What exactly is a matchplay course ?

[Niall C]

On Mike Whittakers thread on Old Mac, one of the local caddies is reported as calling the course a matchplay course. That begs the question, what exactly is a matchplay course ? What makes it more conducive to this type of golf, is it risk reward holes, is it alternatively the ability to play recovery shots such that a player isn't truelly out the hole until the last putt.

There are several courses that are either at the design stage for future Ryder Cups or are existing which have been adapted for Ryder Cups, I wonder if they were designed with matchplay in mind and if so how ?

Any thoughts ?

Niall

[Mac Plumart]

I have the same question.

[Jud_T]

I think it's referred to here in regards to a course which is fun and challenging but where a big number lurks at almost any turn.  Kingsley club is often referred to as a great match play course but a course where it's quite hard to shoot your handicap.  The scorecard and pencil set would probably think these courses are OTT.

[Phil McDade]

A bunch of half-par holes -- reachable par 4s and 5s, really long/tight/penal kick-butt par 3s and 4s.

In other words, holes where there is the potential for a great variance (2+ shots) in the score, and potential for several ways to attack it.

Augusta National's back nine has always seemed to me an ideal match-play nine -- 10 and 11 are almost always among the harder holes there during Masters week, 12 is uncertain, 13 and 15 easy to reach, 16 with the potential for 2s and 5s. 18 can be birdied or bogeyed depending largely on the tee shot.

I think of the front nine at TCC in Brookline similarly, with its two short par 4s and fun short par 5 9th.

Oakmont also strikes me as somewhat conducive to this, with a perhaps slightly easier set-up than US Open conditions.

[Niall C]

Jud

That description could describe your average PGA Tour penal set up. Surely where its brutally penal would that not cause a player to play conservatively rather than match his play to his opponent ?

Phil

I think you've nailed it and can't imagine I would get a much better description than that. Do you think anyone is designing those kind of courses or do they evolve into those type of courses over time ie. with lots of half par holes ? Is Old Mac like that ?

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

I think Phil more accurately phrased it as a course where each hole has a high variance, in either direction....

[JLahrman]

Phil's description is good, but isn't that just a description of a great course?  Half par holes with variances in scoring and several ways to attack the hole seems to be good GCA, not just the description of a good matchplay course.

Honestly, I don't play much matchplay, but I've noticed that even bad courses are fun for match play.  For a couple of years I went to a friend's Ryder Cup-style event.  The course is a dog track, but playing match play on it made it a ton of fun.

[SL_Solow]

The best medal play golfers have always disliked course where a big number lurks on a quirky hole or two which can lead to an embarassing score being posted.  But since no scores are posted in match play, those types of holes and courses are less objectionable.  Hence the "match play" course.

[PCCraig]

Any course you're not playing alone

Phil:

You're right about TCC Brookline, there is some fantastic risk/reward on the front nine (of the champ layout), but the back nine is loaded as well with the par 4/5 12th, the par-5 14th, the short par 3 16th, the very historical and strategic par-4 17th, and the tough 18th with it's severe green and front bunker. 

[Niall C]

JLahrman

Spot on about Phils description, it does make a great sounding course. It also sounds like the type of course where you would wait to see what your opponent did before deciding on your shot, or alternatively if playing first you may decide to either play conservatively or boldly depending on how the match was standing. On half par holes the difference between the bold play and the conservative one might be more pronounced. It suggests to me that it would induce a more conscious decision on what club to hit and where as well as maybe testing the nerve also.

The fact that you're playing a match on an overly penal course isn't going to change how you play, your still likely to vere towards the safe no matter what.

Niall  

[Phil McDade]

Niall:

I'm not certain of Old Mac -- haven't played it. From Ran's write-up, and comments from others who have played it, it does seem like the kind of course very much conducive to match play, in part because it seems the width there, plus other features of the course, create varied ways to play. One line about Old Mac in Ran's review that has stuck with me is his view that Old Mac, of the four Bandon courses, might be viewed as the easiest by the high-handicapper and hardest by the low handicapper. That seems like a course that has options galore on how to play it, and a clear sense of harder path/easier path which one would attack it.

JLarhman:

I think there are great courses that are simply tough hole-in and hole-out -- Winged Foot comes to mind, and from what I've heard Butler in Chicago might be like this. Nothing wrong with those course -- both I think were designed to be tough, tough courses. I'm just not sure they'd be as appealing as a course with the potential for variance in scoring, and options about how to play it. Again, citing Ran again, and from past threads, it's interesting to note that Oakmont -- for all of its reputation as a very tough test -- has five par 4s that often play under 400 yards. But that's also coupled with some incredibly stout par 4s and par 3s that play 200+ yards, including one at 280 yds or so. I think Oakmont in the early Fall, fast and firm and its rough trimmed a bit from US Open specs, would make a nearly ideal Ryder Cup venue. Augusta the same thing, particularly given the potential for fireworks late in the round (holes 12 on in), where most match play matches are decided.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Niall


Asides from the usual strategic, penal, heroic design considerations, with the design work I am currently doing for Madrid's course for the 2018 Ryder Cup bid, the specific 'matchplay' design consideration concerns where the par 3's and 5's fall in the round, and their influence on foursomes strategy.  Generally, it would be considered ideal to have two odd and two even numbered par 3's and the same for par 5's, so both partners get two pops each at these holes.  However, I didn't think that posed much of a strategic decision process, so i've gone for an offset balance, with three odd numbered par 3's, but three even numbered par 5's.  In foursomes, one of the partners is going to have to take the priority on precision play, whilst the other will have the responsibility to bring the 5's within range in two.  I think this will make the captains think more about their pairings and the players think more strategically at the outset about who tees up on the odd and evens.

I must stress that the layout hasn't been gerrymandered to fit this concept, but it was in my mind from the outset to try and achieve this aim.  We have...and I think it will add some intrigue to the matches....if we win the bid!!

[Adrian_Stiff]

Phils description  is how I would see it.

[Jason Topp]

I think of it as a course that tempts you to hit a bunch of shots that might be stupid in stroke play but can pay off in match play.  It is also a course where a person that is seemingly out of a hole can make a comeback through brilliant recovery play.

Lumpy greens are more fun for me in match play.  Slopes with the land are more fun for stroke play.

[James Boon]

Niall,

When I hear people talking of courses being suited to matchplay I tend to think of courses full of quirk and character. Its all about the difference between the strokeplay event against a full field and playing against the man next to you. (SL touches on this earlier)

Take the 13th at North Berwick with its approach over the wall. In matchplay one guy gets stuck behind the wall, but his opponent is well left on the beach, both guys have to do something special but may well halve it in 6. Good sport, move on to the next hole. If its strokeplay, a guy in the morning hits his approach behind the wall and takes 6, at lunchtime a chap hits the wall and gets a wicked bounce off into some nasty rough, and the last guy out in the competition is playing into the wind and cant even get over the wall.

Its all about peoples perception of what is fair and what isn't and if its just two guys (or four) against each other at the same time there is more room for variety and quirk than in a strokeplay event where many probably want a fair test against the rest of the field.

Cheers,

James

[Mark Chaplin]

Swinley, Rye and Berkshire Red - all are courses where par is skewed and slightly irrelevent.

[Sean_A]

I don't buy that the type of golf game played has or should in any way influence the architecture.  Courses are good or they aren't.  Whether or not one has a card in his hand is irrelevant. 

Ciao

[Michael Whitaker]

Niall,

In the States I think the reference to a course being suited for "matchplay" is a euphemism for the course being perceived as "unfair." Personally, I do not think the concept of "fairness" has a place in golf, but most Americans feel that I well struck shot should be rewarded in a fairly predictable way. When that doesn't happen they claim the course is unfair. To justify or explain the quirkiness of the course it is pigeonholed as a matchplay course, i.e., one not suited to proper stroke play golf.

[James Boon]

Michael,

Thats sort of what I was trying to say, but you put it so much better! And I agree with you Sean, that the game played shouldn't really influence the architecture. A good course is a good course.

Cheers,

James

[Tom_Doak]

For courses in the USA, where match play is not prevalent, I think the definition is basically between Jud's and Michael Whitaker's.  It's a good player's description for a course where he got screwed and made a triple, or might get screwed.

Then again, a lot of people use the euphemism "a shotmaker's course" for a very short and tight course, when shotmaking is supposed to be about rewarding the guy who can control his trajectory.

These terms are really meaningless.  Any great course ought to be a great match play course and a great shotmaker's course.  The ones that aren't, aren't really great.  I guess there are some great courses which aren't so fun with a card and pencil, but it seems to me that depends on what sort of day you're having.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom - I agree with you about the "shotmaker's course" handle. Every course I have played that was called a "shotmaker's course" was so contrived and forced onto its property that there is often nowhere to hit a shot and keep it in play. They usually have a lot of short dogleg holes and/or holes that have fairways with severe sideways slopes. "Shotmaker's Course..." it's usually just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

[Matt_Ward]

I would define "matchplay course" as a layout which accentuates high risk / high reward type plays continually. In sum, there are few moments where subdued shotmaking is emphasized. Those seizing the moment and executing as planned stand to gain the most.

Wolf Creek in Mesquite, NV is a good example of such a layout. Plenty of inherent risks and rewards throughout the round.

Stroke play advocates would not fine such "edge of your seat" layout likely their cup of tea because the high risk / high reward elements take away from the steady plodding nature that many of them prefer.

[mike_beene]

an excess of out of bounds makes for a course better suited for match over medal.Medal gets very defensive around ob.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think a good match play course has a higher percentage of risk/reward holes than the norm. All this is magnified if the last 5 or 6 holes are top heavy with risk and options. Also combine this with a more strategic course rather than a bomber typical tour set up helps create a good match play venue.

[Peter Pallotta]

From where I sit Niall, it's a course where a 15 handicap has a slight chance of occasionally beating a 5. And strangely, this might be a course with very long Par 5s, very short Par 3s and Par 4s that are all doglegs. Not a very interesting course I imagine.

Peter