US Open playoff system, good or bad?

[senorchipotle]

i like the 18 hole playoff like they have now, but i've heard that the media want to shorten it to sudden death. what are your thoughts?

[hawkeye]

I'm not fond of having to watch a tournament finish on a Monday (if it's weather delay - ok, fine).

Goosen vs Brooks was pretty boring.

But Tiger vs Rocco was exciting golf. Torrey Pines was packed with specators. Watching it again this year made me realise who good the golf actually was. But watching it live was a little more dull.

It's just slow to watch (only 2 balls in play) and the commentators just go on and on about rounds 1 2 3 and 4 - saying if only he got this putt and that putt.

It's the USGA - they do things their own way. It's good because it's different but it's not always going to be as exciting.

I prefer the British Open and USPGA playoff methods.

[uttexas]

If you are tied after 72 holes of golf, it should be a tie. I suppose for a major, you really need a champion to possess the cup, jug, jacket, trophy, whatever.

18 holes of match play if only two tied for the lead at the end of 72 holes.
If more than two tied for the lead at 72 holes---sudden death.

I like watching match play--more fluid and usually quicker pace of play.
These guys are taking 5.5 hours to play 18 holes. Is it me, or are they getting slower?

[David in FL]

It's the U.S. open, leave it alone. Watching last year's playoff was one of the best televised sporting experiences I can remember.......ever.

The media only cares about themselves and their schedules.

[Alex B]

First, I'll direct you to this thread , which discusses playoff systems in majors.

As for my opinion on the 18-hole playoff: I think it's necessary. The US Open serves to determine a national champion, not to please the fans, the sponsors, the media, or the PGA Tour (and its next stop -- go Hartford!). That's why the USGA doesn't use lift, clean, and place; that's why the USGA doesn't shorten the championship to 54 holes; that's why the USGA uses an 18-hole playoff. Even if not a single person watches the Monday playoff, it will still produce a champion in the fairest possible way. All else is surrogate to doing so.

(Now having said all this, the USGA is primarily a money-making machine just like every other organization. I'm surprised it hasn't bailed on tradition and equitability for the quick, easy, and likely more money-friendly solution of a sudden-death or 3- or 4-hole aggregate playoff. So, well done, USGA, and keep it this way.)

One more note: In the case of a tied playoff, I maintain the rare and (I'm sure) almost universally opposed position of wanting another 18 holes to be played. Sure, it looks ridiculous, and most everyone would tune out, and golf as a whole would be ridiculed -- but we'd have a deserving national champion. The US Open is about endurance and earning the title: if you'd suffered through 72 holes and battled on for 18 more, winning or losing the tournament on the result of only one extra hole seems ... flaky.

[Elsfan]

I would prefer sudden death. It is difficult to overcome a Tiger Woods in a sudden death playoff and impossible in 18 holes the next day. Plus momentum would play a bigger part and the golfer with the hot swing would win. Most people have to work on Monday, so it is a nightmare to not catch the end.

[Alex B]

I would prefer sudden death. It is difficult to overcome a Tiger Woods in a sudden death playoff and impossible in 18 holes the next day. Plus momentum would play a bigger part and the golfer with the hot swing would win.

I disagree or take issue with every point made here.

It is difficult to overcome a Tiger Woods in a sudden death playoff and impossible in 18 holes the next day. History doesn't support this statement: 1. If you look at last year, Tiger only managed a tie in the 18-hole portion of the playoff. Then, he won the sudden death portion of the event very easily. 2. Ben Hogan was dominating the then-unknown Jack Fleck after a few holes of their 1955 playoff. Then, Fleck came back to win. 3. Jack Nicklaus lost (gasp!) a 1971 playoff to Lee Trevino. 4. Francis Ouimet beat Vardon and Ray in the 1913 playoff. I'd say it's basically impossible to overcome a Tiger-like player in sudden death (I think he's about 12-1, losing once early in his career); it's tough but doable in an extended playoff. The lesser player has time to make up for a shaky start (remember, Rocco missed a 4-footer for par on the first hole last year) and settle down, so the better player can't win by merely intimidation. Plus momentum would play a bigger part and the golfer with the hot swing would win. Of course these statements about a sudden-death playoff are correct, but are they good for a US Open? As I said earlier, the US Open is a test of endurance, both mental and physical, and of earning the title through smart thinking and good execution. Neither momentum near the final holes of regulation nor a hot swing to produce a quick birdie seem fitting to determine a national champion. Only an 18-hole playoff matches the gravity of that task.

[CG031]

Sudden Death has great excitment, and the tournament gets decided on the final day instead of pushing into the next day....BUT...

I prefer the system now for the U.S. Open because in my opinion it DETERMINES THE BEST PLAYER (OF THE WEEK) which should be the main goal of the tournament. In golf especially, luck plays a major role - on one hole, a guy can get a lucky bounce or break and end up winning. It's pretty fair when they settle it for a round of 18 holes because the "breaks" and "bounces" usuallly balance out.

Plus, I like the fact I can wake up the next morning and watch more and have something to look forward to. LOL.

[lobsterzilla]

and conversely, a player that may ultimately win a 18 hole playoff, can shank his drive on the first hole of sudden death and force to scramble for par where a birdie by the other player will beat him and end the tourny. As Alex said, 18 gives a player time to come back and takes some of the luck factor out of it.

[Prairie Golfer]

The British Open system is my favorite.

How about the 36 hole playoff?

In the 1931 US Open Billy Burke and George Von Elm tied at 149 so they played ANOTHER 36 and Burke won 148-149.

[VOX]

First, I'll direct you to

Well said. Sudden death leaves too much to chance. Over 18 holes the better player will more often prevail.

I don't share your belief that the USGA is so focused on money. I know a lot of USGA officials and they truly care about the integrity of the game and their Championships.

[shankapotamus]

Before last year I would have said bad, but not anymore!

[zeg]

I'm 100% in favor of an 18 hole playoff for a Major. It's the only way that keeps the tournament about golf and suppresses the lucky break. In a lesser tournament, I think a 3 or 6 hole playoff is ok. Sudden death? It has no place in any serious tournament (in any sport, for that matter... in golf it's bad, but don't get me started about NFL sudden death...)