News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Geoff Shackelford

Match play remedy?
« on: February 25, 2002, 11:33:05 AM »
Has anyone noticed the difficulty the media, PGA Tour and television are having in figuring out how to make match play a more interesting event?

Ron Sirak's piece today on golfdigest.com about ways to fix the event provides a perfect example. Even as knowledgable as Sirak is, it seems the most obvious remedies are missed. Things like limiting the field to 32, moving it to a different time of year, etc... mean so little.

The first major problem is the course. La Costa is not a good match play course, in fact, it's about the worst possible one I could think of in California for fostering interesting match play situations. KSL owns it now along with PGA West, so I wonder why the tour can't work on a shift to the PGA West Stadium Course? They'd sell more tickets but more importantly, they'd have a far more interesting golf course for match play.

Second, it's the matches themselves. Wouldn't this event go from dreadful viewing to must-see TV with a simple rule change: players can only mark and clean their ball once: when the ball initially arrives on the green, then they must leave the ball on the green at all times. In other words, bring back the stymie and all of its assorted possibilities.

This whole episode is another display golf's upper echelon failing to understand architecture and golf history to make the sport more interesting. So now, match play will be criticized as flukish and boring all because no one wants to read about the past.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2002, 11:56:49 AM »
Geoff, as much as you are right about La Costa being a mediocre match play course, the public would be more entertained watching tiger and ernie play mini-golf than they would watching the sacramento municipal championship.  Most of the time, the really tough task for the sponsors of events is getting the big guys to show up at all...the tours just can't afford to get them to show for the matchplay and lose them all by thursday. As much as there are some golf fans out there who appreciate the quirkiness of the event, it really isn't fun to fill out brackets where for 3 straight years any reasonable observer has virtually no chance of guessing any of the final 8. Either cut it to 32 or do 3 days of stroke play to get down to 8 or 4. Nothing else will work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

APBernstein

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2002, 12:30:29 PM »
Geoff:

I could sit here and explain to everyone that for some reason, switching back to the gutta percha would make this match play more interesting.  Would it?  Maybe.

The stymie isn't coming back.  It just won't.  History or not, it has become archaic in the minds of most everyone, just as the gutta percha.

Would implementing the stymie make it more interesting?  Maybe.  Would that change make Sutherland vs. McCarron a blockbuster?  Absolutely not.  At some point, the top seeds need to win.

If those primetime Battles at Bighorn were ratings wonders, picture a weekend of matchplay between Woods, Duval, Mickelson, Toms, Garcia, etc.  If and when that happens (or some slight variation), this tournament will achieve ratings only seen during the Majors.

As for the course, I agree.  Move it.  From what I have heard and read, your choice of PGA West (Stadium) would be perfect.  That is something that they could be convinced of and something worth a little more effort than that of the stymie.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff Vaca

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2002, 12:30:51 PM »
As a life-long resident of Sacramento, I found the "Sacramento Municipal Championship" to be pretty darn entertaining.  But I understand why I am probably in the minority there.

In "The Confidential Guide," Tom Doak wrote of the Belfry that an exciting match could make just about any course seem interesting (or something along those lines).  With that in mind, I'm wondering what makes La Costa a poor match play course?  And what makes other courses better match play courses, as opposed to just better courses, period?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_McMillan

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2002, 01:27:00 PM »
If it's a marketing question - how to get more people to watch a match play event, the stymie will result in maybe an extra couple dozen people watching the event.  Golf ratings are driven by one overwhelming factor - Tiger.  The "problem" with match play is that there's no guarantee that the "right" players won't get knocked out in the first round.   A significant event in the PGA championship moving away from match play was one of the championships in the early 50's which went similar to this year's event at LaCosta - most of the "name" players were gone in the first round.  

Reducing the field to 32 players INCREASES the possibility of first round knock-outs (since the top seeds are paired against higher rated players).  I like the current match-play format, and think that if it's around long enough for players to adjust to it, the top seeds will do better.  However, one change that would increase the possibility of keeping Tiger around deeper into the tournament would be to move to a double-elimination format.  It shouldn't require that much additional logistically - since the golf course is relatively under-utilized on the later days in the tournament.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2002, 01:30:22 PM »
I too think that while returning the stymie to this would send Pat Mucci and many others here off to rapture, it would add interest only to the hard-core fans, as John M. intimates.

32 player double elimination also SOUNDS good, but man that's a LOT of matches to be played... you'd really need two courses. But that's a decent solution....

I still like what Rich Goodale put forth last week. Start with 40, with top 8 seeded into 3rd round.
36 hole matches after you have 16 left.

But yes, moving it to PGA West Stadium is one hell of a great idea also...
TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2002, 01:31:57 PM »
Here was Rich Goodale's remedy:

it seems to me that the field of 64 and the 18-hole format are always going to be "problems" in that the nature of match-play golf is such that there will always be uspsets in this format, and the larger field means that you are going to have a lot of Fulkes and Sutherlands and Izawas in the field.

If I were the powers that be I'd:

1.  Cut the field to 40
2.  On day one have numbers 9-40 play 2 rounds of 18 hole matches to winnow down to 8 players
3.  Day 2 play two 18 holes matches with the 8 survivors and numbers 1-8 seeds.  To winnow down to 4 players
4.  Saturday have 2 36-hole matches to select the finalists
5.  Sunday have a 36-hoie final plus a 36-hole match for 3rd place.
6.  Don't even try to cover days 1 and 2 live.  Show highlights of the interesting matches in a 2-hour evening show.

Just a thought.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2002, 01:37:37 PM »
Yep, that's it.  I like it.  I don' think TV will go for not showing days 1 and 2 live, but that's their problem.  I'd also make day two 36 hole matches also - these guys can handle it.

Do this at PGA West next year and we really have something.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2002, 01:54:32 PM »
How 'bout if  the top eight are given a 2 hole lead at the start of their matches?



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2002, 01:58:45 PM »
Good one, Gary!

 ;D

So ok, maybe we are getting carried away with this.  I for one don't have a problem with rewarding the top 8 with byes, hell they did EARN their rankings....

And I too remain convinced the venue is only part of the issue, and I also see changing the rules for one event as not being sufficient to increase interest.

There have got to be other ways to fix this... (and yes BillV, I think it does need fixing)... match play among great players with something at stake is so damn fun to watch - see Ryder Cup for reference....

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_McMillan

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2002, 02:44:32 PM »
Tom H, re the course utilization -

With 64 players, there are 32 matches on the first day - which under utilizes the course compared to a normal PGA tour event.  On the second day, there are half this total - 16 matches between the 32 remaining players.  In a double elimination format, this would be augmented with the 16 matches of the loser's bracket, for a total of 32 matches - the same total as the first day.  I don't see how a second course is necessary.  

The only format quirk would come when the champion of the winner's bracket would play the champion of the loser's bracket.  In softball tournaments (where the double elimination format is common), if the winner's bracket champion wins the game, they win the tournament - if the winner's bracket champion loses, they play a second game.  For a TV format, this becomes problematic, since you aren't certain beforehand which match will decide the tournament.  A possible solution would be to handicap the champion of the loser's bracket in the championship match - say start him 2 holes down.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2002, 02:55:55 PM »
John McMillan,

Why do I have this feeling you were actually being serious about starting the winner of the loser's bracket 2 holes down in the championship match?

Why not have the winner of the loser's bracket, if tied with less than 4 holes to go in the championship match, have to start using a gutta-percha ball, while whistling Georgy Girl, and wearing his wife's panties on top of his cap. Or in lieu of that, he could opt to play the last 4 holes one-legged, with a lob wedge only.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2002, 03:04:07 PM »
Where is the MAtchplay being played next year?  Have they announced plans beyond next year?

I love the idea of the top players getting byes.  The other good way to eliminate upsets is to have longer matches.  Eventually the cream will rise to the top.  I cant imagine the pros too keen on playing 36 everyday for 5 days though.  Maybe they could introduce 27 hole matches?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Ken_Cotner

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2002, 03:05:11 PM »
I like the double-elimination idea more than top seeds getting a bye, but...

My idea still rules  ;) -- round robin in groups of 4; with the winner of each group advancing to single-elimination.  Could work with 32 or 64 players.

KC
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ChrisB (Guest)

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2002, 03:21:01 PM »
Rather than change the format of the event, I would change the dates of the tournament.  Face it, this is a time of year when the top players are incorporating swing changes, equipment changes, etc. into their game with the idea of peaking in late March-early April (Players Championship, Masters).  For them, winning the World Match Play would be nice, but it's not something worth building their early season around.  It's a chance at a paycheck and an interesting deviation from the normal tournament format.  If this tournament were held between majors, you might have a different result.  Moreover, if this tournament was regarded as ultra-important by the top players, there probably would be a little more determination on their part, and a little more trepidation by the underdogs.

In a theoretical world, if the World Match Play were suddenly elevated to major status, I think the champions list would become stronger.  But (thankfully) that's not going to happen.

The WMP was a chance to enjoy the game of golf more than the top players.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2002, 03:23:14 PM »
My "real" solution to this conundrum is to hold he championship in August, increase the field to 128 players, play for the "Wannamaker" Cup and call it the "PGA."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2002, 03:39:11 PM »
Chris,

As I see it, the problem with holding a matchplay tournament at another time of the year, for example summertime in the U.S., is that you would run into a heat problem effecting the players in what is already a gruelling tournament. You just couldn't, or shouldn't, have 36 hole finales in the August heat, as Sirak is wanting in his GolfWorld column.

John McMillan,

I'm sorry for my smartass reply to one of your posts, but I have been exasperated by some of the various formats being suggested.

Reseeding each day, IMO, is an insult to the lessor survivors in that they have a new mountain to climb each day. Giving players byes, IMO, is turning what is supposed to be an official event into an exhibition, made for TV type deal. I don't really think one of the players given a bye would really feel good about it, given the pride these guys should have. IMO, 32 players, 36 holes EVERY day, single elimination, Wednesday-Sunday format would produce a worthy champion. With only 32 players, even the lower rated players would/should, be name players, thus giving the TV boys a fairly attractive final. There would also be keen competition world-wide towards getting and keeping one's place in the Top 32.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Gary Smith (Guest)

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2002, 03:52:37 PM »
Rich,

It sure would be something returning the PGA to a match-play event. I would assume you would want at least the last  2 or 3 rounds at 36 holes. Would it work if, for example, the tournament is at Medinah with August heat of 95 degrees? I know the old-timers used to play every day at 36, but this seems to me to be a newer, softer age.

I think moving the PGA to being the first major of the year, making it a Southern tier and West Coast event, might be a grand idea. That would also make the Open Championship the climactic major, as it should be.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Geoff Shackelford

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2002, 04:07:36 PM »
Interesting replies all, thanks for weighing in. I guess what I find fascinating (or perhaps disturbing), is the PGA Tour's desire to follow the lead of NASCAR, MLB and the NBA, by marketing celebrity over the sport. This may yield short term boosts in popularity and fan base, but in the long run, the sport itself still has to sell itself on interesting, sometimes dramatic, competition.  NBC can pull it off with the Winter Olympics because it's two weeks long, but as much golf as there is on TV, it's a different animal.  NASCAR has elements of strategy that help it maintain a devoted, healthy fan base. However, the NBA and MLB have had to make major rules changes after easing certain rules and playing with other aspects of their game for what they thought would be elements alluring to the easy-going fan, and all they did was turn off the die-hard fan and make their sports either dull (NBA) or take too long (MLB).

Golf, in particular, has the ingredients to be more interesting, stars or no stars, in my view. I think the Tour showed a hint of that with the International event, but of course, we have all seen how that has been rendered to basically a 72-hole stroke play event, the only difference being that guys can pick up when they are going to make double bogey or higher. More and more, you talk to devoted golfers who used to tape the final round every week state that they are down to watching the majors. Can this really be good for golf?  Doesn't this indicate that the every-30 second mentions of the "young guns" on Tour just isn't enough.

I guess I find it bothersome when you look over old magazines from the past and see that there was a connection made between interesting architecture and a variety of formats making for interesting viewing. So wouldn't the occasional return to an old format might breath some life into the game? I suppose time will tell, or in today's game, the ratings will determine the future of such events and the possibility for something a bit more intriguing now and then.

PS - Andrew, on the stymie never returning...never say never! I spoke to a Tour official last week who had a similar thought that I did...in fact, he brought it up. He figured the players would be scared to death of it at first, but thought with a little education and those $200,000 12th place checks to soften the blow, they might be able to handle it one week a year. Hopefully he'll speak his mind when the Commish asks what they can do to make the match play more interesting. That's assuming he asks his field people such questions. Funny, but I'm afraid he probably refers such questions to the marketing department!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Richard_Goodale

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2002, 04:14:09 PM »
Gary

I kinda like the idea of making the PGA a bit of a fitness test.  Something to sort out the real flat bellies from the Mickelsons, Montgomeries and Herrons of the tour.  I also really like the idea of the Masters being the 1st major of the year.  Just as Springtime comes to Augusta before most of the country, so should that tournament give us a preview as to what is to come.  Finally, just think about the PGA in a year when Tiger, or whoever, has already won 3 majors and has to work his way through a field of highly talented grinders, day by day, over a course like Medinah #3, to get his grand slam.  What athletic drama could be greater?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

APBernstein

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2002, 04:18:01 PM »
Geoff:

If that is indeed the case, awesome.  You will understand, however, when I am not holding my breath.

All the best,
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Shane Gurnett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2002, 05:17:38 PM »
Why not as follows:

1. Field size of 80, all players playing strokeplay
2. Top 20 ranked get a bye into the second round.
3. After each days play, the bottom 20 miss the "cut" and are eliminated.
4. So first two days 60 play, then days three & four 40 & 20 play.
5. Scores dont carry over from day to day, ie a new event each day.
5. Last day is 36 holes stroke play. Winner is the guy with the lowest score on the final day.

Sort of blends stroke and matchplay together. Sudden death playoffs each day for the final spots. TV would get four days of solid coverage, and less liklihood of all the stars being gone by the third round. With 20 playing on the last day, no anticlimax like to MCCarron/Sutherland final this year.

Would it work?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

APBernstein

Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2002, 05:44:22 PM »
I automatically disagree with the awarding of byes to anyone in any tournament.  I think it stinks in football and I think it would stink in golf.  Upsets can be protected to a point and the best teams/players can be rewarded, but an unfair advantage is not the answer.

I like the current setup.  However, I think the networks agree with me when I say that the seeds need to win to have the event survive.

With that said, allowing the tournament committee to seed the players and choose who the top 64 are would certainly allow for a better tournament.  I believe players like Charles Howell III, who was seeded below 30, would have been placed at least into the 20s.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:02 PM by -1 »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Match play remedy?
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2002, 05:57:08 PM »
I think Gary Smith has it right, and I wonder what objections people have to this: "IMO, 32 players, 36 holes EVERY day, single elimination, Wednesday-Sunday format would produce a worthy champion. With only 32 players, even the lower rated players would/should, be name players, thus giving the TV boys a fairly attractive final. There would also be keen competition world-wide towards getting and keeping one's place in the Top 32."

The only potential problem I see is that some of these guys probably couldn't be bothered to play 36 a day for five days' running, for a mere million bucks.  They might have to invite down to 45 or 50 to get 32 acceptances.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016