Q for architects and wanna be's: match play v. medal play in course design

[Carl Johnson]

I have no idea how many "golfers" play what . . . match v. medal v. medal versus course v. enjoying the scenery.  I'm not sure if you could do data on this.  But, from a design standpoint, do you, as an architect, or wanna be, take into account the different games people play, or not, on a course, when you design a course?  If so, why? If not, why?  Is this even a good question?  I've thought about this, but only a little, and am perplexed.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

If I had to guess, I'd guess that 50% of the people who play my courses post a score when they're done, 35% just play for fun, and 15% have actually played a match -- maybe even fewer than that.

Nevertheless, I prefer to design features that contribute to exciting match play.  Match play mentality gives more scope for excitement, whereas medal play thinking only allows for incremental sorts of penalties and "hard par / easy bogey" results.  Most importantly, with a match play mentality, no one can say an architectural feature is "unfair" as they will do routinely when posting a score.

[Carl Johnson]

Tom, Thanks.  Without giving away trade secrets, could you expand on the prinicples involved, with some illustrations?  That would help me a lot.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Tom - I remember standing just short of the wetland on Riverfront #18 thinking, this hole was built for a match play finish. Would you agree?


I Starting reading George Bahto's book yesterday, didn't Macdonald believe a course should only be designed for the purpose of creating exciting matches?.. But I guess if you are going to have the National Championship replayed because stroke play was against the spirit of the game, it makes sense!

[V. Kmetz]

CJ and All:

This topic is of unending interest to me, even though it's well-discussed and a wealth of opinions are exchanged:

1. My idea of the topic is that MATCH PLAY DOES NOT MATCH SKILL, IT MATCHES FORTUNE.

a.  Match Play presupposes "Eveness" between players..., whether it is handicap shots or "less or more shots from a different set of tees," I find everything about match play to have been intellectually created by the statement, "All things being equal."  What 8 handicapper doesn't play against the scratch club champion without strokes? We know who's better in skill there, so we level the playing field to get as close to equal as can be rationally apprised.

b.  Match Play instills the players with their own sense of the equanimity...why do you concede a putt in a match of skill and more convincingly, why has anyone ever gotten mad when a 2.5 ft putt has not been conceded, and lastly why do some players agree before the round to a standard of such putts, the leather? This is not about skill...if it was, we'd insist you prove it.  We are all the same over a short putt of any importance and the players spare each other of just "bad fortune." An absolute purist often doesn't concede a single putt; though he is compelled, officially, to take them and their result.  I don't like that style of play myself, but i do understand where he's coming from as he's saying, "We're here to see what happens."

c.  Match Play is ready to test skill AND fortune in its approach to championship iterations.  At most clubs, private or semi-private, they play flighted President's and Governor's Cups WITH HANDICAP but the official Club Championship WITHOUT - the latter is a test of who's better, more skillful without regard to relativity. And we design for either level of prestige, as in all sports, a tournament bracket where SKILL is rewarded a second time, in that maintaining a 2 HCP will create your first matches against a 9 HCP, a player who you are more skillful than by the best discrete, rational measure we have.

2.  WHAT ARE THE FEATURES THAT FAVOR FORTUNE OVER SKILL?

a. wind, changeable climate - not a design feature, per se but a feature nonetheless; one that would logically embrace the original match play traditions found in those climates of Scotland.  On a more literal basis, can you think of any one thing that levels the playing field and is the very essence of fortune more than wind?

b. absence of vision and/or discrete measure - put me and Phil Mickelson in side by side stalls at the range tee hitting to the 150 flag and I've got no chance. Put us on opposite sides of the fairway hitting into a Punchbowl, I've got more of chance, due more to fortune than any skill I may have.  And there are varying degrees of the level of sight and appraisal, short of pure blindness...partial camouflage intended to deceive and thwart the judgement of the player - one of the essences of his level of skill.

c. large greens - I don't think it's a revolutionary thing to say, that a putter is the club with which we are more like, if not better, than players better than us.  It is the thunderbolt for the common man and whether we think contemporaneously or in the older era - it was a backhanded slight to be called a player "who makes bombs" - it has been code for "lucky" since the shepherds were belting rocks.  Again, in the mythical match with Phil, he's in for a tap-in birdie 3 and you're lying 2, trying to half, from 25 yards away, what club and what kind of shot do you want, that is more likely to succeed than a putt?

d. heavy and varied contour - specifically, big, uneven contour right near the strategic "medal" play areas in both fairways and green complexes.  This is a feature not only revealed (in those course now called" match play" courses) but easily understood if you accept that match play is seeking to measure fortune in greater proportion to skill.  Big features - swales, mounds, dips, hillocks both subtle and frank - reign in the more skilled of the matched players by chancing to reward his better, more skillful shot with a bad lie, a run off into rough, an absence of vision or a carom into poorer, strategic location.

dd. On the greens, dramatic contour - no matter what speed they are at - is most important as this is the place of the prize.  Not only do broad contours deflect shots aimed at hole locations and require skill PLUS fortune to approach, but in the act of putting itself such contour elicits heightened judgement and imagination from the player.  And their relative skill in this area closest to the prize is a just difference maker; as it defends the more skillful player from being subject to the bad luck of a lesser opponent's hot putting.  Such a victim can make bombs too and if he truly is the better skilled -- and not just the less or more fortunate -- he has an equal opportunity to prove it here, nearest the prize.

e. "in-play ephemera that shouldn't be there" - not merely the road of the Road Hole (which has actually got two w/ the OC Hotel) but it can be elements as literal as that...railroad tracks, stone walls, memorial markers, plaques, clumps of irrecoverable gorse and anything that gets in the way.  At St. Andrews, the "Gowf" was the second use of the land, played around it's first use, and so the "stuff that gets in the way" is prevalent, arbitrary to golfers, accommodating for the first uses. More intrinsically to our discussion context, this extends to both natural and artificial uses of landforms reflected in choices of the architect. Will you put a green site in the midst of cottage ruins, that chances to turn a mis-hit into something more or less worthy?  Will you bench a green into a side of a hill that either gathers or rejects at will, will you grow rough on that hill, will you cut some or all of it as green or put a bunker up there? On an subliminal level, I suspect this goes even further to ridiculous and charming elements such as pot bunkers, bunkers in the middle of a green like 6th Riviera, the Sahara or Hell models (their names are part of the "out-of-context" environment as well).  These are all items which tend to level the playing field between one player and another on the basis of fortune.

3.  WHAT I HAVEN'T MENTIONED...

a.  traditional hazards - in and of themselves, the strategic use of sand bunkers and water do not contribute significantly to a match of fortune between two sides.  Even when carrying a bunker or skirting a body of water successfully sets up a preferable strategic result, that is one shot, not the hole and the opponent can avoid challenging the hazard and still win the hole.  There is still something left in the accretive value of how you achieve or push the prize further.  Those holes and those courses which offer hazard to both avenues of play are more rightfully said to be medal holes, as they are testing the quantity of skill you have to pull off a demanding shot, not the fortune of equivocated players.  It is on those holes that you can and do make "10s" (TrumpFazio National Briarcliff) and your medal round is kaput if you do not execute.  That's one of the foundations of a medal round...not blow up.  TrumpFazio is testing that with vigor.  Yes, you're right the same "10"' is worth only "down 1" and the fortune of the match is still out there, but that can be said of any hole.

b.  green speed - I make no statements about green speed beyond these: the bigger the contour, the less you need speeds faster than 8.5.  Yale has always satisfied in regard to this appropriate blend of massive contours and the right speed for them.  Even though I regularly experience some of the speediest, most renowned greens in the country, I am depressed that the more "challenging" they get, the less putting is a true shot and the more it becomes just a trained movement of the shoulders.  Who does that better or not is a very subordinate examination of those things elicited from any Golf match.

c.  turf quality (fast, slow) - it should be clear from everything else I've said that the more discrete the task, the more it contributes to the medal play qualities of a hole in preference to its match play properties.  The less uniform the turf conditions, the less predictable playing on it becomes and yields another micro-category of elements that match the fortunes of the players.

Maybe with this specificity, it's possible to return to an esoteric generality. "Medal play and courses designed for that play are designed to identify is who is the best and match play courses are designed to identify who is best, that day."

cheers

vk

[Mark Pearce]

vk,

I think I disagree with every single one of your points, in so far as they are intended to properly distinguish between match and medal play.  Do you play much match-play?  Have you never experienced fortune in medal play?

[Kyle Harris]

The only differences are in golfer's minds.

Why does the expectation exist that a hole should promote a "fair" situation in medal play to prevent the golfer from making a large number?

Only because the golfer expects it as such.

In either format, the game is still about getting the ball from Point A to Point B in the least amount of strokes as skill allows. Just because the actual cost of the risks associated with this process are changed (at least in how they are measured) does not mean that any real difference should exist. Really, the only difference is in what the golfer expects or thinks each format should be.

All manner of golfers everywhere are predisposed against big numbers. Medal play forces the golfer to accept those big numbers as a result of poor play. Match play allows the golfer to ignore big numbers based on the performance of the opponent. Either way, it's still all in the head.

[Adam Lawrence]

Kyle - hear, hear. Medal play is inherently less fair than matchplay, because it is inevitable that players will be competing against people who experienced different conditions. But nevertheless, the golf course is the golf course is the golf course, and the player's challenge is still to go round it in the fewest shots. I still think 'unfair' is a bizarre word to apply to a golf course.

[Kyle Harris]

Medal play is inherently less fair than matchplay, because it is inevitable that players will be competing against people who experienced different conditions.

I am not sure I even agree with this statement about the difference.

Is not a primary skill in golf the ability to overcome different conditions? Including elements of luck and chance? Over the course of even 18 holes....

[Carl Johnson]

VK, et al.  VK, thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful reply.  However, let me first refine your "esoteric generality" to my way of thinking about it, right or wrong.  Two-ball match play determines who is the "better player" in that particular match.  Medal play (e.g., a multi-round tournament among many players) determines who is the "best player" in the field over the course of the medal play tournament.  Is the winner really the "better" or "best" player or "more skilled"?  Well, in golf that's the easiest way to settle the debate.  Play it.  Whether match or medal play competition, ball striking skill, thinking skill and a little luck, some good and some bad, all come into play.  (Taking out the element of luck, as much as you can, I guess we'd be just as well off playing pocket pool.)  I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

Match and medal play are both "games" or "competitions" that golfers can play on a golf course.  I think of match play as "true golf," because that's how golf began, and medal play as a come-lately convenience for holding competitions among a large number of golfers over a very short period of time.  I much prefer match play, both as a player and a spectator.  Nevertheless, both forms of competitions, and variations thereof, are widely accepted, including by me, as legitimate forms of the game of golf.

Having said that, what I come back to is my original question of how, if at all, do considerations of competition come into play when a golf architect designs a golf course.  Tom Doak has said, above, that he likes design features that contribute to exciting match play.  I'd have to agree, in principal, but I'm not sure what those features are.  My gut tells me that lot's of options help.  In the back and forth nature of match play, shot by shot, more choices for the next shot bring more of the thinking element into play, not just from the standpoint of where your shot will put you, but how it will challenge the following (hopefully) shot of your opponent, although there is still the skill challenge of pulling off the chosen shot.

So, exactly what are those design features that enhance match play?  If any.  An equally relevant question is, what are the design features that enhance medal play?  If any.  The typical golfer playing a game usually plays match play, two- or four-ball, with handicaps.  Thus, another question: When an architect considers features that enhance match play, how does handicap aspect come into play, if at all.

[Scott Warren]

Medal play is inherently less fair than matchplay, because it is inevitable that players will be competing against people who experienced different conditions.

I am not sure I even agree with this statement about the difference.

Is not a primary skill in golf the ability to overcome different conditions? Including elements of luck and chance? Over the course of even 18 holes....

Kyle,

As an example, the course at which I play is close by both the coast and a large bay that cuts in. As such it gets some pretty good winds most days, but not until about 12pm-1pm usually. It usually starts quite still in the early morning, might reach 1 club by 10am and then 2+ clubs in the afternoon.

So the Saturday club competition field sees 200-odd players competing against players who played in extremely different weather conditions to them. Not surprisingly, the winners on a large majority of days come from the morning field (first tee time at 6.30am, last at about 1pm).

To me, that's an entirely different kettle of fish to bad luck, bad bounces etc...

[Sean_A]

Kyle - hear, hear. Medal play is inherently less fair than matchplay, because it is inevitable that players will be competing against people who experienced different conditions. But nevertheless, the golf course is the golf course is the golf course, and the player's challenge is still to go round it in the fewest shots. I still think 'unfair' is a bizarre word to apply to a golf course.

Couldn't agree more.  To me, an archie should build the most fun, creative and interesting course he can.  It shouldn't matter what form of golf is played - its all golf and the goal is the same. 

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

If golf had only been played in matches in its history, the sport could be in a better place, I think

1) Less emphasis on what's fair and what "unfair"
2) Less emphasis on length of the course or the specific holes since nobody would care about protecting par
3) Less emphasis on perfect course conditions and more on design quality
4) Faster rounds making the game more popular

5) more interest about the design in the general public because of championship play on tv because they could play any great courses
imagine after playing the US Open at Winged Foot (long and hard), you turn arond and play North Berwick for the British Open (short and sporty) and play the super short Merion West for the pGA championship but the next year it's longer courses selected...

or you'd hear things like: Tiger is the best player in the world but as never beaten Phil at this course where the pga is played this year etc

[Mark Pearce]

Medal play is inherently less fair than matchplay, because it is inevitable that players will be competing against people who experienced different conditions.

I am not sure I even agree with this statement about the difference.

Is not a primary skill in golf the ability to overcome different conditions? Including elements of luck and chance? Over the course of even 18 holes....

Kyle,

As an example, the course at which I play is close by both the coast and a large bay that cuts in. As such it gets some pretty good winds most days, but not until about 12pm-1pm usually. It usually starts quite still in the early morning, might reach 1 club by 10am and then 2+ clubs in the afternoon.

So the Saturday club competition field sees 200-odd players competing against players who played in extremely different weather conditions to them. Not surprisingly, the winners on a large majority of days come from the morning field (first tee time at 6.30am, last at about 1pm).

To me, that's an entirely different kettle of fish to bad luck, bad bounces etc...

At Crail the wind tends to vary with tide.  Some of the more competitive members check tide timetables before deciding when to play.

[Carl Johnson]

I'm going to push this up to the top again because so far I've not gotten much in the way of "on point" comments.  Is the "design issue" irrelevant, too complicated, uninteresting, or whatever?

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

Usually when I think of a "match play" feature, I think of a severe hazard like the wall on the 13th at North Berwick ... 90% of the time it proves to be no factor and the hole is pretty easy, but the other 10%, it might lead to a double bogey or even worse.

But, I think undulating greens fall under the realm of "match play" features, too.  The medal play mentality suggests that two good shots on a par-4 should normally lead to a birdie try and a relatively straightforward "par".  In match play, par is irrelevant, and an undulating green which might cause a three-putt is not labeled "unfair" because it is hard for everyone.

[Giles Payne]

VK - if you take your argument to its final conclusion, to test the relative skills of a player you would take all variation or randomness out of the game. To me this would look like a wide open totally flat terrain (you shouldn't be disadvantaged by a side hill lie when your opponent is not) and totally flat greens because a contour could throw your perfectly struck shot away from its line.

This is my idea of golfing hell.

Randomness is part of golf - you get bad bounces and you have to deal with it. In general, over the course of time such random vagueries will even themselves out and the winner will be the person who plays better on the day.

Randomness is also a better test of skill than a series of perfect lies - you have to deal with a whole range of different challenges and again skill will out.

I think that the point made that no feature is unfair in matchplay is well made - both opponentts have to play the same hole and par is not a consideration. I think that this allows the architect to produce far more interesting and challenging features. If we go back to the likes of Park, Colt and Braid they would only have been desiging for matchplay - strokeplay did not exist.

Phillippe - a fantastic post and I agree totally.

Personally I feel that stroke play is far less engaging than matchplay.

[Kyle Harris]

The medal play mentality suggests that two good shots on a par-4 should normally lead to a birdie try and a relatively straightforward "par".  In match play, par is irrelevant, and an undulating green which might cause a three-putt is not labeled "unfair" because it is hard for everyone.

I disagree that this is a product of medal or match play. It's a product of golfer perception.

-or-

Did you mean to say, "It is the mentality of golfers that medal play suggests..."

Yes, I'm parsing the words, but I feel it's a critical level of responsibility. The only true difference is in the heads of certain golfers. Even with assuming your thinking, your example of the undulating green being hard for everyone would assume that those with skill could overcome the difficulty - which is more likely to be shown in medal play.

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

Yes, it is all about golfer perception.  My experience is that, even at the most elite level, golfers have a much different outlook on the game when playing match play as opposed to medal.  Of course, most of them are so used to medal play that an opponent's good fortune in match play requires an adjustment that is hard to make.

But, all of golf is played between the ears, I figured we all understood that.

[Carl Johnson]

Just a quip, and a little off the design topic I've suggested we talk about, admittedly, but I've concluded after about 20 years of play that golf is 100% mental and 100% physical (e.g., not 99% mental and 1% physical, or whatever the ratio).  In other words, it's not the percentage of the apple or orange, but rather that golf is a fruit salad.  Just an aside.

[Niall C]

Carl:

If I had to guess, I'd guess that 50% of the people who play my courses post a score when they're done, 35% just play for fun, and 15% have actually played a match -- maybe even fewer than that.

Nevertheless, I prefer to design features that contribute to exciting match play.  Match play mentality gives more scope for excitement, whereas medal play thinking only allows for incremental sorts of penalties and "hard par / easy bogey" results.  Most importantly, with a match play mentality, no one can say an architectural feature is "unfair" as they will do routinely when posting a score.

Tom

Thats interesting stats. Can I ask, are most of your courses pay and play/resort courses ?

The reason I ask is that when I go play courses that are new to me I'm usually playing with pals and maybe not in a fourball either, so more interested in experiencing the course, therefore don't play a game or keep a score other than a rough total. If I'm playing a course I'm a member of or know well then generally play a match where possible although keep a note of my score if possible but don't obsess over it.

In most clubs I've been a member of, medals/comps are played either in 3 balls (usual) or occasionally two ball so a match isn't really an option. Silloth is the onloy club I've been a member of where some of the comps have been fourballs in which case we've played the medal but also played a match. For some reason when I was there it was considered a bit off to play a match in a medal so we used to through the ball up on the second tee to see who was partnering who and thereofre who had won the first hole. I used to do that even when playing with the captain of the club and the vice-captain.

Interesting the difference between medal amd matchplay depending on nature of course, not really an architecture thing more a function of the type of set up.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

If I had to guess, I'd guess that 50% of the people who play my courses post a score when they're done, 35% just play for fun, and 15% have actually played a match -- maybe even fewer than that.

Nevertheless, I prefer to design features that contribute to exciting match play.  Match play mentality gives more scope for excitement, whereas medal play thinking only allows for incremental sorts of penalties and "hard par / easy bogey" results.  Most importantly, with a match play mentality, no one can say an architectural feature is "unfair" as they will do routinely when posting a score.

Tom

Thats interesting stats. Can I ask, are most of your courses pay and play/resort courses ?

The reason I ask is that when I go play courses that are new to me I'm usually playing with pals and maybe not in a fourball either, so more interested in experiencing the course, therefore don't play a game or keep a score other than a rough total. If I'm playing a course I'm a member of or know well then generally play a match where possible although keep a note of my score if possible but don't obsess over it.

In most clubs I've been a member of, medals/comps are played either in 3 balls (usual) or occasionally two ball so a match isn't really an option. Silloth is the onloy club I've been a member of where some of the comps have been fourballs in which case we've played the medal but also played a match. For some reason when I was there it was considered a bit off to play a match in a medal so we used to through the ball up on the second tee to see who was partnering who and thereofre who had won the first hole. I used to do that even when playing with the captain of the club and the vice-captain.

Interesting the difference between medal amd matchplay depending on nature of course, not really an architecture thing more a function of the type of set up.

Niall

Niall:

Out of the 30 courses I've designed, nine are for private clubs:  Stonewall [with two 18's], Lost Dunes, The Village Club of Sands Point, Tumble Creek, Stone Eagle, Sebonack, Ballyneal, and Rock Creek.  That's probably a bit lower percentage than for most "signature" architects [perhaps because my early noteworthy courses were all public or resort courses], but it's still probably a bit higher than for architects in general today.  New private clubs are a tough sell in America.

Even at the clubs I have designed, I suspect that the numbers I provided hold up.  With a couple of exceptions, the bulk of the play at those places is by one member and his guests, as opposed to member vs. member play.  Generally, there aren't a lot of new "in-town" clubs being built, where club competitions would be more conspicuous.  For that matter, American clubs in general don't have the same focus on weekly and monthly competitions as in the UK and Ireland.

[Marty Bonnar]

Tom,
you forgot Renaissance!! ;0)
Did the client ask for any specific match/stroke holes/options there?
cheers,
FBD.