SimpleGolfRules.com - Thoughts?

[natureboy]

16 hours ago, Fourputt said:

So, you'd defer to your idea of a "serious" professional over a serious amateur?  I've known quite a few serious pros who didn't have my knowledge of the rules or my time and experience in the game.  Yet all you do is argue with us, since all we have to offer is combined decades of experience.  Since I don't have the credentials you require, my 40 years worth of anecdotal experiences don't count as valid points.

Since the physical game is so hard, the rules rarely even come in to the equation until the player has surmounted the toughest hurdles.  By then, he has at least a vague understanding of the most basic rules, and has that foundation to build on when starting to apply more well defined procedures to his game.  

When I explain to a 2nd or 3rd year player who is just taking his first interest in competition why he can't drop where he intended, he "gets" it.  It doesn't turn him away from the game.  He thanks me for my help, and he is quite likely to seek me out the next time if he hasn't gotten an acceptable answer to another question.  I don't see this as having anything to do with any decline in play.

Guys who I know that have backed off from the game did so because of family obligations which curtail the time they have available for golf, and/or for financial considerations.  Once in a long while a friend will quit out of frustration with his game, but that is usually temporary.  No one I know has ever quit because of the rules.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's point that serious golfers don't leave the game because of the rules. I'm saying there's a possibility that the structure, style of the presentation of the rules, their wording, and the way they are described and ruled about on tv may add to the impression from outsiders that golf is a very complicated, 'elitist sport'. It might not. I'm someone who stuck with golf and my initial take on my first introduction to the rules via the rulebook made the game seem pretty legalistic. Some people might tend to associate legalistic language with elitism.

But neither of our anecdotal experiences (as people who already have decided they like golf) is representative of broader attitudes toward the relative simplicity/complexity of the rules. You are clearly misinterpreting / misreading my comments. The point about 'serious professional' was in regards to market surveys to capture attitudes about the ROG. I think both ruling bodies should hire competent, market research professionals to get a sense if it is or isn't an issue (or how much) for both serious golfers (not likely), casual, and prospective new golfers from the general population.

Sure most beginners (& most golfers in general) deal with a core set of basic rules until they get more serious about the game. Typically for someone introduced to the sport cold through tv or the USGA rulebook in the mail the 'core basics' don't seem to be as front and center. Don't you think it's slightly odd that you're explaining the rules to a 2nd or 3rd year player? I would think taking a drop is a 'core basic' rule. Isn't that a steeper learning curve on rules than other sports? I don't think someone who's stuck with the game for 2-3 years already is likely to drop out, because of the rules anyway. It's a self-selection effect. Impression of the rules might possibly turn off someone just starting who's on the fence about sticking with it or choosing to give it a go (is it a 'game for me').

I certainly agree that changing the rules strictly to suit the impressions of those outside the sport would be stupid. But the assumption that everyone within the game finds the rules perfect as they are seems equally myopic to me. Understanding what the attitudes actually are with some objective information seems a sensible starting point. Then if it seems worthwhile, make what accommodation you can to address the perspectives within and without heavily weighted to the 'within'.

14 hours ago, newtogolf said:

I've never heard "elitist" as a reference to someone who plays by the rules.  Elitist sport I believe refers to the stereotype of it being a game wealthy people play because it's wrongly assumed to be too expensive to play.  

The reference to elite players is in contrast to regular golfers which isn't about the rules but the level of their play.  This is likely in reference to lengthening courses and making them more difficult to play so they attract pro or high level amateur tournaments.  

Nothing in the entire list beside the handicap simplification leads me to believe rules are a problem.  

As for ant hills, if there was an ant hill under my ball I didn't notice.  I mostly play on private courses but I do play public courses once a week and in the last 3 years it's never come up.  

That's a fair point that there are different connotations of 'elitist'. Unfortunately the 'comments' section was the only place for people to express these POVs so without a decent detailed survey of attitudes / opinions it may be hard to trace what contributes to the moniker they used and in what degree.

I'd agree that the impression of focus on wealthy and highly skilled players was the bigger part of it. I still think there's a good possibility the rules may be an 'add-on' to the impression for those mostly or fully outside the sport. Those impressions of 'elitist' came from serious golfers (club members) already inside the game.

What is the greens fee at the open to the public courses you play? I was really referencing municipal courses that are not of Bethpage quality or say in The Hamptons.

14 hours ago, iacas said:

The NFL has rules. The NBA has rules. The NHL, the MLB… the MLS… are they all elitist? Because they have rules?

Straw man argument. I never said having rules at all created a perception of elitism. I said that the way the ROG are structured and worded...the impression they convey...and the way they are described and implemented on tv might contribute somewhat to the impression.

Rightly or wrongly, my impression of the basic rules of baseball, football, and hockey seemed simpler than the ROG as a non-participant.

No credible survey of active, casual, golf viewers, and complete non-golfers has been done to my knowledge directly addressing the question. So we're all just whistling in the dark a bit about general attitudes vs. our personal (and insider oriented) anecdotal experience. Yet the question keeps coming up. Why do you think the guys in the OP even made the effort at two separate codes if all serious golfers (let alone non-serious golfers) think the rules are perfect as is?

1 hour ago, RussUK said:

Chess in cuba is played by people of all classes. This is just an example. I wouldnt say any board game is elitist, especially if it readily accesible to the rich and poor (for want of a better word).

Chess in America is also played by people of all classes. It may have a reputation for being played more by 'nerdy' types (deserved or not) among non-players. It's accessible because the basic rules are pretty simple and the materiel requirements low. You could have a game by drawing a board in the dirt and use found objects as pieces.

Edited November 29, 2016 by natureboy

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I'm not disagreeing with anyone's point that serious golfers don't leave the game because of the rules. I'm saying there's a possibility that the structure, style of the presentation of the rules, their wording, and the way they are described and ruled about on tv may add to the impression from outsiders that golf is a very complicated, 'elitist sport'. It might not. I'm someone who stuck with golf and my initial take on my first introduction to the rules via the rulebook made the game seem pretty legalistic. Some people might tend to associate legalistic language with elitism.

 

I contend that most golfers are ignorant of the rules and/or play by their own subset of the rules so the official Rules of Golf have little or no impact on their enjoyment of the game or how often they play golf.  

Even when non-golfers I know watched the US Open and the problems with DJ's ball moving no one I know said that they'd not try golf because of the rule.  They did ask how many people I know would have called that penalty on themselves, and I said "none".  

[iacas]

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Straw man argument. I never said having rules at all created a perception of elitism.

Not really. The language of the rules of all of those sports are somewhat "lawyerly" or whatever word you used. There are rules of disc golf - one of the least "elitist" sports out there - that can seem "lawyerly" or whatever.

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/rules/2015-2016-Interactive-rulebook.pdf

BTW, that document is 216 pages long, and they're not small pages, either. And hockey is played on a uniform playing field.

Quote

Violation - For an infraction of this rule, a bench minor penalty shall be imposed upon the offending team, provided such infraction is called to the attention of the Referee before the second face-off in the first period takes place. This is an appeal play and must be brought to the Referee’s attention prior to the second face-off in the game. There is no penalty to the requesting team if their appeal is unsustained. The determining factor when considering whether or not a player or goalkeeper is listed in the starting line-up is that the player or goalkeeper’s name, and not necessarily the player or goalkeeper’s number, must be correctly listed by the Manager or Coach of that team.

Heck, that even has the word "sustained" in there. Sounds like legalese… darn these hockey rules driving players away from their sport.

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I said that the way the ROG are structured and worded...the impression they convey...and the way they are described and implemented on tv might contribute somewhat to the impression.

That's the impression they convey… to you.

Anecdotal evidence only means so much, on that I agree. But when the anecdotal evidence is overwhelmingly on one side… that the Rules are well down on the list of the reasons people stop playing golf, then it carries some weight.

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I said that the way the ROG are structured and worded...the impression they convey...and the way they are described and implemented on tv might contribute somewhat to the impression.

Might. But unlikely IMO.

I've never asked anyone why they don't give golf a try and have them come back with "Well, I was watching the U.S. Open, and Romain Wattel's ball moved, but he wasn't penalized, and yet…"

And yeah, anecdotal, but again, this is the experience of many, I imagine.

The Rules of Golf are way, way down on the list of why people quit or fail to start playing.

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Rightly or wrongly, my impression of the basic rules of baseball, football, and hockey seemed simpler than the ROG as a non-participant.

Again, that's your opinion. Actually look at the rules of the various sports, as you have done with golf. To a non-golfer the rules of the sport of golf might seem pretty simple too. Everything gets more complicated when you get into it further.

You're familiar with the rules of golf, but not (apparently?) the rules of the other sports mentioned.

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

No credible survey of active, casual, golf viewers, and complete non-golfers has been done to my knowledge directly addressing the question.

That's not even correct. Many surveys have been done on why people quit and/or why they play less or why they don't take up the sport at all. None of them have had the rules near the top of the list.

No, no survey's been conducted that I know of specifically about the Rules and retention of players or whatever. But so what?

16 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Why do you think the guys in the OP even made the effort at two separate codes if all serious golfers (let alone non-serious golfers) think the rules are perfect as is?

I have not seen a soul here saying the rules are perfect as is.

[natureboy]

8 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I contend that most golfers are ignorant of the rules and/or play by their own subset of the rules so the official Rules of Golf have little or no impact on their enjoyment of the game or how often they play golf.  

Many do seem to. I don't hear as much of this in pickup games of baseball, football, or chess. Even off-sides gets called in pickup soccer games.

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

And yeah, anecdotal, but again, this is the experience of many, I imagine.

Trying to use an anecdotal impression of anecdotes to make it a valid generalization? 

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

The Rules of Golf are way, way down on the list of why people quit or fail to start playing.

That's not even correct. Many surveys have been done on why people quit and/or why they play less or why they don't take up the sport at all. None of them have had the rules near the top of the list.

No, no survey's been conducted that I know of specifically about the Rules and retention of players or whatever.

But they show up on those surveys, still. Are these specific questions prompting a response about the rules or are they 'fill-ins'? A current or potential player's discretionary time, income, job situation, or family circumstances are not under the control of the ruling bodies of golf. The rules are.

 

Edited November 29, 2016 by natureboy

[natureboy]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

I have not seen a soul here saying the rules are perfect as is.

Yet quite a few seem to take any critique as a call to arms. Look at the volume of posts on this (on topic) tangent relative to those who found something (anything) worthwhile in the OP code suggestions.

<thought that would merge>

Edited November 29, 2016 by natureboy

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Many do seem to. I don't hear as much of this in pickup games of baseball, football, or chess. Even off-sides gets called in pickup soccer games.

That's not equivalent.

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Trying to use an anecdotal impression of anecdotes to make it a valid generalization?

Not what I said. Heck, science is largely based on observation. At some point, something becomes more than "anecdotal."

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

But they show up on those surveys, still.

Where? I didn't say they did.

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Are these specific questions prompting a response about the rules or are they 'fill-ins'?

It's your position. Defend it. I'm not going to go get the answers for you.

11 minutes ago, natureboy said:

A current or potential player's discretionary time, income, job situation, or family circumstances are not under the control of the ruling bodies of golf. The rules are.

No shit. But if more harm stands to be done in an effort to stop two or three people a year from leaving the game…

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Yet quite a few seem to take any critique as a call to arms.

That's your impression. And given what we've learned about your impressions in this thread…

1 minute ago, natureboy said:

Look at the volume of posts on this (on topic) tangent relative to those who found something (anything) worthwhile in the OP code suggestions.

That's not a valid take. For example, I haven't had the chance to thoroughly review Code One, so while I'm very interested in commenting on it, I haven't had the chance to. Equating the number of posts with interest is silly.

And you can type "(on topic)" as much as you want, but if we deem it off topic, it's off topic. And this is veering close. As the OP, I can say that the topic is to debate the SimpleGolfRules.com rules. It's not to debate whether the Rules of Golf are too "legalese" and whether even four people quit or don't take up the game because of the language.

[newtogolf]

32 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Many do seem to. I don't hear as much of this in pickup games of baseball, football, or chess. Even off-sides gets called in pickup soccer games.

Trying to use an anecdotal impression of anecdotes to make it a valid generalization? 

But they show up on those surveys, still. Are these specific questions prompting a response about the rules or are they 'fill-ins'? A current or potential player's discretionary time, income, job situation, or family circumstances are not under the control of the ruling bodies of golf. The rules are.

 

This is my point, individuals tend to pick whatever rules they wish to follow, golf (except in tournaments or money) is a self governing sport.  I play with some older gentleman who won't hit their ball off or near a tree root because it's not worth it to them to risk injury to themselves or their equipment.  They don't go through the process of an unplayable lie, they roll the ball a few inches out of harms way and hit their shot and no one cares if they add in penalty strokes to their score.    

If someone wants to come up with simpler rules, they can, I'm not opposed to it, I just think it's a waste of their time.  The best case is that the simpler rules represent a set of rules that are closer to what most of the rule breakers play by anyway so they won't be in violation of the rules as often.  In the scope of why people play golf I don't think it matters at all.  

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, natureboy said:

Yet quite a few seem to take any critique as a call to arms. Look at the volume of posts on this (on topic) tangent relative to those who found something (anything) worthwhile in the OP code suggestions.

<thought that would merge>

That's because some "critiques" are little more than gripes - sometimes what they are griping at isn't even a rules issue.  Or they are bitching about being penalized on something that wasn't a violation by someone who was even less well informed than they were.  They then start a rant about if the rules were easier then they would have understood them better and on and on.  

Quite frankly, the rules get the worst criticism from players (and commentators and reporters and bloggers) who are simply too lazy to bother with even making an attempt to learn them.  People who are willing to spend 2 hours a day beating balls at the range won't take 15 minutes to study a single rule each day.  All it would really take is a month of doing that to have a strong foundation, but no one wants to take the time to do it.  I learned much of my rules knowledge by just reading the Rule Book and the Decisions during lunch at work.  It didn't take anything away from my life, and gave me a far greater understanding of the game.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

But if more harm stands to be done in an effort to stop two or three people a year from leaving the game…

Or possibly turning hundreds off who otherwise might have tried it? Who knows, experience counts for a lot, but I'd put more stock in an actual survey that includes perspectives beyond serious, committed golfers.

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

This is my point, individuals tend to pick whatever rules they wish to follow, golf (except in tournaments or money) is a self governing sport.  I play with some older gentleman who won't hit their ball off or near a tree root because it's not worth it to them to risk injury to themselves or their equipment.  They don't go through the process of an unplayable lie, they roll the ball a few inches out of harms way and hit their shot and no one cares if they add in penalty strokes to their score.    

If someone wants to come up with simpler rules, they can, I'm not opposed to it, I just think it's a waste of their time.  The best case is that the simpler rules represent a set of rules that are closer to what most of the rule breakers play by anyway so they won't be in violation of the rules as often.  In the scope of why people play golf I don't think it matters at all.  

Some do. Personally I consider a penalty drop to be a basic part of the game - particularly the unplayable. I just think like in the proposed codes it could make sense to make it a uniform procedure.

Your second paragraph seems to ignore what's actually in the codes. The penalties remain pretty harsh. The second code is essentially a two-stroke penalty for everything.

56 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

That's because some "critiques" are little more than gripes - sometimes what they are griping at isn't even a rules issue.  Or they are bitching about being penalized on something that wasn't a violation by someone who was even less well informed than they were.  They then start a rant about if the rules were easier then they would have understood them better and on and on.  

Quite frankly, the rules get the worst criticism from players (and commentators and reporters and bloggers) who are simply too lazy to bother with even making an attempt to learn them.  People who are willing to spend 2 hours a day beating balls at the range won't take 15 minutes to study a single rule each day.  All it would really take is a month of doing that to have a strong foundation, but no one wants to take the time to do it.  I learned much of my rules knowledge by just reading the Rule Book and the Decisions during lunch at work.  It didn't take anything away from my life, and gave me a far greater understanding of the game.

Some critiques like S&D are gripes, some aren't. Some come from people who've been immersed in the game and the rules nearly as long as you.

Beating balls is fun and exercise. Reading the rules at night is 'homework'. While doing so and becoming an expert in the rules is admirable, that's not what people draws people to take up a sport.

[iacas]

23 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Or possibly turning hundreds off who otherwise might have tried it? Who knows, experience counts for a lot, but I'd put more stock in an actual survey that includes perspectives beyond serious, committed golfers.

 

Highly unlikely. And since you have no real basis to claim this, beyond your own thoughts… that about puts a cap on it.

Discuss the actual proposals, please. Everyone.

[Fourputt]

2 hours ago, natureboy said:

Or possibly turning hundreds off who otherwise might have tried it? Who knows, experience counts for a lot, but I'd put more stock in an actual survey that includes perspectives beyond serious, committed golfers.

Some do. Personally I consider a penalty drop to be a basic part of the game - particularly the unplayable. I just think like in the proposed codes it could make sense to make it a uniform procedure.

Your second paragraph seems to ignore what's actually in the codes. The penalties remain pretty harsh. The second code is essentially a two-stroke penalty for everything.

Some critiques like S&D are gripes, some aren't. Some come from people who've been immersed in the game and the rules nearly as long as you.

Beating balls is fun and exercise. Reading the rules at night is 'homework'. While doing so and becoming an expert in the rules is admirable, that's not what people draws people to take up a sport.

Thanks for making my point for me.  Anyone who is unwilling to even make an attempt at learning the rules can't expect to catered to when he bitches about them.

Edited November 30, 2016 by RandallT
clarified "in willing" to "unwilling"

[natureboy]

12 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Anyone who is in willing to even make an attempt at learning the rules can't expect to catered to when he bitches about them.

Hunh/OT?

[Phil McGleno]

28 minutes ago, natureboy said:

Hunh/OT?

I think he is saying that a user who quits because they think the rules are too complex but who does not actually know the rules is in no place to speak-They are just giving an excuse.

It is like my grandkids telling me they do not want to go ice skating because they will not have fun but they have never been ice skating so they do not know what they are talking about.

[RussUK]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

You may have missed the point. I think he was being facetious. I think.

Maybe, my facetious detector only works on Thursdays 

[iacas]

On 11/29/2016 at 2:48 PM, iacas said:

And you can type "(on topic)" as much as you want, but if we deem it off topic, it's off topic. And this is veering close. As the OP, I can say that the topic is to debate the SimpleGolfRules.com rules. It's not to debate whether the Rules of Golf are too "legalese" and whether even four people quit or don't take up the game because of the language.

We're getting back to this. Any further attempts to talk about whether the Rules lead to people leaving the game or whatever will be met with a warning and/or suspension of privileges for the appropriate amount of time.

On 11/16/2016 at 7:47 PM, Hardspoon said:

Code Two:

I think that Code Two goes too far.

I'm going to focus exclusively (for now) on Code Two, because of what I've shared here:

I'm going to ignore the "points" stuff, and obviously Code Two would have to be changed to account for the change back to regular old scoring, because currently there are penalties where you're just done playing the hole because you cannot earn any more points. Hit it OB off the tee on a par five? Just walk to the next tee because you get a 0 for the hole.

Dumb. So I'm ignoring that new scoring system, and will treat the Rules as if they're serving as the foundation for the new 2017 preview release of the new rules to be put into place in 2018/19/20 timeframe (2018 highly unlikely).

On 11/16/2016 at 7:47 PM, Hardspoon said:

• It is permissible to play a moving ball.

I don't have much of a problem with that. There are a few times where you can play a moving ball now. If it is in a water hazard in water and moving (you don't even get a penalty if it's not your ball), if it's falling off the tee, if you started your backswing… Because why would you want to play a moving ball?

I don't think that Code Two allows you to hit a putt toward the hole, run ahead, and then deflect it in and count your second "putt" as another stroke, because they have this:

Quote

11-4. EXERTING INFLUENCE ON MOVEMENT OF BALL

A player must not take an action with the intent to influence the movement of a ball in play.

That language seems weird because… in making a stroke you're taking an action with an intent to influence the movement of a ball in play. Of course, unless you consider that the movement has to exist prior to the action.

On 11/16/2016 at 7:47 PM, Hardspoon said:

• Allows for the substitution of a ball whenever the original ball has been lifted to remove the disparate treatment that existed under the relief rules

I learned today that the reason the One Ball Rule still exists (the PGA doesn't have it in the PGA Championship, but we have it in section PGA events, and many other sections do too) because they're worried that if you can substitute a ball frequently then manufacturers will come out with a "putting ball" (maybe it would be perimeter weighted to break less, or have no dimples, or whatever…).*

This part of Code Two would have to be removed or something to eliminate that possibility as well.

* No, I'm not sure why they fear that, because even without the One Ball Rule you can't sub out the ball in the middle of a hole. The rule just means you have to play the same model of ball for all 18 holes, not within the play of the same hole. The Rules already disallow swapping out the ball right now, and I can't imagine that they'd adopt this part of Code Two.

On 11/18/2016 at 11:26 AM, Fourputt said:

One doesn't do enough to be worth the effort to learn the changes and Two goes too far beyond the basic principles of the game.

Let's talk about that then @Fourputt. What principles are violated? (I think some are, like swapping out balls in the play of a hole.)

Note that the entire text of Rule 15 is:

Quote

If the player, his partner, or either of their caddies intentionally moves the player's ball at rest (including by lifting it when not authorized to do so), the player incurs a penalty of one stroke.

If the player's ball at rest is moved (a) accidentally by the player, his partner, or his caddie or (b) accidentally or intentionally by any other person or an animal, there is no penalty.

A ball that has been moved as described above must be replaced. If the player plays the ball without properly replacing it, he earns no points for that hole.

I agree and have argued against 18-2's Local Rule, as I think care should still be taken around a golf ball, and that you can't re-create the lie of a ball in many places on the course like in the rough, in a bush, etc.

But it sounds more and more like I'll be on the wrong side of this one. Wrong in the sense that the rules seem to be increasingly likely to go the way of this part of Code Two and 18-2LR than in preserving the "care" for a ball in play.

On 11/18/2016 at 0:08 PM, iacas said:

It makes no sense at all. And the scoring system alone is enough reason to save the time in skipping the rest of the Rules in Code Two.

Yeah, as I said, I'm reviewing Code Two without considering the "points" system and pretending as if the scoring will still be maintained.

Imagine a U.S. Open being contested where the winner has a one-point lead with four holes to play and nobody else on the course with a chance of catching up to him. Or if you don't like that, imagine he's on the last tee with a one-point lead.

He can pump one OB and just accept the trophy, since the worst he can do is to score no points on the hole. That's only a triple bogey.

Dumb.

I don't think the USGA/R&A would consider effectively switching their Opens and all of competitive golf to Stableford.

On 11/18/2016 at 0:18 PM, iacas said:

Code Two, printed from http://simplegolfrules.com/CodeTwo/?showfile=CodeTwo.html, is 44 pages long… on 8.5 x 11" pages. It's not much simpler, and it's the more radical of the two.

I see what I did now to get that, but it's a bit misleading because there's so much whitespace that doesn't flow well across a standard 8.5 x 11" page.

The spoiler has two pictures:

Spoiler

If I print it on 4x6" pages, I get 68 pages. That's with the text at a pretty normal size.

If I print it on 8.5 x 11 pages, 4-up, I get 11 pieces of paper, or 44 pages, which would be 22 pieces of paper printed front and back. The text is smaller in this case, but increasing the size won't result in huge changes to this number.

So…

While I previously didn't look at Code Two because of the scoring system, again, I'll be looking at it soon again with the idea that the scoring would remain as it is now. This would likely add to the length of Code Two, but probably not significantly. Anything under 30 pieces of paper is a HUGE shift and a BIG win.

[natureboy]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

I don't think the USGA/R&A would consider effectively switching their Opens and all of competitive golf to Stableford.

While I previously didn't look at Code Two because of the scoring system, again, I'll be looking at it soon again with the idea that the scoring would remain as it is now. This would likely add to the length of Code Two, but probably not significantly. Anything under 30 pieces of paper is a HUGE shift and a BIG win.

That's a fair critique of its practicality for adoption. Discussing event scoring history in the pre-stableford era vs. post-stableford would sound really weird on broadcasts.

Also unlikely given how many U.S. golfers there are and how few tend to play Stableford vs. European or Australasian golfers. But I think there's enough data for HCP correlation from Stableford scores to be compared to scores relative to the course rating that conversions / comparisons are possible, just likely not attractive.

Since 'net par' is close to the expected result on most holes, can't you just consider all the penalties as two strokes while sticking to a RTP scoring framework?

[Piz]

Simpler rules?  I'm confused.

[cutchemist42]

Will be reading over my lunch hour, seems interesting so far. (Reading Code Two)

• Not sure Im envisioning correctly the rule of 20-3.....does this mean where it changes from green surface to fairway? 
• Out-of-bounds is automatically 0 points for the hole. Thats basically the outcome that naturally happens in Stableford right?
• I personally like a Stableford system more, wish it was more popular in NA.

Edited January 18, 2017 by cutchemist42