, 8 or 9 strokes and 25 minutes to complete a hole. I already know that and do not need it revealed.

Match play is about making enough good shots to overcome ones opponent.

Stroke play is about managing ones bad shots to avoid a card-wrecking disaster.

As such, there is a qualitative difference between stroke play experienced by a scratch golfer (who can be assumed to have skill sufficient to recover from even the worst shot or pair of shots while keeping the score to 6 or 7 strokes) and that of a bogey golfer for whom the law of averages makes "saving bogey" or even "saving double" vanishingly unlikely after a couple of lost balls or a total short-game meltdown.

In other words, seeing a good player struggle to recover from a double-bogey six in the middle of an otherwise good round is interesting and yes it probably reveals something about his competitive spirit and emotional poise. Seeing a poor player struggle to scrape out that 10 on a hole where he lost three balls is excruciating and reveals only that things are hopeless after that second ball hits the water.

P.S. From a GCA perspective one might observe that a 380-yard hole designed to be played with two or three shots to the vicinity of the green and then two or three shots from there to get in the hole is not a particularly interesting challenge after a poor player has executed his sixth stroke without coming within 50 yards of the putting surface.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()