How would you go about designing a "matchplay" course

[Niall C]

With reference to Patrick's thread about the change in architecture due to more medal play, the question that comes to my mind is how exactly do you design a course specifically for matchplay ? Personally I doubt that many if indeed any gca's design with medal or matchplay in mind but on the basis that there are some out there, how do you go about it ?


Niall

[Niall C]

alternatively how do you design a course purely for medal play ? Is there any difference ?


Niall

[Mike Hendren]

Niall,  I fear we overthink these things sometimes - perhaps preferable to take the course as we find it.  That said, perhaps half-par holes - be it it plus 1/2 or minus 1/2 in the stretch from 14 through 17 might suit match play.  Just a thought.
 
Kindest regards,
 
Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - I agree with your sentiments expressed here and in Patrick's thread, i.e. I can't imagine many architects intentionally designing match play courses, and even if they did I can't imagine many golfers (or at least this golfer) playing such a course any differently than we would any other - I'd still just be trying to get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes.

But, for the sake of argument, it strikes me that a golf "match" is inherently more interesting than a "medal" round only when there is a marked disparity in the handicaps of the competitors, and where the strokes given on a per-hole basis can really make the difference between a lop-sided win (for the better golfer) and a close and exciting finale. So on that basis, if you want to create a great match play course, make sure that the slope rating is low. There's not much use in a 4 giving me a few strokes on the hardest holes if the course's rating is 150.

Peter

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'd envision a match course would posses a significant amount of land movement, leading to the possibility of playing a variety of shots. this would also suggest a mix of blind and semi-blind shots as well as the possibility of "advantageous" bounces.  Nearly every hole would fall under the 1/2 par category, asking players to decide when to take risks and when to play for a score.


On the other hand a medal course (for tournament play) would have gentile doglegs, flat consistent fairways, and zero surprise.


The medal course would showcase the player hitting the ball the best and would play as predicable as possible. The match course would showcase the player that navigates the course the best and would reward creativity over consistency.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Matchplay in the UK includes foursomes. It's then important which are the odd- and the even-numbered holes.

[Tom_Doak]

where the strokes given on a per-hole basis can really make the difference between a lop-sided win (for the better golfer) and a close and exciting finale. So on that basis, if you want to create a great match play course, make sure that the slope rating is low. There's not much use in a 4 giving me a few strokes on the hardest holes if the course's rating is 150.

Peter:


Good answer.  The longer we keep the high-handicapper in the hole, the more holes he [or she] has a chance to win with his strokes.

[Kalen Braley]

I would think shorter holes would be the way to go, aka like Lincoln Park which has a bunch of half par holes.
 
I would also add tons of quirk, lots of blind shots, a fair amount of do or die shots.... because even if you take a 7 on a hole, you don't wreck your round, just lose the hole

[Steve Lapper]

Easy....I would borrow the plans for Bayonne GC from Eric Bergstol and recreate it in a windy location. Best matchplay course I've seen in a long time.

[Simon Holt]

Complete homer answer here but using North Berwick as a template wouldn't be a bad start.  The same can be said for Cruden Bay.  They are great matchplay courses but a little too quirky for the hardcore card and pencil guy, as many holes are deemed "unfair"  Perhaps "unfair" holes, within reason, like the 16th at North Berwick, are the classic matchplay holes.


Holes like 18 at NB which people deem as weak in strokeplay for being a 270 yd par 4 with no trouble other than OOB is for me a brilliant hole to decide matches.  Someone is going to make a 3.


In summation, half shot holes and a scattering of unorthodox, rather than unfair, is a great basis for a matchplay course.

[Mark Pearce]

It's going to look a lot like Elie or Balcomie.  Lots of half par holes and a low "rating" (I think both are 113).

[Phil McDade]

I've always though Augusta National would make a great match-play course for four-balls. Maybe not the most exciting finish in the world with 17 and 18, but that back nine is full of half-par holes on both the plus and minus side that would make four-balls in particular fun to watch.


For foursomes play, I'd think a course that is relatively easy off the tee (width, few forced carries) combined with exacting approach shots to challenging green sites would make for a good match-play setting. Foursomes is dull when the second player is hacking out of rough/trouble for a second shot due to demands on the tee shot; it's fun when it requires great skill with an approach shot and your partner's skills at recovery shots to salvage par when the approach goes awry. Lawsonia comes to mind (as it does, with most things, for me. )

[Jon Cavalier]

Easy....I would borrow the plans for Bayonne GC from Eric Bergstol and recreate it in a windy location. Best matchplay course I've seen in a long time.

Checked in to say this, but Steve stole my answer. Bayonne is a great example. So is Old Mac at Bandon. Myopia Hunt might be the best match play course I've ever seen. All are rife with half-par holes.

[Matthew Rose]

I've always though Augusta National would make a great match-play course for four-balls. Maybe not the most exciting finish in the world with 17 and 18, but that back nine is full of half-par holes on both the plus and minus side that would make four-balls in particular fun to watch.

Actually, it works, considering you will have many matches that don't get to 17 or 18 anyway.

[K Rafkin]

Aside from just making every hole a 1/2 par hole I most certainly think the course should be playable.  When referring to extremely difficult courses I often hear people say things like "well this course would be better for match play", which i get but i think having a course that is playable is better suited to match play.  There is nothing more boring than hitting one bad shot and then immediately being out of the hole.  The course shouldn't be without penalty, you just should have a chance to recover from a poor shot.  In match play there is nothing more exciting then coming back from the dead with a spectacular shot, so leave a little oppertunity for an exciting recovery. 

[Thomas Dai]

Not sure I'd design one...................I think I'd just take my opponent to somewhere like Perranporth* on a windy day (actually even on a calm day!)

atb


* Rosapenna - Sandy Hills would be my second choice

[Ryan Coles]

I find 'match play course' descriptions are a euphemism for deeply flawed design.

[Michael Whitaker]

Niall,


Too many modern courses are designed to be "fair" to the card & pencil focused golfer. And, too many classic courses are remodeled to make them "fairer" by removing blind shots, odd bounces and quirky contours on greens.


When I think of a "matchplay" course I usually think of those that are called "unfair" by medal tournament players. Lots of links and heathland courses fall into this category.

[Peter Pallotta]

You know, so many of you have praised the "match play" course's qualities such as quirk and blind shots and uneven lies and half-par holes and unpredictable bounces that I have to ask: Who do you think would play such a course well, and who do you think would struggle? My guess? The accomplished/decent golfer would enjoy it and play it about as well as he would any other course; while the high handicapper would struggle and play worse than he normally does, as he tries to cope with awkward stances and indecisions and shots he's rarely hit before and holes that are too long for him. So how would that increased deferential between the low and higher handicap possibly make their "match" any better? No thanks - I'd rather play the muni built in the 70s or 80s for my "match" against a better golfer.
Peter

[Sean_A]

For mine, there is no distinction.  Good golf and a good walk with pleasant enough surroundings.  I lean heavily toward half par holes, mixed terrain, a bit of funk and varied greens, but that to me in no way signals a match or medal course.  Golf is golf.  How we choose to keep score, or not, is up to each individual.  Bottom line, I would not seek to design a supposed matchplay course.


Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,


I'd start with WIDE fairways and large greens (within greens)

[Carl Rogers]

holes that offer the real possibility of hitting a clever, skillful or even lucky recovery shots.

[Niall C]

For mine, there is no distinction.  Good golf and a good walk with pleasant enough surroundings.  I lean heavily toward half par holes, mixed terrain, a bit of funk and varied greens, but that to me in way signals a match or medal course.  Golf is golf.  How we choose to keep score, or not, is up to each individual.  Bottom line, I would not seek to design a supposed matchplay course.


Ciao

Sean


Having read all the responses I think I tend to agree with your answer that golf is just golf although Peter and Tom may have a point about courses with a low slope rating, which I assume means easy ?, being good for match play in that it keeps the high handicapper in the hole which I suppose has some merit.


Others have mentioned courses with a lot of half par holes but I'm not sure a half par hole is intrinsically any better for matchplay than a "normal par" hole. For instance most half par holes tend to be half par holes because they are either short for the par, in which case they may favour the weaker player, or alternatively long for the par of the hole in which case it might favour the stronger player. That said, does one player getting strokes not even this out ? Also, what if you have two evenly matched players ?


Some have mentioned quirk but again to me that just makes a course interesting (sometimes !) but not sure how that relates to matchplay.


Maybe where a hole is good for matchplay is where there is strategy that allows one player to perhaps play safe "and not give the hole away", and another take a risk that if successful could lead to the player winning the hole. But again does that come into play in medal play ? In other words a player can decide whether to take on the risky shot depending on how he is playing, weather conditions etc.


Perhaps the only concrete suggestion on here is Mark's point about splitting the par 3's between odd and even holes so that in foursomes each player gets a turn at a par 3, which is what the did in the old days. I wonder, when was the last time an architect considered foursomes matchplay in their design ?


Niall

[Pat Burke]

I guess it's cliche' but TOC.

Shot Options, craziness, and fun.

Get lost in a bunker for awhile, move along to the next hole.

Birdies available, challenges lurking if in the wrong spot

[Jim Hoak]

I agree with the concept of a low-slope rating course being best for a good match play course.  But I think that there is a lot of misconception of how the slope rating concept works.  A high slope rating does not necessarily mean that the course is harder for golfers--and it certainly doesn't mean that the course is better as some uninformed commentators say.  Rather, a high slope rating only means how much more difficult the course is for the bogie player than the scratch player, relative to an average course (113 slope rating) in this regard.  A harder course is one with a higher course rating--not necessarily one with a higher slope rating.  I think for the most part that a low slope rating means that a course is more fun for an average golfer--something shouldn't we strive for since golf is, after all, a game?