More realistic scoring for amateurs

[No Mulligans]

If you want to see how well your playing, just compare your current score to previous scores on the same course / tees.  Or if your playing different courses or tee boxes, just compare your differentials.  There is a great system already in place that allows you to compare one round to another.  This system (rating and slope) adjust for par 72 vs par 70 courses vs. executive courses vs. difficult vs. easy courses.

This 5 every hole idea is so silly that it will never see the light of day.

 

7 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

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.

No one shoots 30 under in a single round.

I shoot for a 10 differential, that is a great round for me, anything below a 15 is a really good round.  The system is already in place.  Why would I have a system of make believe so I can feel like I was 5 under on a round?

[Lihu]

9 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

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.

 

8 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

If you want to see how well your playing, just compare your current score to previous scores on the same course / tees.  Or if your playing different courses or tee boxes, just compare your differentials.  There is a great system already in place that allows you to compare one round to another.  This system (rating and slope) adjust for par 72 vs par 70 courses vs. executive courses vs. difficult vs. easy courses.

This 5 every hole idea is so silly that it will never see the light of day.

No one shoots 30 under in a single round.

I shoot for a 10 differential, that is a great round for me, anything below a 15 is a really good round.  The system is already in place.  Why would I have a system of make believe so I can feel like I was 5 under on a round?

 

Discussions like this sometimes makes me feel like there should be a separate forum for people in the 20+, mid-cappers, single digit players and scratch+ players.

The idea in the OP itself is not necessarily silly, but somewhat misguided. . .

A par 90 course for beginners sounds kind of like "senior par" to me. The difference is that you get rewarded with an eagle on every par 3 par, as opposed to a "senior birdie".

The best solution for people needing a "Par 90" course is to simply move up to the most forward tees. Even if that means hitting from the "Orange" "kids tees". Par stays the same and you move up to something like a 4500 yard course. As you get better, just move back. You can even move back on just holes where you feel more confident.

Advocating 90 strokes per round on a normal golf course is kind of inviting slow play, and a lot of frustrated golfers.

[Kalnoky]

Alternately, there are executive courses which are Par 62. They are affordable and a great place to go when you need a confidence boost. There is a very affordable one near my house, the greens and fairways are immaculate. I love playing there.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Kalnoky

[iacas]

39 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

Why shouldn't the average golfer have a realistic score to shoot for?

You're missing the point that for many, 72 is a realistic score.

39 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

How many out there would be happy to move forward to beat the number?

Many already have that type of barrier. Maybe it's 80. Or 90.

39 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

It's just a different game, and there should be a way to separate the two.

Why?

39 minutes ago, Blackjack Don said:

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.

Par or whatever has nothing to do with whether you play in "LSW-like ways." You should buy the book already… then you'd know what people are talking about when they talk about LSW.

LSW generally tells you to advance your ball, not lay up. Laying up is dumb, often.

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

Par or whatever has nothing to do with whether you play in "LSW-like ways." You should buy the book already… then you'd know what people are talking about when they talk about LSW.

Erik is not suggesting this just to "make" whatever he's selling the book for***, but more for improving your game @Blackjack Don I endorse the book simple because it puts everything you want to learn about improving your scoring into one simple book. It's amazing that the things stated in it work. I have two copies.

 

Quote

LSW generally tells you to advance your ball, not lay up. Laying up is dumb, often.

Even if not "dumb" per se, you won't get into the single digits with a "layup" attitude.

 

***I'm pretty sure he's not exactly getting rich selling it either. Although, he deserves to make a lot more from it.

[Patch]

I read some where that the average amateur score is around 100. Of course I am sure this number might change, depending who you might ask.

So, using 28 over par as an average, (humor me) that's about 1.5 strokes per hole more than a  par 72, or 4 strokes per hole . 

What would it hurt if the casual, non handicap keeping golfer just added a stroke per hole for their own enjoyment? Par 3s beome 4s. Par 4s become 5s. Par 5 become 6s. (90)

I am all for folks scoring however they want for their own enjoyment of the game. If they enjoy their golf experience, they will keep coming back.  I want folks to keep coming back, regardless of their reasons. These folks will have no impact on the more serious golfer who wants compare their game to the regulation pars that the professionals use.  

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, Patch said:

I read some where that the average amateur score is around 100. Of I am sure this number might change, depending who you might ask.

So, using 28 over par as an average, (humor me) that's about 1.5 strokes per hole more than a  par 72, or 4 strokes per hole . 

What would it hurt if the casual, non handicap keeping golfer just added a stroke per hole for their own enjoyment? Par 3s beome 4s. Par 4s become 5s. Par 5 become 6s. (90)

I am all for folks scoring however they want for their own enjoyment of the game. If they enjoy their golf experience, they will keep coming back.  I want folks to keep coming back, regardless of their reasons. These folks will have no impact on the more serious golfer who wants compare their game to the regulation pars that the professionals use.  

Pace of play. That extra stroke translates to at least a minute per shot. A minute and a half a hole? You can wait for them at the tee box, and I'll be your playing partner who disappears to empty holes scattered around the course typically with 1.5 over par per hole golfers holding up other players. . .

[Patch]

20 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Pace of play. That extra stroke translates to at least a minute per shot. A minute and a half a hole? You can wait for them at the tee box, and I'll be your playing partner who disappears to empty holes scattered around the course typically with 1.5 over par per hole golfers holding up other players. . .

No, that does not wash with me. Those golfers are going to still hit the same number of shots/putts. They are just using a different number for their own enjoyment of par. 

 

[RandallT]

One thing I love about golf is that your score is your score.  You can directly compare yourself to pros, adjusting for course difficulty and conditions.  

In other sports, one can hit 5 home runs in a game- but that's meaningless because you might be against a bad pitcher. You could score 60 pts in a basketball game but the defense you played might be a joke. 

But in golf, you can look st the course difficulty and your score, and pretty much see where you stand against the greatest in the world.

If anyone wants their own scoring system, go for it. Use 90, sure, if it works for you. All depends on what you want out of the activity.  Another cool thing about golf- it's very measurable and we can each do it our own way (until we want to directly compete, of course)

[Kalnoky]

50 minutes ago, Patch said:

I read some where that the average amateur score is around 100.

That makes a lot of sense, I doubt if the average casual hacker who plays 3 times a year can break 100 consistently, if at all. 

People invent all kinds of rules to suit themselves. I've overheard people talking about "miracles" (i.e., mulligans, gimmes, illegal drops, etc.) in the clubhouse and came to realize this is a kind of shorthand for fudging the scorecard. They are pretty open about it with each other. 

 

[CarlSpackler]

My suggestion to the OP would be to rate yourself against "your" par which would be your net score. If you get a handicap stroke on a par 4 hole, then 5 is your par. If you get 2 strokes, then 6 is your par.

[Patch]

1 minute ago, Kalnoky said:

 

 

 

 

That makes a lot of sense, I doubt if the average casual hacker who plays 3 times a year can break 100 consistently, if at all. 

People invent all kinds of rules to suit themselves. I've overheard people talking about "miracles" (i.e., mulligans, gimmes, illegal drops, etc.) in the clubhouse and came to realize this is a kind of shorthand for fudging the scorecard. They are pretty open about it with each other. 

 

Some years back one course in Vegas had a golf league. One of their divisions, was for golfers who consistantly shot around 100. They ran it twice a month, on Sunday afternoons. They also had a 90s group, and an 80s group. All groups played at the same time, but not against each other. I can remember being on the driving range when they were playing their tournaments. It lasted about 4 months. Seemed like a good idea to me for the various groups of amateurs. 

[JonMA1]

4 hours 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.

Yes, it's different when comparing skill and distance and considering that it's their livelihood, but beyond that, I don't consider it all that different.

I play shorter tees to give myself a chance to play a similar game. I can reach everything in regulation the same as they can. They are simply playing from 1200 yards back, and their mishits are less frequent and less costly.

There are still strategic decisions based on strengths and weaknesses, hazards to negotiate, risk vs reward, execution, creativity, stress, exhilaration. We both have to make the best of a poor shot (more often for me of course). I might agonize over a 4' putt while they agonize over an 8' one, but we're both agonizing over a putt. And we both have runs of good and bad golf.

While I have no chance of ever shooting under par from any distance at any time in my life, I can still hope for the possibility of breaking 80, just as they can with breaking 60.

[sjduffers]

2 hours ago, Blackjack Don said:

Thirty under par? Seriously?

Yes. Seriously.  Your (ill-considered) proposal of making par for a round of golf at 90 would result in some pros shooting 30 under par, in a single round!  To wit, Justin Thomas just shot 59 last week in Hawaii, and did it on a track longer than 7000 yards, with some fairly narrow fairways (on some holes).  Humbling enough?

The reality is that pros play a different game than most amateurs and they do it with the additional pressure of trying to eke out a living doing it. We can see it, day in and day out and without having to change the rules of the game or what "par" means. They are in a totally different league (literally!)...

Instead of looking for a meaningless way of making you feel better about your (or mine) shitty game (nothing personal of course and I don't know your game), do the best you can to break your own personal best or the next barrier, wherever it may be. Take lessons, practice, learn more about what's good and what's bad, etc... In other words, strive to improve, whether to break 100, 90, 80, 75 (for me), or par or whatever your limit is currently at.

Edited January 21, 2017 by sjduffers

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, Patch said:

No, that does not wash with me. Those golfers are going to still hit the same number of shots/putts. They are just using a different number for their own enjoyment of par.

If the number of strokes were limited to 2 over par when still off the green before picking up, then I agree.

Remember that a triple bogey on a par 5 is 8 strokes. If every hole is a par 5, that could be incredibly slow especially on what would normally be a 150 yard par 3. A Par-90 shooter will have off days when he shoots a 120 or even higher, but then figures he's "only" about 2 strokes over per hole instead of possibly being 4 strokes over on a normal par 3 hole.

I think setting the expectation for anyone at the proper "par" rating of 72 makes for faster golf because a person is more willing to pick up if he is already 3 or more strokes over the defined par.

The biggest thing that would improve the score of these "par-90" golfers is to shorten the course by teeing up or play par 62 executive courses as @Kalnoky suggested is the best way to gain confidence without jamming up the normal par 72 courses.

Don't add strokes to your expectation, just shorten the course you play.

 

28 minutes ago, sjduffers said:

To wit, Justin Thomas just shot 59 last week in Hawaii, and did it on a track longer than 7000 yards, with some fairly narrow fairways (on some holes).  Humbling enough?

So, I'm guessing that on many of the courses we amateurs play, consistent mid-50s is possible by the pros.

[CarlSpackler]

Why does everyone want to change the game of golf?!!!! 

[Lihu]

7 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

Why does everyone want to change the game of golf?!!!! 

This didn't bug me so much when we were both 16 handicaps, but now that we've invested a lot of time learning a lot of the stupid rules. . .

The rules are pretty good now, and getting better in tiny increments.

[CarlSpackler]

Just now, Lihu said:

This didn't bug me so much when we were both 15 handicaps, but now that we've invested a lot of time learning a lot of the stupid rules. . .

I've always played GOLF. As my late friend Mike used to say, "If you are playing by the rules, you playing 'slap-and-tickle'". I've been known to play into the green and pick up my ball if I'm out practicing right after the greens have been punched. Perhaps I want to change the rules of basketball so you aren't allowed to block the shot of someone under 5'-8" outside the 3 point line. Perhaps a goal shouldn't count in hockey if the goalie wasn't looking. It's golf. Love it, or leave it.

::Old curmudgeon rant over::