The 2016 (Golf) Open Championship - Troon

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I agree with you but the rotation is a bit loose for the PGA and they work more unknowns in. I'm much more familiar with the US Open rotation courses. Pebble, #2, Bethpage, Oakmont, etc. I don't really like seeing them play new courses and the PGA gets off the grid a bit.

They've played Bethpage twice in the history of the tournament. #2 was a completely different course than the last time they were there. Oakmont was the same this year after they took all those trees down. And the PGA plays Baltusrol, Whistling Straits, AAC, Valhalla, etc every five or six years. I think it's just attention span by the time the season is winding down and the tournament is played in the heart of vacation season, summer, etc. if people watched, they'd know the courses just like they do the Open regulars. And short of someplace like Pebble or signature holes, how many holes do you really remember on the courses? I know I don't remember them when they return six years later.

I'd like to see both tournaments move around more, but that's a personal preference I know not a lot of people share. I'd love to see each grab maybe three or four that they keep in rotation and then work in a new one every other year. That way you get to find a new gem like Bethpage. You get to see an old private course like Merion that you'd never otherwise lay eyes on or great public ones more people have played. Go play National Golf Links, Burning Tree, Bandon etc. find more municipal gems like Bethpage that the average guy can afford. I realize the logistics prevent some of these courses but there's dozens of amazing courses that people never see. I'd rather try something new than every five years see Pebble again. I can watch The other tournament they play there every year if I want.

 

[Doug Beerabelli]

FYI - Baltusrol, this year's PGA course, has hosted 7 US Opens, 4 U.S. amateurs, 2 US Women's Open and Amatuer each. This year will be 2nd PGA. AW Tillinghast design. Pedigree in spades this year.

Lower Course had hosted most of these tournaments. I think they turn 2 par 5sor two into par 4s to get to a par 70 I've been lucky enough to play both the Lower and Upper courses a few times over the years at an annual charity tournament (thank you Clears Cleaver), I actually prefer the Upper to play. Clubhouse is beautiful.

Incredible performance by Stenson, and by Phil. He wins running away most years with his performance. But not this year.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Problem with match play is the unpredictability of the TV end of things. If Stenson was playing anyone but Phil today, he might win 7&6. While a 2.5 hour final round might be great for fans, its not for TV dollars. The flip side of that is make them play 36, and if that's the case, what are the chances anyone is going to tune in for a full days worth of golf when you've got 2 shots every 10 minutes? Ryder and Presidents Cup is easy, If one match is a blowout, you've got 3-4 others to share the telecast.

FWIW, I addressed these points in my previous post. Make the event medal-matchplay, so every shot counts and every match will go the full 18 or 36 holes. And have lots of consolation matches to make sure there's enough golf to show on TV - e.g., have seven other games on the course, from the 3rd/4th place match down to the 15th/16th place match, at the same time as the final. (Most of the non-Stenson/Mickelson golf shown yesterday was ultimately pointless in terms of who would win the championship, but nobody complained about it then.)

Yes, the PGA is a major, and yes, as such it is more important and watchable than most PGA Tour events. But it still has no personality - it's the US Open lite in every sense. It always gets the highest quality field of the majors insofar as there are no qualifying competitions as there are for the US Open and British Open (excepting the PGA club pros who still get to take part for some reason), but the conditions are never US Open-tough and there is no consistent theme linking the courses it's played on. If the US Open would stick to courses designed before 1950 and the PGA was only played on courses designed since 1950, that might give it some sort of unique hook, but there's no desire by the USGA or PGA of America to do that. So it remains a major, but very clearly the least prestigious major of the four...whereas I think making it a head-to-head event would give it more cache and credibility. I also think that not having a head-to-head major is analogous to what tennis would be like if there weren't a single grand slam event on clay courts; head-to-head golf is very different to tournament golf, and it's a format probably played by a majority of casual golfers around the world (as well as most serious amateur tournaments, plus of course the Ryder/Presidents Cups and the odd WGC Matchplay-type event). Why not make the best players in the world prove how well they can play against each other, rather than always against the course, in an event of supreme importance and pressure that is more than just a cash grab? That's effectively what Mickelson and Stenson did yesterday, and it was riveting.

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

I think we saw the debacle that having jacked up greens can cause this year at the Open. It created a situation where the USGA completely embarrassed itself on a bullshit penalty ruling that almost fucked over the champion and easily could have derailed him. (And yes I understand Oakmont actually has their greens faster than that normally; thats not the point). We also had the joke that was Chambers Bay last year. To WBVs point I'm failing to remember an Open where the players didn't think it was over the top and even those ere because weather tamed it.

The green speed was not a problem this year. The poor real time decision making by the USGA was the problem.

Yes, the PGA is a major, and yes, as such it is more important and watchable than most PGA Tour events. But it still has no personality - it's the US Open lite in every sense. It always gets the highest quality field of the majors insofar as there are no qualifying competitions as there are for the US Open and British Open (excepting the PGA club pros who still get to take part for some reason), but the conditions are never US Open-tough and there is no consistent theme linking the courses it's played on.

Is the depth of field even a positive? I think The Masters is the best major in part because only high caliber players (and former star winners) are allowed in the field. It's a showdown of big names.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

FWIW, I addressed these points in my previous post. Make the event medal-matchplay, so every shot counts and every match will go the full 18 or 36 holes. And have lots of consolation matches to make sure there's enough golf to show on TV - e.g., have seven other games on the course, from the 3rd/4th place match down to the 15th/16th place match, at the same time as the final. (Most of the non-Stenson/Mickelson golf shown yesterday was ultimately pointless in terms of who would win the championship, but nobody complained about it then.)

Yes, the PGA is a major, and yes, as such it is more important and watchable than most PGA Tour events. But it still has no personality - it's the US Open lite in every sense. It always gets the highest quality field of the majors insofar as there are no qualifying competitions as there are for the US Open and British Open (excepting the PGA club pros who still get to take part for some reason), but the conditions are never US Open-tough and there is no consistent theme linking the courses it's played on. If the US Open would stick to courses designed before 1950 and the PGA was only played on courses designed since 1950, that might give it some sort of unique hook, but there's no desire by the USGA or PGA of America to do that. So it remains a major, but very clearly the least prestigious major of the four...whereas I think making it a head-to-head event would give it more cache and credibility. I also think that not having a head-to-head major is analogous to what tennis would be like if there weren't a single grand slam event on clay courts; head-to-head golf is very different to tournament golf, and it's a format probably played by a majority of casual golfers around the world (as well as most serious amateur tournaments, plus of course the Ryder/Presidents Cups and the odd WGC Matchplay-type event). Why not make the best players in the world prove how well they can play against each other, rather than always against the course, in an event of supreme importance and pressure that is more than just a cash grab? That's effectively what Mickelson and Stenson did yesterday, and it was riveting.

I understand you're point, I just don't agree that it would be compelling TV. Filler golf doesn't draw viewers or sell ads. Even with the fact that 2 players blew away the field, it was compelling TV yesterday because up until Stenson's drive on 18 came to rest, Phil still had a shot. The network isn't interested in a telecast that is going to be a 5 hour broadcast where it peaks in hours 3 and has 2 more hours of filler. They want the crescendo of the final hour being gripping television. You're not going to get that very often in match play where 2 guys are playing 18-36 holes for the title. Especially if its 2 guys no one cares about. For instance, if the 3-4 guys this week were the final of a match play tournament, do you think anyone is going to watch a 36 hole match of Stricker v Holmes? Even if its deadlocked on the final 9, I'm probably watching something else.

Match play just has too many obstacles to translate to good TV for them to risk TV money for a major tournament. I understand how you think it could work, I just don't think its feasible from an economic standpoint. Sunday has to be the best day of a 4 day tournament, not the most boring.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

Is the depth of field even a positive? I think The Masters is the best major in part because only high caliber players (and former star winners) are allowed in the field. It's a showdown of big names.

I tend to agree with you here, and believe the depth of field makes it more likely a Micheel or Yang gets hot and wins relative to other majors (simply because there are more good-but-not-great golfers in the field who are capable of catching fire). But it's hard to deny that having every single one of the Top X ranked players in the field, which is almost always what the PGA has and rarely seems to be what the other majors have, is attractive to some people.

Match play just has too many obstacles to translate to good TV for them to risk TV money for a major tournament. I understand how you think it could work, I just don't think its feasible from an economic standpoint. Sunday has to be the best day of a 4 day tournament, not the most boring.

You could of course flip this around and point to all of the majors in the past few years where there was one leader, way out front of the pack (e.g., Rory's first three major victories), and there was no drama, whereas an 18-hole medal-matchplay final is guaranteed give you a Sunday where two guys are tied with one round to go.

I get why you think this is a risk, but I'd love to see a medal-matchplay event along the above lines even during the regular season, to see how it might translate to a major championship. Even having a cut down to 32 instead of 70 would be rather different...didn't the old International event at Castle Pines reset all of the scores before the final round? With medal-matchplay, you could even have three-way matches where the low scorer in each threesome advances; not that I'd necessarily advocate this for a major, but there have to be other ways of conducting real golf tournaments apart from the normal 72-hole strokeplay fare that could be rather interesting.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I think the risk of a sole leader pulling away and making the final round somewhat less dramatic is there in any format, but I think the risk is less so in medal play than in match play. Having said that, the team match play stuff seems to work because every match is worth a point. I caught the NCAA's this year and found myself glued to the TV for the women's event. Missed the men's, but it was a good format and made for good TV. I just think individual match play runs into two risks. Players that aren't compelling and matches that aren't compelling.

 

[johnmd20]

Match play sucks. In a tourney, you can have a lousy first day and still have a chance. For match play, half the players who have a lousy first day are knocked out and it's over. If they made the PGA Match play, the ratings would fall off a cliff and it would no longer be a "major" in anything but name.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Match play sucks. In a tourney, you can have a lousy first day and still have a chance. For match play, half the players who have a lousy first day are knocked out and it's over. If they made the PGA Match play, the ratings would fall off a cliff and it would no longer be a "major" in anything but name.

You didn't read his first post, where he proposes turning it into a 5-day event, with the first two days stroke play. The finalists will only have to play 144 holes over 5 days. How could the players not love this idea?

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

You didn't read his first post, where he proposes turning it into a 5-day event, with the first two days stroke play. The finalists will only have to play 144 holes over 5 days. How could the players not love this idea?

Do you know what the format was when men were men and the PGA Championship used to be contested at matchplay? Well, I'll tell you:

Sunday/Monday: 36 holes of strokeplay qualifying (18 holes per day), with the top 63 plus the defending champion reaching the matchplay stage
Tuesday: Round of 64 and Round of 32 (18 holes each)
Wednesday: Round of 16 (36-hole matches)
Thursday: Quarterfinals (36-hole matches)
Friday: Semifinals (36-hole matches)
Saturday: Final (36-hole match)

So that's a theoretical maximum of 216 holes in seven days, not counting any extra holes in the event of a tie.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

What does that have to do with changing the format that today's players (who are now incredibly powerful), viewers, networks, and sponsors like? Or should I say, how does that help your argument?

As a match play event (with a stroke play qualifier), it was not uncommon for the finalists to play over 200 holes in seven days. The 1957 event lost money,[6] and at the PGA meetings in November it was changed to stroke play, starting in 1958, with the standard 72-hole format of 18 holes per day for four days, Thursday to Sunday. Network television broadcasters, preferring a large group of well-known contenders on the final day, pressured the PGA of America to make the format change.[7]

Look, I'm sorry you don't seem to like the PGA (where we've seen two incredible tournaments in each of the past two years). But it's not changing back to match play in your lifetime.

 

[johnmd20]

Do you know what the format was when men were men and the PGA Championship used to be contested at matchplay? Well, I'll tell you:

Sunday/Monday: 36 holes of strokeplay qualifying (18 holes per day), with the top 63 plus the defending champion reaching the matchplay stage
Tuesday: Round of 64 and Round of 32 (18 holes each)
Wednesday: Round of 16 (36-hole matches)
Thursday: Quarterfinals (36-hole matches)
Friday: Semifinals (36-hole matches)
Saturday: Final (36-hole match)

So that's a theoretical maximum of 216 holes in seven days, not counting any extra holes in the event of a tie.

They also used to play with actual wooden clubs and balls made out of feathers, M&M's, and cotton balls. I'm not sure the good ol days were always so good.

 

[Doug Beerabelli]

And then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes Benzes...

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

My point is that there's nothing wrong with making the pro sweat and grind for a few days to earn their millions. Why shouldn't physical endurance be more of a factor in testing the best golfers in the world?

I'll stop my digression now; even if more of you did like the idea of what I'm proposing, the odds of anything like it ever happening are very, very slim. I just think that truly great head-to-head duels like what we saw between Stenson and Mickelson are rarer than they should be, and I wish there were more of them - that's all.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

They also used to play with actual wooden clubs and balls made out of feathers, M&M's, and cotton balls. I'm not sure the good ol days were always so good.

Bring back the stymie! These kids today and their new fangled ball markers!!

 

[johnmd20]

My point is that there's nothing wrong with making the pro sweat and grind for a few days to earn their millions. Why shouldn't physical endurance be more of a factor in testing the best golfers in the world?

I'll stop my digression now; even if more of you did like the idea of what I'm proposing, the odds of anything like it ever happening are very, very slim. I just think that truly great head-to-head duels like what we saw between Stenson and Mickelson are rarer than they should be, and I wish there were more of them - that's all.

You're right but the problem is, even in match play, it rarely ends up with a head to head duel like we saw yesterday. Yesterday was something special and it's also very rare, no matter the format.