Scorecards should be fluid

[Swango1980]

Reading this and other responses makes it clear to me that (1) I haven’t explained things initially very well (2) maybe I came across too strong in my wording in the op and everyone thinks I’m trying to change the traditional game of golf, and (3) most people here have played a long time and know the game inside out and they’re own game well that a fluid scorecard system isn’t a [perceived] benefit to them. But that’s not to say it wouldn’t benefit many others, especially those new to the game, those with poor management, with poor expectations etc.

How far do you want to go to spoon feed inexperienced golfers.

Let us say we have a golfer, new to the game and an 18 handicapper. It should be obvious to him that he should NOT be expecting Par on every hole. Why on earth would he, he knows he gets 18 shots and that he is not a scratch golfer. In simple terms, it would also be pretty obvious for that golfer to realise that aiming for 18 bogeys would allow him to play to nett par.

Of course, have you considered (I've not read all the posts) Course Rating!? After all, it is the course rating that is used to calculate handicaps in the first place, not Par. And course rating could be different to Par, in some cases by several shots. So, if Course Rating was 3 under par, would you now inform the 18 handicapper he only gets a 1 shot increase on par on 15 holes, not 18 holes?

And, even if the 18 handicapper is told they get 18 shots (+1 on every hole), what does it really mean? There could be several holes that player considers to be a realistic par (say, a 110 yard par 3, or 280 yard par 4), whereas there may be other holes that would be a genuine +1 to par, as they simply cannot reach in regulation. Of course, the higher the handicap of a player, generally this accounts for the fact they have a greater number of disaster holes. They're not just plotting their way around the course in nett par for every hole. An 18 handicapper may genuinely be able to score par on every hole. However, they have plenty of horror shots that can harm their score, lead to doubles and triples, etc. These could happen on any hole.

Instead of changing the pars of the course for every single golfer, to help with their perceptions of what they should score, surely it would simply be easier to explain handicaps and stroke indexes (without even getting into more detailed discussions regarding course ratings and the greater detail of handicaps)

 

[IanM]

I belt-sanded the numbers off my irons and re-engraved them all with higher numbers. My lob wedge now goes 200 yards. It's 22 degrees, but it does wonders for my ego!

 

[Voyager EMH]

When I started playing, Stableford play was a rarity. Genuinely disliked by a majority, because the 7/8 allowance meant "losing a shot or shots".
(Sound familiar? I'm talking about over 50 years ago!)
There was nothing anyone wanted to think about other than how many shots over par one had scored for the whole round.
At ten years old there was no hole where I could reach the green in regulation. Some par 4s were unreachable in 3 shots.

A fluid scorecard would have been no use to me at all. It would only have caused more confusion. My 10-year-old brain had already worked out my own expectations.
I saw each hole in front of me and attempted to reach the green in as few strokes as possible. I paid little heed to the par or stroke index of the hole.

Only my gross score for 18 mattered to me.

I suggest this approach for all beginners. Make your goals a simple as possible.

1. Reach the green in as few strokes as possible.
2. Pay NO attention to par or SI of each hole.
3. Improve and break 100.

 

[Golfnut1957]

When I started playing, Stableford play was a rarity. Genuinely disliked by a majority, because the 7/8 allowance meant "losing a shot or shots".
(Sound familiar? I'm talking about over 50 years ago!)
There was nothing anyone wanted to think about other than how many shots over par one had scored for the whole round.
At ten years old there was no hole where I could reach the green in regulation. Some par 4s were unreachable in 3 shots.

A fluid scorecard would have been no use to me at all. It would only have caused more confusion. My 10-year-old brain had already worked out my own expectations.
I saw each hole in front of me and attempted to reach the green in as few strokes as possible. I paid little heed to the par or stroke index of the hole.

Only my gross score for 18 mattered to me.

I suggest this approach for all beginners. Make your goals a simple as possible.

1. Reach the green in as few strokes as possible.
2. Pay NO attention to par or SI of each hole.
3. Improve and break 100.

bobmac suggested this in post #16. The OP dismissed the concept of ignoring par in post #18. Probably too simple.

 

[rulefan]

It doesn’t really matter what your handicap is, you’ll always judge your score based on the par of any given hole, and of the course itself, rather than what would be expected of your handicap.

You’ll try and meet par or hope for a birdie on any hole on the course and you’ll beat yourself up if you don’t.

The thing is, we do this even though we know the par is based on what a scratch golfer would be expected to get. Yet most of us couldn’t be further away from scratch. We do it because that’s what the scorecard in front of our eyes says. We see the numbers and that’s what we judge our performance by. It’s psychological and bypasses our logical brain that forgets we were never expected to get par on this hole given our handicap.

This is completely the wrong way to apply scorecards imo. The par of each hole and the course itself should be based on your handicap. In other words, the par system should be fluid to cater for the individual. The fluidity would allow change when your handicap changes too. This way, any individual turning up at any course would know what he should score on each hole according to his handicap level up front.

It’s easy to dismiss the impact of this without ever having applied it but if you’re a 20 handicapper and you look at your scorecard on a par 3, for example, your scorecard might read par 4 or 5 depending on the stroke index. It would shift your expectations on any hole, give you a realistic impression of what’s needed and expected of you, and makes it more competitive for your handicap level. So if you scored 5 on a scratch par 3, for example, you’d walk away happy knowing you parred the hole for your level of ability. Rather than feeling bad about yourself for double bogeying. you’d be more content with your performance.

This type of fluid scorecard system would be cumbersome for paper scorecards. But it’d be easily adaptable for digital scorecards should they exist. A simple formula would be applied after you inputted your handicap and the scorecard would automatically adjust the pars for each hole.

This could easily apply to competition as well as social golf.

Hope ive explained that well enough. Do digital scorecards exist? I know I’d enjoy golf more with a more realistic scorecard that’s tailored to me.

Remember par tells you absolutely nothing about difficulty and very little about length. Par is simply a figure denoting a range of hole lengths.

 

[rulefan]

If we didn't have par figures on a scorecard, there would be no expectations of the player to score a certain number on any hole, just play the hole the best you can.

Par gives no expectation of a score. It is only a very rough indication of length.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Par gives no expectation of a score. It is only a very rough indication of length.

Try telling a non golfer that your course is 70.4 or 72.3, at least they may have a clue about par from watching TV

It's hard enough for many long term golfers to understand sss or course rating as it is now......

 

[inc0gnito]

I have a mate who claims to have invented a perpetual motion engine. Ask him to explain the concept and I, without any degrees in anything can pull apart and identify his flawed thinking. His son has a Masters degree from Kings in Astrophysics. Throw him into the debate, and his dad will stand there with metaphorical fingers in his ears shouting na, na, na, refusing to listen to the reasoned responses.
He knows that the idea defies the laws of physics, he is just being obtuse.
Despite the flaws in your thinking having been repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to repeat the same thinking over and over, because "we" don't understand your concept. I don't know if you are being obtuse or are struggling with the comprehension. Either way you appear to have your fingers in your ears, and you are shouting na, na, na repeatedly.

You really do talk out your arse. Theres a big difference between what I suggest and a perpetual motion machine. The analogy fails to address anything here.

 

[Golfnut1957]

You really do talk out your arse. Theres a big difference between what I suggest and a perpetual motion machine. The analogy fails to address anything here.

You really do keep on missing the point. The analogy isn't a comparison between your system and a perpetual motion machine. It's between you, my mate and to be frank, my 3 year old grandson's. They don't take any notice of what is being said to them either.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

What’s wrong with the scorecard and the par that we currently use ?‍

 

[tobybarker]

This has to be the most pointless thread ever. Stupid idea and redundant opposition points thereafter

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Proving Dirty Harry to be right?,!" A good man knows his limitations "

Mind you H, all you've described is course management.
"Total negativity and almost fear" is somewhat strong for a golf shot?
Some days you might feel good and can do, others(mostly), you think it wise to lay up. E.g. doing well in a comp. don't want to blow up, so do the latter.

But you still know you've taken the easy option and are not good enough to most times get there in 2- but, so what?
Not a reason to delude yourself" that you've played to your par"

Walking off that ‘bogey‘ par 4 hole with a 5 I don’t think … Great - I’ve played to my par. What I think is … Great - I haven’t screwed things up. And I walk to the 11th tee feeling positive - even though I have just carded a bogey.

 

[rulefan]

I kind of see par as a distance thing rather than an ability thing anyway.

Exactly

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

bobmac suggested this in post #16. The OP dismissed the concept of ignoring par in post #18. Probably too simple.

…and similarly I have suggested ignoring the par of a hole and simply playing each as a par 6.

 

[rulefan]

Try telling a non golfer that your course is 70.4 or 72.3, at least they may have a clue about par from watching TV

It's hard enough for many long term golfers to understand sss or course rating as it is now......

So how do you explain to a 20 cap (or even a scratch) player or non golfer just how difficult Carnoustie is when the blue tees are rated 5.4 higher than par?

 

[sunshine]

You miss the point of this altogether. Please reread.

I think you've missed the point of handicaps, course rating, stroke index, stableford, gross v nett. All of which address your perceived problem and your silly solution.

I know you are new to golf but try educating yourself before dismissing everyone's attempts to help you. Start with Swango's post (81).

 

[ExRabbit]

My head is hurting after reading this thread!

2 points is a fluid par.


Let's say my course handicap is 23.

I walk up to the 8th hole, which has a stroke index of 5 and is a par 4.

I get two shots on this hole, so for this hole my 'fluid par' is 4+2 = 6.

Not exactly rocket science is it?

 

[Voyager EMH]

I am going to digress.
From reading responses in this thread and others, it seems to me that many players are continuing to judge their score by stableford points scored.
As I said in my previous post on this thread, when I started playing, no one did this.
Even when it was a stableford competition players were more interested in how many over par they had shot.
With the new handicap system, quoting your stableford points to others is often meaningless.
Off our white tees, 35 points is playing to my handicap.
Off our yellows it is 37 points to do so.
A few months ago I would have thought this silly, but really it makes more sense to quote the differential you achieved for your round to let others know how you have done.
My last three scores have been 5.3, 2.7 and 6.2.
I think it is time to lessen the talk of stableford points.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Crikey. Too much thinking.

Surely just think, "I get two shots here!"

Even that is too much. Just count the number of shots you hit on the way to getting the ball in the hole 18 times.

Simples.

 

[cliveb]

... but really it makes more sense to quote the differential you achieved for your round to let others know how you have done...
I think it is time to lessen the talk of stableford points.

Only problem here is that your WHS score differential is based on your stableford points.