PDA

View Full Version : If Golf Majors Used Match Play Format with 7 Rounds....


JennyS
08-05-2009, 04:03 PM
Some argue that since a player has to beat the "entire field" in golf that makes it harder. But the non elimination also allows players to have a mediocre round and still recover.

If the Golf Majors were formatted like Golf tournaments and had 7 rounds of head to head play, anyone else think Tiger would have FEWER majors? I do. Obviously it would still not be true head to head, they'd still be playing the golf course. But they would still face elimination in every golf round, which is what I think makes tennis majors (and heck, every tournament outside the Masters Cup) so hard to win.

Win and you're out week in and week out is pretty tough.

S H O W S T O P P E R !
08-05-2009, 04:05 PM
How does this relate to pro tennis?

JennyS
08-05-2009, 04:22 PM
How does this relate to pro tennis?

I was asking if golf tournaments were formatted like tennis tournament would they be harder to win?

tacou
08-05-2009, 04:23 PM
TIger and Roger's accomplishments are often compared

OrangePower
08-05-2009, 04:30 PM
Well.

Did a quick search for some statistics on match play winning percentages. This is the best I could find:

http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tournaments/r470/02/11/records/index.html

Probably out of date, but let's assume that Tiger has a 80% win percentage in match play. Sounds impressive, right?

So now let's do some math: Assuming he has a constant 0.8 chance of winning each match, his chance of winning 7 in a row is 0.8 to the power of 7, which is 0.21. Let's call it 1 in 5 to make it easy.

Based on this rough calculation, he would have to play in 75 majors in order to win 15, if majors were 7 rounds of match play.

Looking at it another way: Federer has won 15 slams out of 41 times he has appeared in the draw, a ratio of about 0.37, or 1 in 2.75. So Federer is almost twice as likely to win any given slam as Tiger is to win 7 golf match play rounds in a row.

clayman2000
08-05-2009, 04:34 PM
Well.

Did a quick search for some statistics on match play winning percentages. This is the best I could find:

http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tournaments/r470/02/11/records/index.html

Probably out of date, but let's assume that Tiger has a 80% win percentage in match play. Sounds impressive, right?

So now let's do some math: Assuming he has a constant 0.8 chance of winning each match, his chance of winning 7 in a row is 0.8 to the power of 7, which is 0.21. Let's call it 1 in 5 to make it easy.

Based on this rough calculation, he would have to play in 75 majors in order to win 15, if majors were 7 rounds of match play.

Looking at it another way: Federer has won 15 slams out of 41 times he has appeared in the draw, a ratio of about 0.37, or 1 in 2.75. So Federer is almost twice as likely to win any given slam as Tiger is to win 7 golf match play rounds in a row.

Ya but the only golf tourneys with match play are: WGC, Ryder Cup and Pres Cup. Now the Pres Cup and Ryder Cup only include a select group of players from the world. the WCG is the only PGA golf tourney. Tigers won it 3 times

So hard to compare

OrangePower
08-05-2009, 04:39 PM
Ya but the only golf tourneys with match play are: WGC, Ryder Cup and Pres Cup. Now the Pres Cup and Ryder Cup only include a select group of players from the world. the WCG is the only PGA golf tourney. Tigers won it 3 times

So hard to compare

Yes, agree it's hard to compare. But the stats I quoted are from WGC only. Take with a pinch of salt but I can't find a more objective way to compare.

JennyS
08-05-2009, 04:40 PM
Well.

Did a quick search for some statistics on match play winning percentages. This is the best I could find:

http://www.pgatour.com/2008/tournaments/r470/02/11/records/index.html

Probably out of date, but let's assume that Tiger has a 80% win percentage in match play. Sounds impressive, right?

So now let's do some math: Assuming he has a constant 0.8 chance of winning each match, his chance of winning 7 in a row is 0.8 to the power of 7, which is 0.21. Let's call it 1 in 5 to make it easy.

Based on this rough calculation, he would have to play in 75 majors in order to win 15, if majors were 7 rounds of match play.

Looking at it another way: Federer has won 15 slams out of 41 times he has appeared in the draw, a ratio of about 0.37, or 1 in 2.75. So Federer is almost twice as likely to win any given slam as Tiger is to win 7 golf match play rounds in a row.

Very interesting, thanks for posting!

clayman2000
08-05-2009, 04:41 PM
Yes, agree it's hard to compare. But the stats I quoted are from WGC only. Take with a pinch of salt but I can't find a more objective way to compare.

Thats the point, you cant make it objective.

Now the arguments are simple: tennis is harder to become good at, but golf is harder to dominate at.

フェデラー
08-05-2009, 04:46 PM
Thats the point, you cant make it objective.

Now the arguments are simple: tennis is harder to become good at, but golf is harder to dominate at.

Do you even play golf? Golf is easily 10x harder than tennis. There is so much technicality to it that far surpasses tennis.

clayman2000
08-05-2009, 04:53 PM
Do you even play golf? Golf is easily 10x harder than tennis. There is so much technicality to it that far surpasses tennis.

What i mean is that tennis requires so many different aspects of training. You must be fit as a hockey player, as fast as a runningback, as co-ordinated as a baseball player.

Golf is hard too, but while training, you can really just focus on your driving and putting.

While i do not play golf regularly, i have played golf.

ChanceEncounter
08-05-2009, 08:11 PM
What i mean is that tennis requires so many different aspects of training. You must be fit as a hockey player, as fast as a runningback, as co-ordinated as a baseball player.

Golf is hard too, but while training, you can really just focus on your driving and putting.

While i do not play golf regularly, i have played golf.
You don't need to be as fast as a runningback (in fact, I doubt you can find any professional tennis player as fast as the faster runningbacks in the NFL) or as coordinated as a baseball player. A little bit of hyperbole there.