Letter from Saugerties: "The Pairing" Edition
Nice to hear from our friend Frank Hannigan, the former USGA Executive Director, who shares some thoughts on this week's Woods-Mickelson pairing.
Dear Geoff:
Pairing Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson together in the first two rounds of the US Open is like putting Judy Garland and Barbara Streisand on stage together, each doing her own thing at the same time. The result would be discordant but the advance hype would be spectacuar.
The new USGA method of pairing takes the top 12 players from the "world" system and converts them into four groups of three.
I'm surprised the USGA did not embrace an alternate system, that of the FedEx Cup to determine eligibility for the PGA Tour carnival of money during the fall. Proclaiming FedEx points would surely have resulted in another million a year for the USGA which apparently exists to pile up money. There was an analogy in a recet New York Times op-ed column in which a Harvard graduate pointed out that Harvard is the second richest institution in the country, second to the Bill Gates Foundation, hoards the money and is run poorly so that expenses are out of control.
The USGA switch to the new method would be more credible had it been announced in January rather than waiting until it was slam dunk that Mickelson would be in the top 3. And how are we take a statement of self-praise in which the new system is being done in the face of what television wants. Excuse me, but there is nothing television wants more than to have Woods and Mickelson paired.
Perhaps I am over-sensitive on pairings since I drafted them for US Opens beginning in 1968 and ending in 1988 when I left the USGA triumphantly. Our method began with the tenet that the current U.S. and British Open should be together, with the US Amateur champion as the third man.
After that it was just about arbitrary. We followed a hallowed principle that the best players should be scattered throughout the day. Who are the two best in the world? Common answer: Nicklaus and Watson. So Nicklaus would start at 9:10 on Thursday and 1:10 on Friday. Watson's times were the opposite, 1:10 and then 9:10
The stars were spread throughout the day for two reasons, which I concede no longer apply, but illustrate how much golf has changed:
1. Ropes to restrain the patrons from tee to green were not installed until 1954 at Baltusrol at the suggestion of architect Robert Trent Jones. Putting a Woods and a Mickelson together would have been to incite a riot as the patrons fought like beasts in the fairways to establish position.
2. There was a motive to enhance the spectator experience. An in-shape patron could go out in the morning to follow Byron Nelson, have a bite to eat, and emerge to follow Sam Snead in the afternoon. Today such an attempt would be meaningless since the USGA sells too many tickets so that nobody actually gets to see much at all.
While making my pairings I would sometimes yield to an inclination to be cute. Too cute. I once precipitated a disaster by pairing three former California amateur champions together. Just for the hell of it. Alas, two of the three were among the world's truly slow players. When the gap ahead of them became intolerable, my USGA colleague PJ Boatwright, the absolute best at knowing and administering the Rules of Golf, couldn't stand it and slapped a two stroke penalty on Forest Fezler.
When the round ended one of Fezler's fellow competitors launched an appeal to the entire rules committee. The appellant was John Brodie, the best two-sport athlete of our time. John said the fault was his, not Fezler's. The committee, consisting mostly of lawyers, said there was not enough hard evidence to convict Fezler.
The penalty was rescinded, thus assuring there would be painfully slow play in U.S. Opens forever. The only way to deal with slow penalty is to install fear and penalized harshly even if some of the penalties are applied on shaky grounds. Back then we were striving for rounds under 5 hours. There could be a 6 hour round at Torrey Pines.
Some players were acute and sensitive to pairings. Many did not want to play with Arnold Palmer because there was simply too much noise and crowd movement. Bud Jim Colbert implored me to pair him with Arnold on the grounds that it pumped him up. I was glad to comply. Tom Weiskopf, with whom I was on very good terms, once chewed me out on the basis that I had not paired him with two other major champions. He was right.
Pairings really don't matter that much. Jack Nicklaus couldn't have cared less. Not long after he played in an historic 4th round at Merion with amateur Jim Simons I was doing a magazine article and asked him what he remembered about playing with Simons. Answer: "Did I play with Jim Simons that day?"
Only once did I do a pairing that made me proud. I had seen Isao Aoki of Japan play at a British Open. He was amazing, both his unique swing and a putting stroke with the toe pointed at the sky. Aoki was then unfamiliar in the U.S. I thought he deserved a big American audience. So I put him with Nicklaus at Baltursol in 1980.
Nicklaus threw a little 63 at the field in round 1. In fact, they both played so well that they were 1 and 2 after both the 2nd and 3rd rounds and thus played all 4 rounds together. Nicklaus won by setting a U.S. Open scoring record, but so did Aoki by finishing 2nd.
How long will the new USGA system of top 12 last? Until there is another Tiger Woods.
Woods was beyond compelling in his final season as an "amateur." Woods had no status in the point system since had played in only a few pro events. If his equivalent ever comes around again I suspect the USGA will find a way to fit him in the top 12 - despite what television wants.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 07:09 PM
Reader Comments (23)
The problem, at least as I see it, is that in this instance, it is far more the former than the latter. Consider what Frank wrote:
"in 1988 when I left the USGA triumphantly..."
Left it TRIUMPHANTLY..." Were trumpets blairing and all? Come on now Frank, when you left the USGA there were bitter and hard feelings on BOTH sides. It was anything BUT a triumphant exit.
Consider also your example with the pairings. You stated that under your direction the USGA, "followed a hallowed principle that the best players should be scattered throughout the day..."
You even stated who they were and how they would tee off. "Who are the two best in the world? Common answer: Nicklaus and Watson. So Nicklaus would start at 9:10 on Thursday and 1:10 on Friday. Watson's times were the opposite, 1:10 and then 9:10"
I guess the history of the game can be thankful that you also didn't over see the starting times and pairings in the British Opens, otherwise the heroic FOUR DAY duel of Nicklaus and Watson lapping the field and battling each other shot for shot to one of the greatest of all finishes and possibly the most exciting ,major championship of all time would NEVER HAVE HAPPENED!
Lighten up Frank. For someone who proclaims that the USGA needs to change in any and all areas, why is it when they do that you again take offense to them?
Were your policies really perfect and infallible?
Following your policy, the 2000 Open at Pebble Beach was a non-competitive joke from start to finish. Why? Because the great players in the world played at decidedly different times.
Thursday morning Tiger played inperfect weather with almost no wind. As he was finishing it began to blow and howl and all those others, including his main competition, had to play in brutal conditions that caused a third of the field to not even beable to finish their rounds. The winds continued throughout Friday and resulted in Tiger teeing off much later in the day. Of course that also meant those same ones who teed off opposite himhad ANOTHER round of brutal conditions.
Oh yes, Tiger only played a few holes and had to finish the bulk of his second round on Saturday in realtively calm conditions, something he didn't face the day before.
Was Tiger the deserving champion? Yes. Was he fortunate in the extreme while his competition was unlucky in the extreme simply because of opposite starting times? Yes.
Frank, for one time consider cutting the USGA alittle slack and enjoy the idea that we might once again see one of the great 2 or 3 player duels in golf history.
After all, how bad can this pairing actually be?
the letter is fake.
phil.
And how is one to know that from what was posted?
Geoff, if this is a fake letter i would appreciate your stating so...
Hannigan usually hits the nail on the head, but this leaves something to be desired. Garland and Streisand? Very Bisheresque. John Brodie as the best two sport athlete of his time? Wow.
"There was an analogy in a recet New York Times op-ed column in which a Harvard graduate pointed out that Harvard is the second richest institution in the country, second to the Bill Gates Foundation, hoards the money and is run poorly so that expenses are out of control."
Excellent sentence structure.
"The USGA switch to the new method would be more credible had it been announced in January rather than waiting until it was slam dunk that Mickelson would be in the top 3."
Come on - Phil's hold on #2 has been quite strong all year and he always plays well early in the season. What does the USGA have to gain by announcing pairings by ranking in January? The timing of Tiger's surgery was more of a potential wrench in this plan than Phil's play.
Despite what pundits may think, the grouping has certainly created the desired buzz when it matters: the week before the tournament. Although the move may seem forced, it is a good one and the extension down to #12 prevents it from becoming a gimmick. If you asked Joe Golf Fan, 8 out of 10 would say they love it. Why? Because they are 1-2, form a compelling (if lopsided) rivalry, their combined history at Torrey/Southern CA and the fact that the odds of them being paired together on the weekend are long. It also means that before and after their round, ESPN/NBC can move around the field a little more than just the Tiger/Phil show. We also get to see if they actually turn their backs when Scott settles over a three-footer.
Some folks think that logistically it will be a nightmare as if they have never been paired together prior to this week. It won't be any different than either of them being in the last two groups on the weekend of any other major. As for crowds bailing early, how soon we forget the empty grandstands in the background at the end of the first two days at Oakmont.
Can somebody please explain how Hannigan's contradictions and historical anecdotes figure into his ultimate point? My head is spinning.
...I'll stick with Westchester (oops, not this year!) and watch the US Open on TV.
ES
i totally agree. i went to my first open at oakmont last year, and i'll never do it again. too many crowds, too many lines, not enough golf. i paid the extra dollars for "trophy club" access and that was probably the most pleasant aspect of the tournament.
this was in contrast to the lpga championship, which i also attended that year. the ladies event was an absolute pleasure, albeit for the not-so-good reason that hardly anybody goes to lpga tournaments, and the ones that did last year all followed michelle wie. this left me free to follow my favorites, to see them play several holes up close and without obstruction.
As somebody said about Mark McCormack (okay, it was me); "Mark McCormack was a very succesful guy who is now dead. Frank Hannigan knows more about what he is talking about than Mark McCormack ever did."
Does anybody know whose idea it was to pair Nicklaus and Watson together at Turnberry in 1977? I don't. I'd like to know that story.
I kind of like Hannigan's reporting that "pairings don't matter much." But I wonder how true it is. Clearly it meant something to Tom Weiskopf, or else he wouldn't have complained. But of course Weiskopf has always been prickly about USGA matters, and has always been sensitive about who he may be forced to play with.
I'm with Jack Nicklaus--I could care less what the pairings are. You can't predict what is going to happen in a golf tournament with even a miniscule degree of precision. You could put Phil and Tiger together for the first two rounds, and see them both shoot 75 76. It could happen. They could also be tied for the lead, like Jack an Aoki (I actually went to that Open--the Friday round...). And Opens are famous for having little-known players shine, so you just don't know what you're gonna get.
If I were doing the pairings, I would ask each player to submit a list of six players: three with whom they wanted to play, and three with whom they definitely didn't want to play. I'd use one of those computer programs to generate pairings based on these preferences...at random. Once I had the pairings, I'd spread them out over the day so that popular players were not all bunched at the same tee time intervals.
If it were me, I'd think that the pairings would be enough of a concern that I'd lobby for my preference(s).
But after proclaiming that the pairings didn't matter, what would Nicklaus have said about the Aoki '80 and Watson '77 matches-within-the tournament? Hard to imagine that Jack wouldn't regard it with some significance...
A tiger, a tiger clone, and America's Golfer, all in the 8:06 grouping. Should be fun.
The USGA gets flak for being too conservative and now they get flak for trying something new. Tough crowd!
Re Hannigan,
A stopped clock is right twice a day, and he is a stopped clock. The times that I have seen him, I have found him to be a miserable old jerk. But he does make a good point every now and then.
At my previous job, we would spend time grouping players so that the better players were together. At my current job, we just use the pairings program's random feature.
Has anyone complained? Only in the previous job where one player complained that he didn't get to play with the best players enough. We didn't tell him that we had a rule that nobody would be forced to play with him more than once a year which was why it happened.
I have always found it amusing that Frank criticizes the very organization that employed him for many years. And without his record of employment with the USGA he would have no credibility. There would be no recognition of his opinion on golf matters in websites such as this. He would come off a little more believable if just once he made a positive comment about the USGA.