Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blackjack Don

More realistic scoring for amateurs

Note: This thread is 990 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

137 posts / 8621 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

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. 

:-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

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. 

:-D

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

 

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 by ev780

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. :-P

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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 by Kalnoky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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. . .:-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 990 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2019 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
  • Posts

    • Within the past few years, we've had topics of discussion surrounding the idea and practice of girls playing in boys tournaments in high school golf. To recap: In this topic, a 14-year-old 8th grader won the boys state championship in Delaware competing from 85% of the distance. Delaware at the time didn't have a separate tournament for girls as there were apparently not many girls at all playing. They noted that they have hope to have enough girls to some day have a separate girls tournament. The girls competed on the "team" as well, and the team won too. In this instance, boys play in the fall, and girls play in the spring. The high school for which this girl played doesn't have a girls team, so she's eligible to play for the boys team, and still compete in the regional and state events in the spring for the girls. She played from shorter tees than the boys, and her team did not win/advance. And again, she could compete in the spring against other girls from the same tees. In PIAA, apparently, we have two sisters in the WPIAL (a Pittsburgh area league) that compete for Carmichaels. The school doesn't have a girls golf team, and there's apparently a PIAA rule that says that only one girl from each school can compete in the girls championship (districts, regionals, and then states). Remmey competed for the girls as a freshman and sophomore. Her year-older sister Delaney competed on the boys side those two years but didn't get out of her district (the WPIAL). This year, they put Delaney (a senior this year) through the girls so she'd have a better chance of going to States, and Remmey (junior) went through the boys track. These are individual tournaments, not the team events, which are run separately. I believe they both play on the boys team for Carmichaels. Anyway, Remmey (in the boys track) shot 72 playing from 85% of the distance that the boys played to finish second. The top 22 of 44 players advanced. Her sister, Delaney, shot 90 to miss the playoff to move on to states for AA girls by two. Club House Leaderboard - Scrolf.com Get real-time leaderboard and mobile scoring for your next golf event or league. Works on any mobile device with no app downloads. Here's the first story: Sisters Remmey and Delaney Lohr to compete in WPIAL golf finals — for girls and boys Carmichaels junior Remmey Lohr placed third in the WPIAL girls golf finals last year, but this year she’s competing on the boys side. Here's the second: Carmichaels golfer Remmey Lohr qualifies for PIAA boys championships Lohr used an eagle to place second at the PIAA western regional qualifier. My stance on this stuff remains the same. If a girl CHOOSES to compete against boys (when there's a girl's team available, or a girls track), when she has an alternative, she should be allowed to compete so long as it's on actually equal terms. That means the same tees. This basically treats the boys division as "open." I'm also fine if the rules simply say "boys" and don't allow girls to compete at all for individual titles. For teams, I think the 85% is a good compromise, because some teams literally might not even have enough players to compete if they don't allow girls to play for them, and that would hurt more people than allowing girls to play. Still, these girls should compete through the girls individual track, if available, not the boys. Unless, again, they made a choice to play for the boys when an alternative (girls) was available. Should a girl playing quarterback for the high school team only have to advance the ball 8.5 yards for a first down? Should a girl playing on a boys basketball team get a second, lower basket because girls aren't generally as tall as boys? Should a girls high school pitcher that chooses to play baseball get to pitch from, oh, 50 feet instead? P.S. It's not said above, but the best fix here is to adjust the "one girl" rule. Adjust that, and this isn't an issue. Why penalize girls who don't have a girls team by only allowing one of them to qualify, when four or five girls from a high school with a program could all qualify?
    • I think it's fun. You get to take runs at every hole because every chip shot becomes much easier, and even if not that, you get to take a run at the resulting putt. It's fun to push it to the limit sometimes in order to see how low you can go.
    • That's a very specific scenario covered by the rules. He would be DQed for a serious breach of Rule 14-7b for playing from the wrong place. I take your point, but there really isn't much of a difference between a DQ and 58 penalty strokes.
    • Where have you been? 🙂 Remember? She made a 5 and wrote down (signed for) a 4. She knows what score she had, and signed for a lower one. This isn't the same thing. Because Dave got it wrong. You're DQed for a lower score, you take the higher score. Well, she got 58 penalty strokes, so… It's not like she just got away with it or something. Again, did you miss that whole conversation in the topic I posted up above? You didn't, because you replied in it. He'd be DQed for playing from a wrong place. Such an act can't be "rectified" by correcting the scorecard. Rule 1 says this: That would be such a case. The scorecard could not be adjusted sufficiently because the ball was literally not played from anywhere near where it should have been.
    • I guess I just don't understand why the penalty for that infraction is DQ (especially since in that case she wasn't gaining an advantage since she signed for a higher score) but the penalty for breaking a different rule 29 times over two different days is just the applicable penalty strokes simply because the golfer "didn't know the rules".  I get that they are completely different rules about completely different scenarios, I just don't think it's right that a golfer can break the same rule 29 times over 2 different rounds and not be DQ'ed simply because they didnt know they were breaking a rule. To that point, let's say there was a newer golfer in a tournament and he hit multiple balls out of bounds throughout the round but played them as red staked hazards because he didn't know any better, but then it was discovered after the round and after signing the scorecard that he had played them as such, does that mean he would only get the applicable penalty strokes added to his score instead of being DQ'ed simply because he didn't know it was a rule that white stakes are treated differently than red stakes? That doesn't seem right IMO.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. boxofballs
      boxofballs
      (45 years old)
    2. CaptainsChoice
      CaptainsChoice
      (33 years old)
    3. Dozer
      Dozer
      (56 years old)
    4. Pcorys
      Pcorys
      (34 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...