So about 1% of all golfers are accomplished and the rest should be playing some kind of match play.

In my comments, I didn't mean to imply "should" but rather to describe that the very best players I know have a strong preference for stroke play whereas the other 99% or whatever seem to find match play games more fun.

That's an awfully broad generalization, of course, but it indicates to me that the appeal of stroke play is more in its ability to fully test the accomplished player's game.

I would also think that nine holes (which most spring HS golf is) of match play would really diminish the format, since you could be finished after 5 holes, AND have insufficient light for playoff holes to boot if the match was extended.

Good points.

Lou

You could make the same arguments for matchplay.  Hit fairways, greens and make pars and the pressure is nearly always on the opponent.  I think the strategies of each game more or less even out.  I personally prefer matchplay, but will usually play better with a card in my hand (usually Stableford).  There are always 2-3 times (perhaps more if I am giving away a chunk of shots) during matchplay that I try a shot that I almost never would if I was keeping score.  Rarely does "going for it" help my score.

But what do I know?  I hate scrambles and nearly everybody I know loves them.  I don't seem able to get any flow or feel for the game.  It just seems like a series of "go fo it" shots.  

One game I really enjoy is bogey.  The idea of capped player going one up on the course is brilliant!

Ciao

Sean

Mr. Crockett: Go to the USGA Handicap Manual for a complete discussion to hole by hole stroke allocation. You will find it suggests not having low numbered stroke holes bunched together at the beginnings or ends of the nines. Odd numbered holes go on the front and even numbered on the back unless the back is considerably more difficult. This benefits the better golfer because if the difference between the opponenets is an odd number, the higher handicapper gets the extra stroke on the front, and not at the end of the match.

It seems the major points on this subject have been made except, possibly, that the market has probably decided the right mix of match versus medal play golf.

There are two major professional match play events, and the pros probably won't stand for having to show up for another one (Ryder and President's Cup excepted) if there is a 50% chance the'll go home after one day empty handed (walleted?) It could be done in the off season since appearence fees wouldn't be a problem.

The major amateur events are mostly match play, though in the pasty ten years some have gone to medal, particularly at the state and regional level, primarily due to course availablilty. Match tournaments take too many days from the members, and too much money from the public course tills. There is more and more talk, however, about reinstituting match play at this level.

There's no question that the more rounds in a medal competition, the higher the chance that the better golfer will prevail. That's not true in a series of 18 hole matches, though more so in a 36 hole or longer match. However, as has been mentioned, the delight in match play, the "mano a mano" aspect, is very compelling.

Are there good match play courses and courses better suited for medal? The greatest match player of all time says he never was very successful until he learned to forget about his opponent and play "old man par." Decide for yourself what that means in relation to the question above.

Correction:
"All original rules of golf...."

Sorry it is late

There are some great comments and thoughts expressed here.

While I cannot quite envision the stymie being reintroduced to golf, it would make for exciting television, especially if physical contact were allowed. I suppose it would be similar to the thread from a few years back when we discussed the concept of abolishing the wooden tee — in favor of nothing! Let Tiger and Company hit their massive metal headed clubs off rough and worn-out tee surfaces without the benefit of an artificial devise. Ha!

Is the ASGCA championship in match play format? No, but a match play format is included among our rounds. This would certainly be a good start. (As for me being paired with Nicklaus and Dye, this has not happened. Maybe Jackie II and Ken Dye.)

Forrest,
Even though I believe that seeing more match play events on the tube would help there is one issue that is nearly insurmountable: cost. Selling the virtues of match play to someone who's just paid 50, 75, 100, or 350 dollars is like trying to sell a 9-ball dozen.

Forrest:

Far be it from me to speak for Jim, but as I understand it that's exactly what he's saying.

In any case too many US golfers sure do have the attitude of "I've paid my fee, I'm gonna damn well play out the hole until I hole out, no matter how many strokes that takes."

That's one of the many attitudes that would have to be changes for match play to really take hold here.

TH

This has a lot to do, also, with management. I hear quite often from managers such nonsense as, "We simply can't tell the players where to hit from..." What bull. That's what tee markers are for. If they aren't all the way back, they should not be able to be used. It is, as I recall, against the rules.

This is a sensitive issue, but I often hold management responsible for many of golf's problems. If managers would implement more proactive and responsible policies it would help speed the game and make it more fun for all.

Would a crowded public course be successful in requiring match play format on Saturday mornings? I think it could be done.

Growing up and playing in Scotland in my formative years, the majority of play was Match-Play.  Evening and Saturday games were always Match Play except for the monthly Medal and competition qualifying.  Generally after qualifyingthrough medal play the copmpetition was a match play event after that.

I attend a golf weekend in Ohio every year and one of the main events is the afternoon nine holes "Match Play Madness".  It was devised by the host of the tournament and harkens to the words of C.B. MacDonald.  The event is Match Play, but there are no Rules - no stroke and distance for OOB, no lateral water hazard drop, no unplayable lies.  You play the ball as it lies and you may never touch the ball until it is holed out.  (Only exception is if your ball is in another player's line, then you pick up with two fingers, do not clean, then replace)  It leads to some very interesting lies and shots.  Takes us back to the real old days before all the Rules and  Decisions made golf complicated.

Forrest,
You said:

Would a crowded public course be successful in requiring match play format on Saturday mornings? I think it could be done.  

Yes, it could be done but you're making the assumption that all those golfers are coming to the course to compete with one another when in truth many of them are just there for recreation. Managers asking players to limit themselves to a double bogie per hole has a better chance of beiing accepted than requiring them to follow a certain format.

....I often hold management responsible for many of golf's problems. If managers would implement more proactive and responsible policies it would help speed the game.....

If you are trying to equate match play with faster rounds and blame managers for not employing such a policy then, no offense, you're barking up the wrong tree.
Managers follow owners wishes, i.e., make me money or take a hike, so blaming them for much of what you perceive are golf's problems, including slow play, is unfair. There is enough "blame" to go around if you want to start pointing fingers.
One could blame architects, they build courses that are too long and too hard. They too are following the owner's wishes and he'll say the same thing to them that he'll say to his manager if they(architects) don't produce what he wants, i.e. take a hike.
One could blame the superintendents. They follow an owner's wishes and adopt many of the new technologies that come along. If they don't follow his wishes they too will hear the take-a-hike refrain. Technology can lead to the high green fee/ slower play combo I cited in an earlier post. Slick greens don't encourage speedy play either.    
One could blame the Tour, TV, culture, and on and on and on, for any number of issues orbiting around golf or one could look for answers, as your thread began, without  assessing "blame".