[Jerry Kluger]

I am actually looking forward to watching some golf this week as we don't have to suffer through another stroke play event. I would say it is like March Madness for us golf nuts with so many matches going on at one time.  There are other venues that would perhaps be more interesting but I am not going to complain.  Hopefully the final two matches will be exciting and not runaways. 

[Rick Shefchik]

I love match play, too, but the masses don't. While researching my book on Minnesota golf clubs, I encountered the information that Midland Hills (St. Paul) pro Wally Mund was given co-credit (along with Horton Smith) for convincing the PGA to switch from match play to medal play -- as though this was one of his crowning career achievements.

It was hard to find anyone in the '60s who lamented the PGA tour's all-medal format. Maybe Wally was influenced by the 1950 U.S. Amateur, played at Minneapolis Golf Club, in which Arnold Palmer lost his first-round match to Frank Stranahan, Charlie Coe went out early, and Stranahan bored the dwindling crowds as the week went on, hammering his opponents, until being upset in the 39-hole final by unknown Sam Urzetta.

The big TV money is petrified of weeks like that, and they don't believe the odds are very good that Tiger will meet Phil in the finals.

[George Pazin]

One of the weirdest things I've seen on TV recently was last week on Golf Channel. I dvr'd the morning drive show to watch the interviews - and okay, to see the beauty - and several people stated that the Match Play was an easier event to win because "you only have to beat 6 guys".

I do think it's interesting every now and then, but I don't think I'd want it too frequently for the pros. Can't really say why, maybe it's just habit.

[Mike Hamilton]

I have to believe the biggest downside to this type of event from a TV standpoint is the last 1 or 2 rounds of matches.  On Sunday of medal play down the stretch (as long as it's close), there's a lot of golf to be watched.

But the final in this type of pairing, especially with just two players remaining, is a little slow on the tube since you have a lot of downtime between shots.

Conversely, the singles portion of the Ryder Cup is absolutely thrillling with multiple matches running concurrently.

So I think it' more to do with the amount of action rather than the play format.

[Jerry Kluger]

It isn't too hard to figure out how to make it more appealing for TV: 1. Have more consolation matches with money at stake and 2. Have it at a more interesting venue.

[Jason Walker]

guess I'm in the minority on this website.  For professional golf I like match play for the Ryder Cup and President's Cup.  That's it.  I follow the Tour pretty much every week and the Accenture has been a snooze fest for as long as I can remember.  Consolation money wouldn't change a thing nor would a more "interesting" venue.  (not even sure what that really means--I actually think the course they play lends itself to good match play).

As mentioned earlier, there's nothing better than a Sunday finish on a tough golf course with four or five guys and every shot matters.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The pros make the venue look easy. Bill McBride and I didn't find it easy at all.

[Doug Siebert]

Am I the only one who thinks this would be a lot more fun to play at some broken down muni that's way out of date?  Let's see how the pros contend with a 280 yard par 4 that's steeply uphill the last 50 yards to a pushup green that's 30 feet across at its widest part?  Let's see what they do about a dogleg with a turning point 180 yards out.  Let's see them handle a course where entire fairways would be marked G.U.R. on tour.  Let's see them putt on bumpy greens that stimp 7.5.  Let's see them handle that par 3 where high ball hitters have to keep their trajectory down to avoid clipping that tree that overhangs the front of the teebox.

I know these guys are good, they could handle it, and the fact that it is match play so a really unfair bad break only costs you one hole wouldn't be a big deal.  The galleries wouldn't be a problem, let them follow the groups in the fairway like the old days, it isn't like the course isn't already trampled (and the revenue would give a tired layout some much needed maintenance money)

[Wade Whitehead]

Require a $50,000 entry fee, then let the guys play for their own money, winner take all in each match.

WW

[JLahrman]

Require a $50,000 entry fee, then let the guys play for their own money, winner take all in each match.

WW

That's the best idea I've heard to make this event more interesting.  Match play events are great to watch, but for some reason this one just winds up coming off stale.

[Jim_Coleman]

Jerry: 
          More consolation matches for more money?  Yeah, that will really bring in the viewers.  I really care if Zach Johnson makes $50,000 more than Stewart Cink in a meaningless match.  Sounds like "Must See TV."

[PCCraig]

Require a $50,000 entry fee, then let the guys play for their own money, winner take all in each match.

WW

That's the best idea I've heard to make this event more interesting.  Match play events are great to watch, but for some reason this one just winds up coming off stale.

You wouldn't have more than 5 out of the world's top 1000 players show up if you had them put up their own money.

[Guy Nicholson]

You wouldn't have more than 5 out of the world's top 1000 players show up if you had them put up their own money.

What if they posted money on a sliding scale according to ranking?

[JLahrman]

You wouldn't have more than 5 out of the world's top 1000 players show up if you had them put up their own money.

That's kind of the the point.  I'd rather watch those five duke it out than watch the current event.  Make it less than $50K if you want, but a lot of these guys play for cash during practice rounds.  Have them play for their own money and I'd be hooked.

[George Pazin]

You wouldn't have more than 5 out of the world's top 1000 players show up if you had them put up their own money.

That's kind of the the point.  I'd rather watch those five duke it out than watch the current event.  Make it less than $50K if you want, but a lot of these guys play for cash during practice rounds.  Have them play for their own money and I'd be hooked.

Something similar was suggested a long time ago for the Skins Game - make it a real one. I think those associated with that event and the PGA Tour in general are probably leery of associating their sport/event too closely with gambling.

[Jerry Kluger]

Jim: I think the more matches being played the better. Most of the guys in the top 64 make a lot of money but a significant difference between places would give them incentive plus they are professionals and I still think they want to win.  If the money isn't the reason then why do the top 64 players travel all the way to Arizona to play one week and leave - I understand it can help their standing in world rankings but that would mean that winning a match matters to them.  Many of the tour events require somewhat defensive golf but match play means they will try the really tough shot because it will only cost them a hole.  A course with more playing options and variable weather conditions would make it far more interesting.

[Bill_McBride]

The pros make the venue look easy. Bill McBride and I didn't find it easy at all.

Plus I got some giant chollo stickers stuck on my leg hitting a shot out of the desert!

Those are some huge greens with wild rolls, never such crazy greens on a Nicklaus course.

[JLahrman]

Something similar was suggested a long time ago for the Skins Game - make it a real one. I think those associated with that event and the PGA Tour in general are probably leery of associating their sport/event too closely with gambling.

George, that is no doubt the main concern of the Tour.  However, that doesn't diminish the point that it would be a lot more interesting if they were putting their own money on the line.  Not going to happen, for sure.  But it would be fun.

[Jason Walker]

In reply to the Skins Game comment or of the players putting up money....There was just such an event and it was televised--remember "The Ultimate Game" or whatever that thing in Vegas was a few years back (wanna say 2007).  Scott Piercy (now on Tour) won it but he was backed by a syndicate of investors.  I was riveted to the TV but only because the guy was DFB and he was staring at a nice payday if he won.

PGA pros could each front a bazillion dollars in a match-play event. It wouldn't matter, they still wouldn't be going out of pocket.  Sponsors would.  It's a ridiculous notion that shouldn't even be discussed.

And the notion that a course with more "strategic interest" would make a difference is completely false, as is the notion that they "only lose a hole" in match play.  Pay attention this week--rarely is an aggressive play made with that notion.  Aggressive plays are made when the player is at a disadvantage.  At this level going one down is a big deal.

[Jerry Kluger]

Jason: I think that at the level that these guys play at you cannot play conservatively and wait for the other player to make a mistake.  Of course a guy could have a terrible day but birdies and eagles win holes. They don't have to worry about making a big number on a given hole as they can certainly come back with a low score on the next hole, etc.  The problem with a desert course is that very often a stray shot leaves you with no recovery possibilities just as if you had hit it in the water - at least with a lateral water hazard you can move up to where you crossed the hazard line.

[Doug Siebert]

That's kind of the the point.  I'd rather watch those five duke it out than watch the current event.  Make it less than $50K if you want, but a lot of these guys play for cash during practice rounds.  Have them play for their own money and I'd be hooked.

Why?  The average household makes around $50K, so it sounds like a lot, but its nothing to these guys.  $50K to them is less than the greens fees for Pebble is to a guy making that average income.  Those top five pros would need to play for a few million of their own money before it might actually hurt them to write the check, and even then a good month on tour will make up for it.  Hell, if the money is an entry fee they'd be able to deduct it from their other winnings so it hurts even less!

But whatever the cost of entry, and however much some might like to see it, why would they be willing to do it, assuming there is a tournament elsewhere in the world that week where at worst the entry fee is the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room?

[Jerry Kluger]

I still think match play is much more fun - look at Ernie's match.

[JLahrman]

Why?  The average household makes around $50K, so it sounds like a lot, but its nothing to these guys.  $50K to them is less than the greens fees for Pebble is to a guy making that average income.  Those top five pros would need to play for a few million of their own money before it might actually hurt them to write the check, and even then a good month on tour will make up for it.  Hell, if the money is an entry fee they'd be able to deduct it from their other winnings so it hurts even less!

But whatever the cost of entry, and however much some might like to see it, why would they be willing to do it, assuming there is a tournament elsewhere in the world that week where at worst the entry fee is the cost of a plane ticket and hotel room?

Honestly, I think these guys would claw and scratch to take $100 out of each others' pockets.  They wouldn't fly around the world to do it, but if the event could be set up in this manner I think it would be great.

I agree with you, they wouldn't be willing to do it.  I'm only talking about what would make it more interesting to me, not what is actually feasible.

[Matthew Petersen]

Jason: I think that at the level that these guys play at you cannot play conservatively and wait for the other player to make a mistake.  Of course a guy could have a terrible day but birdies and eagles win holes. They don't have to worry about making a big number on a given hole as they can certainly come back with a low score on the next hole, etc.  The problem with a desert course is that very often a stray shot leaves you with no recovery possibilities just as if you had hit it in the water - at least with a lateral water hazard you can move up to where you crossed the hazard line.

I would disagree about how this event being held at a desert course effects things. The most entertaining moments are when a player knocks it into a desert bush but figures he should at least try to take a hack at it. Much more entertaining than the unplayable lie they'd inevitably take in a stroke event and, frankly, these guys are good enough that they hit amazing recovery shots through trees and the like every week.

[Wade Whitehead]

Deleted.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()