[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Every now and again on GCA.com, I come across a pejorative statement concerning the "pencil and scorecard". I have a rough idea why some people feel the way they do about the pencil and scorecard, but I'd like a full explanation. I've been playing golf long enough to apprecaite both froms of the game, so please enlighten me, I'm all ears.

Dónal.

[Brian Phillips]

It takes forever.
It is not the truest form of golf.
The majority of players are not good enough to really enjoy it.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

It takes forever.
It is not the truest form of golf.
The majority of players are not good enough to really enjoy it.

Brian:

I think both forms have their pros and cons. Match play in wonderful, but so is stroke/stableford. I'm just confused about the attitute some people have towards the pencil and scorecard.

Two guys battling it out in match play scoring 9s and 10s will take forever as well. I don't agree that players are not good enough. If you have a stableford competition, the high handicapper can pick up when he's got no chance of getting a point. This also applies to the scratch golfer as well.

Stroke/Stableford is the only way to judge what handicap you can play to. Isn't this one of the reasons why we play the game? We want to get better, and the only way to compare your ability with others, is by way of a HCap.

Is anybody seriously going to tell me that they'd be happy scoring 9s and 10s as long as they won their match?

Dónal.

[Brian Phillips]

Donal,

I am a crap 9 handicap player and all I care about is winning the hole.  Seriously, I do not care what I score as long as win the hole!

[Brent Hutto]

From a GCA perspective, the downside of the medal-play mentality is that a hole or a course will inevitably be judged not only for its merit as a challenge to the player or as a venue for a (match-play) game to be played but for its implications on a stroke-play score. It leads to so-called "fairness" being called into question if under certain conditions or for certain players it will potentially result in an unreasonable score (eight or more strokes) or even be difficult to complete.

It's not that much of a stretch to imagine a short-hitting bogey golfer having a certain forced carry barely within his limitations on an otherwise very desirable course. From a (proper IMO) match-play mentality, if it's a great and fun course that just happens to require my very best shot on the 16th hole (imagine Cypress Point if there were no layup opportunity to the left) that's no big deal. I play the first fifteen holes, give it my best shot once or twice on the 16th and then if I can't make the carry I move on and enjoy the last two holes. The card-and-pencil mentality would incline me toward the idea that for my level of player such a hole "ruins the whole round' which is nonsense.

More generally, American golfers tend to be so fundamentally oriented toward stroke play (in part by their stupid handicap system) that we judge shots or holes as much by the possibility they offer for "disaster" as by the possibilities they offer for fun or for a rare outstanding shot or score. That's the pity of it.

[Mark Pearce]

Donal,

I'm with you.  I play golf as a sport, even if I'm not good at it.  I like to know what I have scored because it gives me an indication of how my game is.  I'm intelligent enough to realise, however, that if I take a 9 on a hole it doesn't make it a bad hole or that if I score badly it's a bad course.

I understand the arguments put forward by the anti-card and pencil lobby.  However, if a large proportion of golfers take a 9 on a hole then I would question whether it is a good hole.  That is not to say, however, that a hole where there is an option to make an easy(ish) bogey I wouldn't choose to risk a big score by going for the dramatic par or birdie.  I haven't played the 16th at CPC, I'd love, one day, to get the chance.  If I ever do, there is no way I'll lay up (unless it's in the even more unlikely event that I'm playing a strokeplay competiion of some sort!).  I loved the 5th at Anstruther, despite putting 4 balls in the North Sea trying to drive that green.  I know, however, that in a competition there I'd lay up.

I wonder if Brent is right and that the problem with card and pencil is really (yet another) problem with the USGA handficapping system?

[Brent Hutto]

One minor quibble. Nothing I said about stroke play applies to Stableford. I consider Stableford play to be an excellent manner of contesting non-head-to-head games where match-play is not an option while avoiding the drawbacks of medal play. I don't think routine Stableford games would have the negative effects I alluded to at all.

[Jud_T]

Mark,

I think Brent is right on the money.  In the states there is an obsession with gross medal score that often undermines the fun element of the game (and quick play!).  By the way, have you played #9 at Kingsley?  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Brian

Winning is not the point, its never has been, its not just the taking part that matters, its doing your best and taking enjoyment in pushing yourself. Winning is just a bonus.

The game today is all about winning which in turn has allowed disgraceful behaviour to materialise on our courses in the search for personal glory and financial rewards with very little consideration for the game itself.

How many have forgotten why they started playing golf in the first place. Financial rewards, I am certain was not the initial driving force for the majority, but then most tend to lose something (compassion, consideration etc) when converting to making money out of what they once just enjoyed.

So in my humble opinion the modern craving of winning is just for losers.

Don’t believe me, then look at those who have been seeking immortality recently. How many have actually achieved it without help from technology and distance information, was it winning under their own steam or did they actually benefit by using outside help?

The modern culture of winners is like a pyramid, but what about the also ran’s,  for without them there would be no winners. Competitions are not always full of winners, yet you tend to always see their names way low on the list competition after competition. Without them there can never be a winner, so it is not all about winning and as I said above modern winners are for the most part the loser as IMHO they have forgotten their reason for playing golf in the first place.

Nevertheless each to his/her own, but remember it’s a game called golf  which can be played alone with friends or in a competition. Pencil and scorecard are used as a guide to ones game and not just to win.

Melvyn 

[Greg Krueger]

In Stroke play you can play against hundreds of players, in Match play you are playing against 1. It's also a better way to measure your progression.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Donal,

I am a crap 9 handicap player and all I care about is winning the hole.  Seriously, I do not care what I score as long as win the hole!

Brian:

But maybe that's why you're a "crap 9 handicap player" (your words not mine).   Wouldn't you like to be a crap 8 or 7 or 6?

Many golfers don't realise it, but playing the percentage game (medal-play mentality) will make you a better match-player. You'll become more consistent. Match-play goes easy on you and allows you to let your guard slip.

From a GCA perspective, the downside of the medal-play mentality is that a hole or a course will inevitably be judged not only for its merit as a challenge to the player or as a venue for a (match-play) game to be played but for its implications on a stroke-play score. It leads to so-called "fairness" being called into question if under certain conditions or for certain players it will potentially result in an unreasonable score (eight or more strokes) or even be difficult to complete.

The format of the game should not influence how we rate a hole, but yes I agree that with some people it might be so. But that's not the fault of medal-play; that's a mentality issue.

It's not that much of a stretch to imagine a short-hitting bogey golfer having a certain forced carry barely within his limitations on an otherwise very desirable course. From a (proper IMO) match-play mentality, if it's a great and fun course that just happens to require my very best shot on the 16th hole (imagine Cypress Point if there were no layup opportunity to the left) that's no big deal. I play the first fifteen holes, give it my best shot once or twice on the 16th and then if I can't make the carry I move on and enjoy the last two holes. The card-and-pencil mentality would incline me toward the idea that for my level of player such a hole "ruins the whole round' which is nonsense.

This is why stableford is so popular, and needed.

Winning is not the point, its never has been, its not just the taking part that matters, its doing your best and taking enjoyment in pushing yourself. Winning is just a bonus.

Melvyn:

This is why I have always loved stroke/stableford. I don't need to win, I just want to improve on my previous best score and hopefully lower my HCap.

Dónal.

[Mike McGuire]

From Concerning Golf by John L. Low

“The natural egotism of men and nations joining in the game made popular, however, for a long time the single form of the sport. The beginner wished to know his own worth as a player day by day, and conceived the plan of writing his autobiography on small pieces of paper planned for the purpose. Golf became for him of interest only so far as his own total of hits and misses was concerned. The battle proper was of small account; even victory and defeat were terms of mild comparison. The one and only interest lay in the daily attempts to reduce the total strokes which were required to compass a given number of holes. In this selfish struggle it is little wonder that the position and very life of the game was for a time assailed. It became no longer a friendly affair of the skill of one man as compared to another, or of two men compared to two, but rather an individual attempt to perform some feat irrespective of rivalry or contest. “

[Mark Pearce]

The answer is simple:

Golf is played against a person, not against a scorecard.

That's what's wrong with it.  I know way too many people who would rather lose shooting 75 than win shooting 80.  Why?  Because they're only playing against themselves and their scorecard, which is nothing more than the ego taking physical form for far too many golfers.   

I hate to break the news to you but all four Majors, all US PGA and European Tour events, all LPGA events, many significant Amateur events and most club competitions are played against a field of players and the lowest score on the scorecard wins.  Perhaps you should get out more?

[Mike McGuire]

The USGA hosts 11 tournaments for amateurs. Guess how many are medal play?

[Scott Warren]

The answer is simple:

Golf is played against a person, not against a scorecard.

So if I head out for a game on my own, how do I gauge how I played?

If I head out with three mates, how do we gauge how we each played relative to each other?

Match-play is played against 1 person, all other golf (which for me at least makes up about 95% of the golf I have ever played) relies on a score as a basis for comparison - either against yourself or others.

[Mark Pearce]

The USGA hosts 11 tournaments for amateurs. Guess how many are medal play?

I'm going to guess that all 11 have at least medal qualifying.

[Bill_McBride]

The answer is simple:

Golf is played against a person, not against a scorecard.

So if I head out for a game on my own, how do I gauge how I played?

If I head out with three mates, how do we gauge how we each played relative to each other?

Match-play is played against 1 person, all other golf (which for me at least makes up about 95% of the golf I have ever played) relies on a score as a basis for comparison - either against yourself or others.

"Match play is played against 1 person....."

Well yes, except for four ball (best ball) and foursomes, my two favorite forms of competitive golf.

(In singles match play there's no one to blame but yourself!)   

[Scott Warren]

If Mark is hamfisted, Shivas, I reckon you might make a good pair for him: Hamfisted and Pigheaded.

[Mark Pearce]

If Mark is hamfisted, Shivas, I reckon you might make a good pair for him: Hamfisted and Pigheaded.

Hamfisted? Me? Where?

I'm mildly disappointed in Shivas on this thread.  He may often be wrong but he's normally rigorously argued and wrong.

[Bill_McBride]

To quote the Good Doctor (pg 256, The Spirit of St Andrews), "'Surely there is more fun in a contest against flesh and blood than against a card and pencil."

"Fun" being the operative word.  He goes on to say, "There are many of us who firmly believe that a contest between flesh and blood is the only true form of golf, and that too much attention to score play is detrimental to the real interest of the game."

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

The answer is simple:

Golf is played against a person, not against a scorecard.

That's what's wrong with it.  I know way too many people who would rather lose shooting 75 than win shooting 80.  Why?  Because they're only playing against themselves and their scorecard, which is nothing more than the ego taking physical form for far too many golfers.   

Shivas:

What happens if your opponent has a bad day and shoots 115 (assuming he was counting secretly ). What is gained in beating him 7&8? Nothing! It's a drubbing and no amount of analysis is going to make the winner feel that he's achieved something. There are drawback to playing against an opponent one-on-one. The match is only as good as your opponent is. If he sucks, the game sucks!

If you translate that to ordinary life, does it mean that we shouldn't try to measure ability, competence, aptitude, etc.? Why is it called ego with regards to golf, but not in everyday life?

Dónal.

 

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

From Concerning Golf by John L. Low

“It became no longer a friendly affair of the skill of one man as compared to another, or of two men compared to two, but rather an individual attempt to perform some feat irrespective of rivalry or contest. “

I'm not sure what type of matches Sir John played, but in match-play, I've seen some of the most low down, dirty, nasty gamesmanship ever. I've seen opponents that wouldn't talk to each other, even a guy playing a foursomes match yelling at his playing partner for talking to one of the opponents. I've never seen that in medal-play.

Dónal.

[Bob_Huntley]

From Concerning Golf by John L. Low

“The natural egotism of men and nations joining in the game made popular, however, for a long time the single form of the sport. The beginner wished to know his own worth as a player day by day, and conceived the plan of writing his autobiography on small pieces of paper planned for the purpose. Golf became for him of interest only so far as his own total of hits and misses was concerned. The battle proper was of small account; even victory and defeat were terms of mild comparison. The one and only interest lay in the daily attempts to reduce the total strokes which were required to compass a given number of holes. In this selfish struggle it is little wonder that the position and very life of the game was for a time assailed. It became no longer a friendly affair of the skill of one man as compared to another, or of two men compared to two, but rather an individual attempt to perform some feat irrespective of rivalry or contest. “


Gosh I wish I had said that.

The USGA is continually harping on about slow play; their own handicapping system, GHIN, is mostly to blame. I see clubs appoint Handicap Czars to monitor that members post their scores and send letters to miscreants that don't. I would hazard a guess that in three-quarters of rounds played in non-competitive games, no  one adds the Mulligan to the total.

Bob

[Lou_Duran]

As a self-appointed president of the Card and Pencil Society, those who can play medal and keep score; those who can't put the ball in their pockets and wax poetically about design intent, the highest order of strategy, and how they're just having fun playing a few holes decently while not finishing several of the others.  Oh, BTW, I can probably keep up with most of you while still submitting a score within the spirit of handicap rules.

Bob,

Off the first tee with no warm up, I've been known to "forget" my first drive if that's what the group decided.  Otherwise, count them all.

[Scott Warren]

If Mark is hamfisted, Shivas, I reckon you might make a good pair for him: Hamfisted and Pigheaded.

Hamfisted? Me? Where?

So sayeth the Shivas. Post #14.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()