How do you score with odd club rules?

[Fat Slice]

Our golf club has a rule for tournaments that says "double par max, pick up." They do this to speed up play.

My question is...is this kosher? They post these scores to GHIN and that rule doesn't jive with ESC.

For example:

My course handicap tomorrow is 22 (off a 19.9 index). Let's say on a Par 3 I take 5 strokes and don't find the hole. Our club would have me pick up and card a 6. ESC, however, would have me max out at an 8 for that hole. And I might have scored a 7.

I think our rule is bogus and people should just play to ESC as a max, as the scores they are posting are nonsense.

Is there some way to reconcile this?

[Fourputt]

It is certainly not a rule that I would follow, but then I can't remember the last time I made a 6 on a par 3 hole... and that is the only time such a requirement would apply to me. But you are right that it's a bogus rule. It also makes a difference whether I'm playing for handicap or for score. If I'm playing for score, then I'll keep hitting the stupid ball until it gives up and falls in the hole.

What I won't do is take a lot of time on each stroke, so their so called pace of play rule would be irrelevant. I can make 10 strokes in the time it takes some guys I know to make just 4. Not that I generally do hit it 10 times on one hole... thankfully

[Fredguay642]

Padraig made an 8 on a par 3 at the PGA. I think it might speed up play alittle, but you are right that it should be the ESC. Although, I doubt alot of golfer understand the ESC.

[flanagan]

If you are worried about not getting to count an 8 on a par 3 towards your handicap, I wouldn't keep one. The rule is probably there to speed up play. I can't imagine those rounds are making much difference in your handicap, if you're playing bad enough that you are taking 7s and 8s on par 3s, the round probably won't be included, anyway. You pick out the only example that arguably makes a difference, the par 3s, in the long run it won't matter. Sounds like a pretty trivial complaint.

[Fat Slice]

If you are worried about not getting to count an 8 on a par 3 towards your handicap, I wouldn't keep one. The rule is probably there to speed up play. I can't imagine those rounds are making much difference in your handicap, if you're playing bad enough that you are taking 7s and 8s on par 3s, the round probably won't be included, anyway. You pick out the only example that arguably makes a difference, the par 3s, in the long run it won't matter. Sounds like a pretty trivial complaint.

I'm worried about posting an accurate score based on the rules of as they relate to handicap and ESC. The effect may be trivial, granted, but once people start treating handicap rules as fuzzy and interpretable you go down a slippery slope which ends up making 'official' handicap less useful.

As for suggesting that my concern with this deviation means I should not even keep a handicap - that's silly.

[flanagan]

Then why complain to us? Take it up with the course.

It's not silly, in the long run, I guarantee not being able to count 7s and 8s on par 3s will have no statistically significant effect on your handicap. And, I'm right, if you are routinely making 7s and 8s on par 3s, keeping a handicap is pointless.

[Fat Slice]

Then why complain to us? Take it up with the course.

My post was asking how to apply the score, it wasn't a pointless complaint. You seem to be doing most of the complaining in this thread!

Meanwhile, taking it up "with the course" doesn't make much sense - it's our handicap chairman, I suppose, that would be the proper party if I wanted to complain . I posted asking for suggestions, but taking unhelpful potshots come with the territory, so, have at it

[microcrayfish]

How often are the tournaments? If it's not a regular thing then I wouldn't worry about it, you can still post plenty of other scores when it's not tournament play. I can understand the club's thinking because tournaments usually pack the course and you can get some ridiculously long rounds with everyone acting like it's Sunday at a major.

Maybe you should just not bother handing in the score if it's posted in one of the tournaments. It won't help with other people's handicaps but at least then you'll know that yours is as accurate as it can be.

[Fat Slice]

How often are the tournaments? If it's not a regular thing then I wouldn't worry about it, you can still post plenty of other scores when it's not tournament play. I can understand the club's thinking because tournaments usually pack the course and you can get some ridiculously long rounds with everyone acting like it's Sunday at a major.

We play 10 times a year - the scores get posted for us by our club a day or two after we play. We also have a rule that is "max 15 mins per hole" but I have no idea how that would be applied. At 15 mins (if anyone is timing), do all four people just pick up? How is that (theoretically) scored? That's more of a moot point as I have never seen it happen (people just ignore that rule and rarely play a slow round).

[flanagan]

My post was asking how to apply the score, it wasn't a pointless complaint. You seem to be doing most of the complaining in this thread!

Sorry, if you didn't bring your complaints (it is a complaint) here, there would be no forum, so you should bring it up.

However, your partial quotation, ignores the point, which is, you are worried about something just for the sake of worrying, it will be insignificant.

[2bGood]

I am not a big fan of the ESC system the USGA uses the RCGA makes a bi more sense as it refrences par:

EQUITABLE STROKE CONTROL

Course Handicap
Maximum Number On Any Hole

0 or plus
1 over par

1 through 18
2 over par

19 through 32
3 over par

33 and over
4 over par

[flanagan]

That system makes so much more sense. Don't know why ESC is the way it is, unless it assumes figuring out what you are over par is too difficult compared with just scanning the card for the maximum score, i.e., lowest common denominator in terms of intelligence (golfers aren't all dumb).

[Fourputt]

I am not a big fan of the ESC system the USGA uses the RCGA makes a bi more sense as it refrences par:

For your information the USGA handicap system used to use par for a reference (it was done like that when I first established my handicap in 1988), but it was found statistically that it was NOT as equitable using that method as it is using a stroke total per hole. It didn't work as well with the course rating and slope system for handicap portability.

The USGA still uses 2 over par for handicaps of 9 and less. Just because a handicap system references par doesn't automatically make it better, or the USGA wouldn't have had any reason to change their system.

[flanagan]

That is not why the USGA changed it. It was changed (1) to make it easier to use, and (2) because the old ESC was felt to be unfair to golfers of VERY high handicaps.

Par is the benchmark, and saying you can max out with an 8 on a par 5 or an 8 on a par 3 and those are considered equally eligible scores, is not "equitable".

Interesting that in defending the change the USGA would also disagree with the orginal poster. In responding to criticism that the new system would allow large numbers on par 3s, the USGA indicated if golfers were making those big of numbers on par 3s, those rounds would likely not be counted anyway (which, interestingly, also is an argument against the change in the ESC system).

[iacas]

Par is the benchmark, and saying you can max out with an 8 on a par 5 or an 8 on a par 3 and those are considered equally eligible scores, is not "equitable".

The point isn't to be "equitable" on a hole, but to provide an overall "equitable" handicap. The current method, as Fourputt said, does that better than the old method.

Suffice to say the USGA has a bit more research in all of this than you might. You might not like it, it might not make sense or seem optimal, but I have a lot of faith in all the numbers they've crunched.

[flanagan]

Not claiming to know or have personal experience that would allow me to have faith in their science, just reporting what the USGA's official stated reasons were at the time. The primary reason given was poor compliance with the old ESC system (i.e., ordinary golfers weren't using it correctly), so the new system was made easier. A secondary consideration only was that the old system was not as equitable to individuals with handicaps in excess of 35 .

Based on the USGA's publicly stated reasons, I prefer the other system.