Match play golf at the pro level - a discussion, please

[George Pazin]

Please share your thoughts - what you see as positives, negatives, the ultimate verdict, etc?

I haven't quite come to a decision myself.

Pluses:

- exciting shots, damn near every shot matters (think Tiger's up and down to win yesterday)
- exciting holes, damn near every hole matters (think DJ chipping in for eagle to beat Furyk chipping in for birdie on 13 yesterday)
- interesting stories each day: past great Els takes down current #1 Donald, relative unknown Spaniard pushes former #1 to the limit, etc.

Minuses:

There's really only one for me, but it is effin' GIGANTIC: the results border on random. Each year, you see tons of "upsets" - I think they said this year on day 1, 17 of the 32 matches were won by the lower seed, and I think last year was similar, IIRC.

I'll admit it, I'm a math geek, and the geek in me can't help but look at the results every year and say, might as well flip a coin for each match... I feel like the final result borders on meaningless, a mere curiosity.

The flip side of that is that, when Tiger was at or near his peak, he won the match play several times (3?). That would seem to invalidate the random hypothesis, but if it takes Tiger at his peak (a peak maybe a handful of guys in the history of golf can relate to) to do so, that almost proves my point.

So I enjoy the event, but I wouldn't ever want to see a major played in this manner.

Am I crazy? Is there an answer? 36 hole matches ala the event at Wentworth? Early byes for top seeds?

Please share your thoughts...

[David_Tepper]

George -

Just remember, in match play the player who plays the best wins, but that is not always "the best player."

Regarding Tiger's past dominance in this event, yes that is surely a testament to just how good a player he was at his peak. Don't forget he also won the USGA Juniors 3 years in a row and then won the US Am 3 years in a row. Given "the vagueries of match play," that is a remarkable achievement. I feel rather safe in saying it will never be done again.

DT   

[JMEvensky]

I love to watch pro's,or any other real good players,in match play--for all the usual reasons.

But,I think 18 hole matches,at this level, are a big problem.Their skill levels are so tightly bunched that it often becomes a crapshoot--who can run off a hot 3 hole stretch first.The rhythms are so different in a 36 hole match.There's more time for strategy.For good or for bad,the better player usually wins.

The only way to do 36 hole matches would be to reduce the field and that's never happening.

[Tom_Doak]

Minuses:

There's really only one for me, but it is effin' GIGANTIC: the results border on random. Each year, you see tons of "upsets" - I think they said this year on day 1, 17 of the 32 matches were won by the lower seed, and I think last year was similar, IIRC.
...

So I enjoy the event, but I wouldn't ever want to see a major played in this manner.

Am I crazy? Is there an answer? 36 hole matches ala the event at Wentworth? Early byes for top seeds?

Please share your thoughts...

George:

Bobby Jones wrote extensively about the differences between the two formats in GOLF IS MY GAME.  You should find a copy of that if you can.  He agreed that 18-hole match play was a scarier format for a good player, in that you could run up against a guy playing his brains out for a single round and lose.  But he also respected the format in that it forced a player to rise to the occasion, and valued his victories in match play at least as much as those in stroke play, where he never felt like he could put four good rounds together.

I don't agree with your characterization of the results as "random".  All these players are closer together in skill than the press would have you believe.  It's not a huge upset for Ernie Els to beat Luke Donald in a match.  And Donald shot 78 the last day at Riviera, so he went home in either format.

P.S.  We play NINE-HOLE MATCHES in our Renaissance Cup competition, and we do it precisely because it increases the possibility of upsets.  What's wrong with that?  Isn't it more exciting to watch?  "The best player" doesn't win all the time in any format, so what's the difference if it happens in the first round of matches?

[Jim_Kennedy]

So I enjoy the event, but I wouldn't ever want to see a major played in this manner.

George,
Jack Nicklaus wouldn't be happy to hear that his US Amateur wins weren't majors.

[JLahrman]

So I enjoy the event, but I wouldn't ever want to see a major played in this manner.

George,
Jack Nicklaus wouldn't be happy to hear that his US Amateur wins weren't majors.

To be fair, the US Amateur starts with thousands of players, and is medal play except for the final 64 (I'm assuming it was like this in the early 1960s when Nicklaus was winning his US Amateurs, but I'm too lazy to verify that).

Regarding Tiger, he's got three wins (2003, 2004, 2008).

Here is where he has lost in the tournament:
First round (2): 2002, 2011
Second round (3): 2005, 2009, 2012
Third round (2): 2006, 2007
Quarterfinals (1): 1999
Semifinals (0)
Finals (1): 2000

Very impressive record...if he can get through the third round he is 3 for 5 at winning the whole thing. So it does speak to a bit of a lack of randomness...all you have to do is be as dominant as Tiger!

I love match play. But for a 64-man field it can be an odd way to decide a champion.

Go to Augusta and play three great rounds and one mediocre round, and you're probably putting on a green jacket.

Go to this event and play three great rounds and one mediocre round, and you're very likely heading home after a quarterfinal loss. You might go home even if you play four great rounds.

Is that right? I don't know, maybe we're just too used to deciding events using medal play.

[Jim Johnson]

I like the idea of 9-hole matches that Tom mentions. That would induce some serious drama, wouldn't it? Wow. Talk about players going for it. Wanting to get off to a great start, and then holding on for dear life.
I hate the idea of a 36-hole final. Way too drawn out for me.

[Adam Clayman]

My heart soars when I hear pros use phrases like "it gets my juices flowing", when talking about this format.

It's become a given, in hindsight, that American golf is far worse off, for having stroke play become the norm. Be it the pace of play, the attitude of the individual, or, the fun shots that don't get played because of fear.

[George Pazin]

I don't agree with your characterization of the results as "random".  All these players are closer together in skill than the press would have you believe.  It's not a huge upset for Ernie Els to beat Luke Donald in a match.  And Donald shot 78 the last day at Riviera, so he went home in either format.

P.S.  We play NINE-HOLE MATCHES in our Renaissance Cup competition, and we do it precisely because it increases the possibility of upsets.  What's wrong with that?  Isn't it more exciting to watch?  "The best player" doesn't win all the time in any format, so what's the difference if it happens in the first round of matches?

A very interesting - and I think important - point.

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

Tom, how would you feel if you designed a hole where a particular strategy - not an obvious one - was designed to yield favorable results, yet when the scores were compiled, it really just didn't matter: the golfer was receiving an almost random result to his shot choice/placement?

I think we all yearn to attach meaning to things. For small things - a 9 hole match with a friend, an 18 hole match with a regular opponent - we accept variable results on a match-by-match basis, but understand that things are expected to achieve some sort of "expected" result over the long haul.

I don't know, I think it's an interesting thing to explore. Me, personally, I almost dismiss the years that a random guy pops up - Kevin Sutherland, as an example - and I doubt I'm alone in this regard.

Jim K -

I'm sure Jack is not losing any sleep over me not accepting his US Ams as majors...

Jim J -

So you're looking to see guys completely abandon their own particular games, and do crazy things, things to provide short term interest, but might result in a complete unknown winning?

-----

To all:

What provides more interest to you: Someone who solves an unusual problem and is rewarded, or someone who picks the right numbers for the Powerball...?

[Andy Troeger]

The irony of the matchplay event is that the first couple days have significantly more drama than Thurs/Fri in strokeplay events, but the Sunday final match when its on network TV has far higher probability of being a dud than the conclusion of a stroke play event being a runaway.

There's a big difference in match play golf versus matches in other sports--golfers can't play defense. Golfers truly play against a course as much as against each other. In most sports, the competition truly is against another person/team. In golf, if your opponent goes nuts, there's nothing you can do. That's true of stroke play too, but a greater number of holes evens that playing field.   

If the goal of the pro tour is to determine the best player in a given week, stroke play has to be the most equitable way to do that. If its to provide entertainment, then match play has a better argument, at least as a changeup format given the potential of boring finals.

[Jim Johnson]

George,
Some players, yes, they might have to abandon their usual methodical style. But hey, for the sake of spectating and television viewing, what's so wrong with that? Matchplay is such a unique event. 9 hole matches might just make things even more unique.

One thing though, definitely, in my mind ... 36 holes in a final match is just too l-o-n-g. Boring. My two cents.

[Jason Topp]

As to the random issue, the winners list is pretty impressive:

1999   Jeff Maggert      
2000   Darren Clarke   
2001   Steve Stricker   
2002   Kevin Sutherland   
2003   Tiger Woods
2004  Tiger Woods
2005   David Toms   
2006   Geoff Ogilvy
2007   Henrik Stenson   
2008   Tiger Woods   
2009   Geoff Ogilvy   
2010   Ian Poulter   
2011   Luke Donald

The  biggest problem with match play is it does not work very well for television.  In the early rounds it is impossible for one channel to cover all of the interesting action and in the final round one match makes for inherently slow and potentially lopsided competition.

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
How about all those poor souls who won the PGA Championship between 1916 and 1957?
edit: TD's remarks about the players being closer in skills than what is presented is important. The odd win of a Sutherland is no different than Andy North's two Open wins, or any number of other such occurrences (like Orville Moody).
   

JLahrman,
It's only expedience that demands stroke play as a qualifier for the US Am, just as a player's previous results in stroke play events are used to qualify for the Accenture.

Something else, if you aren't exempt from qualifying you must play several rounds of stroke play qualifiers. If a player works his way through that minefield he's earned the privilege to play in the AM, and that would be just as true for a tour player if a modern major were held using match play as a format.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the 4 major pro sports have spoken on this one. 3 of the 4 of them use the "Medal Play" concept while only 1 of 4 uses "Match Play"

MLB, NHL, and NBA all have decided that one game doesn't identify the best team, so they use the best of 7, which I agree with.

I think the same is true in golf.  4 rounds over 4 days is a much better way to identify the best golfer as opposed to 1 match vs 1 other player only.

However, if they really wanted to spice up the match play event, they should narrow it down to the top 32, and make it double elimination to help better avoid the "fluke" matches.

[Tom_Doak]

Allow me to answer a question with a question:

Tom, how would you feel if you designed a hole where a particular strategy - not an obvious one - was designed to yield favorable results, yet when the scores were compiled, it really just didn't matter: the golfer was receiving an almost random result to his shot choice/placement?

I think we all yearn to attach meaning to things. For small things - a 9 hole match with a friend, an 18 hole match with a regular opponent - we accept variable results on a match-by-match basis, but understand that things are expected to achieve some sort of "expected" result over the long haul.

I don't know, I think it's an interesting thing to explore. Me, personally, I almost dismiss the years that a random guy pops up - Kevin Sutherland, as an example - and I doubt I'm alone in this regard.

Jim K -

I'm sure Jack is not losing any sleep over me not accepting his US Ams as majors...

Jim J -

So you're looking to see guys completely abandon their own particular games, and do crazy things, things to provide short term interest, but might result in a complete unknown winning?

-----

To all:

What provides more interest to you: Someone who solves an unusual problem and is rewarded, or someone who picks the right numbers for the Powerball...?

George:

Come on, this isn't the Powerball.  You've got to hit a lot of good shots to win the tournament.  And we always dismiss the unknown who wins a tournament, whether it's Kevin Sutherland ... or Paul Lawrie, or Louis Oosthuizen, etc.  Damn, I can't even remember the name of the unknown guy who won the last Open at Royal Troon!

This is one golf tournament.  It's not the championship of the world.  In fact, no golf tournament is ever as meaningful as golf fans seem to make them out to be.  They're all a bit of a crapshoot, and in the long run, how much difference does it make who wins, as long as it's exciting to watch?  Look at how well Louis Oosthuizen played at St. Andrews for four days ... was it really much more meaningful that he did it over four days instead of over six matches?

The real argument against match play is a commercial argument ... it's that the TV networks are afraid of a Kevin Sutherland v. Louis Oosthuizen final.  In stroke play, those two could be ten shots ahead of the field, and they'd still show a bunch of Tiger and Phil.  But it's funny that they only think of negative outcomes ... they never think of how cool it could be if they wound up with Tiger and Phil playing head to head in the final match.

[jeffwarne]

As to the random issue, the winners list is pretty impressive:

1999   Jeff Maggert      
2000   Darren Clarke   
2001   Steve Stricker   
2002   Kevin Sutherland   
2003   Tiger Woods
2004  Tiger Woods
2005   David Toms   
2006   Geoff Ogilvy
2007   Henrik Stenson   
2008   Tiger Woods   
2009   Geoff Ogilvy   
2010   Ian Poulter   
2011   Luke Donald

nuff said

Pick any major or any tour event and see if the list is more impressive
I'd say match play might even be a better way to deterine the better player
It's not like we don't have fluke winners in stroke play events

[Cliff Hamm]

Match play is analogous  to the NCAA basketball tournament.  The best team doesn't necessarily win.  It's one and out.  But for excitement you can't beat it.

[Kalen Braley]

Match play is analogous  to the NCAA basketball tournament.  The best team doesn't necessarily win.  It's one and out.  But for excitement you can't beat it.

Give me a final weekend at any of the majors or other big PGATour events anytime over the MatchPlay event.

I just don't think it translates to golf, because of how close they are to each other.  A 15/2 upset in Golf Matchplay is no big deal.

In the big dance, its a huge deal and worth watching!!!

[jeffwarne]

Match play is analogous  to the NCAA basketball tournament.  The best team doesn't necessarily win.  It's one and out.  But for excitement you can't beat it.

Give me a final weekend at any of the majors or other big PGATour events anytime over the MatchPlay event.

I just don't think it translates to golf, because of how close they are to each other.  A 15/2 upset in Golf Matchplay is no big deal.

In the big dance, its a huge deal and worth watching!!!

Kalen,
Are there other big TOUR events besides the majors?

Not even once a year can you stomach the format?

I guess the NCAA tournament would be better if it was cumulative points scored, and everybody plays 8 games-and losing one or two would be OK?

[Andy Troeger]

As to the random issue, the winners list is pretty impressive:

1999   Jeff Maggert      
2000   Darren Clarke   
2001   Steve Stricker   
2002   Kevin Sutherland   
2003   Tiger Woods
2004  Tiger Woods
2005   David Toms   
2006   Geoff Ogilvy
2007   Henrik Stenson   
2008   Tiger Woods   
2009   Geoff Ogilvy   
2010   Ian Poulter   
2011   Luke Donald

nuff said

Pick any major or any tour event and see if the list is more impressive
I'd say match play might even be a better way to deterine the better player
It's not like we don't have fluke winners in stroke play events

Limiting the field to the top 64 in the world guarantees a good champion before the event even begins. Sorry...that's a result of the field, not the format.

[Kalen Braley]

Match play is analogous  to the NCAA basketball tournament.  The best team doesn't necessarily win.  It's one and out.  But for excitement you can't beat it.

Give me a final weekend at any of the majors or other big PGATour events anytime over the MatchPlay event.

I just don't think it translates to golf, because of how close they are to each other.  A 15/2 upset in Golf Matchplay is no big deal.

In the big dance, its a huge deal and worth watching!!!

Kalen,
Are there other big TOUR events besides the majors?

Not even once a year can you stomach the format?

I guess the NCAA tournament would be better if it was cumulative points scored, and everybody plays 8 games-and losing one or two would be OK?

Sure,

Give me the AT&T, Riviera, Arnold's tourney, Jacks Tourney, The Players, Tour Championship Playoffs, to name a few off the top of my head... before the Match Play Event.

P.S.  I never said Match Play was dog-poo and I don't watch it, just saying its pretty far down my list in terms of other tournies I would rather watch before it.

As for the NCAA seedings, as it pertains to who gets it and who gets left out....you better believe they base it in part on common opponents, point differentials, strength of schedule, RPI, etc when in committee.  That's all very valuable information.

[Tom_Doak]

Give me the AT&T, Riviera, Arnold's tourney, Jacks Tourney, The Players, Tour Championship Playoffs, to name a few off the top of my head... before the Match Play Event.

P.S.  I never said Match Play was dog-poo and I don't watch it, just saying its pretty far down my list in terms of other tournies I would rather watch before it.

Are you really talking about the format here, or the venue?

If they were playing the Match Play at Pebble Beach or Riviera, I bet you'd enjoy match play a lot more.

[Cliff Hamm]

Substitute match play championship with PGA Championship, a major, and would the excitement factor change?

[Kalen Braley]

Give me the AT&T, Riviera, Arnold's tourney, Jacks Tourney, The Players, Tour Championship Playoffs, to name a few off the top of my head... before the Match Play Event.

P.S.  I never said Match Play was dog-poo and I don't watch it, just saying its pretty far down my list in terms of other tournies I would rather watch before it.

Are you really talking about the format here, or the venue?

If they were playing the Match Play at Pebble Beach or Riviera, I bet you'd enjoy match play a lot more.

Tom,

To be honest its both the format and venue I like.  I have to admit, Medal Play in Arizona vs Match Play at Pebble would be a toss-up.

[Will MacEwen]

One problem is that the final is always slow.  There is more drama at the RC or PC with several matches going on, or a regular tournament with a bunched field.

In the match play final, you see very little golf.  The consolation final is really just filler, and underscores how little action there is.