Most golfers, including myself, look at courses from a stroke play point of view: it's all about the score. For this reason, so many good holes lose their purpose and excitement. Many times, options off the tee are discarded due to the risk involved and holes are shortened to produce better scores and make the course more "fair". A few weeks ago I decided to play more match play just to change things up. But the more I played the format, I began to see a few things that normally I would've missed out on in stroke play. Below are some of those things I found that make the difference between interesting and boring matches:
Almost everyone is familiar with options and width off the tee, it seems like a cliche in golf course architecture at times. The purpose of them however, is to provide a challenge or to avoid a challenge. In stroke play, especially in tournaments, players generally know exactly where they want to hit it and rarely consider playing holes any other way. In match play however, lines off the tee can be dependent on your competitors play of the hole. If they hit it in trouble you may decide to play safe or if they are in a prime spot you may decide to play aggressive. In match play, you see the course from a variety of angles and view points. Let's say your opponent is in trouble off the tee and you hit it safely in the fairway. Obviously, you think you have the advantage but when they hit it to 6 feet on the green, you begin to consider more aggressive shots. Hitting shots you probably wouldn't hit from places you normally wouldn't be is what brings out the architecture in a course.
Hazards generally take on a much more severe purpose in match play. Bunkers become much more intimidating and penal: hitting it into them gives an opponent a great advantage especially when they're second to hit. It becomes much more of a hazard and fulfills a Golden Age idea that bunkers should cost players a stroke, or in this case, the hole. They can also have a reverse effect and create an advantage to being in the bunker. In one of my matches, I was on the green in under regulation with a 15 foot eagle putt and my opponent was in a green side bunker in two on a par 5. He hit it inside the leather from there and put a lot of pressure on the eagle putt I would eventually miss. Other hazards like water however, make the game much less interesting. When players hit it into them, it is an almost guarantee loss of the hole unlike bunkers where players can still tie or win the hole with a great shot or two. The same goes for stroke play, it makes it much less fun to to struggle with hazards and have no way of playing it out or making an incredible save in most cases. Water hazards are obviously part of the game and are present on some of the greatest holes, but if used too much they can have a negative impact on the course's architecture. An idea I really like is creating a hazard without a hazard. We tweeted a while back a video of how much a ball rolled off the false front of a green. Just barely getting to the false front can bring a ball back down some 20 yards. It becomes much more playable for the average player but can really test the skilled player. False fronts and contours in general can produce a lot of interesting play which is something you want in a good match or even in stroke play.
Playability on and around the greens is another huge part of an interesting match. Greens that have so much going on, with all there contours and slopes, can make it to where the hole is won by who gets on the green first. This completely gets rid of the advantage of a good short game and shot making. Around the greens is where momentum is created. In one of my matches, I had just lost the previous hole and missed the green on the par 3 after while my opponent hit it to 15 feet. I chipped it up to about 10 feet, my opponent barely missed his putt, and I made it to halve the hole. This was a huge shift in momentum for the match, I could've easily lost two holes in a row and had no momentum. Now, I stay all square for the match and have some momentum. When greens are laid out to have makable putts, that often creates some interest in the match. In our "The Art of The Greens" article Trey Kemp touched on the playability aspect of greens and put it like this "Green Contouring is one thing that can make or break a course in my opinion. All good greens have one thing in common and that is they are playable. Depending on the nature of the hole, some greens may be shaped and contoured with decks to emphasize the premium of getting close to the pin. By and large, the greens should be gently rolling. The premium for getting close to the pin will come from a shorter putt, which in itself increases the chances for a birdie." The greens should be able to make or break a match, players making or missing putts should attribute to the outcome. It's such a vital skill to the game and it should make a match interesting.
This is my personal opinion of the topic. I had no plans to write an article about this but while I was playing it came to me that I look at courses strictly in a stroke play sense. I'd love to hear other opinions or takes on the idea. Find us on Twitter (@ga_texas) or Instagram (ga_texas). Also feel free to email us: golfarchitectureoftexas@gmail.com.
