[ward peyronnin]

I have many times heard oh that is a great match play hole or match play course with little further examination of what features or strategic elements produce that effect.

I am reading Dr. McKenzies essay on ideal holes and he states that"the true test of a hole is, then, its value in match play."
That means it should be "difficult" (with qualifications) and he goes on to comment on "what difficulties make interesting golf?". The ideal hole should "not only cater for great judgement, but great skill...the longer driver should gain a greater advantage. A shorter driver should also, by extreme accuracy, be able to gain an advantage over a longer hitting less accurate opponent.....should provide an infinite variety of shots..should as far as possible be ideal for the plus scratch, or long handicap player."  Wow these are tall orders. He cites the Cardinal hole w'/o much explanation and several from TOC and then sort of drifts into a borderline discussion of golf courses.

My question is how does the architect satisfy these requirements on the ground. What features are essential? What style holes are most receptive to these. What are really great examples? For some reason the Bottle Hole at NGLA popped into my head? While it is a great strategic design a bomber has an undeniable advantage when clearing the cross bunkers but the shorter hitter can still aim for the closer point to clear those as well but is that an equivalent difficulty? What induces architects to include intentionally conceived match play holes and in what number is a routing?

I may attach a greater significance to this than it merits but the vagaries of match play to me are much broader than focusing on a medal score and therefore require more thought and skill from the designer.


Cheers

[Sean_A]

Chez Wardo

I would first ask "what makes for a good hole".  The answer to that question is all that matters.  The quality of holes isn't altered by the scoring method.

Ciao

[Duncan Cheslett]

Matchplay is a game of psychological warfare between two people or teams.


It is also a game very often won or lost by the number of mistakes made, rather than exceptional play.


"Play steadily, and wait for the other guy to f*** up" is more often than not a winning strategy.


With this in mind, a good matchplay hole must surely offer a risk/reward element to tempt the player into attempting to gain an advantage with a difficult shot. It is not as simple or obvious as that, though.


Where does the hole come in the flow of the round?


A "great matchplay hole" early on has little significance and will not generally be remembered as having been influential to the result over drinks three hours later. The same hole later in the round could be regarded as the turning point or even the decider.


What is the stroke index or handicap of the hole? 


A hole with a very low index will normally involve a shot being given and received. The low man has ground to make up, and must decide between bravery or steadiness. A dull, merely long hole offering few strategic options therefore fails the test. For it to be a good matchplay hole its difficulty must involve challenges other than simple length.


Conversely, a hole with a high index will rarely involve shots. Most straightforward par 3s and short par 4s will almost automatically fall to the low handicapper, and so cannot be viewed as good matchplay holes. A perilous shot at the pin vs. a simple bail out to the front of the green however, can make for a memorable and pivotal matchplay hole.


I would suggest that good matchplay holes are almost universally good golf holes. All holes should aspire to being good matchplay holes.


Why build a hole that isn't a "good matchplay hole"?

[Tom_Doak]

To me, the difference between a great stroke play hole and a great match play hole is the severity of the hazards.  In match play, you are only risking the loss of one hole, not two or three strokes, so the confident player should be more willing to flirt with a severe hazard (think about the Road bunker, or some of the deep blowouts at Pacific Dunes).  And if I flirt with those hazards and avoid them, it should pressure my opponent to do the same, even if it's outside his comfort zone.


Of course Bob Jones was a spoil sport and advised never deviating from one's own game plan no matter what one's opponent was doing - but playing against par is not as guaranteed to be enough nowadays.

[Tim Martin]

Matchplay is a game of psychological warfare between two people or teams.


It is also a game very often won or lost by the number of mistakes made, rather than exceptional play.


"Play steadily, and wait for the other guy to f*** up" is more often than not a winning strategy.


With this in mind, a good matchplay hole must surely offer a risk/reward element to tempt the player into attempting to gain an advantage with a difficult shot. It is not as simple or obvious as that, though.


Where does the hole come in the flow of the round?


A "great matchplay hole" early on has little significance and will not generally be remembered as having been influential to the result over drinks three hours later. The same hole later in the round could be regarded as the turning point or even the decider.


What is the stroke index or handicap of the hole? 


A hole with a very low index will normally involve a shot being given and received. The low man has ground to make up, and must decide between bravery or steadiness. A dull, merely long hole offering few strategic options therefore fails the test. For it to be a good matchplay hole its difficulty must involve challenges other than simple length.


Conversely, a hole with a high index will rarely involve shots. Most straightforward par 3s and short par 4s will almost automatically fall to the low handicapper, and so cannot be viewed as good matchplay holes. A perilous shot at the pin vs. a simple bail out to the front of the green however, can make for a memorable and pivotal matchplay hole.


I would suggest that good matchplay holes are almost universally good golf holes. All holes should aspire to being good matchplay holes.


Why build a hole that isn't a "good matchplay hole"?

Duncan suggests "Play steadily, and wait for the other guy to f--k up is more often than not a winning strategy". Sounds good in theory but is rarely achievable especially as skill levels decline and handicaps rise. The idea that you can just go out and play steady is a laughable notion.


Donald Ross offered up many “half par” holes that seem to get to the essence of match play. Take a chance and reap the rewards or crash and burn trying.

[Andy Stamm]

Donald Ross offered up many “half par” holes that seem to get to the essence of match play. Take a chance and reap the rewards or crash and burn trying.

I think that's a start, but many half par holes don't effect strategy. You play the same shots, and par of bogey comes down to execution. It helps that you don't feel too bad about a bogey, but you don't necessarily play any differently. Severe hazards, on the other hand do tend to effect strategy.


At the 14th a St Andrews is a par 5, hell bunker is a severe hazard and greatly effects my strategy in match vs medal play. For starters if my ability to cover the bunker is in doubt, I'm much more likely to go for it if I'm in a match, particularly if I've seen my opponent/s play. From most positions in the bunker I fancy a go with a full iron at the green in match play. In medal play the problem is that if the shot doesn't come off, I'm now against the face hoping to be able to play out away from the green and am staring double in the face. In medal play I don't think the risk is worth it. It's frustrating not to take on a shot that I think has a reasonable chance of success, but that's the best strategy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()