[Michael Moore]

Every Saturday and Sunday (in season, ugh) Riverside Municipal in Portland, Maine, hosts a "sweeps" format tournament in which dozens and dozens of golfers compete directly against each other in gross and net individual and four ball stroke play, with some optional fringe formats thrown in to hold one's interest. The winners get their names in the paper, and on a busy weekend, three figures of shop credit. This is where I stay sharp.

As an American born in 1968 who plays well and whose pride insists that he compete against many people at once, I love stroke play. In this day and age, with a hundred people wanting a slice of the pie on Saturday morning, there is no other reasonable option for the Riverside pro shop, as was the case at the 1860 Open Championship. To me match play seems like a fun and interesting relic from time when far fewer people played. I completely understand people's devotion to it and I absolutely love Ryder Cup singles Sunday.

Here are my questions. Why were matches played first? Was it a paucity of golfers? The extreme difficulty of the early form of the game? What is general history of the emerge of stroke play? Was it seen as a lesser form of competition for a lower class of people?

[Rich Goodale]

Excellent topic, Michael.

What makes you think that "matches" were played before "stroke play?"

In the historical research which I have done I see no weighty evidence of this.  In fact, the first significant golf tournament, the 1860 Open, was played at stroke play and it wasn't until 1885 when the first significant match play tournament was held (the 1885 Amateur).  When Donald Ross and John Sutherland and their pals played regularly in 4-balls at Dornoch at the end of the 19th century they did so at stroke play rather than match play, with "level 4's" being the "par".

My instinct is to think that this idea that golf began with "match play" is a myth or at least a delusion, but I am willing to be disabused of this instinct if shown concrete evidence to the contrary.

Rich

[John_Cullum]

A former prolific and knowledgeable poster theorizes that stroke play emerged as the preferred method for touring professionals because it allowed them to plan their travels better

[Tim Martin]

Michael- This is a great topic and hopefully will provoke plenty of commentary. I wonder if you could clarify what "four ball stroke play" is as my understanding is that the term "four ball" is strictly a match play reference. Thanks and look forward to the evolution of your thread.

[Bill_McBride]

If I recall correctly, I think all the early 19th Century matches, whether head to head singles or best ball partners, were conducted at stroke play.  Then in the '20s matches such as Bobby Jones vs Walter Hagen were 36 or 72 hole exhibitions played at match play.  Somewhere in that time frame match play became equally popular.  Then television killed match play for the pros as the big names could get knocked out early (see this year's Accenture!) and not be around on the weekend. 

[Garland Bayley]

Excellent topic, Michael.

What makes you think that "matches" were played before "stroke play?"

In the historical research which I have done I see no weighty evidence of this.  In fact, the first significant golf tournament, the 1860 Open, was played at stroke play and it wasn't until 1885 when the first significant match play tournament was held (the 1885 Amateur).  When Donald Ross and John Sutherland and their pals played regularly in 4-balls at Dornoch at the end of the 19th century they did so at stroke play rather than match play, with "level 4's" being the "par".

My instinct is to think that this idea that golf began with "match play" is a myth or at least a delusion, but I am willing to be disabused of this instinct if shown concrete evidence to the contrary.

Rich

Prepare to be disabused.

"When King James IV went out "to play at the Golfe with the Earle of Bothuile" on February 3, 1504, in the first match of which any record has come down to us, the method of scoring was as follows. At the first hole the Earl, let us suppose, had the longer of the two drives, so that the King would be the first to play. He would play the odd -- one more shot than his opponent. Then it would be the Earl's turn to hit his drive, and he would be playing the like, that is the same number of strokes as the King. They simply kept track of who was behind or ahead in number of strokes as they holed out, without knowing how many total strokes had been required to hole out."

Robert S. Macdonald's Publisher's Note to Playing the Like, by Bernard Darwin, Ailsa, Inc., 2001

[RJ_Daley]

This research for a concrete historical record of what was the dominant game, stroke or match play is out of my desire to research. 

But, if we are looking for social and economic impact, I think they must be separated by common people and skilled elite people to obtain a picture of the early game, prior to say, 1900.

As Michael notes in his set up to the question, the municipal (commoner  ) folk just naturally gravitate to matches over  ;)a time frame, perhaps creating brackets and a series of matches throughout a field of entries, or it is just pair-ups, catch as catch can, and pairing by 'common' interest, of can so and so beat this other fellow at match play? 

Our municipal men's club has two summer series, of match play, one singles and one doubles matches.  We are bracketed, and winner moves on.  We must schedule our own matches at mutual agreeable times, and have a drop dead date to complete the round.  It take 4 rounds of wins to become the champ of the bracket.  There are two brackets of skilled players 9 and under handis, and 10 and over, of course played with handicaps.  We often have the hot 20 handi beating a good solid 10, which makes it more fun and lots of kibitzing about sandbagging, etc.   So, the commeradarie of the smaller than total golfing universe at our muni, (the men's club) have a natural affinity, it eems to me, to enjoy the match play, because it is common.

Medal stroke play for tournaments serves both the higher prize awarding function with awards for wins, places, shows and usually in our fields, swag trade in pro shop down to sometimes 8-10th place if the field flight is strong with 30 or more playing.

And, as the prize money is significant in the pro game, stroke play seems obviously the more preferred method to dole out the booty. 

So, on the historical aspect, it seems to me that the commoners, would gravitate to match play, due to a highly socialablilty factor of the game amongst familiar small groups of afficianados that played it, and once a larger field of players, and more prize money was offered, stroke play ascended to dominant status.  All conjecture....

[Rich Goodale]

Excellent topic, Michael.

What makes you think that "matches" were played before "stroke play?"

In the historical research which I have done I see no weighty evidence of this.  In fact, the first significant golf tournament, the 1860 Open, was played at stroke play and it wasn't until 1885 when the first significant match play tournament was held (the 1885 Amateur).  When Donald Ross and John Sutherland and their pals played regularly in 4-balls at Dornoch at the end of the 19th century they did so at stroke play rather than match play, with "level 4's" being the "par".

My instinct is to think that this idea that golf began with "match play" is a myth or at least a delusion, but I am willing to be disabused of this instinct if shown concrete evidence to the contrary.

Rich

Prepare to be disabused.

"When King James IV went out "to play at the Golfe with the Earle of Bothuile" on February 3, 1504, in the first match of which any record has come down to us, the method of scoring was as follows. At the first hole the Earl, let us suppose, had the longer of the two drives, so that the King would be the first to play. He would play the odd -- one more shot than his opponent. Then it would be the Earl's turn to hit his drive, and he would be playing the like, that is the same number of strokes as the King. They simply kept track of who was behind or ahead in number of strokes as they holed out, without knowing how many total strokes had been required to hole out."

Robert S. Macdonald's Publisher's Note to Playing the Like, by Bernard Darwin, Ailsa, Inc., 2001

Thanks, GJ

I am proud to be playing the role of Dennis Healy in your impersonation of Geoffrey Howe.  Or, as Mandy Rice-Davies would have said regarding Darwin's inveterate forelock worship "He would have said that, wouldn't he?"

RG

PS--have a nice day

[Patrick_Mucci]

TV, in conjunction with the PGA Tour was the catalyst that accelerated the transition from match to medal play.

Medal play rounds could be "scheduled" to begin and end at specified times.
Impossible to do at Match play.
Match play was too unpredictable and rarely created the drama, the theatre that medal play created on Sunday afternoon.

The back nine at ANGC on Sunday provides ample proof, as does the old adage that the US. Open begins on the back nine on Sunday afternoon.

As to the rest of us, I think the advent and influence of the handicap system was the catalyst.
The requirement that even at match play, you had to return a score.

At clubs where I served on "Golf" committees, there was always a debate on whether the club championship should be conducted at Match or Medal.

Those favoring Medal almost always cited that the "Best" golfer would win at Medal play, whereas, at Match play, the best golfer didn't always emerge as the club champion.

It remains an interesting debate.

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. & Bill M. -

I don't think you can lay the demise of matchplay on the PGA Tour solely on the demands of TV. In the years after WWII and into the early 1950's, well before PGA Tour golf was televised, how many events, aside from the PGA Championship, were played at matchplay? There cannot have been more than a small handful each year.

As a practical matter, there is no way a matchplay event with a field of 64 golfers, let alone 128, can be conducted and completed in 4 days.

DT   

 

[Dan Herrmann]

My personal observation.  When I started playing on munis and daily fee courses, there's no way I'd play match play - I was paying hard earned cash for every hole, every stoke.  Besides, once I moved out of Buffalo, I usually ended up playing as a single (often with a hour+ wait in the bag line/queue).   

Striking up a match with a stranger just isn't something that I've ever seen done at a public course.

[Michael Moore]

Thanks for the interesting responses. I look forward to more.

To clarify, we play stroke play, bellum omnium contra omnes. We also play stroke play better ball (not four ball, sorry) so that you are playing a better ball with everyone in your group, against all the other combinations in your group, and against the combinations of every better ball in every other group. Does that make sense? It's a great format that makes for some interesting intra-group dymanics down the stretch. There is also skins, which I love, pins, which I eschew, and straight handicap "points", which is like flushing your hard-earned money down the toilet.

[Jud_T]

Michael,

How long does a round take?

[Michael Moore]

Around four hours. It does not seem like a long time while you are on the course because you are with your friends in the heat of battle. We compete on a Wayne Stiles course at 6300 yards where every tee is located directly next to the previous green. Having everyone hole out eighteen times could be a problem in other cultures, but we are called New England for a reason. The "too expensive, too time-consuming, too problematic" arguments have nothing to do with golf in my part of the world, but that is another thread for another day. 

[Paul Gray]

To understand this better it's perhaps necessary to understand the relationship between the British aristocracy and gambling.......

With money to burn and no inconveniences such as work to get in the way the British aristocracy developed a penchant for placing wagers on just about anything. In golf, not satisfied with simply betting on themselves in matchplay, money would be put on "one's man" (i.e a caddy/professional when the two were one in the same) to win a match against another gentleman's "man". This system worked well enough when just two gentlemen wanted to place their money on the table but immediately looked limited when potential punters were more numerous. After all, no one wants to go to the track to watch a series of two horse races. 

The solution was to switch to stroke play, thus ensuring multiple runners and, most importantly, multiple options for a flutter. Hence you have the invitation to the 1860 Open whereby clubs were encouraged to send "a caddy of a suitable standard."

And the rest, of course, is history.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat M. & Bill M. -

I don't think you can lay the demise of matchplay on the PGA Tour solely on the demands of TV.

I didn't

In the years after WWII and into the early 1950's, well before PGA Tour golf was televised, how many events, aside from the PGA Championship, were played at matchplay? There cannot have been more than a small handful each year.

The PGA Championship was a Major at match play.
Transitioning to medal in 1958 was accompanied by the event being televised.

As a practical matter, there is no way a matchplay event with a field of 64 golfers, let alone 128, can be conducted and completed in 4 days.

David, one match the first day 128 to 64

Two matches the second day, 64 to 32, 32 to 16

Two matches the third day, 16 to 8, 8 to 4

Two matches the fourth day, 4 to 2, 2 to 1.

The North-South Amateur employed that format as did many early tournaments.

When fields were reduced to 64, 36 hole finals became popular.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()