SimpleGolfRules.com - Thoughts?

[cutchemist42]

Went back to edit but missed the time, just a few more thoughts.

• Regarding practise, am I reading it right that a full shot could be practised?
• Am I reading it correctly that their bunker idea not as strict? As in, we wouldnt have the nonsense of an HD grain of sand being shown happen?

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

• 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.

Like I said, I really doubt the Stableford format will survive. So I don't think that if you pump your tee shot OB on a par five that you just pick up and go on to the next hole.

2 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

• Regarding practise, am I reading it right that a full shot could be practised?
• Am I reading it correctly that their bunker idea not as strict? As in, we wouldnt have the nonsense of an HD grain of sand being shown happen?

I haven't read it yet (I've read the other three pages). But those seem like you're reading it right…

I think the Code Two rules are a bit more lax on things. Though the practice shot stuff would play into slow play, I fear.

[cutchemist42]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Like I said, I really doubt the Stableford format will survive. So I don't think that if you pump your tee shot OB on a par five that you just pick up and go on to the next hole.

I haven't read it yet (I've read the other three pages). But those seem like you're reading it right…

I think the Code Two rules are a bit more lax on things. Though the practice shot stuff would play into slow play, I fear.

Survive in real life, or just in the context of what they are putting together here?

Yeah an automatic 0 on a Par5 is dumb, I should have thought of that before.

 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, cutchemist42 said:

Survive in real life, or just in the context of what they are putting together here?

In the context of this being the basis for the new Rules of Golf.

[iacas]

I'm going to ask that conversations on the USGA/R&A's new rules based on Code Two from this go here:

Check that thread out.

[No Mulligans]

I was at dinner with a neighbor friend and he mentioned that the rules of golf need to be simplified.

I said, "You don't play by all the rules and don't know all the rules, why would it make a difference?".  I think the majority of golfers are like my neighbor, you can't simplify the rules enough to make a difference to someone like him and the majority of golfers.  So what's the point?

[iacas]

11 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

I was at dinner with a neighbor friend and he mentioned that the rules of golf need to be simplified.

I said, "You don't play by all the rules and don't know all the rules, why would it make a difference?".  I think the majority of golfers are like my neighbor, you can't simplify the rules enough to make a difference to someone like him and the majority of golfers.  So what's the point?

Would a simplification that shrinks the rules by 50-60% be enough? I think so.

That's what the USGA/R&A have in mind. See the link in my last post just above for the discussion on that sort of stuff, though.

[natureboy]

On 1/18/2017 at 1:40 PM, cutchemist42 said:

Yeah an automatic 0 on a Par5 is dumb, I should have thought of that before.

I agree it's unfamiliar. And agree it's likely stroke play will remain the universal standard. Another wrinkle might be counting actual strokes taken statistics while you're also keeping track of the Stableford score.

It may be politically impractical, but under Stableford as applied in code 2 the zero for stroke and distance seems to me internally consistent.

I think a secondary goal with code two is to encourage faster play so it's biased toward the most common outcome for your HCP and picking up. That's my take on the intent with their approach anyway.

Comments on your Par5 scenario below:

Spoiler

 

(Skip to paragraph two if you're already familiar with Stableford) Scoring for Stableford sort of counts in the opposite direction of stroke tallying. You 'earn' points based on how close or better your performance relative to par for the hole and/or the course rating. Pars are awarded 2 points. Bogey's are awarded 1 point. 2 under par is 4 points and 3 under is 5 points. Stableford scores are well-correlated to HCP so players' net scores would be comparable to determine stroke or match play results like with strokes taken.

In your scenario of a par 5 if the likely score of a scratch player is par (assume course rating is 72), then a stroke and distance penalty from the tee is most likely to result in a 7 or a double bogey since the scratch player generally plays to around par for the hole (or slightly under depending on its relative difficulty). A double-bogey would be zero points earned for that hole, but a scratch player would still have a points tally from better holes during the round. I'm generally a bogey scorer so for me the most common score with a lost ball is an 8 on a par 5, which if you account for my 'bogey' HCP stroke is a double bogey. So no net points for me.

A typical scratch player may have a chance (~ 13-20%) to play 4 strokes for a bogey point from their provisional or 2nd tee shot if they continued play of the hole. But they also have a chance (~ 4-5%) of scoring worse. So it's more like taking away a 9-15% chance of doing better than the penalty. I suppose for an actual tournament a condition of competition could be arranged to allow playing out of the hole and just assess the penalty stroke.