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.