Stableford - A ladies game?

[USER1999]

I am sure some just count stableford in their heads as they go round as it is easier to add up.

Me, I play stroke play in my head, until I have a disaster, when I switch to stableford.

 

[The_LHC]

LHC .. your maths are probably correct BUT I am a Gemini, entitled to exaggerate, so I just made up numbers to illustrate the anomaly.

But it's an anomaly that only exists with made up numbers, arguably it doesn't exist in the real world, for every blob you have to make up at least two shots against your handicap for the rest of the holes just to keep your score at your handicap, never mind better it.

The thing I don't understand is countback, if I've scored the same as you, be it points, gross score, net score, whatever, then we should be tied, why should one player's score in the later holes prove the deciding factor? If we've scored the same and your score is better over the last 3 holes that simply means my score must be better over the other 15 holes, so surely I should win?

I do play stableford and all the other varieties of scoring but I seem to see, on this forum, that points make prizes and whilst it is a fun game where you can forget your bad holes, I do feel medal play reflects the real ability of a player.

Only below a certain handicap, I'd argue, say for people playing of 7 or less I'd suggest, for the rest of us medal is simply a test of concentration, if your mind wanders for 30 seconds that drives in the trees.

Anyway, the only true sign of a player's ability is the gross score, as someone else said, what's the difference between a stableford score with a couple of blobs on it (which don't necessarily mean the player picked up after all, could simply mean a double bogey on a non-shot hole) and a scratch player shooting 68 getting beaten by an 11 handicapper shooting 78. The scratch player is likely to be just as annoyed.

 

[Billysboots]

Guess what, I played in the same comp and had 39 points and I'm also off 11 BUT my gross score was 83 and the winners was 93!!!
How can someone be better with a gross 93 than I am with a gross 83??

Erm, because it was a handicap competition? Isn't that the whole point of the handicap system? It is intended to create a level playing field for all, regardless of ability.

Nobody is saying the high handicap golfer who wins an event is the best golfer, merely that he/she played the best on a given day relative to his/her handicap.

Or would you rather all events were played off scratch, thus ruling out 95% of the field?

 

[net72]

they both had the same handicap but he made the scores up to help "prove" his point

 

[teegirl]

Why would sex make any difference?

No answer yet Murph, I think the opening post was asking the question.

 

[DCB]

Ah.... the joys of the insecure golfer.....

 

[RGDave]

Back to the OP.

Medal, stableford, bogie, Texas scramble, greensomes, foursomes, etc, etc. They are all different formats - if you don't like a particular format, don't play it!

Simples

That's my way of thinking. I detest medal comps around my home course. Put me on most "normal" courses and I'll give it a go.

I've had SO many bad medal rounds at my course. As a conservative player, you'd expect me to do OK, but it never happens. I'm afraid it's just course management or luck that does me in. There's only a certain amount of re-loads or drops I can tolerate. I've tried everything in the book to get through the amen corner of my course, but it seems I'm destined to make a triple somewhere.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

My club runs divisionalised comps anyway so there is far less discrepancy. In division 1 (0-12) most of the guys are around 36 or 37 on a good day and if you shoot 38 or 39 chances are you'll win it. The same thing happens in across the other two divisions too. At least you feel you are only competing with your peers and so if one guy in oyur division has a stormer then it isn't the same as losing to a 24 handicapper having the odd career day.

It is different in honours board events where there is only one section but as these tend to be played on the course at maximum length and with interesting pins it tends to even itself out a bit.

To be honest in winter, it makes the competitions still seem fun even if the course is wet and its cold. I'd rather have a bad stableford round than slogging it round in a medal having used all my shots by the 7th

 

[moonraker]

Our club had a stapleford comp that was over 36 holes split in 2 divisions the winning scores for each divison was div 'A' (0-18 hcp) 36+43 79pts div 'B' (19-28) 41+34 75pts, div 'A' player played of 2 his 43pts was a gross 66 which is now a new course record par is 71 new hcp 0.9

 

[sawtooth]

The thing I don't understand is countback, if I've scored the same as you, be it points, gross score, net score, whatever, then we should be tied, why should one player's score in the later holes prove the deciding factor? If we've scored the same and your score is better over the last 3 holes that simply means my score must be better over the other 15 holes, so surely I should win?

I've always thought that they put put more weighting to scores at the back end of the round because it rewards the players ability to play under pressure. I figure a par on the last is worth more than a par on the first if you know you are competing for prizes. Might be wrong on that though.

 

[Smiffy]

I play stroke play in my head, until I have a disaster, when I switch to stableford.

Must be honest. I've done the same. Usually Stableford kicks in around the 4th or 5th

 

[patricks148]

At my local course they have two stableford competitions a week which are split into two divisions 12 and below and 13 and above. You only normally get a dozen players in div one, 39 points is usually good enough to win, but group 2 sometimes has 40 players or more. 45 points wins div 2.

This probably says something???

 

[The_LHC]

The thing I don't understand is countback, if I've scored the same as you, be it points, gross score, net score, whatever, then we should be tied, why should one player's score in the later holes prove the deciding factor? If we've scored the same and your score is better over the last 3 holes that simply means my score must be better over the other 15 holes, so surely I should win?

I've always thought that they put put more weighting to scores at the back end of the round because it rewards the players ability to play under pressure. I figure a par on the last is worth more than a par on the first if you know you are competing for prizes.

Yeah but in the absence of scoreboards on every hole amateurs like us DON'T know we're competing for prizes.

I don't know but countback seems more artificial than anything else to me.

 

[bobmac]

Yeah but in the absence of scoreboards on every hole amateurs like us DON'T know we're competing for prizes.

Why not?
You must know you're playing well and scoring well so pressure does grow towards the end.
The countback rule is the way that ties are sometimes decided and everyone knows it.
If you dont like it, write to the R&A and suggest an alternative.

 

[The_LHC]

Yeah but in the absence of scoreboards on every hole amateurs like us DON'T know we're competing for prizes.

Why not?
You must know you're playing well and scoring well so pressure does grow towards the end.

Only if you pay that much attention to your score and you still have no idea what anyone else is doing.

The countback rule is the way that ties are sometimes decided and everyone knows it.
If you dont like it, write to the R&A and suggest an alternative.

That's a non-answer and you know it, the point is it doesn't reward the player who plays well over the entire round, only the player who picks it up at the end. Two scores, call it 40, player A, has a good steady round, plays good golf for 18 holes, 2 points on 14 holes, 3 points on 4 holes, and player B plays mediocre golf for 15 holes, with a couple of poor holes in there but goes (plucking it out of thin air as that's what we seem to do to support our arguments here), eagle, birdie, eagle to finish with 40 as well. Why should player B, who frankly, was playing nothing golf for most of the round get the reward over the player that played consistently good golf for 18 holes?

It's not the Open, it's a club comp, it's basically meaningless, just award a tie, who's going to worry about it?

 

[haplesshacker]

Our club has a medal once a month, and stablefords every weekend.

Though it's a good feeling for most of us when we walk off with 36 points or more, what's really noticable is that we on here always refer back to the gross score for our achievements. Ie, I broke, 100, 90, 80, 70 etc. It might be that we're a bunch of purists on here and judge our own games and progression on gross.

The obvious advantage of stableford is that you can have the odd blow up hole, depending on your handicap. But why is it that we expect to be able to play to our h'cap whilst playing sf? We're not supposed to everytime we go out, and yet we sometimes hang our head in shame when we only score 30 points. Why is that?

Sf isn't a ladies game, it just happens to cater for the vast majority of mid to higher h'capped players, with a format that doesn't kill you off after one or two bad holes. I would mind betting that most clubs entries for sf is higher than the monthly medal. And that's what it's about. Participation.

 

[The_LHC]

Though it's a good feeling for most of us when we walk off with 36 points or more, what's really noticable is that we on here always refer back to the gross score for our achievements. Ie, I broke, 100, 90, 80, 70 etc. It might be that we're a bunch of purists on here and judge our own games and progression on gross.

I don't think it's got anything to do with being "purists" (I'm not, I HATE medals!), it's simply that the gross score is the only way of comparing how well you're doing *compared to everyone else* and it's the only info required. Points are all well and good but without knowing the handicap they were scored against it's impossible to determine how good an individual actually is compared to everyone else.

 

[MashieNiblick]

We're off thread here as the discussion seems to have gone on to count back.

However here's my 4 penny worth. I agree countback is not great but what's the alternative? When it's for a trophy a tie isn't really an option. We need a winner. Play offs aren't practical. I always thought the prize should go to whichever player had the lowest gross as that would mean the prize went to the better golfer but of course that is a tad unfair on the higher handicapper.

Ok it's not perfect and might be unfair but all in all, as a practical solution, it works ok. We all know it and live with it. As Bobmac says if you have a better solution...

At the end of the day it's only a game.

 

[Lawrence22]

As an alternative on countback why not start on hole index 1 instead of hole 18. This will favour the player who played best on the hardest holes. Just a thought.

 

[The_LHC]

We're off thread here as the discussion seems to have gone on to count back.

Yeah it's the internet, that happens.

However here's my 4 penny worth. I agree countback is not great but what's the alternative? When it's for a trophy a tie isn't really an option. We need a winner.

Why? We're not Americans, what's wrong with club comps being tied? Split the prize, share the trophy over the year (do they even leave the clubhouse anyway?). Countback isn't used when the comp counts for something is it?

Play offs aren't practical. I always thought the prize should go to whichever player had the lowest gross as that would mean the prize went to the better golfer but of course that is a tad unfair on the higher handicapper.

Ok it's not perfect and might be unfair but all in all, as a practical solution, it works ok. We all know it and live with it. As Bobmac says if you have a better solution...

No, I don't, but my point is a) countback is no solution and b) it's a problem that, imo, doesn't require a solution.

At the end of the day it's only a game.

No, that's MY point, you can't have it! The level that most of us are playing, it IS only a game, so who cares if there's one winner or two?