Open Boredom

[CB]

As soon as people stop expecting golf (or life) to be "fair", these "problems" will solve themselves.

[TEPaul]

Craig:

You ask good questions but there are very specific answers for all of them within the rules and the way tournament committees run tournaments (depending on the format).

Clearly tournament committees do not wish to give any "fellow competitor" (stroke play) an advantage or saddle another "fellow competitor" with a disadvantage!

But so they do not do that there are various mechanisms that have obviously evolved or been created over the decades and time tested in golf and golf tournament admisinistration that prevent that and still manage to keep the two distinct forms of play (stroke and match) clearly separated and clearly distinct.

It is firstly very important to know and understand why they wish to keep the two forms of play clearly distinct. To me anyway, and certainly many others I know, the fact that golf has these clearly distinct and very interesting forms of play makes the game just that much more interesting. To try to or even allow those clearly distinct forms of play to meld in any way at all somehow would only weaken or confuse that necessary and interesting distinction between the two forms of play. That's always been true in the minds of many although apparently from some of the opinions, even on this site, not all!

But I do know how the rules making bodies and the regulatory organizations and tournament committees feel about this and have felt about it for many decades, probably since rules were promulgated in golf--certainly since the later stroke play format came into being and prevalent use.

You probably noticed that to prevent giving any of the four competitors in the British Open an advantage, the order of play and groupings were done by "lot". That is not to be taken lightly or considered lightly as to its significance ("lot"). Golf, when it appears impossible to create impartiality any other way will revert to "lot" (chance). That clearly favors no one, at least over time! In that vein you may have noticed the little chips on top of the book that all four competitors selected--that was the "lot" of the British Open playoff.

And so off they went in the order of the chips they selected and the format of the playoff is of no real difference than the format of the tournament itself where they played in  staggered groups. Does someone going first in a tournament have an advantage over someone going last? No one really knows (although it's clearly subjective) and there's definitely no consensus of opinion on that and that's the way they want it and the way it should be!

Also, Craig you ask about the parings into two player groups in the final two days after the cut. There could be many reasons for that including TV but the point is it really doesn't matter in the context of the format of stroke play as neither the tournament committee nor the rules of the game in stroke play owe "fellow competitors" any obligation whatsoever to have the opportunity to play face to face--even in a playoff--which is stroke play--no different from the tournament proper, and it's intended to be that way!

You should also know (I bet you do) that the words rules and tournament officials use to describe things are important to them because it's important to all those involved certainly including the competitors in understanding not just how distinct the two forms of play are but why.

For instance in the context of golf rules vocabulary two "fellow competitors" (as distinct from two match play "opponents") are not called "matches" (as you called them), they're called "groups". For instance the "first group", "last group" or the "9am group". If it was a match play tournament it would be the "first match" etc.

There are also a number of rules and procedures in the rules of golf designed to protect a "fellow competitor" or other "fellow competitors" rights under the rules as opposed to the rights of a match play "opponent" which are necessarily very different and distinct.

The reason I say all this is because a stroke play playoff broken into groups is no more inherently fair or unfair than the stroke play tournament format and groupings themselves and this fact needs to be kept clear!

I certainly need to reiterate that I'm not saying here that if an association's tournament committee chose to playoff with an enormous multi player group like apparently was done in the Pacific Northwest with JohnV's association there is nothing wrong at all with that!

What I am trying to say is the reason to do that rests entirely with the tournament committee's ability to manage the tournament (like for instance if there isn't enough light left in the day to break the playoff into groups).

So the overriding point here is however playoffs are grouped is a decision of the tournament committee for its own reasons and also that they have no obligation whatsoever to the "fellow competitors" to play face to face to create some perception of "fairness" (in a match play format context)! That kind of fairness is dealt with in other ways in stroke play golf which includes stroke play playoffs and continues in them.

I realize that many will disagree with this but I will guarantee it's considered more fundamental than they might at first realize! And the REASONS it's considered fundamental are frankly very interesting in and of themselves.

[Ken_Cotner]

Am I the only one who thought it wasn't the R&A who decided the playoff would be 2X2, but Muirfield simply enforcing it's rule against fourballs in the evening?  Maybe they could have had a foursomes match -- the Aussies against Els/Levet -- with the winners playing another four holes against each other.  

KC

[THuckaby2]

You are absolutely not alone in that, Ken - that was the FIRST thought that came to me when watching it!

And "great" minds think alike - I too jokingly suggest to my Dad that "Aussies against the world" was the only way to do the two-ball.

TH

[TEPaul]

I will guarantee that Muirfield does not have the right or ability under the procedures of the British Open (R&A) and its tournment committee to ENFORCE something they may do locally--including a playoff format!

The playoff procedure was very likely published under the "conditions of the competition" pre-tournament by the R&A. The tournament committee (R&A) like other associations and tournament committees probably has some latitude to adopt any particular format if they so chose for their own reasons of tournament management but I will guarantee that Muirfield has no ability at all to make the R&A and its British Open tournament committee adopt or enforce something if they don't want to do it!

[THuckaby2]

Oh, I dunno Tom.. the spirit of Paddy Hamner is a powerful force...

I believe Ken and I were trying to be funny.  Emphasize TRYING.  Oh well, one wins some and loses some...  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

I haven't looked at Pages 1-3 of this thread, so if I'm entirely missing the point, or if I'm repeating the argument of someone else who entirely missed the point (and who was subsequently chastised for his ignorance), that could (emphasize: could) be the reason:

Let's forget about fairness. Let's concede that there's no perfectly FAIR way to run a playoff -- this one, or any other one. Someone has to go first; someone has to go last. There's some unfairness there -- though, of course, we won't know till later who got the unfair end of the deal.

Let's go further than that. Let's say we don't give a rat's behind about fairness. That's not one of our goals.

So, now, having dispensed with fairness: How about excitement, drama, theater -- any word like that?

For the purpose of creating those things -- which, unlike fairness, I DO think we want: There can't be any doubt, can there, that a single group of playoffers would have achieved that objective better than multiple groups?

They should all have gone off together.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

I know you were tying to be humorous and you both were humorous. I was just trying to point out the facts of tournaments and tournament committees which in my experience function pretty darn well but are almost never particularly humorous!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Respectfully disagree with your analysis. Clearly, the tournament committee can orchestrate anything they want. Deciding things by "lot" for the title of a major championship when a better solution is clearly at hand is just silly in my opinion.
 
The issue at the BO is simple in my mind: all players are playing for only one position in the playoff -- the winner of the event. With that in mind, clearly pulling out names from a hat to determine playing order is one way to do it. I disagree.

I believe all play together because there will be no "advantage" (throw out my previous word fairness) in playing ahead or behind. You play together and must react as it happens. That makes a big difference. There is advantage in either playing ahead or behind. How does the event suffer if they all play together?

My understanding is that for all PGA Tour events the policy is that whatever the number of players that ties they all go out together. That's the only way to do it.

One last thing -- Tom, save your long winded reply because you and I are on two different sides on this one.

[THuckaby2]

TEP - gotcha.  Oh yes, I can't imagine any tournament committee having much sense of humor - that kinda goes against their mandate!

TH

[JohnV]

TEPaul,

We definitely are in agreement on this one.  Since you used my example of what the PNGA does, I would point out that I have nothing to do with them and most of my work has been with the Oregon GA which doesn't do things that way.  I was shocked when I saw them have 17 guys play at once.  Seeing players trying not to step on each other's line of putt while trying to tap in or mark their balls was like watching kids play hop scotch.  At least one player definitely straddled his line of putt while tapping in, but the officials didn't call it.

I think they put the players out in pairs because that is how they had played all day and they would be used to the pace of play rather than having them go as a group of 4 which would be slower and definitely change the players mindset.

From what I've seen, a group of 2 can play 18 holes in a professional tournament in about 4 hours, a group of 3 takes about 4:35 and a group of 4 would probably take more than 5 hours.  Given this, 4 holes would take less than an hour in groups of 2 and more like 1:20 for a  group of 4.  This would be a definite change of pace for the players.

Some have argued that it favors the first group and others have argued that it favors the second group, I don't really think it favors anyone.

If it had been an 18 hole playoff like the US Open do those who think they should have played as a group of 4 still think the same way?  I certainly don't.  These guys never play in groups of 4 for more than a sudden death type playoff and it would be very unusual for them.

Ernie preferred it and I bet the others did also.  I haven't heard/read anything from any of them saying they didn't.

On another topic that has been discussed here, I would disagree with Patrick Mucci that today's pros don't have options.  If anything, they have many more than we do.  They can play any club from a driver to a 5-iron off the tee and still hit the green with a reasonable club on most par 4s.  We say the options in the playoff as Levet hit driver on 18 while others hit irons.  Or on #1 where two players hit irons and two hit woods.  The fact that most of them choose the same option on many holes doesn't mean they don't have others.

[Ken_Cotner]

TEPaul,

If that tournament committee was worth its salt, it would have made them all sit down to a few pints and maybe a couple wee drams, THEN sent them out...all together!  Now that would identify the true Champion Golfer!

And maybe Elkington would have been able to make a 5-foot putt...  

KC

[TEPaul]

Matt:

What you're missing here (and probably taking personally) is what I'm saying isn't my analysis--frankly, I agree with you that they should have and certainly could have done the BO playoff in a group of four instead of two and two. But that's their call totally and I understand it and go along with it.

The point here is the committee can do what they want to do (as I think you realize and said) but there are clear reasons why they do what they do which is generally for one tournament management reason or another.

The point to really understand here is whatever they do is in a stroke play format context, period!

Although you don't seem to agree with that--all I ask is that you understand it and the reasons why. It's not my analysis--it's just the way things work in tournament golf. It's not a matter of fairness or advantage given or taken. How can you really say what's advantageous or not to any golfer other than yourself?

Some players likes to go first and get the ball in play or make a birdie and set the stage. Personally, I like to go second or last so I have a clearer idea what I need to do. My entire "Honor" proposal to the USGA and R&A was based on that and they gave me their thinking on it (particularly Joe Dey) and it made sense and I accept it in the context of the tradition and evolution of the game!

Some playoff players might like to get out first and make a birdie or two in front of the group behind them--others might like to be behind so they can tailor their decisions to what they know. The point is in golf and playoffs somebody has to go first, second, third, last. The tournament committee does not have to look into the psychological advantages or disadvantages of what that means to any particular player and they don't.

You say you don't agree with the "lot". Whether the players are playing in the same group or different groups the order of play is still going to be decided by "lot"--you know that--it always is--so what's the difference?

I think this entire conversation and discussion we're all having here is sort of funny particularly since none of us could help but notice how philosophical about these things the people who are really effected by it--the players themselves--are about these things!

They don't complain about it--they don't worry about it--they understand the way it is--the way it's always been, they deal with that and just go out and do their best under those circumstances. I don't hear any of them saying they have a better way--so why should we?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom --

What's your Honor proposal?

That whoever has the honor can go either first or last?

[John Bernhardt]

How can a subject get this long on a trivial point without Pat Mucci involved?

[TEPaul]

JohnV:

I'm glad you agree with me on this one, not because it's my opinion of the way things should be but it's merely my understanding of the way things are and why!

Although I've never met you I have heard and am aware that you've done a considerable amount of association and tournament committee work. So have I for a number of years on the Golf Association of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania Golf Association.

So since you do agree and appear to not only understand the rules and tournament procedures but also the fundamental reasons and principles behind them and since you've spent years in actual application, I would appreciate it if you'd help me explain on here what they are and why.

It's always tricky on Golfclubatlas because so many people who read the posts seem to assume that you, me, we, or anyone are being heavy handed and opinionated and trying to enforce our wills and opinions on others.

Nothing of the kind. I've had a number of philosophical differences over the years with the USGA and R&A and still do and have actually made three distinct requests for rules changes one of which went on for years. As you may know asking the regulatory bodies to consider rules changes is not remotely like asking for decisions on the rules. Rules changes are viewed somewhat like asking to change the US Constitution and the Magna Carta combined.

But through all that I have come to understand the reasons things are the way they are, how they got that way and why and frankly it's far more interesting than I at first knew.

But at the very least please help me explain why the fundamental distinctions and differences between the two formats of golf--match play and stroke play should be preserved even including playoffs.

There is just so much that is fundamental in those distinctions between the formats--it really is worth discussing on here.

Again, like me, I would expect anyone to have philosophic differences with the way things are in some rules and tournament procedures but at least understand what they are and why they're that way. Understanding all that sure helped me understand the game better. And like those tour tournament players it clearly helps them play it better too!

One thing any tournament player or interested golf observer should know is there are generally 100+ players in any tournament and tournament administrators are aware that there could be potentially 100+ different opinions of the way things SHOULD BE DONE!

Clearly it's impossible to accomodate all those opinions so the only sensible thing to do is try to create a situation and atmosphere and procedures that can best offer no advantage or disadvantage to anyone particularly and try to encourage a clear understanding of the way things are and why if possible!

[Dan Kelly]

John Bernhardt --

Do you have ANY FACTS to back up your contention that this is a "trivial point"?

Which "point" is "trivial"?

What do you mean by "this"?

What do you mean by "long"?

What do you mean by "this long"?

If one of the sainted GCA architects had designed this thread, I seriously doubt that you'd be calling it "long," much less "this long."

And it goes without saying that you wouldn't be calling it "trivial."

Perhaps you should do some RESEARCH before you come on here and make such statements.

Or was that a QUESTION?

By the way: Greens with SUBSTANTIVE CONTOURING are built by man, not found in nature -- whatever the hell might be meant by "substantive contouring."

You can misquote me on that.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Yes, basically that's what my "Honor" proposal was. As I'm sure you know the Honor procedure is a "must" meaning the player with the honor "must" go first. Ironically, I suppose most players like to go first so it may not have been much questioned before but I'm not one who ever liked to go first.

So I asked if they would consider changing it and of course they turned me down. Then I asked them why it was that way--what the meaning of it was. Basically, I was asking them if it was strictly a "procedure" or if it was an intended "reward" of some kind. The amazing thing is no one knew--no one, including PJ Boatwright who took on the correspondence with me and my list of not unsubstantial supporters and the proposal went through not one but two or the USGA/R&A quadrennial meetings!

They looked everywhere they could think of including their fallback book "The Principles Behind the Rules of Golf". At first that small explanation was what they relied on but I kept asking for more of an explanation and in the end Boatwright told me to call Joe Dey and ask him as I believe they considered him the true expert on not only the rules but why they were that way and how they got that way.

So I did call Dey and he did not disappoint. He strongly disagreed with my proposal and told me so but he went on and explained it all--why it was that way in detail, the way it evolved that way and even the etymology of the word from the very beginnings of golf.

Although he disagreed with me his understanding was so good, his logic was so pure I could not help but rethink what I was doing even though still today I agree with my proposal in principle for the modern game of golf. He told me it had come up once before in his long tenure in golf and he's strongly disagreed then. The other proposer was Margaret Curtis, of all people.

Dey realized he'd been a bit harsh on me I guess (and he knew my father) so he asked me to come to Long Island and the Creek and he would explain more to me over lunch. I asked if I could take him to Piping Rock instead and he agreed to meet me there in two weeks. The following week he was dead!

Because of that, his opinion and his understanding, I called the USGA and said I was withdrawing my proposal out of respect for Dey.

I still believe in it like I did back then but Dey explained some things that were very valuable to me that no one else could!

[TEPaul]

JohnB:

I know this whole discussion began over the British Open playoff format but my feeling is that really does get down to the fundamental differences and distinctions of the two forms of playing golf--match play and stroke play.

Do you truly consider that fundamental trivial?

[THuckaby2]

I still believe in it like I did back then but Dey explained some things that were very valuable to me that no one else could!

Tom - I know this subject has been discussed here before, but it still intrigues me because your proposal does seem to make such good solid logical sense... I don't want to tax your typing fingers, but can you explain what Dey's reasoning was or somehow elaborate on this?

TH

[Andy Hodson]

TEPaul

I agree with you. In stroke play, which the playoff was (since the tournament proper was stroke play), the "fellow competitors" have a common opponent. And its not each other. It is the golf course. In that vein, it matters not whether they play in singles, twosomes,or foursomes.

That said, does it help to know what your fellow competitors are doing, or have done? Of course. The history of competition is full of examples of players misinterpreting what other players were doing, or had done, on the course. Remember Fuzzy waved the towel at Norman thinking he had made birdie. And Jesper just flat out misread the scoreboard before the 72nd hole at the British a few years ago.

Which brings me to the point about this year's playoff. The only problem with twosomes may have been that the players had no boards to tell them where they stood in relation to each other.

But they did have relatives and fans. And I guarantee every one of the four knew just where they stood at all times.

[Brian Phillips]

I haven't heard any of the three others that lost complain about the format...

Brian

[Paul Richards]

Brian:

You're correct.  None of the guys complained about the format.  It was just hard to watch and follow for us fans on television.

I also got the impression that all of the final four were "classy" guys, and, especially, Mr. Levet, were very happy to be in the playoff.

[Matt_Ward]

Gentlemen:

Everyone seems to miss one central point -- there is psychology at work when you are paired together. It's the ultimate in looking at your opponent face-to-face.

Playing in twosomes removes that. And, yes, there are advantages when you are separated because you adjust accordingly instead of being put on the spot when it happens right away.

And, I'll say it again, besides the "committee" deciding whatever they want to do -- how does having them play together cause such palpitations for the R&A?

PGA Tour events have had playoffs with four or more players (witness Riviera last year) and they all played together because splitting them up does create an advantage whether determined by "lot" or any other means.

[HRPIII]

Dan Kelly,

Pat Mucci is probably waiting until you post something SUBSTANTIVE on golf course architecture.