Jump to content
bkuehn1952

2019 Local Rule - 21.2 Maximum Score

Local Rule, 21.2 Maximum Score  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Local Rule, 21.2 Maximum Score, apply in any Stroke Play Tournament?

    • No. It is not a real stroke play tournament if a maximum is used versus the actual hole score
    • Yes, as a pace of play factor
    • Other - please explain


24 posts / 3412 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

I had a friend who made 9 on the par-4, last hole of a 36 hole qualifier.  It tied him for the last place into the main match play event, which he subsequently lost in a playoff.

Had an artificial “maximum” score been in place, he could have easily advanced instead of the person who rightfully did.  

I prefer that strict stroke play tournaments remain as such.

Share this post


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

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

1 minute ago, David in FL said:

I had a friend who made 9 on the par-4, last hole of a 36 hole qualifier.  It tied him for the last place into the main match play event, which he subsequently lost in a playoff.

Had an artificial “maximum” score been in place, he could have easily advanced instead of the person who rightfully did.  

I prefer that strict stroke play tournaments remain as such.

Not if the "maximum" score had been 10. Or 9. I haven't really ever seen anyone suggesting the max score should be 8.

Nor have I seen anyone suggesting a max score limit for a higher level competition, which it sounds like your friend played in (there are not many "low-level tournaments").

Share this post


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

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Not if the "maximum" score had been 10. Or 9. I haven't really ever seen anyone suggesting the max score should be 8.

Nor have I seen anyone suggesting a max score limit for a higher level competition, which it sounds like your friend played in (there are not many "low-level tournaments").

The point being, it can happen regardless of the arbitrary number picked.  And the higher that arbitrary number, the less assigning it in the first place provides any real or perceived benefit to pace of play.

It’s a form of bifurcation that I simply don’t like.

 

Share this post


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

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

That doesn't make much sense, because for Stableford there is effectively already a stroke limit.

And for tournament play… see the post one above yours by @DaveP043. It's intended to be a high number for lower-level competitions to keep play moving.

As I've pointed out, USKG tournaments have had a stroke limit of 10 for years.

Okay, you got me. It doesn't make much sense. 

So, I guess I like the Stableford the way it is. … Most of the tournaments I play these days are in fact Stablefords. 

And I guess I don't really care too much in other tournaments. All the low level tournaments I've played would not have been sped up very much by a stroke limit. My experience has been that low level tournaments get bogged down on the green. Usually, in the club championships and member/guests I've played in, you can hit a dozen extra shots from the fairway while you wait for the green to clear. When I play in any of these tournaments I normally assume I'm going to be there all day anyway. 

Share this post


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

Yes , always a bit more fun when you can finish that disaster hole by trying to splash it in from the bunker for 9 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The point being, it can happen regardless of the arbitrary number picked.  And the higher that arbitrary number, the less assigning it in the first place provides any real or perceived benefit to pace of play.

And a football team can win a game kicking field goals over a team scoring touchdowns.

They are the rules of the competition.

And again for lower level events the benefits are real.

Share this post


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

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.




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • It's speculation that doesn't actually matter. GOAT is not the longest driver or we'd already be throwing Cameron Champ's or Jamie Sadlowski's names in the discussion. He hit it about 267 or so when he was 40-43. Tiger hits it about 297 at the age of 43 with a fused back. And I couldn't care less… if Tiger hit it 350 or 250, he won a major this year. 15 >> 18, 81 >>> 72. That's 90% of the GOAT discussion for me. Y'all can make up whatever reasons you want, but own them, and accept that you're speculating on some of them.
    • How far would golf's legends drive the ball using modern equipment? At the 2016 Ryder Cup, the 6-foot-5 Thomas Pieters belted a drive 324...   An interesting article on how players way back would have driven the ball with today's ball and equipment.  I didn't realize that Jack had driven the ball 341 yards in a longest drive competition when he was 18.  
    • Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Oy. I don't give a shit about two top ten finishes in a decade. Nor am I comparing Jack to Vijay Singh, a guy whose putting stroke has been AWOL since roughly 2011. He wasn't. That's easily refuted. As for straighter you're not comparing like to like - you don't know what the fairway widths were, how far the ball bounced, etc. But we do KNOW that Tiger was longer than Jack. Tiger at 43 with a fused back is longer than Jack was when Jack was 40, 41, 42, or 43. Tiger @ 43: 297.8 Jack @ 40: 269.0 Jack @ 41: 264.3 Jack @ 42: 264.6 Jack @ 43: 266.1 Tiger was almost 30 yards longer at 43 than Jack was at 40, 41, 42, or 43. Now, several posts in, you're changing that up to say that, given modern equipment or whatever, Jack would probably have been as long as Tiger. But that's not what you said. Uhhhhh… He didn't do that. Neither did I. No they aren't. Furthermore, if all Tiger had to do was hit the ball 266 yards, he could probably hit 80% of the fairways. Fairways that are likely narrower, etc. So you lost the distance one, and if you want to measure "accuracy" by "fairway hit percentage" I again will point out you're not comparing like to like. They aren't playing the same golf courses, the same fairways, or hitting it the same distances. Furthermore, and more importantly, I don't care about stats like this when determining who the GOAT is. If you do, that's cool, but what I care about is wins, dominance, scoring averages, that sort of thing. I don't care who had a better short game (Tiger by far), who was a better putter (tie?), who hit a better 7-iron (almost surely Tiger), or whatever. I care about Ws. So not only are you provably wrong on distance, possibly off-base on accuracy, but you're arguing about things that most people don't even care about. Nobody considers Calvin Peete in the GOAT discussion because of how accurate he was off the tee. Huh? No. 🤦‍♂️ Uhhh, according to Jack, it was 118 MPH. I call bullshit on that. Ha ha ha.
    • I’ve never been one to sit on my donkey for too long. The past four and half decades have pretty much been work for me , as so I know, for many others as well.  Developing my golf game will (not) dominate my new found free time. It will though give me a new avenue of pursuits that I hope will keep my mind expanding. Thanks for the input and reply. 
    • That sort of extrapolation is not possible.  You are talking that he would be hitting the golf ball further than the average long drive competitor. I am not buying it. He would be one of the longer hitters on tour. Jack is not the physical freak like Dustin Johnson. I would put him probably a top 10 in distance yearly if he was in his prime competing today.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Dan42nepa
      Dan42nepa
      (63 years old)
    2. James Dalton
      James Dalton
      (78 years old)
    3. JMHARDING
      JMHARDING
      (29 years old)
    4. mwh1023
      mwh1023
      (52 years old)
    5. Skeesh
      Skeesh
      (47 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...