The Latest "This is just what golf needed"
Tactic
Before the PGA gets a sore arm from patting itself on the
back for its "enlightened and exciting" early round groupings...
The "Super Group in the first 2 rounds" is one of
the recent "we need to grow the game" ideas we now see being enacted.
The latest, most notable instance is the pairing of Rory McIlroy, Jordan Spieth
and Jason Day on the first 2 days of the Players Championship. I first heard this approach lauded back in
the last decade by ESPN's Michael Wilbon (who I like by the way) referring to
Tiger and Phil being paired in the first 2 rounds of the US Open at Torrey
Pines. I was stunned by his appraisal.
Being such an astute observer of the golf world, I thought at the time that
"no one cares who Tiger or Phil plays with in the first round!" Well, whether astute critic or not, it
turned out that some people actually DO care about that. But why do they care,
I asked myself? The big tourneys are
all sold out so it's not going to draw any more spectators. Are more people
going to tune in to the Golf Channel or ESPN on a Friday because 2 top players
are in the same threesome? I can't
imagine it would make a big difference there.
For the spectators on the course, having 2 of the top draws in the same
group means a huge throng will attempt to watch that group, making it much
harder for any one fan to see a lot of action from their favorite. Conversely, putting Tiger and Phil in
different groups makes for much more pleasing and efficacious spectator logistics.
I suppose the major attraction is the perception that the
two superstars, faced with the prospect of going up against the other, are
going to raise their games to Olympian levels in order to win the match up. And
this will result in great shot after great shot flying off their club faces
with an adoring throng as witness to the event. But this expectation flies in the face of a number of sobering
realities. First of all, golf is not
played against an opponent; it is
played against the golf course, especially in medal play (match play is a
totally different animal, one that is close to extinction on the PGA
Tour). Secondly, tour pros are playing
for position on the first two days of the tourney. They want to be situated to make a move on the appropriately
named "moving day". Why then
would a player want the added distraction of going head-to-head with a rival in
front of unwieldy crowds when he's trying to get into contention for the weekend
push?
I suppose it would all make sense if such a tactic propelled
the participants into contention and the golf world was treated to great
competition in the final two rounds. So let's see what happened when the
schedulers tried their "this is just what golf needed" move in some major tourneys.
In the 2006 PGA
Championship at Medinah, Phil and Tiger were paired together. Tiger was of course the dominant player in
the world at the time and won the tournament that year. Phil, trying as he might to keep pace,
wasn't up to the pairing and never seriously contended that week.
In the 2008 US Open
at Torrey Pines, again the two superstars played together the first 2
rounds. Despite serious injuries, Tiger
still had the iron resolve to win the tournament in a great playoff vs Rocco. Despite all the build up, Phil once again struggled with the matchup,
played poorly, and finished well back.
Then in 2012, they played together again at the US Open on
the great Olympic Course (and they threw in the Masters Champ, Bubba, as
well). Phil and Bubba, predictably,
weren't up to the challenge and quickly vanished from contention. Tiger, still mentally tough in those days,
started the weekend tied for the lead but quickly faded from contention and
finished well back on a very tough track.
Despite these less than spectacular results, Tiger and Phil
were again paired during the first rounds of last year's PGA Championship at Valhalla. The, by this time, woeful Tiger missed the
cut while Phil went down to the wire before finishing second to Rory.
This year, everyone got worked up over the fact that Rory,
new Masters champ Jordan Speith, and Jason Day were going to play the first 2
rounds together at the Players Championship. We would get to see the top 2
young challengers to Rory going head-to-head with the world's best player
(although some thought maybe Spieth was the new number 1). This was truly "just what golf needed
to grow the game". What did golf
get? Rory played "okay" and
was in decent position on the weekend;
Spieth and Day both missed the cut.
Spieth was just coming off a whirlwind month of winning the Masters,
doing interviews and probably playing too much. He could have used a nice, low key group of playing partners -
maybe including a friend like Justin Thomas.
As for Jason Day, it remains to be seen if he has the mental fortitude
to thrive in pressure packed situations.
Either way, the tournament lost two of its brightest young players
before the weekend even got going.
When people talk rapturously about great golf competitions,
which ones do they talk about? How
about Nicklaus and Watson battling in the "Duel in the Sun" at
Turnberry in 1977. Or what about Tiger and Phil at Doral in the final round
going back and forth before Woods prevailed.
And then the reverse at the 2007 Deustch Bank Championship where Phil
bested Tiger head-to-head on Sunday.
Or of Arnie and Jack at the 1967 US Open where Jack showed once and for
all who was the world's best (to the great dismay of one particular, huge Arnie
fan).
The rounds people remember, and talk about for years, are
the ones that occur on the weekend.
When do you ever recall someone talking about the great battle Player
and Palmer had in the first round of the 1972 PGA Championship? Or Snead and Hogan going at it in the 1950
US Open in round 2? No one remembers
things like that. The thing that puts
fannies in front of the TV is great final rounds where big names in the golf
world are battling it out, treating golf fans to thrilling shot after thrilling
shot. NO ONE cares who Phil played with
in the first round of the 2004 Masters, where Lefty finally broke through and
won his first major tournament. The PGA and the USGA should be doing everything
they can to make sure its biggest stars are in contention in the final
round. As the results above show, this
is not going to happen when you put the
best players together in the first 2 rounds.
Back in the last decade it didn't matter who you put Tiger with
initially because if he was going to win, a first round pairing wasn't going to
stand in his way. But he's the exception (although with his game currently
MIA, I'd start putting him in friendly
pairings, like with Steve Stricker or Ernie Els if you want to see him on the
weekend).
So how about this idea:
mix up the pairings on the weekend when the biggest crowds and biggest
TV audiences show up. Toss out the stuffy, antiquated pairings system which is
based on score and chronological finish (e.g. first guy in at -8 would get the
latest tee time). Start putting the
most enticing, best known players in the same groups on Saturday and
Sunday. Obviously you have to have the
lowest scorers in the final group but if two marquee players are both 9 under,
2 back of the lead, on Sunday, just put them in the same group regardless if
two other guys are 9 under and they finished the prior day's round in between
the two big names. For instance a few
weeks ago at Quail Hollow, Rory and Phil were tied on Saturday but hadn't
finished in the proper sequence on Friday in order to be paired together. If you're looking for glamour pairings, why
not put those 2 immensely popular, talented players together? That was the day Rory had one of his Golden
Child days and shot a course record 61.
Imagine if Phil had been in his group and had tried to match Rory's
magic. It could have been one of the
all time battles. Fans would have loved
it! But the stuffy, rigid PGA will
never waver from its goal to
"defend the integrity of the game at all costs", thus squelching any
possibility that pairings could be much more interesting on the weekends, when
tournaments are the most intense and appealing. Instead they'd rather crow about their newly found enlightened
move to "grow the game" by putting big rivals in the same groups on
the first 2 days when interest in the tourney is at its lowest.
As I finish this up, the Irish Open has recently ended and
the Byron Nelson tourney is wrapping up with an exciting finale (OK, didn't
turn out to be that exciting). Both
these tourneys had big names, thus providing the opportunity to create a
"super group" in the first 2 rounds.
The Irish Open did exactly that and put Rory, Rickie Fowler and Martin
Kaymer in a threesome. The Nelson put their native son of Texas (and big star
by the way), Jordan Spieth with Justin Thomas and Brooks Koepka. The latter group was comprised of names well
known to golf fans but the key thing is, they were all friends and very
comfortable with each other, resulting in what would seemingly be a productive
environment for good golf. The
results? Rory and Kaymer were done
after the first day, although they played a meaningless 2nd round as well. Fowler was in decent position on Saturday
but faded that day to also become insignificant. In the Nelson, all 3 golfers were in decent shape on Saturday and
Koepka and Spieth were right there on Sunday. Unfortunately, none of them got on
a hot streak on Sunday but at least they were in contention and CBS could focus
on them in its coverage. So once again,
the Super Group on the first day idea backfired in a big way. The "comfortable pairing"
meanwhile, bore some nice, ripe golf coverage fruit.
I'm not saying that putting your top gate attractions in
groups where they are comfortable will guarantee they will be around for the
weekend. But matching up superstar versus
superstar in the big events has seen dismal results, as the above examples
indicate. People want to see compelling
battles down the stretch featuring golf's biggest stars - that's what provides
memorable tournaments. So PGA, please
dump the 1st round Super Group idea and start looking to make weekend pairings
more enticing.
