[Jim_Kennedy]

We've talked about this a lot at our club also.  We've had fun playing this format. 36 hole qualifier for eight spots . Match play from there with a 36 hole final. Some upsets in match , but typically the best player wins. 

Playing the qualifier for eight , not sixteen seems better also.  Remember , this is club (amateur) golf !  Nice to give more players a chance to win , IMHO!

Archie,
We do something similar. We have an 18 hole  qualifier for the 8 championship spots but then we net the scores from the remaining field to determine a handicap champ. It gets more players involved, at least in our situation.

It has always seemed to me that clubs with a higher number of very low handicap players are more prone to using stroke play for their championship, whereas those places with fewer seem to prefer using match play.  

  

[David_Tepper]

What about Stableford?

[George Pazin]

Consider the following:

When Tiger won the Masters in '97, he was clearly the best player in the field, by a record setting margin. But he opened with a 70, IIRC. He could've been sent packing the first day in match play format.

I like what Archie says about a club championship and wanting more players to win, or at least have a chance. But I'm talking strictly about majors and the other highest levels of golf. Stroke play just strikes me as a much better format.

[Niall C]

Stroke play does not identify characteristics in human nature, the same way match play does. With our current predominate course presentations, stroke play often only identifies the most repetitively produced procedures.

Adam,

Very, very true. Also stroke play maybe doesn't test the shot making ability as much as matchplay in that stroke play is as much about not hitting bad shots as opposed to hitting the kind of shot Bubba did to win the Masters in the sudden death play off.

Niall

[Dan King]

George Pazin writes:
When Tiger won the Masters in '97, he was clearly the best player in the field, by a record setting margin. But he opened with a 70, IIRC. He could've been sent packing the first day in match play format.

He was the best stroke-play player in the field. Had he been playing a match, and lost in the first round, there is no way anyone would have called him the best player in the field. (I seem to recall him playing paired with Nick Faldo, who also was having a tough Thursday. My guess is a comparison of their cards, Tiger would have won the match with the 70.)

We see this often at all levels of golf. Someone hacks it around for a few days and then catches fire on the final day, rides a hot putter, and wins. Does this make them the best player in the field? If playing medal, sure -- if playing match, there was a chance he/she never got to the final day.

Cheers,
Dan King

I had cancer too, and he still couldn't beat me.
 --Paul Azinger (said off air about Faldo halving the singles match with him at the 1993 Ryder Cup)

[Anders Rytter]

First observation.  I dislike the way the phrase "best golfer" is most often used -- which is to identify the most skilful player.  For me, the best golfer has little to do with skill, and most everything to do with how one plays the game, in the human sense.

Second observation. I like to think of golf as a variety of different games.  On day one, A wins an 18 hole game over B at medal play.  On day two, B wins an 18 hole match play event over A.  Then, A wins 8 out of 15 36-hole medal play events over B.  B wins 9 out of 15 match play 36-hole events against A.  Who's the more skilled golfer, between A and B?  Tiger wins X majors and Y total world wide events.  Jack wins Z majors and XX total world wide events.  Who's the more skilled golfer?  

Third observation.  The question is not answerable without a pre-agreed standard, which ain't gonna happen, but as we are doing here, it sure is fun to discuss.

Fourth observation.  My understanding is that as best the historians have been able to determine, golf competitions began as match play events, either as knockouts, one vs. one, or scorecard matches among the field.  Medal play came later.  Does that make match play the premier measure of golfers' skills?

Fifth observation.  In my personal experience, medal play is a more difficult game than match play, primarily because the strategic considerations are more nuanced.  In match play, a decision or ball strike can cost you a hole.  In medal play, a decision or ball strike can cost you (via difference), any number of strokes, with X holes remaining to make up Y strokes.  Still, I am not willing to concede that the the medal play winner is necessarily a more skilled golfer than the match play winner.  For me, they're different games.

I disagree, i think the strategic part is way more nuanced in match-play. In stroke play over 54 holes or more you play rather conservatively the first 48 (ish), the strategy is conservatively tilted and only changes with changing pin positions, wind etc.

In match your opponent can make you change your strategy every time he (she?) hits the ball.

Stroke play is often more conservative where as match play is both conservative and aggresive.

last point, it also boils down to how hard volatile play shall be punished.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()