Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Dan King on January 28, 2003, 02:24:09 PM
-
There was a thread a few weeks ago about how the popularity of medal play (or not) contributed to design changes (or not). While looking for something else, I came across this quote from H.N. Wethered and Tom Simpson that is from The Architectural Side of Golf.
"The multiplication of £1,000 tournaments and innumerable championships has to a considerable extent disturbed the values. Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity. It would be unwise to underrate the fascinations of publicity or the importance of golf as a spectacle to entertain enthusiastic galleries; but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."
More on match play courses vs. medal play courses from an old article by Geoff Shackelford:
C
lick here for "Bring back match play golf courses" (http://services.golfweb.com/ga/ryder/1997/features/shackelford970911.html)
Dan King
"There are some leading players who honestly dislike the dramatic element in golf. They hate anything which is likely to interfere with a constant succession of threes and fours. They look upon everything in the 'card and pencil spirit' . . . Most golfers have an erroneous view of the real object of hazards. The majority of them simply look upon a hazard as a means of punishing a bad shot, whereas their real object is to make the game more interesting. "
--Alister Mackenzie
-
Dumbing down was the first thing I thought of. Is that how that translates? Didn't read geoffs piece yet but I sense it will be about not making things playable but rather the quirk and screw.
-
Good Lord, when I see 40 "views" of this thread and not a single response, I'd have to say too many of our contributors are not willing to do a bit of reading or else they're unfortunately more interesting in bandying back and forth 350 times on a ridiculous "going nowhere interesting" thread such as the Rees Jones/Cigar Afficionado one.
Either that or they aren't recognizing and willing to discuss some really interesting and fundamental principles and concepts about golf and golf architecture that're mentioned in this thread article.
Congratulations on a really thoughtful and well written article GeoffShac.
Golfclubatlasers, there's more good content in that article for interesting and thoughtful discussion than I've seen on here in a long time.
Got to go watch the President, then I'm going to read this article again and try to make some intelligent response. I hope a lot more do too.
-
Geoff - Great Article.
Tom - Great Reply.
Dan - Thank you for putting the post together.
I really appreciate it.
It was me that asked the question regarding match v medal and the effects on course design / setup.
Thanks for your effort and thought.
Matthew
-
Perhaps there is a parallel between these contrasting types of golf competitions and the tendency for pure athleticism to dominate basketball and tennis and minimize the strategic elements of those two games. I know that I have lost interest in basketball and tennis as time has gone on. Now it may well be that I am simply becoming a fuddy duddy who misses things the way they were when I was younger.
Are the three hundred yard carry, the slam dunk, and the 140 mph serve expressions of the same phenomenon. They are thrilling, at least for awhile, but after a time they become reruns.
One of the beauties of a course that has a lot of width and a lot of options is the opportunity to attempt to redeem a bad shot with a great one. It is seldom wise to give into that temptation in stroke play as it raises the frosty specter of a snowman, but in match play it makes sense as the worst thing that can happen is you lose a single hole. And yet, what is more satisfying to ourselves or dismaying to our opponents than to pull a rabbit out the hat and retrieve a lost cause and turn it into a winning advantage. When you are punching out of the trees or dropping behind the water hazard, the opportunities for a miracle are diminished.
I play in a golf league and it is interesting to observe how my approach to a hole varies with my opponents condition.
And yet, the the Ross, Mackenzie, and Tillinghast courses referenced in the article flourished as stroke play venues before they were altered to accomodate the improved equipment and elevated abilities of players in the last half century.
-
I think that Simpson is talking about fairness vs. unfairness, rather than match play vs. stroke play and/or "strategic" vs. "penal" golf holes, rightly understadning that it is a completely different issue than latter two. He implies that increasing purses for professionals is making unfairness unpopular to them, but it is a very great leap of faith to extend that bit of logic to where Geoff tries to go.
BTW, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that both Oak Hill and Valderamma provided marvelous demostrations of match play. You can't get it any better than what Faldo (at OH) and Monty (at V) did on the 18th on the last day in the crucial matches at those venues.
I read Geoff's old article carefully, and I'm still waiting for someone to tell me the difference between a "Match Play" and a "Stroke Play" golf course. Somebody please enlighten me.
-
Blah, blah, blah blah-blah. (Working on word economy)
The difference lies somewhere in where the line is between where we will accept a quirk, an oddity, an inequity or a potential unfairness where the outcome of the whole round will balance on the result of a hole versus merely the outcome of a single hole.
Blah, blah, blahdedty-blahzer blah.
In Chemistry and Whisky-making, this is known as distillation.
-
Rich:
Unfortunately, I think you need to read Simpson's quotation (and also MacKenzie's) and GeoffShac's article again.
It's beyond me how you can fail to notice the connection between the increased demand for fairness with the increase of the 'stroke play mentality' (card and pencil) and the luck filled type course of the original match play mentality and that essence of golf.
What do you think Simpson is referring to when he says?
"....but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."
What do you think he's referring to when he cites 'mischievous tendencies' and what do you think he's referring to when he mentions 'reduce the imaginative element of our courses'? And what do you think he's referring to when he remarks, '..and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf...'?
Again, what do you think "imaginative element" and "poetry of golf" refer to?
It's pretty clear to me he's referring to the inherent essential factor of "luck" and also "player imagination" in golf and that that factor not be removed or dumbed down in the name of fairness to serve a stroke play mentality.
Maybe the thing that throws you off here is you're assuming that the stroke play mentality syndrome and it's architecture is attempting to remove "penalty" from golf altogether. Nothing of the kind!
What "stroke play mentality" courses do, though, is present the golfer with a clear and recognizable and "architecturally dictated" way to play any golf hole. Anything other than that is actually penalized to the extent of some low degree of recoverability. Some people don't believe that's particularly "strategic" golf.
Match play holes, on the other hand, offer a golfer what appears to him to be situations where there is no real "architectural dictation", no single road "road mapping" in architecture. No reminding the golfer that if he doesn't go this way or this one way he will be penalized and failed.
The types of holes and courses which Simpson clearly refers to as "imaginative" and also the "poetry of golf" are those that the golfer feels he CAN and IS making his own UNIQUE decisions and choices and planning his own strategies UNDICTATED to by the architecture or the architect.
There's definitely very real and discernable differences here between the mindsets of stroke play golf and stroke play architecture vs match play golf and match play architecture and there are some very discernable connections with differing ideas of fairness and unfairness.
-
Tom
I didn't need to re-read Hutchinson, but thanks for re-quoting it for the vrebally-challenged. The quote is all about "fairness" as you rightly say. I agree with you adn Horace adn redanman that some unfairness is essential for interesting golf. Where I am really lost is in taking the leap of faith form that homily to the assumption that architects have ruined courses or built uninteresting courses in the name of "stroke play mentality", whatever that means. Your last paragraph is a complete mystery to me, because I do not see any evidence of your theories in any of the golf courses I have played, walked or even watched on televisoin.
To me a hole is a hole is a hole, and it is good or bad or ugly or interesting irrespective of whether or not you are playing match play, stroke play or bingo bango bongo. Neither you nor Geoff has moved me one iota in this belief. If you were to be so kind as to give me just one example of a "match play " course and one of a "stroke play" course and tell me why each is what you say it is, and not perhaps the exact opposite of what you beleive, I would be very grateful. That would help.
Thanks in advance.
-
I have just been reading some MacKenzie. Not to overly interpret what I am reading, as it seems that MacKenzie is not the most consistent writer, but it seems to me that MacKenzie is less concerned about the golf hole characteristics than about the "fun" or sporting nature of match play over medal play. Here are some quotes from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS:
"I believe that one gets far more fun in playing a match for five or ten dollars and licking one's opponent by lofting a stymie on the last green than you can ever get in taking your score. If you score is a good one you will remember it, but if it is a bad one why make life a burden by doing so?
"In Scotland, on completing a round, no one ever asked you "What is your score?" It is always, "Did you beat him?" or "Was it a tight match?"...
"It often seems to me that on a good course golfers get their fun in attempting the varied and thrilling shots that are required and in trying to beat their opponents, but on an indifferent course the only excitement they get is their score. [If I may insert a note here: This does not make any logical sense to me, but what do I know.] Surely there is far more fun in a contest against flesh and blood than against a card and pencil. [Another note: Can you not have both on the same golf course?]
"There is nothing that worries me so much as playing against a man who thinks only of his card and is perfectly indifferent to yours, unless it is perhaps playing with one who is over-sympathetic about your bad luck and your misfortunes... [Sounds like a personal problem for the Good Doctor. But what about the golfer who loves the game of golf but does not love competing against flesh against blood and prefers to take aim at his or her game vis-a-vis just the golf course alone?]
Here's a little something about golf holes:
"There are many of us who firmly believe that a contest between flesh and blood is the only true form of golf, and that too much attention to score play is detrimental to the real interest of the game.
"If too much attention were paid to the vitriolic outbursts of unsuccessful competitors in medal rounds, there would not be a first class hole left in golf"
Counter that with these words also from the same book:
"My friend, Max Behr, has written learnedly and at great length to prove that golf is not a game but a sport. He may be, and probably is, quite right, but it is no good quibbling about words; the chief thing to bear in mind is that golf is a recreation and a means for giving us health and pleasure.
"How often have we know committees, presumably consisting of men of intelligence, receiving the statement that golf is played for fun, with eyes and mouths wide open with astonishment? It is always difficult to persuade them that the chief consideration that should influence us in making any alterations to a golf course is to give the greatest pleasure to the greatest number. Any change to a course that does not do this is manifestly a failure.
"The only reason for the existence of golf and other games is that they promote the health, pleasure and even the prosperity of the community."
-
There is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course. But there are golf courses whose architecture leans one way or the other - architecture favoring match promotes choice, dramatic risk/reward and architecture favoring medal is concerned with guarding par. ANGC is an example of a golf course that has moved toward the medal - narrowing, lengthening and limiting choice ant the mental aspects in favor of pure mechanical skill. The purest examples of a medal-leaning course are the US Open venues, set up.
I believe you will find the comments of Simpson, MacKenzie and others were in response to the designs/theories of Braid, Taylor et al.
-
There is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course.
Picky. OK, There is a continuum that is being discussed here.
-
"Your last paragraph is a complete mystery to me, because I do not see any evidence of your theories in any of the golf courses I have played, walked or even watched on televisoin.
To me a hole is a hole is a hole, and it is good or bad or ugly or interesting irrespective of whether or not you are playing match play, stroke play or bingo bango bongo. Neither you nor Geoff has moved me one iota in this belief. If you were to be so kind as to give me just one example of a "match play " course and one of a "stroke play" course and tell me why each is what you say it is, and not perhaps the exact opposite of what you beleive, I would be very grateful. That would help."
Rich:
If you don't understand it at all at this point maybe you just never will, but hey, that's OK too--I'm certain it will never stop you from having fun playing golf if to you a hole is a hole is a hole.
But I'll give it one last try. Imagine some hole like GeoffShac cited in his article where the golfer can see he has to just hit the ball down a corridor with bunkers, trees, whatever penal features an architect wants to use on either side. Where're the options in that? The only one I can think of is right down the middle--that we call "shot dictation" or some call it architectural "roadmapping" or one dimensional or unstrategic. There ain't much strategy in a hole like that. If the player misses that one dimensional corridor he's generally penalized with a limited degree of interesting recoverability.
Now imagine a hole like Riviera's #10 or even the Belfry's #10 that GeoffShac also cited as a match play type hole. Where is the architectural dictation or "roadmapping" on those holes? There isn't any, right? The golfer has a multitude of interesting risk/reward choices to make HIMSELF without the architect actually showing him, telling him, demanding of him or dictating to him to do any particular one. And generally on holes such as that, certainly Riv's #10, the recoverablility possibilities are also practically endless and varied.
It's indicative to note that holes such as the latter two also have hazard features in the middle or inside the area of play and not always on the flanks as the more common modern age stroke play holes. A feature to challenge on the direct route the player would instinctively like to take is called "line of charm". Basically the architect is creating a problem for the player to solve right where the player would like to instinctively hit the ball.
The former is basically a stroke play hole where you need to do the complete obvious or basically fail to a large extent. The latter is looked at as a more interesting match play type hole where the choices are so unobvious that luck and such is maintained and at least is not dumbed down. The latter calls upon a player's intelligence to make one of a series of choices within his OWN estimation of his capabilities for which the consequences more often appear to him to be of his own making, and not the architect's or someone who merely sets before him a must do pass or fail single situation.
And this isn't just tee shots, the principles can be taken completely through any hole at any point.
I see a big differences in both presentation and the consequences of results between those two types of principles and holes but maybe you just don't and see any hole as just a hole is a hole.
-
The good thing about medal play is it does not always allow a golfer to play extra conservatively on a golf hole simply because one of his twosome, threesome or foursome just hit the ball out of bounds. Sometimes, a match play event actually takes the bite out of a golf hole because the golfer is playing relative to his opponents mishits instead of attacking the hole.
I think there is good and good in both types of games, match and medal. And it seems like they are most often played on the same types of courses. But there are thousands of courses to choose from. You have got to love golf for providing such a wonderful wide ranging playing field. Or at least I do.
-
Tom -
Please elaborate on:
"I believe you will find the comments of Simpson, MacKenzie and others were in response to the designs/theories of Braid, Taylor et al."
I think I see where you are going, but I'd like to get your take.
Bob
-
Tom MacW:
I'm not so sure I would say there's no such thing as a purely match play course.
The complete irony of the evolution of golf and its architecture is the supposed mecca or supreme labratory in all golf architecture, TOC, is probably the single most match play oriented golf course there ever was and still is. It's also doubly ironic to me that despite all TOC's apparent architectural glories and assets and respect it's never been completely mimiced architecturally even in principle. Why is that? To me it's probably because of golfers' stroke play mentality that began to creep into golf not that long after man-made architecture began.
One cannot really say it's not a stroke play course for the simple reason that certainly it's very possible to play stroke play on it.
But that's not really the point here. This subject can obviously never be black or white just shades of grey and clearly there're many shades of grey and many degrees between match play vs stroke play both in thinking and in playing.
The point here is that a very good player playing TOC will very likely play the course vastly differently if playing match play vs stroke play. And if anyone doesn't believe that's true I can cite all kinds of quotes from historic players who absolutely say it is true, not the least of which would be Bobby Jones.
But the larger point here is that even with TOC, and most particularly with TOC, often good players object to it (or the principles of its design) because the randomness of it limits their ability to control the fate and consequences of what they believe to be good choices and well executed shots.
Courses with architecture that's extremely clear to them, completely defined for them (about the opposite of the highly random architecture of a match play type course like TOC) are what they're more comfortable with in stroke play because randomness and luck don't enter into their thinking, execution and the consequences of it as much.
-
Here is a passage from THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS where MacKenzie references the "good"ness or "bad"ness of a golf course by discussing its lowest yielded score to date. Interesting that he falls back on score in his evaluation:
"Incidentally, as I have suggested before, it is no criterion of a good course that the record [by "record" MacKenzie is referring to the best score on the course] is high.
"This is usually an indication of a bad course, and only too frequently means that the putting surfaces are untrue, the approaches unfair and the greens small and blind. [notice the emphasis on fairness here] On the contrary, if the average score is high but the records extremely low--sixty-four or sixty-five for a course under seven thousand yards--it usually means that a first class player gets full reward for accurate play."
-
TEPaul, what if we simply said that golf architecture varies greatly but golfers can choose to play that varied architecture in varied ways depending on the kind of game they are playing that day? Is there really a distinction between a match play course (not holes that lend themselves to match play, but a whole course) and a medal play course or is it just a straw man sort of thing? Just asking questions here. I like you use of the phrase "shades of grey". Golf is not green, it is the brightest shades of grey we know!
-
guest
Good to see that the good Dr. often contradicted himself. He's in good company on this website.
As a sidelight, his comment that:
"In Scotland, on completing a round, no one ever asked you "What is your score?" It is always, "Did you beat him?" or "Was it a tight match?"..."
is just not true.
Here's a quote from Donald Grant in his book about Ross, talking about golf in Dornoch in 1903.
"We played the 18 holes as a rule in about 2 or 2 1/4 hours. I may say that we always played 'for our score.' At the ninth tee we would usually mention our figures 'to the turn': 'I'm 38, just two above' Level fours for the round was our standard and we spoke about our score in terms of fours: two above, or five above, etc. Seldom did we plays these rounds as a personal match against each other although we knew who had the best score."
Tom
I think that risk-reward holes like the 10th's at the Belfry and Riviera are great match play holes too. They are also great stroke play holes. I just cannot think of a great stroke play hole that is not also a great match play hole or vice versa, and I have been wracking my puny brain for some time on this subject during my sojourn onto GCA. Please enlighten me--you haven't succeeded yet.
BTW, I'm not sure where Geoff is coming from when he says that Oak Hill wsa only a test of "perfect physical skill." Very few knowledgable people (of which Geoff is one) could have have watched the 1995 Ryder Cup and come to that conclusion.
Finally, speaking of Braid, here's a quote on his architecture by Darwin, in his biography of the great man:
"He left it to the player to take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage, but left him to make this choice with his eyes open. That is the kind of problem that has to be faced at most if not all the great holes in the world."
I happen to agree with the last sentence of Bernie's and I don't think it makes a damned bit of difference whether you are playing match play or medal play over a hole like that--it is good just in and of itself.
-
I think one of the things that many may struggle to understand when attempting to discuss the subject of "fairness" in particularly stroke play is that they seem to feel that nothing bad or even penal should happen in stroke play.
Clearly that's not so and that's not remotely the point anyway. I think the idea of trying to create more "fairness" in stroke play is simply a matter of trying to create very distinct definitions of what succeeds and what fails in stroke play execution. If the definitions are clear enough, defined enough, it would then seem that "luck" is almost removed from the equation of stroke play and the architecture it's played over, and it simply becomes a matter of clearly defined execution, ie skill.
The far more multiple optioned courses match play type architecture (many choices for any golfer) combined with large portions of randomness are the enemy or antithesis of the clearly defined "pass/fail" world of the true stroke play mentality.
But that certainly doesn't mean that stroke play oriented courses aren't penal and that bad things can't happen. But that's in no way synonymous with "unfairness" since the parameters are so clearly defined and sort of dictated to the golfer.
-
I for one always do appreciate Rich clearing up misconceptions we Americans have about how they play in the UK... that Donald Grant quote is VERY enlightening. We assume all they ever do is match play, and Rich has pointed out before this just plain isn't true...
But more importantly, I think the bottom line here is that Rich just doesn't play golf differently depending on the format, and many other people do, although Rich certainly isn't alone in this approach to the game. That is, Rich plays a golf hole attempting to get his best score possible on that hole, with little concern for the negative possibilities... that just means ball in pocket, or in the case of a competitive round, a bad hole leading to a bad overall score.. Obviously the "care" taken playing a hole increases in competition, but it doesn't change based on match play or stroke play, that's the point. Many other people take more risks in match play when such are warranted, just because the negative possibility is the loss of only one hole, rather than the very real possibility in stroke play of that one bad hole making the 18-hole score impossible to "retrieve".
If one follows this approach to the game, then as Rich says, there really is no particularly better or worse hole for match play v. stroke play.
This is actually a damn fine approach to the game, I think...
Or am I way off on this, Rich? Wouldn't be the first time....
TH
-
A golf course that provides choices is an exciting match play venue. It also is interesesting test for medal play. The two are not mutualy exclusive, in fact the opposite. Exciting interesting golf is exciting interesting golf no matter the format.
Golf courses that are designed or set up to protect par might identify the best mechanical golfer for a given week or might test/challenge one on a regular basis, but they don't provide for exciting match play (gambling) or really exciting medal play for that matter (even though they might succeed in indentifying the best mechanical skill). I think it was MacKenzie who when told a particular course would not give up a sub-par score asked what was wrong with it - a good design should give up low scores.
Braid and Taylor were proponents of a more formulaic form of golf architecture. Straightfoward designs with hazards that were designed to punish/dictate (normally on the sides). Golf courses that rewarded the long and straight golfer, they paid lip service to the poorer golfer, but they didn't provide the risk-reward options (angled fairways, diagonal hazards, central hazards) that might even the playing field.
-
Rich Goodale:
I accept the Grant quote, but my own experience playing across the pond is much different than here in the States.
On the UK & Ireland side, I have almost never played medal play. The exceptions were during my first couple trips playing with fellow Americans. In the States casual match play golf is the exception and most Americans don't experience the fun Mackenzie was talking about.
As for match vs medal play golf courses, I may be on your side on that one. I think there are "match play" like holes, but I'd have to hear more evidence to extend that to (many) entire courses.
-
TomH:
I was just thinking what you wrote about Rich before I read your last post. As to why Rich doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, I believe you absolutely hit the nail on the head.
Rich said above that in his opinion a good match play hole is a good stroke play hole. I'd definitely agree with that. Rich also said vice versa, and I very much doubt I'd agree with that.
But the reason I wouldn't agree is obviously not clear to Rich. One of the reasons Rich is misunderstanding me, I believe, is because I'd never even remotely thought to explain to him that in my opinion (and I believe GeoffShac's too) purely "stroke play" holes (or holes that golfers with real stroke play mentalities believe to be good holes) are the type of golf holes and the type of golf architecture that we really don't don't admire and frankly don't like. But that certainly doesn't mean they aren't liked by stroke play mentality golfers and often demanded by them of architects.
Why? Because they're basically one dimensional, clearly defined holes (and courses) that high skill golfers feel they must have to be the best examination of their overall single round skill level. Essentially this is best exhibited by the Tour players for obvious reasons--they want the best examination of their skill levels and they simply don't want things like randomness and luck (very much essential in most good match play holes and courses) to compromise their skill examination. This is understandable since these people are playing golf for a living generally.
The second reason I can see that Rich doesn't understand me when combined with the reason above is that Rich more than almost any golfer I've seen has a true "match play" mentality in almost every single way he goes about playing any kind of golf format--match or stroke.
This is what you said and you hit the nail on the head. Rich has probably been assuming that me and GeoffShac have been implying that there actually is some kind of pure and idealized "stroke play" hole or course. Certainly we don't think that at all. We don't like or agree with the stroke play mentality although I'm sure we at least understand why others might.
But again, can good multi-optional, random architecture, luck oriented match play holes be good stroke play holes? Of course! Although we both (Geoff and I) agree they may be played vastly different depending on the format played on them. But again, Rich may not truly appreciate this since he probably tends to play golf in any format in one basic way--likely a full bore go for broke devil take the hindmost way!
And that's fine! Matter of fact I love that attitude! But I know and Rich should too that just as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow that if he carries an attitude and a game plan like that into stroke play golf (over time) his success rate won't be remotely comparable to his success rate in match play.
The reasons are obvious to me but if they're not to Rich I'd be happy to go into that too.
God, I hope this clears things up just a little bit!
-
Tim:
Hmmmm... just as Rich is trying to correct a misconception re UK golfers, can we discuss what's normal here in the US?
I find match play to be much more "normal" that those in the UK might think... I wouldn't call it a huge exception, in any case. Maybe it's me but the bulk of golf outside official stroke play tournaments has always consisted of some sort of match play... that is, better ball, solo, whatever... but it's always been scored on the hole by hole basis - the exception would be the other way!
I don't think I'm unique in this...
What would be normal in the US is much more of what Rich would call "bounce rounds", where no score is kept at all, either stroke or match...Maybe that's common in the UK as well, hell I got the term from Rich, although I'm sure I'm using it incorrectly... Many people I do play this way all the time... keep their own score for themselves maybe... so obviously this is stroke play...
But if any casual competition at all is involved, it always seems to be match play, at least in my experience.
TH
-
TEP - you definitely clarified what I was driving at re Rich, and the main point is this is certainly not unique to him... Of course given his nature in these dialogues he's as likely to agree with this as I am to shoot 59 this weekend (I don't think he'll like being pigeonholed ;) ) but you summed it up pretty well in saying:
"Rich may not truly appreciate this since he probably tends to play golf in any format in one basic way--likely a full bore go for broke devil take the hindmost way!"
Obviously Rich (and those who take this approach) would temper this in real competition... I will only try to modify this a little in saying that yo can see that for those who treat golf this way, it doesn't matter what negative possibilities there are on a golf hole. I'd just also say that it's not so much that they take every risk and play "balls out" with no care - not to an extreme extent anyway - it's more that they just don't care too much how bad a single score gets, which is the fundamental difference between match play and stroke play scoring, obviously.
TH
-
TEPaul, while I am more interested in whether there is such a thing as a match play course, may I digress? I was wondering just out of curiousity what you think of #17 at Sawgrass. Is that a hole that calls for an aggressive risk and reward shot or a strategically challenged dictated shot? On the face of it it looks like a great match play hole because your opponents line of play is readily apparent and you can guage your attack from there. But maybe not?? Maybe it would be defined as presenting not enough options. Either go for the flag or go for the middle of the green. Is #17 the kind of hole that stroke play golfers want because it dictates play or is it the kind of hole that they don't want because it can hurt a good score??
-
Tom Huckaby:
Your experience might be different than mine. Quite possible.
But, for me match play in the US has not been very common. People seem to want to play their own ball and record a score.
Have I ever played match play in the States? Yes, actually last year I did so twice. Both were probably the most enjoyable rounds I played, including the one match I lost to my nephew.....he got two strokes a hole and closed me out on #16.
I would not question Rich about anything in Dornoch. One visit with American friends doesn't provide enough insight. But, I can tell you that my friends in Ballybunion have never - that's right NEVER - expressed in the slightest interest in medal play. It is almost as if they never heard of the concept. Of course, they have, but I think it is considered very unsocial. The point of playing, first and foremost, is having fun with friends. Something like score doesn't even register.
Besides, what does it matter when the "loser" gets to buy the first round?
-
Your last few lines are right on the money, Tim.
Wherever one plays, the point ought to be maximum fun and enjoyment. I've just found that match play is the norm, in my experience. It is apparent we run in different crowds... Bottom line is, I play in the US, so I just wanted to say we can't make this a complete generalization.
Just as one ought not to re the UK and Ireland as well. My experience over there is the same as yours - among the locals I've met, medal play is something reserved for club competitions only.
That's why I wanted to point out and commend Rich on the clarification... obviously he has quite a bit of experience playing in Scotland.. so again the bottom line is we ought not to over-generalize about how they play, also.
TH
-
guest:
What a fantastic example you bring up in this thread "match play vs medal play courses" with TPC's #17 (Dye's island green).
At the very least #17 TPC will show that no one on here or anywhere else should EVER try to pin down other contributors or any discussion of architecture by trying to present arguments in complet black or white or any other kind of architectural "formulaics" to make a cogent point.
So what is #17, a match play hole or a stroke play hole?
Well, let's go through all that's been presented here on this thread so far concerning both and see just where it fits in.
Does it fit into what some people think of as a "match play" hole? In some ways it does bigtime and in some ways it doesn't bigtime. Are there multi options on this hole that are unobvious? Definitely not (except maybe the front left and back right sections of the green which are amazingly scary but nuancy too given particular match or stroke situations)! Basically it's a do or die hole, though, and as such can provide enormous drama and theater in either format.
Does it exhibit the heoic recoverability assets of some of the great match play holes? Of course not, unless one is experienced in recovering out of water over his head.
Do thoughtful match play players who understand and welcome all the ramifications and challenges of match play appreciate this hole? I would say definitely yes and no but only depending on which side of the match they're on when they arrive at the tee.
Is the hole clearly and obviously defined in the "roadmapping" sense that people like Geoffshac and me apparently don't really like in golf since we've said that's what the stroke play mentality golfer likes and wants? Most definitely! It doesn't get much more clearly defined as to what a golfer must do than this! This hole is one of the slimest margin for error holes anywhere.
But does the stroke play mentality golfer like this hole. Inherently they just hate it--they loath it--it scares the sh... out of them. Their whole tournament can go up in smoke on this one and they sure don't like that. This is a do or die hole and tour pro golfers don't like do or die holes unless it happens to be one of their fellow competitors who's dying and not them.
This is a hole that exhibits so many of the extremes on both ends of the spectrum in both match and stroke play that it couldn't be a better example to show how much all those extremes can potentially be combined into one and made to show what a great big beautiful grey area all this is anyway.
You've gotta hand it to Pete Dye on this one. The hole is famous and was from the gitgo because it can accomplish so much and it's obviously in the perfect place to do it (#17). The possibilities are wide and it's so good it can't be categorized generally because frankly it can so easily get down to which golfer even in the same group you're talking about and what he's just done there.
A lot of drama has gone on there and the hole was probably conceived in the first place because Pete Dye is notorious for loving to torture the tour pro and did he ever succeed here.
I think it's a great match and stroke play hole but secretly the tour pros probably loathe it in stroke play.
It also happens to be the hole that for me personally was the hole that made me truly wonder something and so much more as time went on.
This was the hole were in 1993 Tiger Woods arrived in the finals of the US Amateur having semi-miraclously fought his way back all through the back nine from almost certain defeat. I have no idea whether he intended to go at the scary super slim margin for error right pin on one of the most overall slim margin for error holes but he went to the right of the pin, hit next to the bulkhead and for some completely unfathomable reason did not go in the water. From next to the bulkhead he rolled in an unlikely birdie putt, won the Amateur and went on to win two more with some other do or die shots that frankly are beyond my comprehension of anything other than "odd fate".
But when I saw that shot and then the birdie in 1993 I thought to myself--is there something even stranger than fiction going on with this guy--nobody can be this good and this lucky at precisely the right time.
And then for the next 5-6 years the world saw him do things like that so many times as to be incomprehensible to me.
But it all started for me on TPC's #17 a great hole--a super grey area hole in the entire context of golf architecture.
Great question!
-
TEPaul,
I like your analysis. Thanks for taking the time to write it!
-
TEP:
I liked it, too. Well-described and considered.
But my favorite lines were:
"I would say definitely yes and no..."
and
"super gray area"
-
"I would say definitely yes and no..."
because that's probably exactly what the gray area in golf architecture is.
RickS:
The more I do this stuff and the more I read and reread the more I like that line. Maybe it's horrible to say but give me some specific subject about architecture and I bet most of the time I can find you quotes from most all the old guys where they said yes and no about it at some point.
I'm beginning to truly believe if any of them could see how seriously some of us take them now and how dedicately we try to pigeionhole both them and their architecture, they would likely roar with laugther, right in our faces.
The "super gray area" I'll take full credit for though.
-
Calling Dr. Katz!
Not only are Toms I and IV trying to psychoanalyze my golf game without either a license or a clue, Tom III (MacWood) is agreeing with me which, as you well know, is one of the clear signs that one is becoming certifiably mad!
Two Toms (I and IV)
You have only seen me goofing around on golf courses, having fun enjoying whacking the ball amongst the company and the scenery. I rarely let friends see my competition game, which is excruciatingly stuffy and far less entertaining.
Tim and Tom (IV)
I did not mean to imply that there is lots of casual stroke play golf in Scotland these days--just that there was quite a bit more of it at the turn of the last century, contrary to Dr. MacK's hyperbole. The game du jour in Ecosse is skins.
Tom I
Glad you agree that the 17th's at the TPC's in both Ponte Vedra and Phoenix are both great match play and great stroke play holes. This is what I have been trying to say all along.
-
FWIW, Alice Dye should be given credit for the island hole at Sawgrass. She suggested it to her husband and Deane Beaman. So I read in a Pete Dye interview somewhere.
One day at the Players they are going to have 25 mph winds, plus a rock hard green, and there is going to be some real debacles at 17, as in unplayable. The fans will love it, however. :)
-
Rihc- I think I can shed some light on la differance. Do you know the sport putt-putt? Not Minature golf, but putt-putt. The putt-putt holes are all flat and rather straight froward and it really looks like each porfessional can make ace on every hole. The strategic holes have the windmills, multi-level doglegs, clowns mouth and water hazards. Can't you see the difference? It so easy. ;D
Couldn't Ross be the one who started to design "heroic" holes and rtj just magnified and built a career on those? TOTB
-
"Tom I
Glad you agree that the 17th's at the TPC's in both Ponte Vedra and Phoenix are both great match play and great stroke play holes. This is what I have been trying to say all along."
Rich:
I'm glad you agree with me that they both are--and so now we both agree on a portion of this thread regarding GeoffShac's article and Simpson and Wethred's quote.
Now what you need to be able to do next is to try somehow to understand what Geoff Shackelford is saying in his article about the negative effects of a stroke play mentality and what that can do to the perception of what makes a hole or course "fair" or "unfair". Then try to understand how that perception eventually can begin to corrupt architecture and make it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting.
If you can get to that point, you should be able to see that what you must be doing is denying or failing to understand the extent to which so many golfers who possess a "stroke play mentality" do not agree with all three of us that what can make a hole so interesting in match play can also work well for them in stroke play if they could only rid themselves of their fixation on "fairness" (equity) which leads directly to their "stroke play" mentality.
If you can somehow connect those thoughts you will see that GeoffShac is making no leap of faith at all and that the quotation of Simpson and Wethred does, in fact, support exactly what Geoff is saying.
-
TEPaul,
What do you think of the idea that match play can also have a negative effect on a golf hole's architecture, as in the example I gave above whereby a golfer watches his opponent hit the ball out of bounds, or something along those lines, and simply chooses a very conservative route to the hole. It sort of undoes the design intent of risk-reward, etc. if one of the options is to hit three seven irons from tee to green, take a two putt, win the hole and move on. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that scenario, but it is one way a match can proceed on a given hole. There are other ways in which match play can affect the approach of a golfer relative to the architecture, but what about that example?
-
TEPaul,
Match play and medal play are just head-sets, perspectives.
The game is only about getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible, and the architecture is designed in that context.
Whether one plays match or medal, the hole doesn't change, it is static. Only your mind is altered ! ;D
-
Sometimes ultra severe holes are defended as match play holes i.e. designed with little care of stroke play. But is, for example, a par 4 hole that's often halved in 7, a fun or good hole?
-
Fair has become a very popular term in golf.
I recently read somewhere that the fairest possible course design would be a complete lack of design. The cross-country game from point A to point B would not favor anyone. Mother Nature plays no favorites. (Reality: picking the points A and B could lead to unfairness.)
As soon as architecture enters the equation -- the concept of unfairness, favoring one type of play over another -- can enter.
So the wilder, the more natural the hole the fairer it is.
But American golfers have turned the whole concept of fairness on its head, replacing the definition with the complete opposite.
It doesn't take long to be around American golfers to discover their new meaning of fairness. This isn't how fair a hole is against another competitor, but fairness is relation to par. If you make a hole too difficult to reach whatever par number is assigned, then the hole becomes unfair.
If you have too many of these unfair holes on a course, then the entire course becomes unfair.
Why?
In match play would it matter? Winning a hole 8 to 9 is no different than winning the same hole 4 to 5. What difference does it make what the fictitious par number equals?
When playing for a score, what the golfer cares about is the final number. Is the golfer close enough to 72 for his usual game? Now there is a big difference between making a 4 or an 8. One might be considered a par, the other a quad. Pars good, Quads bad. A golf course that has too many potential quads is an unfair golf course. Therefore, excessive or difficult hazards have become unfair.
Everything has to have a relationship to par and that par number must be very close to 72.
Also the other current philosophy of golf is that it is a physical not a mental game. Many now believe that thinking shouldn't be a requirement for golf. If you manage to hit the ball where the architect tells you to hit it you should be rewarded. Any requirement to think your way around the course is also unfair. Why should you be punished after a great shot just because the architect didn't make it clear enough where you were supposed to hit the ball?
It's just a hop, skip and a jump to eliminating all things that could be unfair in the play of a tournament -- weather, wear and tear on the green and conditioning that could change during the day. While often, with tongue in cheek, I talk about the pros playing virtual golf, wouldn't that be the next step in dealing with the unfairness of golf?
Haven't we moved closer to the deadly dull game Mr. Macdonald warned us about in the quote below?
Dan King
"So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play."
--Charles Blair Macdonald
-
guest;
You certainly do ask some extraordinary questions! I hope you don't expect someone like me to give you cogent answers to all of them.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question;
"What do you think of the idea that match play can also have a negative effect on a golf hole's architecture, as in the example I gave above whereby a golfer watches his opponent hit the ball out of bounds, or something along those lines, and simply chooses a very conservative route to the hole? It sort of undoes the design intent of risk-reward, etc. if one of the options is to hit three seven irons from tee to green, take a two putt, win the hole and move on. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that scenario, but it is one way a match can proceed on a given hole. There are other ways in which match play can affect the approach of a golfer relative to the architecture, but what about that example?"
guest:
To your first question, I would say in the context you cite it, that match play has no negative effect on architecture at all. What you're talking about is no more than the match play format, it's procedure in effect.
If you asked that question of a wise architect he would probably say; "My good man, I have enough to think about in the creation of architecture and such as what you ask is of no importance whatsoever."
Regardless of the architecture, any player has the option of playing a hole any way he chooses but with intelligence always in relation to the predicament of his opponent.
Basically architecture is good or bad, or some degree in between, interesting or not interesting, and it remains the same--all that changes is the format in which golfers play it and react to it in relation to that format. But various formats should not fundamentally change anyone's perception of the architecture, as an excessive "stroke play" mentality so often tries to do.
-
Pat:
As regards your 10:06pm post--no truer words could be said!
-
TEPaul writes:
As regards your 10:06pm post--no truer words could be said!
Oh come on, I can do better than that:
"The biggest myth, as measured by square footage, is that as you grow older, you gradually lose your interest in sex. This myth probably got started because younger people seem to want to have sex with each other at every available opportunity including traffic lights, whereas older people are more likely to reserve their sexual activities for special occasions such as the installation of a new pope.
"But does this mean that, as an aging person, you're no longer capable of feeling the lust you felt as an 18-year-old? Not at all! You're attracted just as strongly as you ever were toward 18-year-olds! The problem is that everybody your own age seems repulsive."
--Dave Barry
Dan King
"Let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth, to see it like it is and to tell it like it is, to find the truth, to speak the truth and live with the truth. That's what we'll do.
--Richard Nixon (Republican nomination acceptance speech, 1968 )
-
Paul Turner,
It is, when you and your opponent have driven the first hole at NGLA.
Or when you both drive it in the first cross bunker on # 3 and the pin is in a challenging position, or when you both drive it in the cross bunker at #8 and the pin is just on the front right of the green. Or, when you drive in any of the fairway bunkers on # 12 and # 15 and the pin is on the upper back shelf on both greens.
Sometimes, you can walk off with a 7 and feel lucky that you halved the hole, or that your opponent was lucky to halve the hole.
There is something neat about a diabolical hole where length is absent and risk/reward/dire punishment await the choice and execution of the shot.
That's why NGLA is my favorite golf course.
TEPaul,
I still don't believe you hit your approach shot into the back left bowl on # 1. I think you airmailed the green, hit the golfers on the second tee who kicked the ball back onto the green. No one is that good. Did your opponent witness the shot ?
-
Tom
If you agree with Pat's 10:06pm post then you agree with me, as he says what I have been trying to say very elegantly.
You will never convince me that there is some sort of "vast stroke play mentality conspiracy" out there that has or ever has had the agenda or even the effect of "corrupt(ing) architecture and mak(ing) it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting." However, you (and Geoff and the dead guys) have the right to hold those beliefs if you so wish.
"Fairness", as Dan points out, is the culprit, and when it becomes an important design principle, the ability of a course to inspire both interesting match play and stroke play suffers, in equal measure.
One final point. If the stroke play mentality were so delterious, why do such a disproprotionately high ratio of the courses which we revere reside in Britian and Ireland, where weekly stroke play competitions are the centerpiece of both the golfing calendar and the handicapping system?
-
The stroke play mentality has had a tremendous effect on modern golf architecture. Starting with the Monster at Oakland Hills, RTJ spent a decade or two designing/redesigning golf courses with an eye toward protecting par. Pinched driving areas with well elevated greens flanked by bunkers. Bellerive, Firestone, Oakland Hills, Hazeltine, etc. Wilson did the same at Scioto with the goal of attracting the US Open, ironically they instead got the US Am, which doubly ironically was conducted as a medal event. That US Open mentality, that par should be protected, as had a major effect on so many great old designs being ruined. ANGC the product of a collaboration of two match play proponents has finally succumbed.
At the other end of the spectrum, you know the match play mentality was a major influence on the development of golf architecture in its early years. The courses that Rich mentions in the UK, they are the product of a group of talented architects/theorists and they were nearly all amateurs who competed almost exclusively under match play ( Hutchinson, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Low, Darwin, MacKenzie, Alison, Abercromby, Campbell, Hutchison, etc. ) Even the most prominent Professional architect of that era--Willie Park--was best known for his challange matches.
-
Rich:
This is what you said the other day;
"I think that Simpson is talking about fairness vs. unfairness, rather than match play vs. stroke play and/or "strategic" vs. "penal" golf holes, rightly understadning that it is a completely different issue than latter two. He implies that increasing purses for professionals is making unfairness unpopular to them, but it is a very great leap of faith to extend that bit of logic to where Geoff tries to go."
And then today you said:
"You will never convince me that there is some sort of "vast stroke play mentality conspiracy" out there that has or ever has had the agenda or even the effect of "corrupt(ing) architecture and mak(ing) it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting." However, you (and Geoff and the dead guys) have the right to hold those beliefs if you so wish.
"Fairness", as Dan points out, is the culprit, and when it becomes an important design principle, the ability of a course to inspire both interesting match play and stroke play suffers, in equal measure."
Rich:
That's absolutely true that "fairness" is the culprit. But where did the desire to increase "fairness" into golf come from? It came originally from the stroke play format of golf, and probably for fairly obvious reasons. Over time the desire for increased "fairness" eventually embued itself into golf generally--in both the stroke play format and then the match play format. If you cannot see that effect today, to a large degree, among numerous players (certainly the top caliber tour players) then frankly we have no more to talk about here.
But if you can see that which apparently you can (since you've just said, '"fairness is the culprit') then we should look again at the Simpson/Wethred quote and also GeoffShac's article.
-
Two Toms (I and IV)
You have only seen me goofing around on golf courses, having fun enjoying whacking the ball amongst the company and the scenery. I rarely let friends see my competition game, which is excruciatingly stuffy and far less entertaining.
Nor have you seen my competition game, nor has either of us seen Tom Paul's. You'd be shocked how quiet I get. That's not the point. And remember what I said above about you:
"Obviously the "care" taken playing a hole increases in competition..."
"Obviously Rich (and those who take this approach) would temper this in real competition..."
but most importantly,
"... Of course given his nature in these dialogues he's as likely to agree with this as I am to shoot 59 this weekend (I don't think he'll like being pigeonholed ;) )"
It's good to see I was correct on all three accounts!
The point here, Rich, is that from everything you've ever posted on this board and elsewhere, and the various conversations we've had playing golf and otherwise, I get the idea that the playing of the game is the main thing for you, and the venue doesn't matter nearly as much as the hitting of the shots. You said basically that in a great post once regarding Cypress, NGLA, etc. - that you had been to the alleged nirvana and found that the hitting of the shots there was not much different than the hitting of the shots anywhere else. Do I have this wrong?
And if that is your approach to the game, then it is wholly understandable why you find no "match play courses" and "stroke play courses", because it's all about just hitting the shots... Obviously this is taking things to an extreme, and you do like some courses more than others, but not to any extent where the course itself will effect what makes the game fun for you, which is the hitting of the shots.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this... hell, I am this way myself a lot, although as you know I do enjoy feeling awed at courses I find to be great.
This isn't meant as any form of analysis of you or your personality. It's just very interesting to me because I have had this exact same conversation with several other friends... There's one low 'capper who is a very competitive player, and for him the course is just a "track" no matter where or what it is - that is, a vehicle for his use to obtain competitive glory. I also have another friend who does just always play in this "balls out" manner TEP described way above... and again, the course doesn't matter, he's gonna go for every shot regardless of potential outcome.
I don't see you being on either of those extremes, Rich.
But I do see the hitting of the shots mattering to you more than the venue, be it screwing around with us, playing for skins in Scotland, match play or stroke play wherever.
I know you don't like to be pigeonholed, hell I don't either.
But this would just explain your thoughts in this thread, anyway... wouldn't it?
TH
-
TEPaul,
Here's another question for you:
You are in charge of setting up pin placements at Augusta for two different tournaments. One is match and the other is stroke. How would the pin placements differ for each tournament?
Thanks!
-
Rich:
Now look again at Simpson/Wethred's quote;
"The multiplication of £1,000 tournaments and innumerable championships has to a considerable extent disturbed the values. Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity. It would be unwise to underrate the fascinations of publicity or the importance of golf as a spectacle to entertain enthusiastic galleries; but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."
Rich:
Do you know where the stroke play format emanated from? It emanated from the early designer/greenkeeper/clubmaker/professional type golfer who needed to play single day "STROKE PLAY" tournaments so as to get back to work (the match play format took too long for them).
And so what 'values' do you think Simpson/Wethred are talking about being 'disturbed' by 'innumerable 1,000 pound tournaments' in their first sentence?
Obviously the values that embued the essence of match play golf (and by extension any golf of any format--in their opinions) that were reliant on dealing with luck and randomness and all the little inconsistencies of golf when faced with the fickleness of nature inherent in early architecture.
And what do you suppose S/W meant when they said in the second sentence, "Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity"?
What did they mean by a "rigid standard of equity"? They mean of course "fairness".
In this way you should begin to see that desire for "fairness" is almost all that the "stroke play" mentality is! They are almost one and the same--almost synonymous.
What do S/W mean by "mischievous tendencies"? Obviously the desire for increased "fairness" (stroke play mentality).
Which they say, "but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty)...."
What do they mean by, "miscarriages of justice"? Obviously they mean "unfairnesses", as they go on to say, "tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty)...."
Miscarriages of justices (unfairnesses)--(for which the architect is usually held guilty)!!
Can you now see how the desire for "fairness" (the stroke play contingent in W/S's quote) and their abhorence for "unfairness" begins to creep into architecture?
As W/S go on to say, "reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."
Reduce the 'imaginative element of our courses'--'and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels'.
That is without question the beginning of the demise of more strategic oriented golf and architecture as it becomes dulled down by the desire for "fairness" (stroke play mentality). And then the 'effect of diverting the poetry of golf' (dealing with unfairness) into less desirable channels.
And so you should see that the desire to define and enhance "fairness" in golf began to filter into all of golf to a large extent and to even effect architecture which it's clear to me is what W/S are referring to.
And if you reread GeoffShac's arcticle you will see he's referring to the same thing.
So when you said;
"I think that Simpson is talking about fairness vs. unfairness, rather than match play vs. stroke play and/or "strategic" vs. "penal" golf holes, rightly understadning that it is a completely different issue than latter two.
You should now see that they are not completely different issues and that they are closely related and very much effecting one another both then and more so now.
And you should now see that there is no "leap of faith" on Shackelford's part in connecting these issues to make his conclusion and recommendations.
The only leap here is your own. You grasped the first point but when you lept out to attempt to grasp the next point, and connect the two points, apparently you sailed out into some vacuum of near total confusion.
But if you're still out there in that vacuum of near total confusion all is probably not lost since even looking at architecture as no more than a hole is a hole is a hole, although very far from ideal and energizing, is probably not all that bad as even understanding a teeeny bit about golf and its architecture can be pretty good too.
And so here ends my attempt to convince you of anything more....there really is no further point to attempt to do that.
-
What if this is not so much an issue of stroke or match play mentality but another issue of what I will call "rocketball" mentality? "Rocketball" is the kind of game that we are playing when we insist on golf balls that go longer and straighter. Golf architecture, once set up for the game of golf is now set up for "rocketball". You can play "rocketball" in either the match or stroke play format. Maybe we need to stop turning our 200 yard wayward drives into 220 yard straight drives and go back to a time when ball flight actually matched our swing path, you know, a fair representation of our swing. Then wider fairways would play accordingly. Who needs a 70 yard wide fairway when the players are playing "rocketball" instead of golf? Just a thought.
-
Three Toms
Tom I
I still miss your point. It would help if you could give me an example of a stroke play course and tell me why it is not good for match play, or vice versa.
Tom III
Good to see you back on the dark side--it must have been agony for you when you realised you had agreed with me! Your post does, perhaps unwittingly, allow me and Tom I to bridge our GAP in understanding. Tom I--if you go back and use the "Find and Replace" feature on your PC and change all references to "stroke play mentality" to "protecting par" I think your arguments have a teeny bit more substance. Tom III, sorry for the diversion..... I've never been to the places you mention, but do you really think that the changes to "protect par" on the courses you list had any sort of deleterious effect on their quality as match play venues? I thought not.
Tom IV
My participation on this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my game or my attitude towards it. I post on this topic because I think it is a huge red herring that diverts us from much more interesting topics that could advance our understanding of GCA.
Now where's Tom(my) II been hiding during all of this..........
-
Tom IV
My participation on this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my game or my attitude towards it. I post on this topic because I think it is a huge red herring that diverts us from much more interesting topics that could advance our understanding of GCA.
Really? You participate in the hopes of getting us to understand how worthless it is, so we'll drop it and better topics can be discussed? That is a very interesting take. Seems to me a more effective strategy would be to just not read the thread! I am curious as to whether I was correct in my assessment, but I doubt if I was you'd ever tell me anyway. ;)
So oK, I guess I'll leave you alone now. I swear I meant no disrepect by any of this. I try to advance my understanding by figuring out how smart people feel and think about things, that's all.
In way of explanation, to me, just about anything having to do with the great game of golf is interesting, and advancing my understanding of life and golf and how they are intertwined - as this sort of does, at least to me - is far more interesting than anything that could "advance my understanding of gca." Golf course architecture as a stand-alone subject just doesn't interest me that much.
But that's just me...
Just curious though: if I can back-track on my promise to leave you alone, and if you don't mind saying, what topics do you have in mind?
TH
-
Rich
I partially agree with you - a good match course is an equally good medal course, the opposite is where we differ. A course designed for medal - a US Open venue - does not make for exciting match play golf. Why is the Masters always the most exciting tournament - it allows for choice/gambling - big win or big loss. The US Open is more of a survival competion, which can also be good theatre, but not necessarily exciting/thought provoking golf, that kind of course provides the best setting for match play. I know I'd personally tire of steady diet of US Open golf.
One of the problems with the US Open style set up/golf course - Oakland Hills for example - is that it eliminates the gambler. As an example a Seve Ballesteros or a Sam Sneed played a very exciting brand of golf, a brand well suited to courses like St. Andrews and Augusta. Golf courses that provide risk/reward choices, that require imagination, shot making and an excellent short game. The medal style of golf course is confining, does not provide for much choice or imagination - instead simple mechanical skill (Andy North, Scott Simpson, Hale Irwin, etc). You can play a match on this type golf course, but it ain't going to be much fun and not nearly as interesting. This type of architecture does have a deleterious effect on match play - whatever deleterious means (I know its not good).
I'd rather watch a match at Wentworth than a match at LaCosta.
-
Rich:
You sure are still missing my point. If you want a good example of the type of course the "stroke Play" mentality crowd likes just visualize any golf course where the basic best play is to hit the ball down the middle most all day. It's completely understandable to the "stroke play" mentality golfer, it's considered fair by him (definitely not unfair), just execute without having to think or choose etc.
Courses and architecture like that generally have flanking hazards, treelining or some interchangeable feature to accomplish the same kind of "shot dictation" thing. Basically the same examples Shackelford mentioned in his article.
Maybe you think I've been saying this is good stroke play architecture. It's not--it's not good architecture at all for stroke play, match play, any play.
You'll probably just say again that's what you've been saying all along but the point is the "stroke play" mentality crowd are the ones that like it because they view it as fair and that's what they advocate in architecture but you don't seem to be making that connection. And so much architecture has become like this because of that prevalent "stroke play" mentality. This is what we're talking about, what Simpson & Wethred were talking about and what MacKenzie was talking about in the quotes used.
-
Tom IV
This thread is getting nowhere because nobody but me cares to ask or answer the questions as to whether the title of the topic is anything but rhetoric. As we've gone through this exercise many times before, with the same non-result, I think we could go over to more producetive thread, like the Cigar one, without fear of loss. PS, e-mail me privately if you want answers to the personal questions you raised. They really are irrelevant to this discussion.
Tom III
In regard to your opinions on great "match play courses" I will just say that I find watching the annual event at Wentworth to be slightly more soporiphic than 5-day test cricket, and IMHO the greatest match play contest I have ever seen, by far, was Tom Lehman vs. Seve Ballesteros at that notorious "stroke play" venue, Oak Hill in 1995. You may have missed it, but on another thread a European Tour player implictly put Wentworth in the SMUTT ("Smash and Putt") school of golf course design.
Tom I
I have lived a sheltered life and have fortunately never been exposed to the horrors of the infamous "stroke play mentality crowd." What do these people look like? Where do they practice their vile beliefs and black arts? Are they contagious? Is there any way I can identify such people so I may avoid them and continue to go through life in blissful ignorance? Can you give me a list of the courses they have infected so that if I ever happen to play on them I will be certain to NOT attempt to play match play over them? From what you and the other Tom's say, I cannot even imagine how horrific an experience that would be.
Thanking you in advance.
Rich
-
Rich:
I'm very sorry to read that you find my questions irrelevant to this discussion. I guess I take this "discussion" to be about bigger things than strategy, penalty or lack thereof on golf holes. I'm sorry you find this to be nothing but rhetoric - I do not, obviously!
No need for private emails here, but thanks for the offer.
TH
ps - please do not lump me in with "the other Toms", on this thread anyway. I honestly don't care much what a stroke play course or match play course is, nor have I weighed in on such. What I do care about is how people look at the game, which I believe has a great effect on a discussion like this, or really any discussion about this great game. Obviously you disagree. This sure isn't the first time we've disagreed on golf subjects, nor will it be the last! I'd type the French phrase that describes how I feel here, but Dan Kelly would give me crap for spelling it wrong and I don't speak a word of French. So in the end, long live the difference.
-
Rich
I do recall that match and it was exciting. I'm not sure Seve was ever in the fairway and he hit a remarkable number of recovery shots in that match. It was a truely remarkable survival affair on his part. But other than the flop/explosion shot out of the hay, we never got to see Seve's full repetoir. I prefer his work at St.Andrews, Augusta, Lytham, etc. The US Open-like set up prevented much more than hacking it out of the rough (he was a genius that day) and there isn't much room for run up shots and other creative shots of that nature - center of the fairway or hack. Although Wentworth may not be everyone's favorite design, it certainly provides a venue for great shotmaking, creativity, bold play and there have been a number of great matches conducted on the course over the years.
-
Tom H
Sorry for lumping you in with the lumpenpatrician Toms. Just trying to have a bit of fun, and I apologise if it offended you or Tom MacW or Tom P.
As for the thread, I never called what was said, by you or anybody (except maybe some dead guy) "rhetoric." I said that the the specific question implied in the title was nothing but rhetoric. I still beleive that to be true since nobody has come up with one credible (to me) example which shows that there is such as thing as a match play or stoke play course.
I'm actually interested in somebody proving me wrong on my answer to that very specific question, or at least less right. It might lead us in to some ineresting areas of GCA. I wan't to learn something (hopefully), which is why I'm trying to stick to the topic, rather than get bogged down in separate issues such as "fairness" and how individuals view a round of golf--specifically or generically.
That could be a good topic. Why don't you start it, tells us your position on the issue, and I'll chime in and tell you where you are very wrong in your theory on what golf and golf courses mean to me.
Cheers
Rich
-
Rich:
My apologies, this has obviously gotten far too personal. Please believe me, I had some reticence posting what I did about my take on how you treat the game, but I now realize that it was inappropriate no matter how many disclaimers I inserted. It did just seem to me to be a very easy explanation of why you feel like you do on this issue, but I should have known nothing about you is that simple.
No, no need for me to start a thread and have you ridicule me. Perhaps someday over a beer or a single malt we can have this discussion, I'd like that, though I fear the ridicule there might be worse! I am also curious as to where my assessment went wrong, but not enough to start a thread on it. But the point is I have no right to try and assess you in the first place, and I should have known that.
Thus my humble apologies. Good luck with the other Toms.
TH
-
Rich:
Turning to slight sarcasm to make your point--whatever it is here, or in continuing to ask questions is probably not the most benefical thing to do but frankly it's OK with me--you know I really don't mind at all--good dynamics I would call it.
I'd have to say that I've done my best to try to "convince" you of what's been said here, by Shackelford, Simpson & Wethred, MacKenzie etc.
If you choose to ignore what it so obvious (to us) then that's OK Rich--(Golf is a great big game and there is room in it for everyone).
I must say, however, that you have an odd way of sort of trying to either downplay or discount many of the ideas, principles, thoughts, analyses of problems and possible solutions that are pretty well chronicled and also quite clear to many people from the writings of some awful significant architects throughout the evolution of golf.
I really don't know why you do that but to one degree or another it seems you always have.
But specific to this thread and this subject, particularly as it relates to the issue of "fairness" or "unfairness" in golf and architctecture you have stated in your first post on this thread that you believe Simpson and Wethred are talking about "fairness" and "unfairness" in golf and that it has no connection to golfer's ideas about stroke play vs match play or strategic architecture vs penal architecture or any relationship or connection to a "stroke play" mentality (which you also apparently don't seem to understand).
So I guess at this point, Rich, I should ask you what you think they mean by those terms ("fairness and "unfairness) and what you think they connect to? You might also try to reiterate what you think those quotations mean in their totality.
They are not just words in a vacuum or ideas in a vacuum as so far you appear to be portray them. So tell me what you think they mean and why you would also say that someone like Mackenzie is contradicting himself. What is it that you seem to know (in this context and regarding this specific issue) that Alister MacKenzie apparently didn't?
-
Tom P
I'll try to answer your questions.
I think S&W are talking about how some pros of their day are pressuring people in the game (architects primarily, but I assume there are others--greenkeepers, championship commitees, etc. for example) to make the game less subject to chance. To me this would mean fewer blind shots, more consistent maintenance practices, less draconian hazards, etc. S&W don't like this attitude. Nevertheless, I don't see them jumping from this admirable position to any sort of discussion of or statement about "match play or "stroke play" golf courses. You and Geoff and others may think that the connection is obvious, but I do not. I don't even see any evidence in the quote that the impetus behind the attitudes of those unnamed pros is stroke play golf. S&W talk about championships. My understanding of their era is that these "championships" were both stroke and match play. Surely, the "second" major in Britain in their time was the "News of the World" match play championship. Finally, I personally think that both "fair" and "unfair" courses or golf holes will be as fair or unfair for either form of the game. Sure, in match play a really bad score on a hole is generally less fatal than if it were incurred in stroke play, but I am not sure that the leading pros were worrying too much about snowmen, even in those days (yes, I know they had them--particularly at TOC when the railway lines were still an integral part of the course). More likely they were concerned about what awaited them when they climbed the hill of the Alps at Prestwick, or whether or not a properly judged and struck putt would travel fairly straightly towards the hole, regardless of what form of golf they were playing. I don't know about this, of course, but neither do you or Geoff, I think. We are all sepculating as to what was in the minds of those old pros.
Mackenzie talks about the "card and pencil spirit" adn amkes the statemnt:
"The majority of (golfers) simply look upon a hazard as a means of punishing a bad shot, whereas their real object is to make the game more interesting." With all due repect to the Dr., the reason that hazards make the game more interesting is precisely because they have the potential of punishing a bad shot. What would be interesting about a hazard that was non-hazardous? Or maybe this is where the practiceof "eye-candy" was born...........
As you know, I play a lot (40-50 rounds a year) of sanctioned competitive golf--both stroke play and match play--not at your level of skill, but with at least as much enthusiasm. I really have racked my brain trying to see how the form of golf that is played has any sort of relationship to the architecture of the course. As others have said, there is a tremendous difference between the two forms of golf, but that relates to their form--the fact that in match play you are playing, in real time against a real and defined opponent, whereas in stroke play you are playing in a more amorphous competitive arena, primarily against yourself. All kinds of golf courses can acomodate both forms of golf, equally well, IMHO. This is one of the beauties of golf.
Finally, I have not really tried to be sarcastic in my posts. I honestly do wish that you or anybody else would give me a concrete example of this hypothesized match play/stroke play course differentiation. To me, an interesting golf hole or golf course is interesting and effective regardless of the form of golf over which it is played.
Tom H
I don't mean or ever plan to ridicule. Suffice it to say that my approach to golf is holistic. I try to experience and appreciate all of its elements, very much including "venues." If I ever lead you to believe otherwise, I apologise.
-
Rich:
Thanks for the explanation. I dare say our approaches to the game are very similar, but that in the whole that each of us try to experience, perhaps certain parts are more important to each of us... but I dare not say that, dare I? ;)
I guess I ought to go eat a peach.
TH
ps - I never intended to say that you did not appreciate the venue on which the game is played AT ALL, just that I thought you appreciated the playing of the game MORE than the venue. In a very odd way I mean this as a compliment.
-
"S&W don't like this attitude. Nevertheless, I don't see them jumping from this admirable position to any sort of discussion of or statement about "match play or "stroke play" golf courses."
Rich:
I can't believe I'm still doing this but anyway. S&W weren't having a discussion or making a statement about match play or stroke play golf courses! What they were talking about is an attitude, most likely born out of stroke play golf that they were strongly implying could have a deleterious effect on all golf, all formats, and possibly golf architecture eventually.
That attitude they were talking about is what they called "a rigid standard of equity" (in the minds of some players). Mackenzie may have referred to it as "a card and pencil" mentality. Generally today we call it "a stroke play mentality". But essentially it's all the same thing and results in what most refer to as an over-concern with "fairness" (or "unfairness).
If you read S&W's quote carefully you cannot help but see and understand what they were talking about--it's as clear as the noonday sun. And when you get to the end of their quote you can also see the point they were trying to make. But they are not talking about any comparison between match play courses vs stroke play courses as it relates to architecture.
What they were talking about is that if that "attitude" became prevalent in golf it would begin to affect architecture, it would begin to 'disturb the values' (of golf). It would begin to 'divert the poetry of golf'.
That was their warning. That was Mackenzie's warning.
But again they were not comparing match play golf courses to stroke play golf courses (because they didn't think there was SUPPOSED to be such a thing and neither do we) and they were not implying that there should be architecture specifically for one and then the other. They were warning that this "attitude" (concern with fairness) could "disturb the values" of all golf!
Again, that was their warning!
Geoff Shackelford (and also Dan King) used those quotes to make the point that apparently no one ever really heeded their warning but that they should have because that "attitude" did take hold and influenced architecture and DID EVENTUALLY help create a form of architecture that was so reliant on fairness that courses became center directed, creating thoughtless "shot dictation" type designs, a heavy reliance on flanking hazards (of any kind) and such. Cornish & Whitten referred to that modern style as "freeway" golf architecture (just hit it down the defined center line, no need to think or choose, just execute).
That's what Shackelford was writing about in his article, concluding that architects should get away from that defined type of architecture, that "fairness" oriented type of design which really isn't that much fun or thought provoking in either match or stroke play and return to creating more architecture that is more reliant on choice, probably on width, on luck, and less concern with "fairness" on the loss of a shot, less concern about overall medal play score etc (handicapping).
And while they're at it Geoff also recommended it would be a good thing if the tour players would play a bit more match play (maybe even the PGA Championship as it once was match play) since they're about the biggest advocates of that stroke play mentality (fairness), that "attitude" that S&W were refering to years ago with the players in those 1,000 pound tournaments where a reliance on 'a rigid standard of equity' (fairness) was becoming prevalent. Hopefully if today's tour pros played more match play they'd become more comfortable with the fact that a well executed shot that goes randomly awry is only the loss of approximatly 1/18 of their day instead of their whole day.
But again, none of us ever said there was a good type of match play hole or course as distinct from a good stroke play hole or course. A good hole or course is logically probably just as interesting for stroke play as match play although it's clear your game plan, your options and choices may be quite different depending on which format you're playing.
On this we all seem to agree. But take that multi-optional, luck oriented, sometimes quirky type of hole or course where strange although often exciting things may sometimes happen even with the best executed shots and tell a golfer with an "attitude" of over-concern about "fairness" (the stroke play mentality crowd) that it's a good hole or course and I will guarantee you you'll get a serious disagreement.
And unfortunately from S&W's time forward those people's "attitude" about golf and architecture has had a real influence on architecture. And you probably think so too unless you've never seen a hole or course that you thought was boring and you didn't like. Or else to you it really is true that a hole is a hole is a hole.
That was the point of Shackelford article and the point we were trying to make here.
But ultimately it occurs to me that the thing that may really be throwing you off on this entire thread may just be the title of Dan King's thread here. It obviously made sense to him in the context of his inital post including the quotes and Geoff's article. And it makes sense to me.
But to have it make sense you have to follow the connection Dan and Geoff made and since you didn't understand the connection or think there was one obviously this entire thread and discussion didn't make much sense to you.
I sincerely hope it does now.
Mackenzie's remark about the real purpose of a hazard that you seem to disagree with is way too complex for me to try to get into with you now particularly after your take on this thread. A good deal of Mackenzie's remark and obviously his belief about that has a great deal to do with the thinking of Max Behr and I can't handle trying to explain him to you again now since you seem to think he too is some kind of lightweight thinker.
But rest assured if I ever run across a golf course that's ideal for match play that one cannot possibly play stroke play on or vice versa you'll definitely be one of the first to know about it.
-
Someone early on asked for examples, and I have been surprised there haven't been many presented on this thread. NGLA was brought up, appropriately, but I think it's more illustrative to bring up both NGLA and Shinnecock, because they are wonderfully complementary.
In Shinnecock, you have what I believe to be the premiere medal play course in the country, and with National, the premiere match play course. How incredible that they are separated by only a few trees!
Play both these courses, and the difference between the two schools is readily apparent. Shinnecock offers golfers really only one correct way to play each hole, and the strategy is usually self-evident from the tee, where one generally can see the whole hole. It's an exacting course, to say the least, but golfers need not waste much thought on strategy or course management (unless they find trouble). A classic U.S. Open venue.
NGLA, on the other hand, offers golfers a variety of strategies on each hole, usually presenting a trade-off between risk and return. This is interesting at all times, but all the more so when competing in match play, where you must "mark" your opponent. The golfer must constantly be weighing options.
One important aspect of strategic holes is that they have a much higher score variance, which, I think, makes them more entertaining. The 7th at National is a perfect example. One day you might hit the green in two with a five-iron, two putt for birdie, and think, hey, that's not so hard. The next day, you try the same thing, find the asshole bunker, and make triple. That hole may have the highest variance of any hole I know.
It might make for an interesting thread, come to think of it: what holes/course have the greatest score variance?
-
von hayek:
What a good and instructive post that was. Excellent general distinctions made between those two courses. Would you think not just different designers obviously but it's certainly interesting to see how design and maybe the use of it had changed in approximately 20+ years in an extremely rapidly developing era in American golf and its architecture (1909-1930)? But clearly both the highest of high quality courses right out of the box and so different in so many ways.
No way on earth would NGLA's #7 have the highest scoring variance. There are at least two par 3s at Pine Valley that have it beat and one in its sleep (I'm not including #5 in this BTW).
-
von hayek
Thanks for stepping up to the plate to answer my question. The NGLA-Shiinecock comparison is an interesting one, but IMO not one that proves either the proposition in the title to this thread, nor Tom Paul's various perigrinations about "fairness" and "stroke play mentality." National is clearly a much more forgiving course (at least off the tee) but to me it is just as good a stroke play venue as SH (IF you recognise that it is several shots "easier" for the elite player). Once you get over the hurdle of a "par mentality" I think you can see that NGLA would be a fine stroke play course--I suspect that the best player over the 4-days would be as much or more likely to win an Open there as they would at Shinnecock. Getting to Shinnecock, isn't it as you describe it (and as I too found it) a course which epitomizes the design principals that Tom, Geoff and the dead guys are all bemoaning? "Rigid standard of equity" and "shot dictation" designs seems to fit when you are tlaking about Shinny, don't they?
And yet, when you really think about it, I think an argument could easily be made that SH--that paradigm of the "non-poetic" desig--is in fact MORE unfair than its next door neighbor. At NGLA you can get away with a lot of loose shots. At Shinny, as I said to my host when I play there, requires perfect shot after perfect shot after perfect shot. This help makes it the great golf course that it is, but to those of us mortals who are imperfect, is it really fair?
Food for thought.......
-
"Thanks for stepping up to the plate to answer my question. The NGLA-Shiinecock comparison is an interesting one, but IMO not one that proves either the proposition in the title to this thread, nor Tom Paul's various perigrinations about "fairness" and "stroke play mentality.""
Rich:
I't clear to me that you're fixated on the title of this thread. In an early post I tried to say to you that you shouldn't be, when I said;
"But ultimately it occurs to me that the thing that may really be throwing you off on this entire thread may just be the title of Dan King's thread here. It obviously made sense to him in the context of his inital post including the quotes and Geoff's article. And it makes sense to me.
But to have it make sense you have to follow the connection Dan and Geoff made and since you didn't understand the connection or think there was one obviously this entire thread and discussion didn't make much sense to you."
You're still looking for someone to show you examples of match play courses vs medal play courses. NGLA compared to Shinnecock is definitely not a good one. Again, try not to fixate on the title of this thread and try to understand better (despite the title) what Shackelford is saying in his arcticle.
What Shackelford has tried to show is a comparison of courses that offer any player more options and choices as well as a higher degree of "luck" in their architecture as opposed to courses that offer players an extremely and clearly defined one dimensional way to play any hole and are low on the degrees of "luck". Courses like that result from the influence of the "stoke play" mentality, is his point.
What does that mean? Well, a hole or a course that's one dimensional in how any player plays it compared to one that isn't is self evident. So what does a higher or lower degree of "luck" mean? For a good example of that you should refer to the interview with David MacLay Kidd on the new course he's to build at St. Andrews. That's an excellent example.
Again, none of us are saying that architects way back set out to build courses strictly for match play or stroke play. What we are saying (and S&W and MacKenzie are too) is that a concern for an overall number (single round scores--ie the stroke play mentality) was having and has had an effect on the use of multi-optionalism in architecture and also an effect on the use of or the place of "luck" in architecture.
The so-called "stroke play mentality" asks for and almost demands that the way to play any hole be very clearly defined. Good players do much better in that atmosphere--they like that presentation. It does not really mean that bad things cannot happen--only that they can clearly see those lines or architectural definitions that divide the good from the bad. And also in certain situations like bunkering, for instance, they demand that they always be allowed a shot at complete recovery (again see Kidd's bunker example).
We think it's clear to see the differences and the degrees of it that many courses offer these things and many don't.
But we've still not said that there are courses where match play or stroke play can be played and courses where either can't be. It's all really the degree of interest to which either can be played. The one dimensional designs that have attempted to remove luck as much as possible by making almost everything "formulaic" is not very good for either. That's our point and that was S&W and MacKenzie's point. They thought it disturbed 'golf's values' and effected the 'poetry of the game'. We do too.
If you cannot imagine architecture that's extremely one dimensional in choice and also extremely formulaic in how it deals with things like "luck", basically attempting to remove it (the mindset of a "stroke play" mentality), and on the other hand courses that are really not that way, then you just can't.
-
Thakns Tom
I apologise for "fixating" on the subject of this thread. I have only done so because it is of interest to me and I was hoping that someone could shed some light on the concept. I'm willing to accept a hollow victory in my lonely quest, as nobody seesm to agree with the premise implicitly posed by Dan.
As to the subejct of your posts, I agree that golf courses span many various continua of parameters, including the "one-dimensitonal/multi-dimensional design" theme that you seem to be fixated on. My problem with that theme is that Shinnecock, which is one of the finest courses I have ever played seems to fall within that first denigrated category, while NGLA, which I like very much but do not donsider to be in the very top rank of courses, is perhaps one of the paradigms for "multi-optional design." Do you, Geoff and the dead guys really want to tar Shinny and its style with the same brush as you do, say the new Torrey Pines, as you seem to be wanting to do?
-
Rich
You said that Lehman-Ballesteros's match at the notorious stroke play Oak Hill was the greatest match you had ever seen. What were some of the more memorable moments/holes from that match?
-
Tom MacW
From another post I thought you had seen Lehman-Ballesteros and in fact agreed with me. If you did not see the match, thank you for your blind faith in my taste, but I would suggest that you buy or borrow from your local golf library a copy of the video of the 1995 Ryder Cup. Or at least get Tommy Nacccarato to post some pricures of it. Mere words cannot describe the beauty of the contest.
-
Rich
I did see the match. I'm interested in exploring your thoughts on the golf courses architecture - which holes from that match stood out to you?
-
If you read the S&W quote, the emphasis to me is on the players' reactions to bad things happening on the golf course with all the money at stake. I am with Rich on this one. I don't see where, at least as it pertains to that quote, there is anything specific to match play versus medal play in that quote. So that quote at least, as it stands by itself, is a bit misleading. That standard of equity could easily have been demanded in match play games.
As for MacKenzie's card and pencil quote, I still think he was talking as much about the fun of match versus medal as he was talking about golf architecture. The card and pencil part of that is only a part of what he was writing about in that passage.
As for fairness, I put the quote above in about "rocketball" to see if it would initiate thoughts about how all golfers seem to be interested in newer, straighter, longer technology--all golfers, match and medal alike. So which "mentality" is more willing to live with a ball that does not fly as far or as straight? If the match play golfer is so gracious when it comes to living with unfairness, then I assume he/she is still using 1987 golf balls and persimmon woods, no? There are three aspects to the game of golf--the golfer, the equipment and the course/golfing environment. All should be examined in light of whatever mentality one wants to discuss, in my opinion.
The other problem with the concept of match play versus medal play is that it tries to put medal play in a bad light. I think that is really too bad. Why not just celebrate the incredible wide range of games being played by golfers? When Tom MacWood talks about the US Open set up for courses, it would seem to me that we could easily accept that set up for what it is. Afterall, my local munis don't set up like that for us average golfers. Why not just enjoy those events for what they are? Golf is not like basketball where each field of play is set up the same. But that is to golf's extreme benefit.
When Rich says red herring, I think he is right.
Tom P, By the way, I am still hoping you will answer my question about the Augusta set for match versus medal. What sort of pin positions would the match player want versus the medal player? If you have tired of this thread, I will understand, as you have been very good at replying to date. Thanks.
-
Guest
I do not believe the concept of courses designed with match or medal play in mind puts medal play in a bad light. Golf courses that are set up or designed to simply protect par are what is being put in a bad light. Its easy to set up or design a golf course that protects par, it is more difficult to design a golf course that provides interesting options, tempts and is also challenging. It is my view that a well designed golf course should provide an interesting test be it match play or medal.
I have no problem with the US Open being a medal event whose set up tests/requires simple mechanical skill over mental skill/imagination. But we are talking about architecture and I don't know anyone who would want a steady diet of that kind of golf - and isn't that the ultimate test of a well designed golf course?
-
Tom M, with my golf game, most course provide plenty of variety and challenge! No one wants a steady diet of anything, it is true. I think average golfers often play the same course over and over because they cannot make it play like a steady diet, they/we are not good enough.
What do you think of Pebble Beach? Is that a steady diet of anything in particular? Isn't it great that they can set that course up for the US Open AND play it with the amatuers in a different tournament? Again, golf is amazing that way.
I do think that there is a negative tone here regarding stroke play in this thread. The S&W quote is being used as a mouthpiece against stroke play (I don't see it in the quote myself, but whatever) and the quote uses the phrase "diverting the poety of golf". That is not a nod in favor of stroke play (if you accept that the quote is about stroke play which I do not at this point).
TEPaul, As a matter of fact, I am beginning to believe the S&W quote is really about MATCH PLAY! They were talking about the overriding match play mentality at the time in which superior golfers were getting tired of losing to lucky golfers and stealing all the money! (I am just being provocative...but on the other hand, I could be right. :) )
-
"If you read the S&W quote, the emphasis to me is on the players' reactions to bad things happening on the golf course with all the money at stake. I am with Rich on this one. I don't see where, at least as it pertains to that quote, there is anything specific to match play versus medal play in that quote. So that quote at least, as it stands by itself, is a bit misleading. That standard of equity could easily have been demanded in match play games."
guest:
Obviously I haven't been too good at explaining what I mean and what I believe Geoff Shackelford means.
I've asked Rich a number of times to just forget about the TITLE OF THIS THREAD. It probably is somewhat misleading as to the S&W quote and MacKenzie's because they really aren't talking about the differences in match and medal play courses or the need for a different type of architecture for either.
I really do hope we can all be clear on that at this point. What they're talking about is a deleterious effect of the stroke play mentality (card and pencil) on all golf, all architecture and they believe that as clearly they are both warning about something! What they're warning about is that very stroke play mentality--card and pencil mentality--overconcern with equity--overconcern with fairness is not good for golf--any golf!
Clearly also they do NOT believe that mentality is necessary for any type of golf--stroke play or match play. Clearly they believe that any good architecture can accomodate both types of format although Bobby Jones very clearly has explained that it is necessary, or certainly sensible, to approach and manage one's game on good architecture differently depending on which format you're playing.
Their warning basically involved what they called a disturbing influence on the "values" of the game by that stroke play mentality in its demand for "fairness" (they called it "equity"). They said they felt that might influence the "poetry" of the game (all of it--including probably all its formats) and take it into other channels.
By this they meant the influence of the stroke play mentality (fairness) on all forms of golf, although back then most of those men thought of golf more as match play in essence.
But again they did not say that there needed to be separate architecture for either format--they were obviously implying a warning that that would never be a good thing or a necessary thing. They believed in the luck factor in golf in any format and they believed in multi-optionalism too--certainly not the shot dictated, center directed architecture we see so much of today.
Now Shackelford has said that that warning was not ever heeded and there definitely is a "stroke play" mentality or an over reliance or over-concern about "fairness" today amongst so many golfer who play BOTH formats--match and stroke play.
It's absolutely undeniable to me--I see it everywhere I go, at my club, at all clubs, in tournaments either match or stroke--everywhere.
The call for an over-reliance on fairness dials down on the use of luck and multi--optionalism in golf and archtiecture which utilizes those things to make all form of golf more interesting is what Shackelford is saying. He's saying bring back the match play mentality because unexpected happenstances in that format are just not so important and hopefully then that "stroke play" mentality--or overconcern about fairness in all of golf can begin to disipate.
If either you or Rick are going to tell me there is not overconcern with "fairness" in golf today I'm just going to have to completely disagree with the both of you without feeling the necessity to explain this further.
Again, just forget completely about the title of this thread--because it's applicablity to Dan King's intial post , including Shackelford's article is not important. Just read those quotes and Shac's article and see what they say--it's about a stroke play mentality that has now lead to a type of architecture today that really is not interesting or good for any format!!!
As for pin setting--frankly I really don't know what to say but in light of this very subject why would it matter? These men in these quotes have said golf should probably maintain it's values, it poetry and both formats can handle those values and poetry.
But the reality today may be that pins can be a bit more intense with match play than stroke play, again because the loss of something in match play just shouldn't have as much significance in the minds of golfers today compared to stroke play, for a variety of reasons, including handicapping (a very deleterious form of "stroke play" mentality)! The reality of a "stroke play" mentality has been around a long time and it would be a good thing to see it entirely out of golf. But to help accomplish that a renewed feeling for the match play game would be a real help--shackelford is also saying that!
For pin settings in either, perhaps we could get David Eger on here at some point as he's the one that used to do the set-ups for both the USGA and the PGA Tour.
-
guest
As I said at the beginnig of this thread IMO there is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course. But there are courses whose architecture leans one way or the other - architecture favoring match promotes choice, dramatic risk/reward and architecture favoring medal is concerned with protecting par.
I disagree that no one wants a steady diet of anything, people do not want a steady diet of golf courses that are stimulating, that provoke thought and that are challenging but also playable for the hacker.
" I think average golfers often play the same course over and over because they cannot make it play like a steady diet, they/we are not good enough." You lost me there.
I love Pebble Beach. If I was condemmed to play the course the rest of my life, I would accept that condemnation gratefully. If however it was in US Open set up, my gratefullness would not be so great. That medal mentality would have detremental effect on my enjoyment; the contricting set up effects the architecture. Another golf course that has been effected by the medal mentality is ANGC. If given the choice I'd choose the less penal form of ANGC - the architecture is more interesting.
The negative attitude is not against medal play, but the effect a medal mentality can have upon golf architecture.
Have you read the The Architectural Side of Golf or The Spirit of St.Andrews? If so do you think the authors advocate match play over medal play?
-
TEPaul,
Thanks for yet another long response. You are a good sport. I do not agree with you mostly because I don't see the changes in architecture being dictated by a "stroke play mentality". I play mostly matches with friends. I would say, 9 out of 10 rounds I play are friendly matches. I see the equipment that everyone is using. We are all trying to take away the little OR BIG inconsistencies in our games with balls that go farther and straighter. We all like putting surfaces that are true, etc. I just don't see where some sort of "fairness" mentality kicks in when we play for score. If you were to go throught this thread and substitute the phrase "match play mentality" for "stroke play mentality" it would make just as much or as little sense to me as it does now. But you are definitely a good sport and that is a mentality I like. (By the way, my guess is that the pin placements would be basically the same either way, but that is just a guess)
Tom M, I am sorry I lost you. Steady diets can become boring. I was just saying that our (the average golfer) golf games are not good enough for a given golf course to become steady enough to be boring. We spend too much time discovering new untried angles into the greens and the like. Steady diets of wide ranging golf features are not really steady diets at all, they are varying diets. That is all I am saying.
-
guest
Spoken like a true card and pencil man.
Steady diets, varying diets, liquid diets...forget the diets. The point that Simpson and MacKenzie were trying to make is that golf courses that do not provide choice are no fun - for the average Joe or the Tiger. Why do you think the Old course has remained stimulating to all levels of golfer for so many years? Do you think you would be able to discover your untired angles, if the fairway is choked by rough - there ain't whole lot of angles on a course designed to protect par.
Have you read those books and if so, do the authors advocate match play over medal?
-
Tom MacWood,
Are you trying to pigeon hole me with your "card and pencil man" comment? If so, I would appreciate it if you would check your tone. Thanks.
If you have other S&W quotes that you would like to add feel free. The one that Dan King used did not say anything about "stroke" or "match" play mentality. Why should I assume anything? In the end however, those authors don't tell me what to think. I have my own thoughts based on my own experience. It is fascinating to read whay they have to say, but there are many voices in the world of golf. So I just factor in as much as I can along with my own experiences.
By the way, I am the one who typed all the MacKenzie quotes above. I actually added to the oft-used quote about "card and pencil". The rest of that passage doesn't get much play. But it tells a larger story when I read it. I talks about the fun of a flesh and blood match. That emphasis is not about architecture, but about the mechanics of a certain kind of competition. I have my interpretation of what I read, including Bobby Jones' foreward to MacKenzie's book where he talks about how the game of golf needs to be for the average golfer as well as the scratch golfer. So it sounds like a wide ranging game. I like it just the way it is. I hope you can allow me to have my opinion without resorting to trying to add labels. I think the sad thing about this whole thread and many here on GCA is that people want to label other people simply because they have opinions. I would not dream of labeling someone with "match play mentality" as if they were wrong. Why should I care if someone loves golf courses that require a different kind of tee shot than that of a US Open Pebble Beach? On the contrary, I am happy for them. My local public course has almost no rough, lots of trees that are limbed up so that you can hit out of trouble and plenty of strategy for my buddies and I. Is it wide open like TOC? No. It works for us in our matches and our medal games just the same.
You don't know me nor do you have any business labeling me a match play man or a card and pencil man. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel better, but I don't think it makes for pleasant discussion. And it is not the end of the world if I don't agree with you Tom. And might I say with utmost respect for your position, for the most part I don't agree with you. But I wish you well nonetheless.
-
guest
I'm sorry if you found my comments about being a card and pencil man offensive - it was unussually cruel on my part. I sometimes forget that most anonymous posters are quite sensative.
Perhaps we do disagree, I'm still trying to figure out your postion (regarding match vs medal play courses/architecture).
Would you prefer playing Pebble Beach under normal conditions or would you prefer to play Pebble Beach with US Open rough and 20-yard wide landing areas. Why?
-
Tom M, I wouldn't mind playing PB under any conditions. I like golf more than any game because the playing field coupled with my game combines to make for fun and challenge. As I look to the future, I love the thought that I will get to play the game of golf on many different courses under many different conditions. Some will have wider fairways and some will require me to hit it straighter to land in the fairway. That I can play the same course to different pin positions is wonderful. One of the great things about more modern courses is that there are typically more sets of tees. That will allow me to play the game as my golf game gets shorter. That will be true whether the fairways are wide or not. I can just move up to the forward tees.
By the way, and this is my next question for TEPaul :) ,is the added choice that comes with multiple tees a result of "stroke paly mentality" or is it "choice" and therefore a result of "match play mentality"? TEPaul, this is one you HAVE to answer! Don't stop just yet! :)
In the end, it all sounds great to me. I think Rich is correct.
-
guest
Fascinating.
I agree with Rich too! (partially)
No preference hey? I commend you for your open-mindedness, you like it all and look foward to it all. Its hard to disagree with anyone with such broad tastes and a positive outlook - its no wonder you don't see any differences in the medal and match golf. You're not a card and pencil man, you are stick and ball man--give you a stick and ball and you'll be happy anywhere.
I have a question for TE Paul also---could you please translate that last question 'guest' asked?
-
Tom M, in the event that my last question to TEPaul was not clear, I will state it again and a little differently:
Since "choice" has been used here as a good aspect of a "match play" hole, where does the concept of multiple tees fall into the equation? They obviously provide choice. Most new golf courses, even the ones being produced out of the so-called "stroke play mentality" have multiple tees. So are they the result of match or stroke play mentality?
You are correct. It is hard to argue with someone who is happy. Golf is here to make us happy. Think of the alternative. I prefer a positive outlook over a negative one every day for myself. The world is full of talk of war and critical politics, Social Darwinism and unnecessary repression. But if arguing is what you want, I see that the Cigar thread is a doosy! The glass is never full in life. The key is whether I choose to look at the empty part of the glass or the part with liquid in it.
-
Pollyana...err...guest
I'm sorry that you characterize our discussion as an arguement - not very half-full of you.
You have a wonderful outlook. I wish I could look all golf courses with such innocent bliss. I suppose all this talk of what is outstanding golf architecture, sadly what is not, is a bit unsettling.
That is a particularly good question for TE about the mulitiple tees, if I'm not mistaken it was Flynn who was among the first to advocate mutiple tees--many years ago.
-
Tom M,
I should have used the word "disagree" since that is a word you used, instead of argue. I truly didn't mean to misrepresent you. My post was in response to what I perceive is your desire for me to accept some point/s you are making. Your tone in calling me a "card and pencil man" or a "stick and ball man" seems to me to be at best passive aggressive. But maybe I am wrong. I can't read your mind and email is not the easiest thing to interpret. That is why I used the phrase "IF arguing is what you want". IF it is not what you want, then disregard any advice to head over to the Cigar thread. The point is that it is okay if we do disagree without you trying to pigeon-hole me or me trying to pigeon-hole you, or even you trying to change my mind. It really is okay. I don't want to be a part of some unhealthy disagreement like the Cigar thread. Fair enough?
However, now you are in fact name-calling when you use the word "Pollyana". It is interesting that TEPaul and I can have such a fun, useful discussion from both sides of this issue without name-calling. It seems to me to be kind of pathetic the way these threads dive into the personal muck for no good reason. Wouldn't it be more gracious to just agree to disagree rather than name-calling? I assume you have better things to do with your time than to call me names. Could you not just let me be happy without calling me a name and move on? If you cannot do that, I will, with utmost respect for your position on this thread, but without any respect at all for your name-calling style of dialogue, just move on myself. I cannot see any good reason to engage in a discussion with someone who takes personal shots at me on this website. That is not what I come here for. It is not fun and it is not healthy. Fair enough?
-
guest
I thought we were having fun?
Do you find Pollyana a derogatory term--I do not--I think it describes your optimism perfectly. And by the way how can an alias be insulted, you do not exist, you are fictitious.
-
Tom M, do whatever makes you feel better. It is a free website. I have seen how threads spiral downward at around this point in discussions. I hope you are happy playing your part.
TEPaul, feel free to answer my questions if you like. If you have moved on to other topics, that is great too. See you when I read you!
Rich, I think you are correct as far as this topic is concerned.
-
guest:
You ask a lot of questions--but they're very good questions--frankly unexpected ones, too, which probably has to be a good thing.
Mostly, though, these days, I try hard to look at golf architecture not simply through my own personal opinions, like my own game, but through the eyes and times that they happened or evolved in and then to make some sense out of where it all came from, how it evolved, where it is, and where it might be going.
But first, please don't get personally defensive on here about an apparent "attitude" somebody might seem to show. We're all doing the best we can on this Internet website which since it's typed back and forth responses on an unusual medium is not much like people face to face or even on the telephone. It's actually a lot harder to do it this way.
But your last question, that you want an immediate answer about;
"By the way, and this is my next question for TEPaul ,is the added choice that comes with multiple tees a result of "stroke paly mentality" or is it "choice" and therefore a result of "match play mentality"? TEPaul, this is one you HAVE to answer! Don't stop just yet!
That's a good one, certainly sort of fundamental to modern golf. Give me some time to think about that one--and hopefully in the evolutionary context it should be couched in--even if looked at today.
I like the way you present the question though--Is it "choice" or a "stroke play" mentality?
That's a good one but I'll have some kind of answer after a while even if you disagree, it matters not.
By the way, I want to say this in the most inoffensive and uncondescending way possible. I admire what you're doing on here with all this posting and all these questions. And I admire the way you insist on looking at golf architecture in your own personal way now--that's as it should be and the way that most of the best architect's probably clearly wanted it to be.
But do me and yourself a favor. You stick on here the way you are now for another year or so and I will absolutely guarantee you that your ideas and opinions on architecture will begin to change, to become much broader, much more accepting of things in the larger context of it all.
It's not really meant to be this way or that way, I don't think--it can be all ways--the deal is in the differences because golfers will always be different and want different things--but again, a year from now you will be much more confident with your personal opinions, probably more satisfied with them and even though you might not even express them so much, again I guarantee you things will be clearer for you generally speaking!
I'll guranatee you of that. Hang in here and please don't be defensive on this website--it really does no good for you or anyone else!
-
guest
Hang in there. Not only do you have an impeccable sense of what is right and what is wrong and an admirably broad view as to what contitutes "golf", you are teaching us a thing or two, as well as learning. that is what life is all about.
Don't feel obliged to either give your real name or a real e-mail address, unless you want to. The fact that so many people on this site get apoplectic when confronted with people who want to protect their privacy mystifies me, but I respect their right to get apoplectic. It's part of the "free dissembly" clause in the Constitution.
"Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche." Chaucer.
-
"Rich, I think you are correct as far as this topic is concerned!" -- guest.
No wonder he uses an alias.
-
If golfers looked at golf holes, golf courses, certainly all of golf in even remotely the same way, it wouldn't be half so interesting, don't you think?
I mean how much differently can any tennis player look at any tennis court?
It's probably up to a good golf course architect do his best to see that it stays that way. When I hear people, particularly on here, start to explain how the architect meant any golfer to play a hole I start to wonder if they're not misunderstanding things in a fundamental way.
The example that's always comes to my mind although I've never been to the course is that hole at St. Andrews where even longtime caddies disagree completely. I've heard it said that one will recommend you go 50 yards over that way and the other swears you should go 50 yards over in another direction. Fundamentally that has to be what great architecture is all about.
-
Rich:
How's that old song go?
"You take the low road and I'll take the high road...and I'll be in Scotland before ye.."
Not a bad architectural principle, don't you think?
-
Where in America the general thought seems to be--here's the direct way, now take it--don't even think about trying to get clever--this is all about single minded efficiency pal. Charm on what line? What are you talking about?
-
Tommy
I'm not sure if you are talking to me, yourself or "guest" in that last post, but with all your obsession on pathways and lines of charm and the highly-practiced incoherent ramblings of St. Andrews caddies, I think you would be wise to follow Yogi Berra's advice
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."
-
Rich:
I'm glad you asked. I'm talking to myself apparently but it's been a wonderful conversation. It's over now though.
PS:
Do you, however, understand the value in width in golf architecture?
-
You know I do, Tom--you've seen me play.
As for you, however, how can somebody who never strays more than a foot or two from the "line of charm" have any concept of what it might be like to find yourself at other often less salubrious places on any golf hole?
-
Rich:
That's not what I mean at all by width. I'm not talking about a big open 80 yard wide fairway. I'm talking about real use of width in architecture where inside that 80+ yards are all kinds of things going on, bunkers, any other interchangeable features, angles, whatever. That way when any golfer stands on the tee or whatever there are all kinds of things to choose to do, all kinds of interest, directions, distances etc. That's what I mean by the use of width in architecture. Something other than architectural dictation and definition basically right down the middle of a stripe of fairway.
-
Tom
I understood completely what you meant. I thought it was such a simple question that a bit of humor might suffice for a reply. I've played several hundred rounds over courses that would be on anybody's list of top-ten "width" venues. I agree that, all other things being equal, properly used width is good.
Oh, and I forgot to add....properly used width "works" equally well for match play and "card and pencil" golf.........
-
the one match play course i have experienced is wygykyl (why GHAA kill) country club in new rochelle ny [japan airlines (JAL) sponsors an LPGA event annually) which was set up for match play by having a "19th" hole to play as a tie breaker - to play continually until a winner is declared - which allows players not to interfere with the groups coming in from off the 18th
as far as stroke v match play it seems to me you can have both - keep individual scores for stroke play for all eighteen as well as declare an individual winner on each hole (or halve etc) determined from the gross scores generated then netting handicaps then comparing the individual scores