I agree with the idea of some sort of maximum score. Below is something I wrote a few months ago (under the Modest Proposal thread). Apologies if you already saw it, but I thought it would fit in this discussion too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As many have noted through the years, the shift from match play to medal play has had a negative impact on many aspects of golf from architecture to pace-of-play to the increasing complexity of the rules. The problem with stroke play always comes back to questions of fairness. Players have to have a way to finish every hole and there is a general sense that the impact of one bad swing should not disproportionately impact the entire round or tournament. So, we need pages of rules and decisions on the rules to handle every possible circumstance. In designing a course, architects have to be careful that bunkers are not “too deep” and swales are not too steep and anything different or quirky becomes a magnet for claims of unfairness. All of this is a negative for the game in my opinion, but I think the “card and pencil” mentality is here to stay. Despite that, here is a modest proposal for one possible compromise.
What if golf introduced the concept of maximum score per hole in all events, not just for handicap purposes? Maybe it could be 2 strokes worse than a player’s handicap on a given hole. So, if you carry an 8 handicap, then your max would be a triple on the first 8 handicap holes and a double-bogey on the rest. Max for a scratch player (or better) would just be double-bogey on every hole. With that in place, I think they could eliminate about 70% of the rules and just go back to a pure “play it as it lies” mentality. The penalty for virtually everything could be stroke and distance and for more severe infractions (e.g. playing the wrong ball, improving one’s lie, etc.) maybe the penalty would just be to take your max. We would no longer need differing rules for water hazards, lateral hazards, unplayable lies, immovable obstructions, etc. etc. There would still be some rules that might carry a one shot penalty, such as moving a ball at rest, but most would be stroke-and-distance or “loss” of hole (i.e. max score). Some cases might seem somewhat harsh or unfair, but it cannot be THAT bad. Worst case you just get the maximum score and move on. That would reduce the fairness gripe and would solve the “finishing-the-hole” problem. Granted, you would lose the occasional Van de Velde moment and, in theory, a player could win a medal event on the 16th hole (if he had a big lead), but that is pretty rare and so what? I think the benefits would far outweigh the negatives. If Tiger hits two out of bounds, then he cards his double and moves on. The only extra rules necessary would be for outside agencies (squirrel steals ball) and some abnormal ground conditions (GUR, etc.). I would even scrap the concept of immovable obstructions and the like. If you are a tour player and you hit it in the grandstand, then you can replay the shot with a penalty or try to hack it off the bleachers. Don’t complain, just don’t hit it in there. You are a professional for God’s sake. Is stroke and distance too harsh for a water hazard? Maybe, but it sure would be simple. I guess you could even leave those rules in place, but it starts to be a slippery slope and I am not convinced that it wouldn't be easier to just stick with stroke and distance.
I started thinking about this because my son plays in some junior tournaments where they have a “double par max” rule in effect. It is a great rule to keep play moving and it rarely affects the outcome. If a kid hits his third into a bunker and then skulls it such that it embeds in the lip, he does not call a rules official over to determine whether the lip is a “closely mown area” or part of the bunker or to decide where he gets his drop. Generally, he just picks it up and takes his 8. It would be radical, but it works. Also, it is not that foreign a concept. The USGA already uses a version of this in determining handicaps with its “equitable stroke control”. Also, the double-max rule is already effectively in place in tournaments using any sort of Stableford scoring system.
In addition to simplifying the basic rules, such a change might:
- Free up architects to design more interesting features
- Discourage courses from converting par 5s to par 4s, since such a change would in effect make it “easier” for players (lower the maximum score).
- Speed up play
- Encourage Tour players to take more risks, which might add excitement to the game
- Eliminate the need for distinctions between match and stroke play in the rules ("loss of hole" would become the equivalent of "take maximum score")
I am well aware that it will never happen, so there is no need to lecture me on the all the reasons the USGA or R&A will not actually do it. I just thought it might be good food for thought. I would be interested in any opinions about why it would not work in practice or what negative consequences it might have that make it just a bad idea. Some might worry about the the purity of not always "holing out", but given that the history of the game is really in match play, I don't know that there is any real historic tradition attached to that concept.