[Jason Thurman]

Is this a real thing? Are some courses actually "better" for match play than stroke play, or vice versa? If so, why?

[Mac Plumart]

I think it is a real thing.

Match Play courses, to me, offer a little more daring...a little more interest...a lot more real options and risks.  I think Kingsley is a great example of a wonderful match play course.  Hole #9 might "ruin" your scorecard, but in match play it is a ton of fun and if you make an 8...it doesn't matter...you lost  the hole...moving on.

Stroke Play courses, to me, are your stereotypical "fair" golf courses with greens that are predicable.

[Scott Macpherson]

Many of the classic British links are great for match play but the Old Course is a course which shines when it comes to match play, and historically that's how the course was primarily played. The last few holes on TOC are perhaps the best in the world for deciding a close match.

Scott

[Jud_T]

No.  It's not a real thing.  Medal play and the associated concept of "fairness" are artificial constructs and the equivalent of organized religion- a palliative for the masses.

[Jason Thurman]

Mac, I've heard other people say similar things about Kingsley. But doesn't the course's edge also make it exciting for medal play? In medal play, holes like 2 and 9 are legitimately terrifying and exciting and require a ton of fortitude and wise execution. You really have to think about them and figure out how you're going to minimize the risk involved. It can be nerve-racking, but that presence of danger is one that I really enjoy in a medal round.

In match play on 2 and 9 at Kingsley, you just hack one toward the flag and hope you get a good result since the penalty for a bad shot is just a single hole lost. The result may preserve a player's self-esteem, but a steady diet of holes like that doesn't make for a particularly exciting match filled with high-pressure shots and putts. 5 footers to win or halve a hole are a lot more exciting than having 6 putts to win the hole from 5 feet away after your opponent barfed all over himself trying to hit an ill-advised tee shot. I think, if anything, that you get a lot more of the exciting 5 footers on courses that don't pose as many blow-up moments.

[Matt_Cohn]

I've heard lots of courses described as being better for match play. I've never heard of one being described as better for stroke play than for match play. How could a course be good for stroke play but bad for match play?

[Andrew Bernstein]

Does anyone honestly not think of their medal play score while in match play? Is this type of mindset even possible within our current handicap system?

[Sean_A]

I have to ask, in which circumstances is a hole is good for matchplay, but poor for medal?  Isn't the same thrill or boredom present regardless of how one keeps score?

Bewildered in Blighty

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Sean,

I think the idea is that a hole that some consider severe, OTT, high-volatility etc. is fun in a match but potentially overly penal in medal play.

[JMEvensky]

I've heard lots of courses described as being better for match play. I've never heard of one being described as better for stroke play than for match play. How could a course be good for stroke play but bad for match play?

+1

A golf course is either good or bad,irrespective of how you keep score.

[Garland Bayley]

Does anyone honestly not think of their medal play score while in match play? Is this type of mindset even possible within our current handicap system?

I think of what my opponent is doing, not what number I am making.

[Sean_A]

Does anyone honestly not think of their medal play score while in match play? Is this type of mindset even possible within our current handicap system?

No, I don't worry about the score at all in matchplay, but that doesn't mean I don't have a good idea of how I am playing....which isn't quite the same thing as "keeping" a medal score...the only way to do that is with a card in the hand.

Ciao

[V. Kmetz]

Hi,

The difference in Match Play/Medal Courses is that:

A Medal Play course more rewards Skill and higher golf ability..it is marked by penal and heroic elements; it is longer, narrower, is more defined, has more water carries, OB, faster greens, more challenging bunkers, deeper rough. It will be harder for a 20 HCP, to beat a 12, a 10 a 5, a 5 and a scratch and so forth (whether at "net medal-stroke play" or as the strokes fall on a card in a match).  Medal Play courses are usually humorless, even if a feast for the golf eye.

A Match Play course more rewards Fortune and more levels the playing field between competitors...it is marked by strategic options that mitigate its penal features and enhance the heroic ones; it is shorter, wider, has more blind shots, is more vague, has more unpredictable ground movement, more audacious contours around the green target.  The elements that make it so are many times called "goofy," and unfair, almost always by the better golfer(s).

It is however, subjective (the term itself), and I have never heard architects state it or plan for it; but it ends up becoming realized via the wishes of the client-builder and what designs/reputation that client has in mind for it. Is that client thinking of state tournaments and PGA events and making a Top 100 list to attract revenue...or is he thinking of his group of familiars and their antecedents, with all their flaws, playing a morning match for $50, for the next 100 years?

In the end a pleasing course is a pleasing course and you can be thrilled, amused and stimulated by a round on either, but in terms of the competition in golf's game purposes, the medal course will favor the better, more accomplished player whereas the match play course will more level the playing field between competitors.

cheers

vk

[Matthew Petersen]

For the last decade or so, the WGC Match Play event was held on a variety of desert courses in Arizona. Those courses (real target desert layouts, not like TPC Scottsdale) would be nearly infeasible for a stroke play event, because there are just too many opportunities for lost balls, unplayable lies, and other such issues that would cause a huge delay in a PGA-level event. For everyday medal play, desert courses deal with this by instituting a local "desert rule" that essentially makes desert areas into lateral hazards. So if you can find it and play it, you can, but if it's gone you just drop and move on. Meanwhile, it worked as match play because if a ball disappeared into a thick desert bush, a guy could take a swipe at it and either figure he'd do something miraculous (Victor Dubuisson) or just go to the next tee.

[Michael Felton]

I have to ask, in which circumstances is a hole is good for matchplay, but poor for medal?  Isn't the same thrill or boredom present regardless of how one keeps score?

Bewildered in Blighty

Ciao

Hi Sean,

I think it has to do with the penalty for a miss being so severe that in medal play you basically have no choice but to take the safer option. In matchplay, the penalty for a miss is at most only one lost hole. In the matchplay scenario, you can take on the carry or play to the tight pin, but in strokeplay you basically have to play to the safe side of the fairway/green.

Conversely, if the penalty for a miss is less severe, then in medal play you can take on the shots too.

It's not how you keep score, but rather what your priorities are in strokeplay/matchplay. The way you play the course (or at least, the way I play the course) varies depending on the game you're (I'm) playing.

[David Davis]

There is no such thing. Never say never but it's highly unlikely an architect ever received a specific order to design a matchplay course.

My guess would be match play was thought up because simply playing against the course is just too difficult for most golfers and matchplay is a way to still be able to shoot 85 and walk off the course with some dignity still in tact  

[Ally Mcintosh]

To be honest, I disagree with some of you who seem to be tying matchplay courses in with width, strategic options and all things this website likes whilst tarring medal play courses with just the opposite.

For me, links courses suit medal play most in the winter when the rough is cut back. And match play most in a wet British summer when losing balls is easier and a killer for stroke play.

Regardless, matchplay is always fun and we are lucky enough in GB&I to be able to play in this manner without being hindered by the handicap system. Probably 80 percent of my rounds of golf are matchplay.

[Steve Lapper]

Hi,

The difference in Match Play/Medal Courses is that:

A Medal Play course more rewards Skill and higher golf ability..it is marked by penal and heroic elements; it is longer, narrower, is more defined, has more water carries, OB, faster greens, more challenging bunkers, deeper rough. It will be harder for a 20 HCP, to beat a 12, a 10 a 5, a 5 and a scratch and so forth (whether at "net medal-stroke play" or as the strokes fall on a card in a match).  Medal Play courses are usually humorless, even if a feast for the golf eye.

A Match Play course more rewards Fortune and more levels the playing field between competitors...it is marked by strategic options that mitigate its penal features and enhance the heroic ones; it is shorter, wider, has more blind shots, is more vague, has more unpredictable ground movement, more audacious contours around the green target.  The elements that make it so are many times called "goofy," and unfair, almost always by the better golfer(s).

It is however, subjective (the term itself), and I have never heard architects state it or plan for it; but it ends up becoming realized via the wishes of the client-builder and what designs/reputation that client has in mind for it. Is that client thinking of state tournaments and PGA events and making a Top 100 list to attract revenue...or is he thinking of his group of familiars and their antecedents, with all their flaws, playing a morning match for $50, for the next 100 years?

In the end a pleasing course is a pleasing course and you can be thrilled, amused and stimulated by a round on either, but in terms of the competition in golf's game purposes, the medal course will favor the better, more accomplished player whereas the match play course will more level the playing field between competitors.

cheers

vk

+1

No.  It's not a real thing.  Medal play and the associated concept of "fairness" are artificial constructs and the equivalent of organized religion- a palliative for the masses.

-1


  Quite a number of courses lend themselves to more enjoyment with match play vs. stroke. Some are even built with that in mind. A striking example of such a dichotomy exists just across the Hudson River from Manhattan.

 Bayonne GC is hardly long (6500-6712 from most frequently played tees), frequently buffeted by winds, links-like and wrought with awkward recovery shots and only a few water hazards. Ideal for matches, shots left just short of the greens on windy days often yield better scores than heroic longer ones. Bayonne presents a myriad of options, ground and air and while it's fairway corridors aren't especially wide, OB requires a considerable miss.

 On the other hand, on an identical day, the likes of it's nearby neighbor, Liberty National, at the same playing distances, is a design most akin to South Florida with a plethora of H2O hazards and though wider in great part than its neighbor, OB can be found aplenty. The brunt of a healthy match play round would be spent just circumnavigating the artificially created ponds and creeks. Granted, this place was built with the rich but mentally-challenged recreational golfer, and the PGA Tour professional in mind. It works perfectly for them.

  Few neighboring courses can look and play this polarizing. Fewer still, among contemporary designs, can claim they've set out with such a purpose.

  Cheers

[Sean_A]

Steve and V

Could it be that matchplay is more enjoyable than medal and that you are projecting your attitudes etc into the mix?  Because, quite frankly, I don't buy V's definition in the slightest.  His idea of medal looks like it came from the USGA US Open 1985 playbook...which is just one way to run a show. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Steve and V

Could it be that matchplay is more enjoyable than medal and that you are projecting your attitudes etc into the mix?  Because, quite frankly, I don't buy V's definition in the slightest.  His idea of medal looks like it came from the USGA US Open 1985 playbook...which is just one way to run a show. 

Ciao

Agreed

[Garland Bayley]

Steve and V

Could it be that matchplay is more enjoyable than medal and that you are projecting your attitudes etc into the mix?  Because, quite frankly, I don't buy V's definition in the slightest.  His idea of medal looks like it came from the USGA US Open 1985 playbook...which is just one way to run a show. 

Ciao

Or it could be the history of golf where medal play champions waged a war on unfairness and random results, because it ruined their medal play rounds.

[Steve Lapper]

Sean and Ally,

  I can't speak for V. (other than to considerably agree with his definition....and thats why there are two sides to every debate ) but I can agree with you that match play is usually more fun, and preferable, to medal. Our agreement ends there however, as I don't at all believe I'm projecting my attitude into the mix. I've played in a great number of competitive medal tournaments in my past and enjoyed most of them. Even with my diminished skills at present, I still occasionaly enjoy challenging a decent course and myself with a good qualifier or multi-day grind.

  I was much more interested in highlighting what I believe is an excellent example of neighboring contemporary courses near simultaneously designed with somewhat overlapping ego-centric clienteles. One is a terrific match play course, the other a PGA-styled venue. Certainly my preference lies with the former, but the dichotomy is striking and provides excellent evidence of match v. medal play design. Have either of you seen these courses??

Cheers!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean and Ally,

  I can't speak for V. (other than to considerably agree with his definition....and thats why there are two sides to every debate ) but I can agree with you that match play is usually more fun, and preferable, to medal. Our agreement ends there however, as I don't at all believe I'm projecting my attitude into the mix. I've played in a great number of competitive medal tournaments in my past and enjoyed most of them. Even with my diminished skills at present, I still occasionaly enjoy challenging a decent course and myself with a good qualifier or multi-day grind.

  I was much more interested in highlighting what I believe is an excellent example of neighboring contemporary courses near simultaneously designed with somewhat overlapping ego-centric clienteles. One is a terrific match play course, the other a PGA-styled venue. Certainly my preference lies with the former, but the dichotomy is striking and provides excellent evidence of match v. medal play design. Have either of you seen these courses??

Cheers!

Aren't you really just saying that you like Bayonne and you don't like Liberty National? Equally you could be saying hard courses suit medal play and not so hard courses suit matchplay.

I think there are good courses and there are not so good courses. Because the former are the ones that present options, they are the better for both matches and medal.

[Steve Lapper]

Sean and Ally,

  I can't speak for V. (other than to considerably agree with his definition....and thats why there are two sides to every debate ) but I can agree with you that match play is usually more fun, and preferable, to medal. Our agreement ends there however, as I don't at all believe I'm projecting my attitude into the mix. I've played in a great number of competitive medal tournaments in my past and enjoyed most of them. Even with my diminished skills at present, I still occasionaly enjoy challenging a decent course and myself with a good qualifier or multi-day grind.

  I was much more interested in highlighting what I believe is an excellent example of neighboring contemporary courses near simultaneously designed with somewhat overlapping ego-centric clienteles. One is a terrific match play course, the other a PGA-styled venue. Certainly my preference lies with the former, but the dichotomy is striking and provides excellent evidence of match v. medal play design. Have either of you seen these courses??

Cheers!

Aren't you really just saying that you like Bayonne and you don't like Liberty National? Equally you could be saying hard courses suit medal play and not so hard courses suit matchplay.

I think there are good courses and there are not so good courses. Because the former are the ones that present options, they are the better for both matches and medal.

Although it may well be true on personal tastes, your second sentance statement doesn't fit at all.

Bayonne is plenty hard, often much more so than Liberty National. I imagine it's easy to make that presumption without having playing either, but you are off by a wide enough margin. I hope others who have will chime in, but I can't recall a bigger, or better dichotomy that so well defines the difference in match v. medal play courses.

[Jason Thurman]

Bayonne GC is hardly long (6500-6712 from most frequently played tees), frequently buffeted by winds, links-like and wrought with awkward recovery shots and only a few water hazards. Ideal for matches, shots left just short of the greens on windy days often yield better scores than heroic longer ones. Bayonne presents a myriad of options, ground and air and while it's fairway corridors aren't especially wide, OB requires a considerable miss.

 On the other hand, on an identical day, the likes of it's nearby neighbor, Liberty National, at the same playing distances, is a design most akin to South Florida with a plethora of H2O hazards and though wider in great part than its neighbor, OB can be found aplenty. The brunt of a healthy match play round would be spent just circumnavigating the artificially created ponds and creeks. Granted, this place was built with the rich but mentally-challenged recreational golfer, and the PGA Tour professional in mind. It works perfectly for them.

Steve, you say that part of the reason Bayonne is so great for matches is that shots left just short of the greens often yield better scores than heroic longer ones. Why is this a good thing in match play but not in medal play? It seems to me that having multiple routes to attack a hole and presenting options for the guy who misses a GIR to recover is a good thing regardless of the scoring format. Aren't you really just saying that Bayonne presents options and interest? Is its accommodation of shots short of greens a bad thing in medal play?

Likewise, you state that the bulk of a match play round at Liberty National would be spent avoiding ponds and creeks. Is this not the case in a medal play round? Are the ponds and the OB more interesting in a medal play round? It sounds like Liberty National just isn't a very interesting course regardless of scoring format.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()