[Matthew Mollica]

For the first time in a long while, this weekend saw me play a match play event at my home club.  The event was a welcome change from usual par, stableford or stroke competitions.

I couldn’t help but look at the course in a different perspective during the morning. I recalled all the older golf books I’ve read, which speak of the predominant form of the game being match play, rather than medal, in times past.

I’m sure that courses were designed in decades past, with match play, and ‘shot-swinging holes’ more at the forefront of architects’ minds, and that this approach led to more enjoyable courses.

Has the predominance of stroke play adversely affected today’s course architecture ?


Matthew

[TEPaul]

Matthew:

Man, we've been all over this subject, I think, on some other threads recently.

It's not stroke play predominance exactly that may have  a "stroke play" influence and a negative influence on golf architecture in modern time-- it's more of just a "stroke play mentality". Most play today is still vastly a majority of match play.

So then why would a "stroke play mentality" be effecting the game, affecting players' thinking and maybe creeping into architecture too as a negative influence?

A very large reason! The handicapping procedure!

Handicapping, unfortunately, even in match play uses as a posting procedure of a single round gross score--which is the stroke play format.

The best way to break that mentality, cetainly in match play, is to set up an easy posting procedure on the computer to post hole by hole because that is the match play format!

If that happened I think the "stroke play mentality" and the negative influence you speak of would begin to diminish and hopefully its effect on architecture too.

[Doug Siebert]

How many people in the US carry handicaps?  Not many.  I'd guess 10-15% of rounds played here are posted (and that's probably generous)  Everyone else plays gross score, and no change to the handicapping procedure will change that.  Even those of us who do post our scores report our gross score if someone asks what we shot.  If I shot a 79 that includes a quad I say "I shot 79", not "I shot an adjusted 77."  If I post hole by hole I still have my scorecard, and I still know that gross score is all that counts when I'm playing for myself.

The average golfer takes his cue from the pros.  Witness how things filter from the pro tours down to average golfers, stuff like waggling for people who couldn't even swing an axe, let alone a golf club.  People taking their glove off to putt who are doing well when they take under 40 putts in a round, etc.  We just hope stuff like Sergio's OC regripping don't result in success lest we start seeing that pitiful display on our local tracks!  Change the pro tours to Stableford scoring, and the herd would eventually follow.

[Matthew Mollica]

Sorry TEPaul to be regurgitating old topics,

I am relatively new to GCA, and although I've scanned lots of archives, I've not seen threads which have discussed this topic.

If you could point me in the right area, I'd be most appreciative.

Matthew

[A_Clay_Man]

I think MatthewM is on to something here. Look at all the old photos, there was no designing for fairness (fairway tee to green)and it seems that the majority had a penal rugged look about them.(At least those in dunesland) In match play, if you hit into an inextricable spot, you try a miracle shot and/or pick up and move on. With stroke play it's hard to do that because thats how you measure yourself against the course, itself. With the CCFAD,  most likely you're not intamatley familiar with the course and the triple bogey or other can come up and bite you frequently.

I believe it's the commercialism in TommyN's, Desmond Muirhead article, pointed out that is responsible for both.

[TEPaul]

DougS;

You think only 10-15% of the rounds here are posted? Would you also mean by that that only 10-15% of the golfers here have handicaps? Would you also mean by that that app. 85-90% of golfers here play stroke play exclusively?

I really don't think so. And if that is true I really don't think those 85-90% who are playing stroke play without any handicap to their name are going to have much effect on golf architecture because they are playing stroke play without a handicap to their name. Why or even how would they have any effect on architecture? Who would even hear their concerns about "fairness" or the "stroke play mentality" if in fact they have any concerns?

I would think that app. 85-90% of golfers probably play match play at some point and for that reason a good deal of them probably have a handicap of some kind. The general way for anyone to determine what shots to allocate is off a handicap.

I admit that the USGA et al has a lot of work to do to try to offer ease in handicap establishment to the entire sector of public player in America but even as ineffecient as they are in that regard I'm fairly certain that a lot more American golfers than 10-15% have a handicap of some kind. And to have a handicap generally you have to post scores.

[Steve L.]

Really I doubt that even 10% of all rounds are posted...  And, even in a match play game (which is normal for many of us), we may not be as prudent as we would if we weren't conscious of our gross score to post.  If your partner has hit two in the water - you still want to make birdie and may play aggressively.

I think the biggest negative influence on course design is the same as in many disciplines - simple lack of commitment to detail and craftsmanship.  There is an economy to "design by formula" or "standardization" which has gripped all design disciplines.  Look how much more ordinary so many homes are today than they were early in the century.  

[Mark_Fine]

Stroke play has probably more of an influence on course set up these days than course design.  Take Merion for example.  That course (at least this summer when I last played it) was set up for match play not medal play.  If your are a relatively weak golfer and trying to post a true score, you will struggle at best and probably not be able to do so.  You will also hold up play looking for balls in waste high fescue.  Fortunately, Merion is private and members are in most every group.  If the course were public set up in that condition, it would take six hours to play and most players would not be able to post a true score.  

Personally I loved the set up but the two guests I had with me really struggled.  The one is a 7 handicap and shot maybe 95 and the other is a 14 and had no chance to post an actual score.  It just wore him out.  When you start to realize that your ball is lost or unplayable everytime you miss a fairway, the pressure builds quickly.  But back in 1930, most golfers just picked up and moved on to the next hole.  

Mark

[Matthew Mollica]

Guys - Don't worry so much about who has handicaps and how many cards are going in and so on.

What I'm driving at is the predominant influences on architects of yesteryear, as opposed to those affecting the designers of today.

To put it in simple terms - one might say that architects at the start of the 1900's and in the following three or four decades, thought that match play would get played lots. I'm proposing that they built courses accordingly. Short par fours, more holes with many ways to the pin, and greater variety of scores able to be posted on holes.

I'm certain that designers of today build 440yd par fours, thinking that this will be a good finish to a stroke play tournament, and that it will be a demanding way to finish a championship. I argue thsat this mindset was absent at the start of the 1900's.

Holes such as the straight, tree-lined 400yd corridor, would have been built less frequently, if architects thought that more match play would have been conducted on their course, because a hole such as this sees little joy during a match play round.

Think of the skeleton of the holes. Holes which provide good theatre for match play, with heroic options, and different strategic approaches, would have been far more prevalent in years past, if my argument holds up.

I believe most in this forum enjoy such holes, and would state that holes of this kind make the great courses what they are.

This is what I want your thoughts on. Sorry if I've confused you.

Matthew

P.S. Tom - which past threads are you referring to ??

[Patrick_Mucci]

MathewM,

I would agree with AClayman,

Stroke play accelerated the implementation of "more fair" features and designs.

No matter what one scored, you could only lose one hole at match play, but the idea that one could take a 10 on a hole, and "ruin" their round, contributed to the neutering of features and designs in the name of fairness.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Lynn Shackelford]

I think stroke play has definitely influenced golf design.

A. Holes deemed quirky or unfair are not built on courses where someone someday may want to play a tournament.  Can you imagine Rees Jones putting some quirk into a hole when he "doctors" a course.

B. Holes where there is something fun to be had, but may result in triple bogeys are not built often.  A quote from Fazio to a builder one day, "we don't want controvesy here."

C. The conception that to "test a golfer" we need to tighten fairways to "identify the straightest hitters" is prevalent.

D.  Finally I find the need to test a golfer"s mettle, his ability to handle misfortune, or to judge a prudent path is overlooked in today's designs.

And finally Tom Paul, I doubt that 10% of all rounds at public courses are posted.  Less than 25% at privates.

[TEPaul]

Matthew:

Basically the things you mentioned and the questions you asked in the last post are the very things that this site talks about and discusses almost every day and has from the very beginning of Golfclubatlas.

Almost all of us would like to see the things you mentioned but the reasons why they aren't happening as much as they did before WW2, for instance, are all basically the influences of the "Modern Age" of architecture that began after WW2 and carries on today.

What you're asking is an immense subject. Check out some of the archives and you should see plenty of titles that specifically discuss and answer some of the things you're asking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lynn Shackelford,

At a club I'm familiar with, they greatly reduced, and may have stopped non-posters.

When golfers tee off, the starter records the foursome along with their time out and time in, as does the proshop/caddymaster.  If you don't return a score that day, you're first asked about it, if the answer is deemed unsatisfactory, and most are, your playing partners are consulted, and usually, the lowest round you've shot that year, or par is posted for you.

It's not a perfect system, but it seems to have worked well for this club.

[Dan King]

I've argued the danger of too much medal play many times on this forum. I think golf is seriously damaged by everyone's desire to have a number at the end of the round. Golfers' are slaves to their final score and will only be free when they eliminate score and play for the beauty of the game.

Medal play has been one of the big contributors to the ruination of golf and golf architecture. Medal play doesn't have a concept of fairness. Any sort of inequality will equal out over the holes being played. Medal play has only one result, and people get upset if the 13 they score in some unfair hole ruins all the work they did for the other 17.

Patrick_Mucci writes:
At a club I'm familiar with, they greatly reduced, and may have stopped non-posters.

I bet they don't accept the legitimate excuse that I was playing a match and therefore didn't keep a score. The USGA, in their infinite wisdom, are very confused on this point. They claim you should post all scores but in Rule 33-1:

Certain special rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The results of matches played and the scores returned in these circumstances shall not be accepted.

So USGA, do we pay attention to the rules committee or the handicap committee?

Dan King

"Golf is the only game in which a precise knowledge of the rules can earn one a reputation for bad sportsmanship."
  --Patrick Campbell

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

The problem may be human nature.

Many clubs hold tournaments with either trophies, plaques, prizes or money going to the winners.

Playing at scratch isn't equitable, and handicaps must be used.

And, golfers have been known to do funny things to manipulate their handicap.

If you don't adopt a system, and administer it universally and consistently, how would you develop a reliable handicap for all of the members ?

Not an easy or popular task.

[Dan King]

Patrick_Mucci writes:
If you don't adopt a system, and administer it universally and consistently, how would you develop a reliable handicap for all of the members?

If I ruled the world -- what a wonderful world it would be -- I'd do away with the whole idea of the more numbers the better. Admit it, Dean Knuth was wrong. More doesn't mean better. It just means far too many numbers for anyone to keep an eye on.

I'd accept that there will be sandbaggers, and not make a system trying to eliminate what can't be eliminated.

But I'd make it less profitable to be a sandbagger. I'd outlaw big prizes for tournaments. Amateurs should be playing for love of the game, not prizes. I'd make acceptance of large prizes the end of golfers amateur status.

I'd have occasional medal play tournaments, played according to the rules of golf, to establish handicaps. I wouldn't accept scores played not according to the rules of golf.

These medal tournaments would be some of the more prestigious tournaments of the year, also so it wouldn't make sense to sandbag these to win less prestigious tournaments.

I would restore power to the handicap chairperson, taking it away from GHIN. I'd also make handicap calculations open to bidding, and get the USGA out of the business of handicapping.

If I end up not ruling the world, and the idea is to just improve the current, terrible system, I'd institute real peer review by using the Internet.

Dan King

"Nature has left this tincture in the blood.
That all men would be tyrants if they could."
 --Daniel Defoe

[C.B. MacDonald]

Matthew,

When I look at my Donald Ross book the diagrams of the holes look like what is being built today in terms of overhead layout. Ross wrote about how the average golfer would benefit from shorter holes due to added sets of tees. If you were playing match play, why would you need shorter holes?

Robert Hunter wrote in The Links, "Even Par, once so perfect and so formidable, is now so battered and beaten at times that one wonders if his tenure of office is not soon to be terminated." He was complaining about how the increased distance of the ball was affecting golf holes. If match play was all they cared about back then, what difference would it make if the ball flew 200 yards or 220, since everyone would have the same opportunity for increased distance. Even then they were defending par. The Links was printed in 1926.

There was stroke and match play back in the earlier part of the century. And it looks like much of the architecture of the early-mid 1900's had the same sort of layout as what we see being built in the modern era, whatever that is. Maybe there are not a lot of Pine Valleys being built these days because of the penal nature of that course, but if you think match play golfers complain less about difficult holes than stroke play golfers, you might be kidding yourselves. I doubt that there were a lot of Pine Valleys being built in 1920 either.

Is it at all possible that some here on this formidable website are rewriting history in their own preferred image?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

You said (or quoted the USGA);

"Certain special rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The results of matches played and the scores returned in these circumstances shall not be accepted."

Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) from match play for handicap purposes.

[C.B. MacDonald]

Dan,

Medal play does have a concept of fairness. You, as the golfer, make a choice to enter into a system of scoring that awards the golfer that scores better over 18 holes, in some cases 72 holes, or whatever. You know the rules going in. If you shoot a 13 on one hole, you can expect that to hurt you in the tournament if others are scoring 5's. What is unfair about that? Are golfers being drugged and pulled into these stroke play matches or onto the golf course for solitary rounds where they are forced to keep score? If you don't want to be involved in handicapping your game, skip it. You are free and it is fair.

Some people think that medal play is a fairer way to find the most consistently best golfer because in match play you can actually win a match and shoot a higher score. I can see making a case either way depending on what you prefer. But I don't see one being fair and one unfair.

[TEPaul]

Maybe the best way to look at stroke play is the way Max Behr looked at it. It isn't golf!

[C.B. MacDonald]

TEPaul,

You could look at golf that way. But for a lot of people, including many of the architects of many of the great golf courses around the world, golf is bigger than just match play. Why not embrace all the fun possibilities of the game? At any rate, whatever you choose for yourself, I hope it is fun for you.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) for handicap purposes.

So you'd play by match or medal play rules? I assume match, and then use the handicap guidelines for deciding what you would have scored? All this in the name of getting as many numbers as possible, regardless if they are legit or not? I know when I play a match, there are numerous times I don't hole out, which means I just guess what I would have made. Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?

All this guessing, and confusion of the rules is resulting in a lot of people having no clue what it means to play by the Rules of Golf. I bet more than most golfers aren't aware of the significant differences between match and medal play rules.

The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business.

Dan King

"I miss the putt -- it's normal. I don't kill anybody so I forget about it."
 --Costantino Rocca (on the missed 3-foot putt on the 17th hole of his singles match against Davis Love at the 1993 Ryder Cup)

[Dan King]

C.B. Macdonald writes:
Medal play does have a concept of fairness.

I almost never respond to anonymous posts, but who knows, maybe you are the ghost of Mr. Macdonald, though you seem to have changed your tune since you passed.

You misunderstood me. I agree with what you used to believe (see below quote) that the concept of fairness or equity doesn't belong in golf. One of the greater tests in golf is accepting the unfairness inherent in the game, a test that has gone the way of the niblick.

But because medal play has become so popular, architects are attempting to build fairness into their designs. No longer can you have hazards impossible to get out of, places that cost more than a stroke, blind shots, poor lies in fairways, or holes that can easily result in wild swings in the score. Architects have moved away from hazards as a defense and moved toward length. Length is fair, hazards aren't.

Some people think that medal play is a fairer way to find the most consistently best golfer because in match play you can actually win a match and shoot a higher score.

Seems unfair doesn't it?

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

[C.B. MacDonald]

Dan,

You are confused about what I am saying about fairness. I am not concerned about the fairness of the ball bouncing or the evenness of wind or anything else along those lines. Play the ball as it lies. I believe however that any system, such a stroke play, the rules of which are presented to the golfer before hand, is fair. Unlucky bounces are part of that system, so nobody should squawk. Unlucky bounces occur also in match play for the record. No squawking there either.

C.B. MacDonald was well aware of Colonel Bogey when he wrote Scotland's Gift. In that book he takes great pains to discuss the ideal golf course. He says many things, not all of which might be easily argued as consistent, but one gets the picture. Here are a few of the things he wrote:

"Let the first shot be played in relation to the second shot in accordance with the run of the ground and the wind. Holes so designed that the player can, if he so wish, take risks commensurate to the gravity of the situation--playing as it were, 'to the score.'

"It is absolutely essential that the turf should be very fine so the ball will run perfectly true."

"Further I believe the course would be improved by opening the fair green to one side or the other, giving the short or timid players an opportunity to play around the hazard if so desired, but, of course, properly penalized by loss of distance for so playing."

These sorts of comments seem fair enough to me.

Donald Ross also wrote about changes he made to Number Two so that golf would be "a pleasure" instead of a "penance" for the average golfer. Maybe the olden, goldies shouldn't be given such a pass on this thread? Or maybe we shouldn't rewrite history.

[nels]

MatthewM,
Speaking only of MacKenzie's designs, the most notable difference I notice between his and modern designs is that MacKenzie in designing for Match Play, always had the strongest, most interesting holes in the 15, 16, 17 possition and often a fairly nondescript 18th hole.  This is true with Royal Melbourne, Pasatiempo, Cypress Point, Meadow Club, and even that one he designed with Bobby Jones.  Most matches finish prior to the 18th of course.  Now, architects either by desire or direction most often attempt to have a spectacular finishing hole.  Is this bad?  Only if you have a membership that plays most rounds in match play as they do at my course.
nels

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()