If golf were still a match play game, how different would it all be?

[CHrisB]

In the Architects Strike Back article, it was said:

In the British Isles the game is match play. I play against you, mano a mano. It doesn't matter what our total score is. It doesn't matter if it's a short or a long golf course. Here, it's the golf course versus the player. Everybody adds up all their scores—everything is stroke play. So over there they can have a par sixty-six and still have a good time. The technology doesn't affect their pleasure as much as it does ours.

This is a very interesting quote and it jumped out at me as I read the article. Is it possible that the root cause of the distance problem (not to mention the rise of the "tough but fair" concept w.r.t. golf course design) is the good ol' American "you are what you shoot" stroke play mentality?

If golf were still a predominantly match play game, would the state of technology be any different today, or was golf destined to reach this point?

If golf were still a predominantly match play game, how (if at all) would GCA have evolved differently?

For the architects: If you were to design a course that was intended only for match play (no stroke play would be played on the course), what would you do differently? Would you be more bold, more daring, take more chances? Would your greens get wilder, would length matter? Or would you do everything the same as you do now?

[bg_in_rtp]

This question has been rattling in my head for a few days (along with several other loose screws), and since nobody else seems to want to comment, I thought I'd throw out a few of them thar ideers..

Stuff that would stay the same
========================
1) The objective of the game (either one) is to get the ball into the hole in the fewer strokes.  This doesn't change, it just changes how to add (total vs. hole-by-hole)

2) Technology of clubs and ball would have still evolved.  We are hopelessly addicted to this game, and while a few will stand firm, nobody is looking for the game to get harder.  New technology makes the ball go farther and straighter (sometimes).  Fight technology all you want, but there has never been a technology regression (courses are a different story).


Stuff that would probably have changed
===============================
1) As an architect, I would place a little more emphasis (if the land permitted) on placing risk-reward holes earlier in the round.  Great finishing holes are often not used in match-play as the match has ended.  

Thinking about this approach vs. some existing courses thought of as stroke-play courses, I find that some might also be good match-play courses (if #1 is actually a valid point).  For example:

ANGC - #2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 would all come into play in most matches

2) There would be no need to place a "Par" rating on any hole.  There would be no need for a course record, or debate if a 490yds hole is too difficult to be a Par4.  

3) We'd probably enjoy the company we play with more, because "that slow guy" wouldn't hold us up as much in putts were conceded or he's out of the hole after going in the water.  Or maybe we ought to just dump that guy instead....

4) We'd hopefully no longer have to hear Mike Tirico explain what "dormie" or "All Square" means on another broadcast.  It's as bad a going to a Carolina Hurricanes game and having them explain icing or offsides to us.


With all that said, I can never see American golf going back to a match-play dominant mentality for the following reasons:

1) Match play doesn't give us great heroes or dominant figures.  Looking back over the last 80+ years, only Hagen, Jones and Woods have been really dominant at match-play.  Granted the PGA changed formats and things like US-Am weren't on TV or the WGC Match-Play didn't exist, but few Americans have ever had "great" Ryder Cup records.

2) We'd go crazy trying to compare players, especially if they rarely played against each other.  

[Gary_Nelson]

What would be different?  Rounds of golf would be done in under 3 hours.  More twosomes.  Rarely any foursomes.
More time for drinking afterward!  
Or, more time for a second round of golf.

More people would play the game because it wouldn't take so long.  

As I see it, lots of good stuff would happen.  How do we start?  Can we change our mindset from 18 hole scores?

[Mark_Fine]

I'm not sure that match play speeds up the game.  In theory it is because players "are picking up".  But if you ever play in match play tournaments, the pace of play can be dreary.  Playing devils advocate, if you make courses harder and more daring, won't players just be winning more holes 4 vs. 5 rather than 3 vs. 4.  Which takes longer?  And for the average golfer the scores will be even higher.  

[marker]

well, you'ld never need one of me!

[CHrisB]

Some thoughts:

No question in my mind that match play speeds up the game, not only because of conceded putts but also because of conceded holes after one player has the clear advantage over another and both pick up and move on to the next hole. (I played in a tournament a couple of weeks ago in which I only had to putt twice in a 6&5 alternate-shot match win, and the match took very little time to play, even with a few searches for lost balls.) Also, the vast majority of matches played don't go the full 18, so either the play ends there or the last few holes are played in without regard to score which is conducive to faster play.

I've played many match play events on many levels and don't ever remember the match play rounds being slower than the stroke play qualifying rounds that preceded them. This is most obvious in the USGA Championships.

I would think that for golf course architects, designing for match play might encourage them to be more daring than they would be for stroke play. All of the sudden, a mound right in front of the green like at #4 St. Andrews Old goes from being "unfair" to being "quirky" or "interesting". Severe hazards like the Road Bunker or Strath Bunker that might keep someone in them all day in stroke play and ruin their card would mean only a lost hole in match play. It is only when the score has to be added up to produce an overall number do such features become threatening to the golfer instead of interesting.

And think about how differently some golfers would play if they knew they didn't have to add up the scores and go back and tell everyone what they shot. How much bolder would they play, knowing that a bad shot or bad hole is just a lost hole in match play, instead of a quadruple-bogey that would take the whole round to recover from in stroke play? I see golfers at many different levels play the game scared, afraid to try different shots, afraid of the big number, just conservatively tiptoeing their way around the course trying to avoid disaster all the time. Put them in a match play situation and the leash comes off, creativity comes out, fear is set aside.

The stroke play mentality seems to originate from the (largely American) desire to determine objectively who is the best or most talented. It is thought that the game should be a test of the player's abilities, and that courses should be designed and set up accordingly. Stroke play is the favored format to determine who the best player is because all strokes are counted and there is less chance that the best player will be knocked out by a lesser player having one very good day. The test should be "tough but fair" and "luck" should be taken out of the equation wherever possible. Fairways and greens are flattened, blind shots are eliminated, course conditions are kept consistent to eliminate "bad lies" except to penalize a bad shot, par becomes an all-important measure, etc. Golf then moves toward a test of execution instead of a game of strategy.

Once the game gets to that point, than all the rest follows. I do think that technology would have advance to this point regardless because better equipment is more fun to play (although an argument could be made that with older equipment it was easier to really work the ball one way or the other, which was pretty fun too).

I just wonder how GCA would have evolved or what architects might try differently if par didn't matter so much...

[Pete Lavallee]

Chris;

I think that the architect was trying to rationalize why he couldn't build a fun par 66, 5800 yard course here in the USA. If the match play attitude still prevalent meant anything wouldn't most of the newer courses being built in the British Isles be significantly better than the ones being built here? The Belfrey, St. Mellions and the K Club tell me that that isn't the case. Any thoughts on the quality of newer courses being built in the British Isles from our contributors from across the pond?

[Marty Bonnar]

Chris,
Firstly, let me say that I love Match Play (it is REAL golf after all!) but I also think we have to appreciate the 'modern' world's wants in terms of broadcasting and marketing.
For example, we had the World Matchplay from Wentworth on TV last weekend. (It is one of about three UK golf events that the BBC can still afford, or are still allowed, to cover)
For a golf afficionado it is great TV, but I can see where Joe Punter could get utterly bored by it all. By the Sunday, we are reduced to watching two players slog it out over 36 holes. (They used to have a 3rd/4th place play-off but even that seems to have disappeared!)
Now, I personally enjoyed it, BUT, I doubt if 90% of the Great British unwashed thought it was the best thing they'd ever seen and probably switched off/over or went to the Pub.
This is the commercial environment in which Golf - like every other sport - must compete. Like it or lump it, Strokeplay will always (dammit!) be the popular, and therefore, the most economically viable, way for golf to market itself....shame though it may be.

Martin.

[ian]

It is still a match play game. Playing for score is a uniquely North American problem.

Architects design the best course they can with match and medal not entering into the equation.

[Steve Lang]

 

We'd probably have the equivalent of 6x12' Snooker Tables with little colored balls and tight width holes.. and the object would be to score the most points?!?! hmmmm.  

[ForkaB]

I hate to be a wet blanket/broken record, but there is vastly MORE stroke/"medal" play golf in GBI than in America.  And, the length of the courses makes absolutely no difference to the percentage of golf played under either format, nor to the relative beauty of each "game."

[TEPaul]

The vast majority of play in the US is match play certainly not stroke play. However, US players are very much into the concept of fairness or certainly not things that are perceived as unfair, into more formulaics in architecture, more consistency of most everything about courses and architecture compared to Europe and other parts of the world etc. Although match play is the vast majority of play in the US, ironically US golfers have far more of a "stroke play mentality" about the way they approach and look at golf. Why is that? It's simple, in my mind---US players have an overriding "stroke play mentality" because that happens to be the way they post all their scores for handicap purposes (including their match play rounds). Handicap posting in the US is with a single round score---and that's basically a stroke play round even if the format was match play. The only possible way to truly break American golfers of their "stroke play mentality" is to either allow and encourage them or make them post their match play rounds hole by hole instead of a single whole round GROSS SCORE--which, again, is a stroke play score and a stroke play way of looking at golf!

Basically if the USGA encouraged handicap posting in a hole by hole posting format instead of a single round gross score posting format US golfers would rather quickly become less concerned about their every stroke!