Hasn't the emphasis on medal play dramatically altered architecture

[Patrick_Mucci]

on existing as well as new courses ?


Hasn't the shift resulted in the diminishment of quirk ?


Isn't quirk one of the elements that adds fun to the game ?

Look at the cross bunkering along with the bunkering in the DZ's and at the green at Hollywood, Deal, NJ

[BCowan]

No, medal play keeps quirk in check. An example of great quirk would be the 9th hole at Indianwood.  The tee shot is blind the options are plentiful. 

Example of shitty quirk is missing a green left and ending up in a front right bunker   

Medal play distinguishes the better player. Ur at battle with the course instead of ur best friend

[Josh Stevens]

God help me I agree with Pat.

Not sure it was intentional, but there does seem to now be less totally binary shots that are either good or dead.

How many blind shots over dunes with knee high rough everywhere do we see at places like Prestwick or RCD that may not actually be playable for the average 18 handicapper.  Round destroying in medal play, but just one hole in match play.

Having said that, the 17th at Sawgrass belies that argument.

[Jon Wiggett]

I too agree with Pat. Medal has made courses more boring on the whole and has lead to a great extent to the excessive lengthening of many courses IMO.

[Justin Draycott]

I agree. Few courses are being built that are fun. Give me a quirky course with blind shots any day over made for TV drudgery. Match play is the heart and soul of golf.

[Josh Stevens]

IS this simply not a rewording of the question of fairness -whatever that means

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of comments -


a) TV scheduling has historically favoured strokeplay and not been that keen on matchplay.


b) Before (big) machines came along folks had to pretty much build around quirky landscapes. With machines quirkiness, an element that IMO certainly adds to the fun/challenge of the game, can be removed/nullified or even created.


atb

[Niall C]

Patrick


I recall when I was a wannabe GCA and attending a Q&A session with a bunch of gca's and asking the question what makes a good matchplay course and conversely a good medal course. The answers I got were mostly waffle and and the only thing I learned from it the response was that had never considered the question before and that any possible difference between matchplay and medal wasn't a consideration in their design work. I suspect that if you asked the gca's on this discussion board whether they give it any thought I'd be surprised if any said they did.


That said, the increase in short par 4's of late probably has made some of the newer courses more exciting for matchplay.


With regards to the diminishment of quirk, I'd suggest that was down to the creation of "ideals" in course design in the first half of the last century, as well as the increased use of machinery in course construction that allowed features that would have added quirk being bulldozed out of existence.


Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - you beat me to the punch, though through citing your experience instead of (as I will) asking questions. To me, the question is: how is a primarily medal play course differently design/renovated than a match play course? And, like the answers you got from GCAs, all the ones I come to aren't very satisfying. Perhaps it is because, in casual play with my friends, sometimes wagering a beer for best cumulative score (i.e. medal) and sometimes for most holes won (match play), I can't honestly say that I play or try to play the course any differently. The goal is still to try to figure out (and of course hit the shots) that will get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes. And so I ask myself: if I don't play it any differently, why/how do architects design it any differently.
Peter

[JESII]

Yes Pat, gradually and persistently for the last 150 years...ever since they decided to play the Open Championship at medal play.

One of these centuries it will matter.

[Peter Pallotta]

   LOL

"One of these centuries...."

Listen to JES, Pat - sure, maybe he's not as word-smart as you and me, but he knows his golf!

[Rob Marshall]

Yes Pat, gradually and persistently for the last 150 years...ever since they decided to play the Open Championship at medal play.

One of these centuries it will matter.

I was going to ask when the emphasis was on match play, 1850?

[Jim Hoak]

I think this is a great question--and raises one of my biggest complaints about golf course architecture.
I don't have anything scientific to go on, but I would think that 90%+ of the golf played in America (and probably the UK) by amateurs is match play--and 70%+ must be match play fourball.  And yet most of architecture is done for stroke play--or so it seems.
I can think of many differences in the elements of design for each--quirk being one.  Length being another.
I hope there is more discussion on here about what can be done to direct architecture toward golfers playing fourball match play.

[Rob Marshall]

I think this is a great question--and raises one of my biggest complaints about golf course architecture.
I don't have anything scientific to go on, but I would think that 90%+ of the golf played in America (and probably the UK) by amateurs is match play--and 70%+ must be match play fourball.  And yet most of architecture is done for stroke play--or so it seems.
I can think of many differences in the elements of design for each--quirk being one.  Length being another.
I hope there is more discussion on here about what can be done to direct architecture toward golfers playing fourball match play.

90% match play?

[Jim Hoak]

90%+ is my estimate for friendly play by amateurs--not talking about tournaments.  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my guess.  I know it's well more than half.

[Mark_Fine]

Without question yes!  That doesn't mean it is good or bad but it has definitely altered course design. 

[V. Kmetz]

Hi again,


This comes up so often (because it's a fundamental question to people concerned with GCA) in so many subjects and bodies of threads that I'm considering just making a word document paragraph that re-states my thesis.


Pre-amble:
I never met or heard or studied an architect who cared about this, who thought very much of this contrast, or who designed-laid-out-constructed more than a couple of holes in their oeuvre with this concept in mind... It could be a general governance (or ethos) of a golf design, but such fancies are usually limited by property, budget, client, etc.


YET IT REMAINS TRUE THAT...REVEALED...


A "match-play" hole (or course) MORE REWARDS FORTUNE than SKILL.
A "medal-play" hole (or course) MORE REWARDS SKILL than FORTUNE.


A "match-play" hole (or course) is usually sporty and shorter; it(they) may be a blind; it is where quirk is most often found; it is often marked by outrageous contour in its green(s); it may have hidden bunkers or landmark bunker(s); a "match play" site is called "tame" and "easy" when it lacks it noted winds...a match play hole/course generally keeps an apt balance between alternate routes to an objective and obstacles which both players/sides must tackle, or pass safely. The alternate routes necessarily require playing width so match play holes/courses are broader and more open; if they have OB or hazard, there is usually a way to play away from it. In all of this, a match play course, seeks to level the relative advantage of the better skilled player by simultaneously:
[/size]
[/size]enhancing features of "fortune" (good or bad) that can grab a good or poor shot with disproprotionate, possibly opposite results.
[/size]enhancing features of "relativity"...you miss an inch, it's the same as missing by 30 yards.
[/size]enhancing features of "opportunity" in providing alternate routes (to the 2 and 3 shot holes) whereby a heroic execution is NOT a requirement for a score that can win/half the hole.
[/size]de-emphasizing length as a feature, 
[/size]de-emphasizing penalty hazard (OB/Water) as a feature.
[/size]
[/size]Enough for now.
[/size]
[/size]cheers
[/size]
[/size]vk

[Patrick_Mucci]

[Patrick_Mucci]

on existing as well as new courses ?


Hasn't the shift resulted in the diminishment of quirk ?


Isn't quirk one of the elements that adds fun to the game ?

Look at the cross bunkering along with the bunkering in the DZ's and at the green at Hollywood, Deal, NJ
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

In the aerial photo of Hollywood, look at all of the bunkers that must be traversed by the golfer.
 
Off the tee, at the green and at points in between.
 
The enormous bunker short of the par 3 4th hole is an example of quirk.
Quirk that was removed in the name of "fairness"
 
At match play, who cared about a final score on a hole, you only cared about winning, losing or tying the hole.
 
But, at medal play, every stroke counts, and those features that tended to produce high scores were eliminated over time.
 
And, remember the equipment being used when Hollywood opened.
 
The Sand Wedge hadn't been invented, making play at Hollywood even more difficult.
 
While there seems to be a rising trend toward shorter courses, shorter courses that have been defanged by having their quirk removed aren't as much fun as courses that reek of quirk.
 

[Michael Moore]

In a stroke play event you get to beat dozens and dozens of people at once, the fun of which makes up for any perceived architectural shortcomings that facilitate the format. It all comes out in the wash.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In a stroke play event you get to beat dozens and dozens of people at once, the fun of which makes up for any perceived architectural shortcomings that facilitate the format. It all comes out in the wash.
 
Michael,
 
You must not have played in many, or any, serious stroke play competitions.
 
In a stroke play competition, unless you're a moron, during the round, no one thinks about where they stand relative to the field, especially since there's no way of knowing.
 
Each competitor is battling the golf course and ignoring dozens and dozens and dozens of fellow competitors.
 
In my limited experience in playing in stroke play competitions I haven't noticed many competitors having fun.

[Blake Conant]

Hollywood 4th hole





The front of the green and the surrounds were draining directly into the top edge of the bunker.  Additionally, look at the wear of the turf around the right side of the bunker from walkers.  Drainage and access to the green look to be the reason the bunker was altered. 


I'd like to know where exactly you saw that bunker was altered because of fairness. 

[Jim Nugent]

I don't have anything scientific to go on, but I would think that 90%+ of the golf played in America (and probably the UK) by amateurs is match play--and 70%+ must be match play fourball.  And yet most of architecture is done for stroke play--or so it seems.

Funny, I think the number is overwhelmingly stroke play.  My own playing was far and away on public courses.  Never played match play.  Never even saw match play.  All tournaments I played (junior and high school) were medal.  All play between my friends and I was medal. 

Caddied at two clubs: definitely some match play there, but again lots of medal play, including all the couples and women I caddied for.  At the public course I caddied at, again virtually always medal. 

Match play for me was kind of an antiquated remnant of a distant history, relegated to some tournaments and a few money games, but little else.  Can't say how widespread that is, except that was my experience everywhere I played and caddied. 

I've heard that when golf was more match play, designers didn't concern themselves so much with the last hole, as most matches never got that far. 

[Niall C]

Patrick


Dr MacKenzie was a great proponent of matchplay as against medal play or the "card and pencil" game as I think he used to refer to it, yet he would have been horrified at that front bunker at Hollywood. MacKenzie believed that the weaker player should always have a way in even if it was at the expense of a shot. Consequently you don't find too many (or any ?) cross bunkers like that on his courses.


Also, I'm a bit confused as to why you think that quirk. To me it's just an old fashioned cross bunker. I suppose quirk is different for each person but interested to know why you think quirk intrinsically is better for matchplay than medal ?


Niall