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.


Mark Bourgeois

This thread gets a lamp because I think it represents Truth and yes that's an upcap on the T.

MP + ↓σ (I&B Q) → SP

Dangit, forgot to balance the equation:

MP + ↓σ (I&B Q) → SP - U

Where:

MP = Match Play
I&B = Implements & Balls
Q = Quality
SP = Stroke Play
U = Potential Energy (or excitement)

Take a little time to study this one. I feel pretty confident I've nailed THE major reason why stroke play out-competed match play at the highest levels of the game to become the dominant mode of golf.

Mark Bourgeois

No symbolic chemists in the house, huh?

In plain English:

Could the greater predictability of shot outcomes, due to developments in golf balls and clubs, explain the dominance of stroke play over match?

As the proportion of lucky / unlucky / fluky (read: not indicative of skill) shots decreased, the need to account for randomness also decreased. Medal play, with its counting of every shot, came to be seen as a truer measure of golfing skill and as less likely to mis-identify the luckiest golfer as the best golfer.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark - I wish you a great summer vacation!  :)

I'd also include a variable for conditioning.  Conditioning has improved significantly over the last 100 years.

Peter Pallotta

"Could the greater predictability of shot outcomes, due to developments in golf balls and clubs, explain the dominance of stroke play over match?"

A good and interesting insight. It well might, Mark - but that assumes there was a conscious and concerned awareness on the part of golf's (earlier) decision-makers that the game was becoming, in essence, easier and more predictable. We here today certainly are willing/able to discuss technological advances in those terms, but do you think our counterparts from, say, 1900-1950 also thought in those terms?

Peter

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Paging Professor Bausch
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

Kirk Moon

I have a much simpler set of equations for you.

$$$$$ > everything

TV = $$$$$$$$$$$

MP*TV < SP*TV

Ergo, MP < SP







David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Kirk's equation is compelling....no but.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
"You . . . Yes you . . . Have you ever kissed a girl?!"

Mark Bourgeois

Sure, whenever they visit me in my parent's basement. That's where I live.

Double P, I'm not sure that more ptedictable means easier, and as far as thinking back then, the battle between golfer and architect was well and fully joined.

Ok, the money thing: the TV angle, sure. The other $ stuff, no.

And as far as conditioning improvements: other than introducing a rabbit warden, I can't see the impact relative to I&B as anything more thanks on the margin.

No, I rather like my argument. You are all going to have to do better.

Peter Pallotta

OK. Let me ask you this, then: if Mark B came up with this theory in June 2012, WHO came up with it the first time, i.e. who (or what combination of whos) first decided -- because of the theory you laid out, or something akin to it -- to first move away from match play and contest a competition via stroke play instead? Notice: I honour you by assuming you the original thinker and statistico-chemist, but in so doing must assume that previous decision-makers came to the same conclusion intuitively and unconsciously, and that they kept their thinking/analysis to themselves. I like your argument too, and feel it is worth being forged in the fire of rigorous questioning!!

Peter

« Last Edit: June 13, 2012, 10:06:41 PM by PPallotta »

Mark Bourgeois

No. The change could have occurred w/o the powers that be fully understanding why. It could have been as simple as, "Hominy, we can't keep extending these matches to get a winner, we'll never finish. It's time to go to medal."

And that would be that. If the switch didn't occur until later, they might even have thought they were doing it for TV when it was really decrease variation. Aka "specification error."

Next!

Peter Pallotta

Ah, I see - natural selection, huh? A real Darwinian (grand-pere) you are!

Alright, Mark - I'll recuse myself, but don't say I didn't warn you, i.e. I'm the best friend your theory's got!!

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
TV = $$$$$$

Whenever in doubt, follow the money.   

In detective novels, cherchez la femme.  In golf, follow the money. 

Sad but true.   The rest is noise.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
TV = $$$$$$

Whenever in doubt, follow the money.   

In detective novels, cherchez la femme.  In golf, follow the money. 

Sad but true.   The rest is noise.

Stroke play has been around for 200 years, and it's really because of TV that it was adopted as the dominant form of play. There's no way to sustain viewers and ratings on a weekly basis with two man playoffs, especially 36 hole matches. There's no way to have large fields and still conduct a match play event in 4 days. There's no time for pro-ams. There's no way to sell 40,000 tickets on a regular basis for the last day of a match play event. There's no way to keep 100s of technicians and a half dozen announcers busy for a two man match. There's not enough air time for equipment makers to have their sponsored players on camera. Etc., etc., etc..

Of course Bill is right, it's all about the money.
 
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark

The first Open was played at stroke play and that (1860) was before before television and at a time when the only people who played golf were toffs soaked in claret and a few pros who could actually play the game.  Match play (and handicapping) was invented by the claret soaked toffs to 1.  Allow themselves to soothe their fragile egos by creativing a form of the game in which they could "win," even though they were untalented; and 2.  Give them a means for wagering, which could increase the possibility of being ab le to afford more claret to soak themselves in.  Bob Huntley and Melvyn Morrow could verify this as they were both around at the time.....

Why, perchance, do we score baseball (or even cricket) by the total number of runs rather than the "innings" won?  Or basketball or football by the total score rather than number of quarters won?  Do we reward hedge funds managers by the number of deals that were positive
earners rather than how much money the total gains and losses on the portfolio made for the firm?

My belief is we do what we do with our sports because deep down each of us knows what performance is, and it is not being able to beat any other player on a single hole or on the day, or even more so it is not being able to "beat" a player because he or she has given you strokes.  What it is can only be measured over a specified period of time for the whole sample of participants, under roughly the same conditions.  Just like any proper experiment in chemistry, come to think of it....
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Mark Bourgeois

No. The change could have occurred w/o the powers that be fully understanding why. It could have been as simple as, "Hominy, we can't keep extending these matches to get a winner, we'll never finish. It's time to go to medal."

And that would be that. If the switch didn't occur until later, they might even have thought they were doing it for TV when it was really decreased variation. Aka "specification error."

Next!

In fact, it could have happened just like this:
http://tinyurl.com/823u8rx

Or this: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1008393/1/index.htm

People might think it's about television and therefore $ because in a way it is, but deep down it's fundamentally about what happens when players are so tightly bunched together thanks in large part to technology that the organizers have to find a way to cram 80 -- or 113, in the case of the 1991 Open Championship -- onto the weekend, one-routing-for-all course.

So yeah, television...no.

Next!

Mark Bourgeois

Thank you for that posit, Rich. It supports my argument beautifully.

Peter Pallotta

Thank you for that posit, Rich. It supports my argument beautifully.

Oh for goodness sakes, it does nothing of the sort!!

I beseech you, Mark - don't diminish what is an engaging and interesting theory by asking it to do too much.

Rich's post gets to the fundamental truths; you have offered, on the other hand, this:

MP + ↓σ (I&B Q) → SP - U

Call me stolid and pedantic and cramped and unimaginative, but I prefer the former.

Keep up the good work, though

 ;D

Peter


Kirk Moon

My belief is we do what we do with our sports because deep down each of us knows what performance is, and it is not being able to beat any other player on a single hole or on the day, or even more so it is not being able to "beat" a player because he or she has given you strokes.  What it is can only be measured over a specified period of time for the whole sample of participants, under roughly the same conditions.  Just like any proper experiment in chemistry, come to think of it....
So how does tennis fit into your tidy theory?  Squash?  Handball?  None of these games relies on "medal" play scoring to determine the winner.

And with regards to those sports that measure "performance" based upon some cumulative total accumulated over some arbitrarily defined period, why is the arbitrarily defined period necessarily the one that best indicates "performance" relative to others?

A world champion sprinter would be eaten alive in a distance race and vice versa. 

Why is the "best" baskeball team defined as the one ahead after 48 minutes of play?  Why not 15 or 60? 

Why is the "best" baseball team defined as the one ahead after 9 innings?

Why is the "best" and truest indication of performance in golf defined as the player with the fewest strokes after 18 holes (or 36, etc.)?

Fact of the matter is that it for most sports, the period of time used to determine "excellence" is almost completely arbitrary.  If the duration of these kinds of events were changed even slightly (e.g. if golf courses had 20 holes or basketball games were played for 50 minutes), ALL of the record books would need to be re-written.  Many "winners" would be transformed into losers and vice versa.

I have no qualms with the argument that excellence in stroke play golf is a reflection of expertise and skill, but I would argue that it is just one kind of expertise and skill (combined with quite a bit of luck - even the best medal play golfers have WILDLY different scores on a day to day and week to week basis.)

Match play doesn't allow "weaker" players to succeed compared to medal play.  It measures a different kind of expertise.  A medal play winner is rewarded for consistency and severely penalized for intermittent failure.  A match play winner is rewarded for the ability to be brilliant more often than their opponent but is only modestly punished for the occasional meltdown.  One type of match is not necessarily "better" than the other or an indication of "true performance" any more than a long distance runner is intrinsically better than a sprinter or mid-distance runner.

As far as I can tell, the main reason that stroke play has dominated match play in the last fifty years is because stroke play is the only kind of play that makes for suitable TV entertainment and what people see on TV is what they want to mimic in "real life". 




George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Stroke play is just one big hole played against the entire field. It's the ultimate form of match play.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Peter Pallotta

Stroke play is just one big hole played against the entire field. It's the ultimate form of match play.

Yes!! And George comes right up the middle with a Franco Harris-Jerome Bettis type run, knocking aside flimsy intellectualizations like so many DBs on his way to a winning touchdown!! 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2012, 07:26:42 PM by PPallotta »

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
George,

Ach thank you!  I can now see through a glass, darkly. I think. I hope! A thread too far for a while there! Still is to be honest!

Anyway what do the down arrow and the sigma (or is it an epsilon,  see I have no idea!) sign denote! Alpha and omega I get but this has got me rattled! I hope it will be worth the effort but I ha'e me doots!

Cheers Colin
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Mark Bourgeois

Stroke play is just one big hole played against the entire field. It's the ultimate form of match play.

Yes, let me add my gratitude, George, for that succinct argument in favor of my theory. Better technology -> fewer 10s on a hole -> tighter medal play score groupings in a tournament. One score per *tournament*vs 18 scores per *round*, big difference in spreads, especially after technology does its thing.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thomas Kincaid, a medical student at the University of Edinburgh in the 1680s, kept a diary. In it, on January 21, 1687, he wrote the first known reference to handicapping, discussing options of betting. "At golf, " he wrote, "whether it is better to give a man two holes of three, laying equal strokes, or to lay three strokes to his one and play equal for so much every hole." Kincaid was comparing types of betting; was it better, he asked, to give a player a two-hole start every three holes and play with no strokes, or play even, paying three-to-one odds per hole? Captain Elphinston challenges Mr. Allan next Saturday best of three rounds, half a crown (currency) a hole, that he beats Mr. Allan with the Club against his throwing and gives him half one. No running at the throw! That match was halved.

Mid-19th Century professional golfers like Allan Robertson often derived a significant portion of their incomes through wagering on golf. The concept of giving strokes allowed Robertson to set up matches with golfers who weren't at his level.


Match play is the older form of golf, and the only one mentioned in the rules until ca. 1807. As shown by the second paragraph, handicaps were about money, and in Robertson's case it was the only way to get a match with anyone other than a professional.

'Medal' play was just that, stroke play for a medal and it had monetary value, and in at least one instance that I came across the winner of the medal was paid half a crown to wear it during certain club functions.

Once again, it's money.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Peter Pallotta

Let me thank you on Mark's behalf, Jim, for such detailed support of his argument...

As you can see, MP + ↓σ (I&B Q) → SP - U is large, and contains multitudes. There is no data/datum the theory can't absorb in stride.

Genius!!

Peter

(This is fun, Mark, thanks.)