More realistic scoring for amateurs

[Blackjack Don]

You can choose to play pro golf, or you can play amateur golf. 

Recently in another thread I stated that I believe pros and amateurs are actually playing a different game. We might be close at two feet from the hole, and their chances of making a thirty foot putt aren't any better than ours, but that's about it. They are disappointed with par. I can't manage more than a couple in a row. We simply aren't playing the same stakes. 

Yesterday I heard a suggestion I really like a lot. Every hole is a five. Just count strokes. 18 holes, average is 90. Above or below average? This seems to me to be a much better way of scoring a golf game for amateurs. Much more realistic, and could be more fun than making lots of double bogeys.

I like people who think outside the box. Traditionalists should wear knickers so we can identify them. 

[SavvySwede]

13 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

You can choose to play pro golf, or you can play amateur golf. 

Recently in another thread I stated that I believe pros and amateurs are actually playing a different game. We might be close at two feet from the hole, and their chances of making a thirty foot putt aren't any better than ours, but that's about it. They are disappointed with par. I can't manage more than a couple in a row. We simply aren't playing the same stakes. 

Yesterday I heard a suggestion I really like a lot. Every hole is a five. Just count strokes. 18 holes, average is 90. Above or below average? This seems to me to be a much better way of scoring a golf game for amateurs. Much more realistic, and could be more fun than making lots of double bogeys.

I like people who think outside the box. Traditionalists should wear knickers so we can identify them. 

1. I don't think pros are disappointed with par. They are still only making 4-5 birdies per round and those are most on the par 5s/easier holes. They play for par on many of the tougher ones.

2. Terrible. You're just lowering the bar. People would eventually get used to that standard and being "better than average" would no longer be satisfying. Another twenty years and someone will want to make every hole a par 6 so we can all shoot 10 under and feel good about ourselves again.

[ev780]

 

Par is defined (I am paraphrasing out of laziness) The number of shots an EXPERT golfer requires allowing for 2 putts.

My par just happens to be 12 shots more than that. The handicap system is genius in that respect.

Edited January 20, 2017 by ev780

[CarlSpackler]

As I just said in another thread. I focus on getting the little white ball in the stupid hole in as few strokes as possible no matter what my situation is. The score is what it is. 

[Kalnoky]

I've heard this kind of thing before: To give yourself an extra stroke on every hole and make it "par". 

It's okay to be "bad" at golf while you're learning, we don't need to redraw the lines. Compared to some of the fellas on here I might be "bad" for years to come. But I learned to value my humble achievements. If you can consistently break 100 on a Par 72 Course while counting every stroke, you're still light years ahead of the people at the range who are just goofing off. ...At the public courses around here maybe 1/3 of the people are just Godawful, probably couldn't even break 120. So, I'm way better than those. But I don't ever want to give myself credit for pars I didn't make. 

 

[Patch]

There are very few golfers who are really bad at the game. Same goes for good golfers. There's very few of them who are really good at the same game. 

Myself, I am some where between a 1/2, and 3/4s of a stroke, worse per hole than the really good golfers. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Blackjack Don said:

Recently in another thread I stated that I believe pros and amateurs are actually playing a different game. We might be close at two feet from the hole, and their chances of making a thirty foot putt aren't any better than ours, but that's about it. They are disappointed with par. I can't manage more than a couple in a row. We simply aren't playing the same stakes. 

Yesterday I heard a suggestion I really like a lot. Every hole is a five. Just count strokes. 18 holes, average is 90. Above or below average? This seems to me to be a much better way of scoring a golf game for amateurs. Much more realistic, and could be more fun than making lots of double bogeys.

I like people who think outside the box. Traditionalists should wear knickers so we can identify them.

Sorry, but you'll be disappointed to find that it's not thinking outside the box at all. In fact, golfers originally started out trying to beat "bogey" or "Colonel Bogey" and then as players improved they came up with the term "par" to describe the score an expert player should strive to achieve. Your "outside the box" thinking is actually the way people played the game in the 1800s…

Also, while your idea is fine as a mindset for the bogey golfer or thereabouts, a lot of people would not really be challenging themselves if they were content with a score around 90. You don't have to be that good to shoot in the upper 70s to low 80s, and you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you considered every hole a par five (or every hole par+1).

So… good for some, but not good for "amateurs" far and wide.

[Hatchman]

1 hour ago, Blackjack Don said:

Yesterday I heard a suggestion I really like a lot. Every hole is a five. Just count strokes. 18 holes, average is 90. Above or below average? This seems to me to be a much better way of scoring a golf game for amateurs. Much more realistic, and could be more fun than making lots of double bogeys.

Not a bad idea.  I used this system starting out.  5 across the board.   Then I would concentrate on the par 3's to gain a stroke or two, try and handle the par 5's, and treat the 4 as three to get on and two to get in for 5.   Handle the short par 4's.

[mcanadiens]

It is just semantics.

After a hole, I mark down a number either way. You can call it a double bogey or a six or a one-over average(?). It's the same cruddy hole in my book. 

[Kalnoky]

It is fun to go back to your old scorecards and see how you've improved. I cherish those moments when I get to circle the number after a hole. It's still not very often, but last summer was better than my first, and this summer will beat 2016.   

[mcanadiens]

17 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

It is fun to go back to your old scorecards and see how you've improved. I cherish those moments when I get to circle the number after a hole. It's still not very often, but last summer was better than my first, and this summer will beat 2016.   

I have some first year cards on a shelf in the garage. Yikes and double yikes. I'm not really sure how I kept going.

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

It is just semantics.

After a hole, I mark down a number either way. You can call it a double bogey or a six or a one-over average(?). It's the same cruddy hole in my book. 

I agree that it can be a bit more than semantics.

People place importance on par. If I call a 475-yard hole a par four, people will be disappointed with a 5. Call it a par 5 and they'll be happy with a 5.

The "number" can affect the type of shot someone chooses too. If they're 230 out on a "par 4" surrounded by sand, they might hit their 3W. If they're 230 out on a "par 5" they'll probably hit a shot that keeps them short of the monstrous, disastrous greenside bunkers.

[Wanzo]

32 minutes ago, iacas said:

The "number" can affect the type of shot someone chooses too. If they're 230 out on a "par 4" surrounded by sand, they might hit their 3W. If they're 230 out on a "par 5" they'll probably hit a shot that keeps them short of the monstrous, disastrous greenside bunkers.

Just curious, would you advocate approaching the shot the same in both scenarios?

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, Wanzo said:

Just curious, would you advocate approaching the shot the same in both scenarios?

Yes.

But most people cannot and do not.

[Kalnoky]

1 hour ago, mcanadiens said:

I have some first year cards on a shelf in the garage. Yikes and double yikes. I'm not really sure how I kept going.

Oh man, me too. I shudder when I remember those very early days. I could've called an 8 a par, but I know what the poor guys who got stuck playing with me called it.  Man, did I ever underestimate this game.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Kalnoky

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, Kalnoky said:

Oh man, me too. I shudder when I remember those very early days. I could've called an 8 a par, but I know what the poor guys who got stuck playing with me called it.  Man, did I ever underestimate this game.

Yeah, I remember those days as well. . .Or rather, my daughter reminds me of the time(s) I nearly hit her twice in the same shot when the ball bounced off a tree hit the golf cart she was standing next to then went up about 50 feet then landed right by her feet. My memory is pretty bad about these things, but my daughter remembers everything. . .

[Pretzel]

Par on every hole is an arbitrary number. In the end what matters is the total score (either net or gross), and strokes over or under par is just a convenient way to compare those scores. The goal of each hole, regardless of the par rating, is to get the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.

Because of this, changing the par rating doesn't really change much at all. You still shoot the same score as before, and I don't think you'd get any more satisfaction by raising the par to 90. You'd just see that the expert players were shooting nearly 30 under par in a round, compared to your even par round, and feel similar to how you do now. Those are my thoughts anyways.

[Blackjack Don]

Interesting thoughts. I don't have much to add to the original post. I'd like to see some 1kind of a separation between pro golf and amateur golf. Thirty under par? Seriously?

Why shouldn't the average golfer have a realistic score to shoot for? How many out there would be happy to move forward to beat the number? They have no chance of ever beating the number at par. But they should be expected to. It's just a different game, and there should be a way to separate the two. If five is a good score for every hole, then maybe people would play the course with the LSW-like ways, instead of being frustrated they can't go for the green in two all the time? Like the pros.