Identifying the best golfer

[Scott Warren]

I had an interesting discussion with two other members of my club today about club championships and the various pros and cons of contesting them at match play and at stroke play.

What we were discussing is really quite true of any tournament golf -- professional or amateur -- and in a way hits right at the heart of golf architecture.

The discussion began after it was suggested that championships should be stroke play events, because stroke play best identifies the premier golfer in the field.

It was argued to me that golfer can make a good amount of big numbers in a match and still beat someone who makes 18 pars and shoots a lower score -- who, it was stated, has obviously played better. It was also noted that a 3-4 handicap golfer is clearly not as good as a scratch or +1 handicapper, and while he was extremely unlikely to beat that player over 72 holes of stroke, it was much more likely that 3-4 handicapper could beat three or four scratch/plus-handicap players at match play.

I disagreed that stroke necessarily best identifies the premier golfer, but felt that I and the person advocating stroke play probably have different definitions of what defines the best golfer in the field.

Given the variety of ways that championships can be structured, I have three questions:

1. How would you define "the best golfer in the field"? What qualities will he have over and above his opponents?

2. What format of golf best identifies that player?

3. Would the style of course affect your answer to the above?

[jeffwarne]

I had an interesting discussion with two other members of my club today about club championships and the various pros and cons of contesting them at match play and at stroke play.

What we were discussing is really quite true of any tournament golf -- professional or amateur -- and in a way hits right at the heart of golf architecture.

The discussion began after it was suggested that championships should be stroke play events, because stroke play best identifies the premier golfer in the field.

It was argued to me that golfer can make a good amount of big numbers in a match and still beat someone who makes 18 pars and shoots a lower score -- who, it was stated, has obviously played better. It was also noted that a 3-4 handicap golfer is clearly not as good as a scratch or +1 handicapper, and while he was extremely unlikely to beat that player over 72 holes of stroke, it was much more likely that 3-4 handicapper could beat three or four scratch/plus-handicap players at match play.

I disagreed that stroke necessarily best identifies the premier golfer, but felt that I and the person advocating stroke play probably have different definitions of what defines the best golfer in the field.

Given the variety of ways that championships can be structured, I have three questions:

1. How would you define "the best golfer in the field"? What qualities will he have over and above his opponents?

2. What format of golf best identifies that player?

3. Would the style of course affect your answer to the above?

If you're looking to identify the "best golfer in the field" ,why play the event?
Just go look at the handicap sheets.
Would there be there any reason to play any event(with that as the criteria) when Tiger was on his run?

How about identifying the player who played the best that particular week?
Both formats are equally good and interesting at that.
I would argue that match play does not allow a player an opportunity to relax or have a bad day and is at least as equally good as stroke play, despite the reasons you cite earlier.

[Jud_T]

Scott,

Interesting question.  I guess the question is whether shooting the lowest medal score really identifies the best golfer in all instances.  Perhaps Match play might identify other skills such as creativity, more variagated course management, gamesmanship and pressure under fire.  Take the instances of Tiger lapping the field at the U.S. Open or the Masters and having a cakewalk on Sunday afternoon versus having a 36 hole match where they started Sunday morning even.  The main reason stroke play has become so prevalent is the TV revenue.  Nobody wants to pay big bucks for an event where all the marquee names may be eliminated early and you end up with a final match of Ben Crane vs. Keegan Bradly.  Did Walter Hagen possess traits that made him dominant at match play more so than at stroke play?  Have we lost something as it relates to skill identification, not to mention excitement, creativity and the ramifications for course design?  Would Bubba's shot on the second playoff hole out of the woods at the Masters be the norm rather than the exception at match play?  While more volatile, could the advertising revenues be even larger for a nailbiting Tiger/Bubba or Tiger/McIlroy Sunday match?

[Sean_A]

Identifying the best player doesn't mean much unless we are talking about non-handicap events.  In which case, either match or medal does the job - I couldn't say one is better than the other.  So far as the style of course affecting the answer, no.  I don't buy there are courses suited to either format.  Either a course is good or it isn't.  Its crackers to say a course is good for matchplay and poor for medal or vice versa. 

Ciao 

[David_Tepper]

"The main reason stroke play has become so prevalent is the TV revenue."

Jud -

That is not really true at all. Stroke play has been the primary format of play on the PGA Tour since WWII, if not before it, which is 15-20 years before golf was televised on TV to any extent. Other than the PGA Championship, how many PGA Tour events were played at matchplay in the 1940's & 50's? Hasn't the British Open been conducted at stroke play for 100+ years?

The advantage of stroke play is that you can conduct a meaningful competition over 4 days that can include of field of 120 -150 golfers. A matchplay event with a field of 128 has 7 rounds. Even if you played 2 rounds on 2 of those days, it would still take you 5 days to conduct the event.

DT    
  

[Adam Clayman]

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.

[Jud_T]

No, it is match play, man against man, that is the true essence of golf. Beside it, stroke play, as a famous champion of earlier days contemptuously put it, is "no better than rifle shooting". - Henry Longhurst

[Mark Pearce]

I believe that the Scottish Golf Union did a very extensive study a few years ago,which showed that the incidence of high handicappers winning serious match play knock out competitions at clubs was EXTREMELY rare.  That is, in two years, across several hundred clubs,  not one serious match play competition at a member club was won by a player outside of category 1 (handicap below 6).  It was that study that justified the move from 7/8 to full difference allowance in match play.  At each club the most important competitions get won by the better golfers.  The odd single round stroke play competition is far more likely to be won by a hacker having a good day.

[Tony Ristola]

Stroke play qualifying identifies the better half of the field.

Match play allows for aggressive golf, risk taking, and shot making. That's what makes it so much fun to watch and play.

I think both identify the best golfer at that particular game.

Tiger won 3 US Ams... and most would say he was the best Am of his generation.

[Peter Pallotta]

Scott - I'd approach the question this way, i.e. by noting that the main reason match play was/is the norm at British clubs for so very long is precisely because it DOESN'T identify the best golfer, thus allowing a group of friends of varying abilities to play and enjoy a 'competitive' round of golf together where no such competition would otherwise be possible.  Furthermore, I'd say that to argue that a format in which carding 6s and 7s and 8s is irrelevant as long as one 'wins' the hole flies right in the face of much of what we value in terms of golf courses offering options and choices; if we are happy to accept that a golfer can win a hole (and by extension, a match) while being fool enough to make 3 or 4 poor choices in a row and/or inept enough to hit one awful shot after another, we might as well accept that the nature/qualities of good course design mean nothing at all, in most cases and for most golfers.

Peter   

[Dan King]

IMHO, the two formats recognize different aspects of the game. Stroke play primarily tests physical ability while match play is more likely to test mental ability. American golf has been trying for years to reduce the amount of mental tests in the game, and therefore, they have worked to eliminate match play.

Cheers,
Dan King

I've taken some pleasure out of being the little guy who has beaten the big fellows. At match play, don't think that isn't an advantage, because a big guy would rather lose to a big guy.
 --Paul Runyan

[Colin Macqueen]

Scott,

As far as I am concerned match play finals in club competitions are the way to go.  I have noticed, at my club, that the match play finals in all flights generate real interest on the part of club members who turn out to watch these matches in droves. ( A bit like church attendance at Christmas and Easter!) The cut and thrust of match play attracts people as the tension  over 18 holes (Bgrade/Cgrade) or 36 for top flight is, generally speaking,maintained for almost the total number of holes. The duelling, hole after hole, engrosses the onlookers and I think is much appreciated. Match play also allows for the human element in the golfer to be on display. Idiosyncrasies, foibles and temperament seem to come to the fore and I wallow in this sort of show.

Indooroopilly Golf Club (that's me) has 2 rounds of stroke followed by top 16s entering a match play situation in each flight,off the stick, which I think is as fair a way of identifying the best player at the time of competition.

This mixed format would be my response to your second question.

Echoing Sean I am not sure that any particular course benefits one type of format over another.

Cheers Colin

[Terry Lavin]

Stroke play is much better at identifying the best player the week of the tournament if only because a guy could get lucky and draw a few opponents who played poorly. In stroke play, that variable is absent.

[Ronald Montesano]

each format identifies a player whose psychological profile is unique. the match winner has no problem staring down his opponent directly; in fact, he/she lives for this opportunity for mano a mano combat. this is a Seve or an Azinger among the men. the stroke winner is able to collect him or herself through the required number of holes, keep the ball in play, ignore the rest of the field and get to the house in first place. this is Faldo and Betsy King.

[Ronald Montesano]

in other words, you need both events on your schedule.

[Carl Johnson]

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.

[Scott Warren]

Thanks all. Some great points made -- especially by Tony R and Terry L.

I can understand why the "stroke is king" crowd feel the way they do, but I find myself agreeing with those who say 36 holes of stroke and then match play is the way to go.

I find myself turning to tennis for an analogy -- if tennis tournaments were decided by players executing skills tests independent of any other player, we'd probably still see Federer, Nadal and Djokovich winning most times, but it would be far less engaging.

[Bill Brightly]

Although I think stroke play identifies "the best golfer" I agree with Colin, match play is best club championship format. In stroke play over 4 rounds, it will almost always come down to the 4 lowest (honest) indexes. But in 16-player match play, anything can happen and one of the top four will almost always get upset in the first two rounds.

As a low handicapper but not one of the real "sticks" I feel that  have some chance in match play, because I don't have to beat the whole field each round, just the guy I am playing. If I can take out one scratch, and someone else takes out another, who knows, I may just win the whole thing. That thought process brings out all the decent players, whereas as medal only would reduce the field by half, IMO. We tried it two years, and it was so boring and hardly anyone came to watch.

[Brad Tufts]

My club has solved this by switching back and forth each year for its club championship.

It is my opinion that match play is more inclusive of all players, as those who might be in the 5-10 handicap area might catch lightning in a bottle.  However, we find 8 competitors in match play years with a single round of stroke play, so this really means stroke play is king at Tedesco.

As for identifying the best golfer, I think either can do the trick in a given week, but one must excel in both to be the best complete player.

[archie_struthers]

 

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!

[Jim Sherma]

As a conversation about club and local level amateur golf match play is much more fun and makes for a better tournament. Other than at the very top does it really matter who the "best" golfer is. We're all amateurs for a reason, otherwise we'd be getting paid to play. Match play is great because you always have a chance at getting a "scalp" - and as someone who could play 18 with the best in the area but not beat them over 36 or 54 holes of stroke play it was always great chance to have an opportunity to raise my game against someone who was "better".

Everyone knows who the "best" is at the club level, match play allows for talk over drinks and much more fun. At my best I was a decent local-level player but any tournament I was in it was clear that there were many players from above that could come down and play and easily be the class of the field. Being slightly removed from that milieu and looking back at it, the people and competition is what it's about. Match play clearly emphasizes that over stroke play at the level we're discussing.

[Giles Payne]

I am not sure about identifying the best golfer, but I think that match play leads to more interesting golf.

If you make a mistake in stroke play, it is most often sensible to take your medicine and minimise the damage to your card.

In matchplay, if you have made a mistake and your oponent is in a good position you need to weigh up the chances of halving the hole - from this you may decide that you have to take on an improbable/risky shot that you would never attempt in a stroke play event - the potential penalty is only you lose that hole.

Another issue with match play is that if you are being soundly beaten, the match finishes early. If you are having a horror in a medal round you need to stay out there all the way to the end to mark your partners card.

[BCrosby]

In match play your appetite for risk will vary dramatically during a round. That makes it a more interesting format. There are moments when you take crazy chances. There are other moments when all you want to do is bunt your ball down the middle of the fw.

In medal play, you will tend to play more conservatively and, as importantly, your appetite for risk will tend to stay constant during the round. Mostly because you are playing against an anonymous field whose performance relative to your performance is (usually) unknown.

I think the foregoing is also why a course's architecture matters more in match play than in medal play.

Bob

 

[George Pazin]

How about identifying the player who played the best that particular week?
Both formats are equally good and interesting at that.
I would argue that match play does not allow a player an opportunity to relax or have a bad day and is at least as equally good as stroke play, despite the reasons you cite earlier.

I like your opening question, but disagree on the last sentence. If anything, it would strike me that match play would offer many more chances to relax. But I say that as someone who rarely plays competitive golf, so I'd be interested in learning your logic. Stroke play seems to place more value on every stroke, so for me, it is preferred when considering how tournaments should be played at the highest level.

As for the scenario Scott's friends at the club posit, it just seems so rare that it almost isn't worth arguing. How often does someone scrape it all over the yard and still beat someone who has 18 pars? Eliminate Seve when discussing this...

As for the course, I'd want one that tests all areas of a player's game - driving, iron play, short game, putting, recovery ability, thinking, etc. Something like Augusta, Shinnecock, Oakmont or TOC - how's that for an eclectic group?

I used to think along the lines of the eminently wise Bob C, but I'm leaning away from that now. I think the added pressure of having every stroke count against every other golfers places a greater premium on interfacing with the architecture. That's a big part of why I might be the only person alive who considers the 2004 US Open at Shinnecock as one of the absolute best majors of the last 25 years.

[Jud_T]

Whether or not stroke play is preferable at the highest levels of competition, it's pretty clear to me that match play is the superior format for the vast majority of players.