News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2015, 08:36:09 PM »
Pine Valley and Oakmont are two of the most challenging courses out there! On some holes the average golfer might just pick up after making double par.  At the same time you could make birdie on every one. Are they match play courses or medal play courses  ??? I think it is silly to think a course could be labeled one or the other.  Last I checked you still keep score on every hole you play in match play (even if you record an X).   Why not keep score for all 18 holes if you happen to play that many?  

How are you even playing medal play if all you are doing is marking down X?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #51 on: March 10, 2015, 08:43:46 PM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  


Ciao
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 08:45:25 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth & Old Barnwell

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #52 on: March 10, 2015, 08:47:49 PM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  


Ciao

It seems you don't understand match play. As I said above, the match play player simply concedes the hole that would prevent him from finishing the round medal play. Having conceded that hole said player may even win that match.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Brent Hutto

Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #53 on: March 10, 2015, 08:57:24 PM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  
Ciao

Now you've lost me, Sean.

If you and I play a match and you've holed out for birdie on the 1st hole I am not going to putt out for my bogey. You concede the hole and we move on. That may happen 6, 8, 10 times in a round. That is not a case of my "not finishing the course", it's a case of picking up when the hole is decided. Very different than being in my pocket after dunking three balls in the water off the tee.

For most handicap players, when faced with a course like Doral or any links course when the wind is up and the rough is waist high, there's all the difference in the world between playing a match and playing a round of stroke-play golf. The course sucks either way but it is quite possible to have a competitive game under match play rules even if each player fails to "finish the course".

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #54 on: March 10, 2015, 09:12:54 PM »
In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement... 8)

Fundamentally, Josh is right.  We'd all rather make a par than a bogey, and a birdie rather than a par.

What does that have to do with "overall score"?

What part of the word "fundamentally" do you not understand?

Do you go out to the course hoping to play poorly?
« Last Edit: March 10, 2015, 09:34:18 PM by Sven Nilsen »
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #55 on: March 10, 2015, 09:27:33 PM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  


Ciao

Sean,

An X in a match means you lost the hole and you go play the next with the score one hole worse for you. The game is still ongoing.

An X in a medal means you are done. Nothing more to see here. Might as well go home (other than marking a card for your fellow competitor).

Courses that present opportunities for X on many holes lend themselves better to matchplay than they do to medal, because the X is a whole lot more final in medal than it is in matchplay. The goal in matchplay is not to "finish the course". It's to win more holes than your opponent(s).


Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #56 on: March 10, 2015, 10:07:34 PM »
In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement... 8)

Fundamentally, Josh is right.  We'd all rather make a par than a bogey, and a birdie rather than a par.

What does that have to do with "overall score"?

What part of the word "fundamentally" do you not understand?

Do you go out to the course hoping to play poorly?

Which part of fundamentally is in question? You gave an example of a one hole score. The discussion was about an overall score, which Brent and I took to be an 18 hole score.

I go to the course hoping to win the Nassau. I don't care what score it takes, or whether I played poorly or well. Just that I played better than my buddies. Sometimes we all play bad, but someone still collects.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2015, 02:35:18 AM »
Garland:

Coming from the guy who spews the "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" mantra more than anyone else on this site, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Sven
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #58 on: March 11, 2015, 03:17:11 AM »
The funny thing is that even amongst those that don't believe there is such a thing as a better course for either / or, they're veering towards matchplay courses being the tight, penal courses that are effectively unplayable for stroke play. Not the strategic, interesting courses that the believers are stating.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #59 on: March 11, 2015, 04:20:18 AM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  
Ciao

Now you've lost me, Sean.

If you and I play a match and you've holed out for birdie on the 1st hole I am not going to putt out for my bogey. You concede the hole and we move on. That may happen 6, 8, 10 times in a round. That is not a case of my "not finishing the course", it's a case of picking up when the hole is decided. Very different than being in my pocket after dunking three balls in the water off the tee.

For most handicap players, when faced with a course like Doral or any links course when the wind is up and the rough is waist high, there's all the difference in the world between playing a match and playing a round of stroke-play golf. The course sucks either way but it is quite possible to have a competitive game under match play rules even if each player fails to "finish the course".

Brent

I didn't think Garland was talking about the course could be finished, but for the sake of the game there isn't a point....that is rather too obvious to even mention.  I thought G was saying the course is too difficult to finish.  At least I hope that is what he saying rather than implying that I don't understand matchplay...that would be more than obtuse on his part...but one never really knows with G.  

BTW - Weather conditions are not really part of the conversation because every course in the world has this issue.  

Michael - if a course is that difficult where medal X presents itself that many times, I fail to see how the course is appropriate for a certain level of player no matter how score is kept...so the problem is the course or the player...not how score is kept.  What is the point of the distinction if either way the course is beating your brains out?  

Anyway..I don't buy there is a distinction between match and medal from a design PoV.  The distinction is really about golfers preferences and opinions...which is fair enough...but not a truism. IMO every course is better when scoring matchplay  :-*

Ciao
« Last Edit: March 11, 2015, 04:36:12 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth & Old Barnwell

Brent Hutto

Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #60 on: March 11, 2015, 06:21:24 AM »
Michael - if a course is that difficult where medal X presents itself that many times, I fail to see how the course is appropriate for a certain level of player no matter how score is kept...

With this I totally agree. The fact you can salvage a complete game on a ball-eating slog of a course via match play does not make a ball-eating slog into a great course or even a good one.

Mark Fedeli

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #61 on: March 11, 2015, 09:15:18 AM »
In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement... 8)

Brent, I've also played in tons of matches where I didn't have a clue about my final stroke total. It's the best. But if in a match you were also on pace for your lowest round ever, would you be able to completely disregard that? That would be damned impressive.
South Jersey to Brooklyn. @marrrkfedeli

Jud_T

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #62 on: March 11, 2015, 09:22:50 AM »
This is because in the U.S. we have to post a handicap score for match play rounds so everyone still keeps a card in a match.  This is one of my main beefs with the U.S. system.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2015, 09:40:25 AM by Jud_T »
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Josh Tarble

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #63 on: March 11, 2015, 09:37:34 AM »
The funny thing is that even amongst those that don't believe there is such a thing as a better course for either / or, they're veering towards matchplay courses being the tight, penal courses that are effectively unplayable for stroke play. Not the strategic, interesting courses that the believers are stating.

Ally,
That's what I was trying to get at.  Those are the worst kind of courses for matchplay in my opinion.  At least in stroke play you take you penalty (penalties?) and move on.  A back and forth of "ball-in-pockets" may be a close match but it's not a good one.

Regardless, match play or stroke play doesn't change a bad course into a good one.

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #64 on: March 11, 2015, 12:03:40 PM »
Michael - if a course is that difficult where medal X presents itself that many times, I fail to see how the course is appropriate for a certain level of player no matter how score is kept...so the problem is the course or the player...not how score is kept.  What is the point of the distinction if either way the course is beating your brains out?  

Hi Sean,

If you have a course where medal X presents itself many times, you can still be good enough to avoid that medal X by playing safe, away from the trouble. If the trouble is too severe to risk playing the heroic shot, then everyone winds up playing the safe shot all the time. That could, in theory, make the course relatively boring from a medal play perspective.

However, in match play, the calculus changes. Now the risk/reward payoff isn't birdie versus double bogey or worse, it's win a hole versus lose a hole. Under those circumstances, a top class player is more likely to take on the heroic shot.

That change in calculus could enable the course to "come alive". It's never going to turn a bad course into a good course, but it could turn a good course that's a little bit boring into a good course that is more fun to play. You might say that will always be the case and that match play is just superior to medal play, but there are courses where that difference is not so great and the penalty for missing more closely matches a player's ability and so they can take the more aggressive options with a medal card in their hand.

Put another way, the relationship between a course and a player could be such that under medal play the player is always on the defensive, while under match play, that same player may be able to go on the offensive on a few holes. Take on that carry over the bunker, or shoot at the flag that's near the water.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #65 on: March 11, 2015, 07:15:57 PM »
Michael,

I love that last paragraph.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #66 on: March 12, 2015, 01:45:21 PM »
Garland:

Coming from the guy who spews the "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" mantra more than anyone else on this site, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Sven

Which part of "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" and what you think I'm "selling" here do you think are in conflict?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #67 on: March 12, 2015, 02:03:41 PM »
Garland:

Coming from the guy who spews the "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" mantra more than anyone else on this site, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Sven

Which part of "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" and what you think I'm "selling" here do you think are in conflict?


Mantra x 18 holes = Overall Score

Its fairly basic. 

I am assuming you are trying to hit as good a shot as you can every time you address the ball.  You can add in all the match play qualifiers you want, but I am sure you would have preferred to have not picked up, as your mantra is an absolute.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #68 on: March 12, 2015, 02:10:05 PM »
Garland:

Coming from the guy who spews the "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" mantra more than anyone else on this site, I'm not buying what you're selling.

Sven

Which part of "get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible" and what you think I'm "selling" here do you think are in conflict?


Mantra x 18 holes = Overall Score

Its fairly basic. 

I am assuming you are trying to hit as good a shot as you can every time you address the ball.  You can add in all the match play qualifiers you want, but I am sure you would have preferred to have not picked up, as your mantra is an absolute.

Still cloudy on how you think there is a conflict.

Of course I am trying to hit as good a shot as I can every time I address the ball. The problem is with high handicapper misses, I have no ability to predict the outcome. I can choose a risky shot, and pull it off, or not. I can choose a safe shot, and pull it off or not. I have no idea whether I finish in the least number of strokes by always choosing the risky shot, or by always choosing the safe shot.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #69 on: March 12, 2015, 02:30:31 PM »
Go back and read the thread.

You questioned how what I said had to do with "overall score."  I gave you an answer.

To be specific, you said you didn't care what score it took to win your bet.  I beg to differ, in that each time you approach a shot, you're looking to hit it as well as possible within your abilities.  That simple little pursuit is why you, fundamentally, care about overall score, which is just a compilation of each of those instances.

No matter how you break it down, each time you go out you're trying to shoot as low an overall score as possible.

Sven
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 02:32:56 PM by Sven Nilsen »
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #70 on: March 12, 2015, 03:30:36 PM »
Your scenario has the same outcome regardless if one holds a card in his hand or not...the golfer isn't finishing the course.  What difference does it make if he plays matchplay?  If a golfer can't finish a course he is on the wrong course regardless of how he keeps score.  I don't have much time for the complaints of golfers who bite off more than they can chew then complain that the course isn't good for medal. What, its going to be a good matchplay course when a guy can't get around?  Or are you suggesting some sort of last man standing matchplay?  Common sense, please. Too difficult is too difficult regardless how one keeps score.  I have no problem admiting when a course is too difficult for my skills...I don't try to blame the card in my back pocket  ::)  


Ciao

Sean,

An X in a match means you lost the hole and you go play the next with the score one hole worse for you. The game is still ongoing.

An X in a medal means you are done. Nothing more to see here. Might as well go home (other than marking a card for your fellow competitor).

Courses that present opportunities for X on many holes lend themselves better to matchplay than they do to medal, because the X is a whole lot more final in medal than it is in matchplay. The goal in matchplay is not to "finish the course". It's to win more holes than your opponent(s).

There are no Xs in medal unless one quits.  I have seen plenty of guys come back from a bad hole and do well.  Besides, lets put this conversation in the context of most golfers...hacks.  Many will repeatedly take on percentage shots because the score doesn't mean much, they think the shots look fun to try or just because.  Its all a matter of attitude and opinion..there is no truism to your opinion..its just an opinion.  I rarely play in medals because I dislike the pace of play holing out requires, but I can say I will try shots just as I do in match play.  I don't really care if I win the monthly medal...playing in comps is a way to maintain a handicap, see cool courses and meet some people.  I am not under any illusion that winning will give me any sense of real gratification.  That sort of thinking disappeared when I was 19.  

Sven

You seem to be mixing games.  I don't agree with you in the least.  There are plenty of scenarios when guys don't try to make a shot simply because they don't have to...there is no reward for taking on the risk.  In fact, this is one of the biggest problems I have with 4somes Bogey.  Its a great game if you need a large group to move around quickly, but the idea of never being able to go 2 up on a hole seems harsh because it completely eliminates the need to try and make a net or gross eagle putt...your score cannot be improved. But I freely admit that is my issue because in another way the scoring makes perfect sense in that you can only win, lose or draw...you can't double win or double lose.  

Ciao  
« Last Edit: March 12, 2015, 03:34:36 PM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth & Old Barnwell

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #71 on: March 12, 2015, 04:33:08 PM »
Go back and read the thread.

You questioned how what I said had to do with "overall score."  I gave you an answer.

...

No matter how you break it down, each time you go out you're trying to shoot as low an overall score as possible.

Sven

I also said I don't even know what my overall score is, unless I have to do the record keeping for handicap purposes.
Furthermore, in match play a competitor can concede a hole at any time, meaning there is no score for the hole, and therefore no overall score.

Are you willing to assert that Josh did not mean the 72 hole overall score in his post that brought this little sidebar about?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #72 on: March 13, 2015, 12:07:10 AM »
Go back and read the thread.

You questioned how what I said had to do with "overall score."  I gave you an answer.

...

No matter how you break it down, each time you go out you're trying to shoot as low an overall score as possible.

Sven

I also said I don't even know what my overall score is, unless I have to do the record keeping for handicap purposes.
Furthermore, in match play a competitor can concede a hole at any time, meaning there is no score for the hole, and therefore no overall score.

Are you willing to assert that Josh did not mean the 72 hole overall score in his post that brought this little sidebar about?


No.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #73 on: March 15, 2015, 03:22:38 PM »
Hi guys,

SN said a key thing here:

"No matter how you break it down, each time you go out you're trying to shoot as low an overall score as possible."

Yet, what this does not take into account (and why, for me, its argument is discounted in evaluating match vs medal play courses) is that the player's design of " low as possible" is completely dependent on "what is probable," and that factor is itself completely different for match play as opposed to medal.

In medal play, "low as possible," for every hole, is measured for you; it is "1." The closer to "1" the more positive the situation, the negative value ("high as possible") however, is infinite... the higher you go from "1" towards that infinite value the worse it is...to the extent that people have walked off not finishing a hole or the tournament round.

In medal play, "low as possible" and what is probable have little to do with the fellow competitor, who is merely a field opponent, his situation has no consequence to that lowest possible score, except where it provides data to your own game (club selection, lines of putts, etc)...AND "low as possible" is only contained in your skills and abilities, from shot to shot, and your own judgement of what is probable.

In match play, low as possible is is finite, wins losses and halves..entirely governed by what is probable...for both parties...right on back to the honor on the tee and who plays first...right on through the specifics of an individual shot whose player knows he is up 3 up or 3 down in a match on some back nine hole....it governs the extremes of an opponent laying 3 in a greenside water hazard and you laying 2 in a greenside bunker that faces that hazard. And low as probable governs the extremes of being given an 8 foot putt (so the medal play march to the infinite stops) when you've just been beaten on the hole by a 25 footer.

But all this exposition is still in service to the thread topic:

Q: Are the terms "Match Play" and "Medal Play" courses valid, to start with?

Sub-Q1: If yes, then what distinguishes them in features?
Sub-Q2: If yes, then isn't it likely that the most interesting courses straddle the boundary lines between whatever definition is given?
Sub-Q3: If yes, can an architect (free to do so) impose/expose those features naturally within a given site?

Isn't the discussion advanced if we state our answers to that (those) question(s), and then give some course examples that everyone is likely to be familiar with, if not played.

For me those answers are:

Q: Yes, the terms are valid labels, even in retrospect  and not "intended" by the architect or planner.

SQ1: I've already said earlier on in the thread...but in principle...a match play course brings disparately-skilled competitors closer together and more measures fortune, whereas medal play courses will more reward and measure raw skill...the better player (measured by hcp or the eye) will prosper (or suffer less) than the lesser player.
SQ2: I'm not sure, but if I agree the terms are valid then it follows that maximum utility of the course between the two labels is desirable at first glance.
SQ#3: Also not sure, but a little more sure, because match play elements (as I define some of them them..."blindness" "audacious contours" "big greens") can seemingly be introduced/advantaged at any part in the design and build process...from the first ideas of routing to the last touches before grass growing.

My last additional point is that if you accept the terms themselves (match play/medal play courses) as valid and worthy of discussion, then one thing that I think must be obvious is how much more difficult and subject to error golf is the further and further you get from the hole, especially between two golfers (or a golfer against a field)...and how a medal play course/hole seems to present obstacles all along the route where the lesser-skilled player is more vulnerable...whereas the match play course tends to present its interest closer to the hole itself, where the lesser player is on better skill-footing

Imagine....225 yard carry over a gorge just to reach the fairway of a 430 yard hole...a fine or elite player has the advantage over me nearly every time out of 100... 22.5 yard pitch over a bunker to reach a 43 yard stick...the elite player is still the winner, but I get a few more cracks like 30 out of 100 we halve and 3 out of 100 I win...22.5 inch putt...I'm almost dead even.

If anyone is still interested, I'll give a few familiar examples of which I think are MEDAL course and which are MATCH courses, and which course strain to meet the definitions neatly.

cheers

vk




"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play courses vs. medal play courses
« Reply #74 on: March 15, 2015, 03:58:24 PM »
Too much over analysis!  I can think of "course setups" that might promote better match play conditions but can't think of a single great hole that is not great for both medal and match play - not one!!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back