[Brent Hutto]

Although I can get excited about a potential birdie it doesn’t compare to catching the feeling of nature enveloping the golf course.

Slightly tangential to John's point, I wish there were an official name for the game I most enjoy. I like to play the ball down and putt it out just like the game we call "Golf". But I tend to lose interest once birdie and then par are off the table (although on 420+ yard holes my personal "par" is actually five strokes) so I wish there were a game that consists only of trying to make as many pars and birdies as you can. Over time it becomes harder and harder for me to give a damn about the difference in "grinding out a bogey" versus a double, triple or worse.

In effect, this is close to the "points game" we play in our club's weekend dogfights. Bogey is one point and everything worse is zero so you basically give that bogey putt (or chip) the old college try and then pick up. As a team game that works fine, I'd just like to play the individual version and make it like one point for a par and four or five points for a birdie. I've never made an eagle (other than an ace) so I don't know how many points that would be worth!

[Peter Pallotta]

I find that I don't play any differently, but I do experience that play differently. I always try to avoid trouble and play smart good shots (within my limitations) and pay attention.  The difference is that in stroke play I find myself saying "Oh rats, another bogie" quite often; while in match play I might say "hey, a five is gonna win this hole" every once in a while. Sadness and happiness; failure and success. Ah, but they are imposters both!!

(no, not really.)

Peter

[Simon Holt]

Playing my home course very much so.  Anywhere new I like to score well but never get hot under the collar if I dont.  The score can never overshadow a good course.

I was level par playing 16 at CPC the only time I have played there.  I hit 3 balls in the water and if I had more time (and more balls!) I would have hit 5 more in there.  Score doesnt matter at a place like that.

[Martin Toal]

I am in the UK where handicaps are based on competition rounds. I don;t get to play as much golf as I used to, so therefore I try to focus my game, such as it is, on competitions, and at my home club, Bearwood Lakes, previously discussed here, I tend to play almost only competitions. I will play a few causal rounds on holiday or at other courses, but I try not to let an opportunity to get my handicap down go past. That strategy has not been successful in recent years as the handicap has remained resistant, not going up but not going down either. My 6 month winter break may not be helping.

[Scott Warren]

Didn't the Colorado tour event used to use a stableford format where birdies and eagles were exponentially better for you than bogeys were bad for you? (iefour for birdie, two for par, one for bogey - pehaps -1 for a double?)

And as Shivas alludes, Brent, what you describe is stableford, which is played a heap in Aus and the UK: 5pts for nett albatross, four for nett eagle, three for nett birdie, two for nett par, one for nett bogey and nothing for a double or worse.

[Anthony Fowler]

I used to be a serious, competitive junior golfer and I had to obsess over score.  Now that I play less often (and worse) I enjoy golf so much more.  Part of the reason is that I don't have a clue or care what I'm shooting and I just enjoy the course and the day.  I don't even like to play friendly matches because it detracts from the enjoyment of the golf, the architecture, etc.  Every once in a while, when I play well I go back and think about what I shot.  I'm always shocked to discover that I can still put together a good score every now and then.  Most of the time, however, once the round is over, it never crosses my mind what I shot.  I just want to go out again and play a few more holes.      

[Brent Hutto]

Brent, I'm with you.  I couldn't give a rat's patoot about the difference between bogey, double, triple, etc.  You're welcome in a Chicago six-point scotch game anytime...

I'll start saving up for when that opportunity arises!

Our dogfight points game is basically Stableford except turned 'round for convenience in that we simply add on points representing handicap strokes post hoc as opposed to parceling them out on the correct holes. This somewhat modifies or corrupts (depending on ones point of view) the relationship between double-digit handicappers and lower markers. As a higher handicappers I end up taking several zeroes per round but they are mostly given back to me by a big bolus of points added on at the end. If we assigned the points to holes, some of my triples or whatever would be zeroes anyway in a true net Stableford format.

So the result is to accentuate the boom or bust effect of having one or two 18+ handicappers on a team. But for some reason they guys think it's rocket science to put dots on the proper stroke holes before the round. Easier to just say "That's for double, pick it up". Which of course is fine by me!

[Matthew Petersen]

Didn't the Colorado tour event used to use a stableford format where birdies and eagles were exponentially better for you than bogeys were bad for you? (iefour for birdie, two for par, one for bogey - pehaps -1 for a double?)

And as Shivas alludes, Brent, what you describe is stableford, which is played a heap in Aus and the UK: 5pts for nett albatross, four for nett eagle, three for nett birdie, two for nett par, one for nett bogey and nothing for a double or worse.

Yes, The International (RIP) used a modified Stableford scoring system where you wanted to accumulate points. It was:

+8 double eagle
+5 eagle
+2 birdie
0 par
-1 bogey
-3 double bogey or worse

[Brett_Morrissy]

as noted above, most Australian club golfers play most of their golf in competition. Thus the scorecard is ever present. I prefer to be absorbed into the course layout where possible.

Brent:
A regular comp format here is PAR.
using handicap index, players get a half or '0' for a net par, a loss, minus " - " for bogey and worse and a plus " + " for net birdie or better.
This is the fastest format we play, if you a scratch golfer, if you can't make par you pick up.
If you are a bogey golfer (18 hcp), you pick up if you can't gross par every hole.

sounds like the game you want to play.
Brett

[Tim Martin]

I regularly play four ball but am always aware of my score. I don`t like dragging putts outside of 3 feet when posting scores for handicap. I marvel at the amount of putts that guys pick up for a variety of reasons and then get killed in money games when shots are given out. The guy with a true handicap pays far less than a guy with a "cocktail party" handicap.

[Sean_A]

I don't consider myself a pencil and paper type, but I have recorded more proper rounds these past few years than in likely 9 years previous.  Even so, I much prefer matchplay and will have a fair idea of my score even though I don't often think of score as an accurate reflection of how I played - how can you in matchplay when the game is so much about the timely shots?  You can have three holes which would wreck a card, but have enough good holes to say you played alright. 

As for what type of game you play and enjoying the architecture - it makes no difference except where the individual's biases lie.  No bias, no difference.  I also don't believe in some courses being more for stroke play and others for match play.  Courses are courses - the differences in preference is down to people.

Ciao

   


 

[Mac Plumart]

I see and read these type of posts/comments a lot and it always seems to use the term "scorecard golfer", or equivalent terms, in a negative sense.  I suppose it stems from Dr. MacKenzie's comments years ago.  But I see nothing wrong with being a scorecard golfer.  People like the game of golf for many different reasons and one of those is the challenge of scoring.  Rather than put it down, why not embrace it...along with all the other great ways to appreciate the game?   To each their own.

[Sean_A]

I see and read these type of posts/comments a lot and it always seems to use the term "scorecard golfer", or equivalent terms, in a negative sense.  I suppose it stems from Dr. MacKenzie's comments years ago.  But I see nothing wrong with being a scorecard golfer.  People like the game of golf for many different reasons and one of those is the challenge of scoring.  Rather than put it down, why not embrace it...along with all the other great ways to appreciate the game?   To each their own.

Mac

I don't think guys are getting down on scorecarders.  I think its more of a "time and place" issue.  If everybody else has a card in their fine, you may as well join in and accept the group isn't gonna finish quickly because you will be stood around twiddling your thumbs otherwise.  If the course is full of matchplay (which imo hold be the norm because its quicker and I am always amazed public courses don't push this form of game) than putting a card in your hand doesn't make sense unless you are a man or two light in your group.  Nobody playing matchplay wants to wait behind 4 guys grinding out meaningless scores.

Ciao   

[Brent Hutto]

This is the point where I always chime in and point out that for anyone subscribing to the USGA Handicap System, all match-play ends up being combined with stroke-play. The end result being golf courses full of groups playing fourball matches but grinding out meaningless scores anyway. Albeit often with conceded 4-foot putts but then again those mulligans take a little time as well.

I'm hoping after this summer's trip to the UK (for which I need a current USGA handicap card) I'll have the nerve to once and for all blow off the idiotic thing. But I'll ultimately succumb to peer pressure, no doubt.

[Scott Warren]

Mac

I don't think guys are getting down on scorecarders.  I think its more of a "time and place" issue.  If everybody else has a card in their fine, you may as well join in and accept the group isn't gonna finish quickly because you will be stood around twiddling your thumbs otherwise.  If the course is full of matchplay (which imo hold be the norm because its quicker and I am always amazed public courses don't push this form of game) than putting a card in your hand doesn't make sense unless you are a man or two light in your group.  Nobody playing matchplay wants to wait behind 4 guys grinding out meaningless scores.

Ciao   

Two things:

1. You're assuming matchplay is much faster. I'm not so sure. IMO it comes back to fast players play fast - stroke, stableford, match - and slow players play slow.

2. "Meaningless scores"? Meaningless to whom? If the score matters to the guy posting it, that's all that matters to me.

[Sean_A]

Mac

I don't think guys are getting down on scorecarders.  I think its more of a "time and place" issue.  If everybody else has a card in their fine, you may as well join in and accept the group isn't gonna finish quickly because you will be stood around twiddling your thumbs otherwise.  If the course is full of matchplay (which imo hold be the norm because its quicker and I am always amazed public courses don't push this form of game) than putting a card in your hand doesn't make sense unless you are a man or two light in your group.  Nobody playing matchplay wants to wait behind 4 guys grinding out meaningless scores.

Ciao   

Two things:

1. You're assuming matchplay is much faster. I'm not so sure. IMO it comes back to fast players play fast - stroke, stableford, match - and slow players play slow.

2. "Meaningless scores"? Meaningless to whom? If the score matters to the guy posting it, that's all that matters to me.

Scott

Ok, a fast player will play faster in matchplay.  I don't see how the idea of matchplay being a quicker game than strokeplay can be debated - its a no brainer.  You may change our tune about strokeplay when you spend 10 years waiting behind 4 balls grinding out 3 footers. 

Ciao   

[Mac Plumart]

"Meaningless scores"? Meaningless to whom? If the score matters to the guy posting it, that's all that matters to me.

This is my point.  Some people take their score seriously, so their score matters to them.  And that is why they play golf, to compete with themselves or with others...they live for the competition.

I certainly get the slow play issue, but the two are not neccessairly linked. 

[Scott Warren]

Scott

Ok, a fast player will play faster in matchplay.  I don't see how the idea of matchplay being a quicker game than strokeplay can be debated - its a no brainer.  You may change our tune about strokeplay when you spend 10 years waiting behind 4 balls grinding out 3 footers. 

Ciao   

I'm with you there, I play matchplay quicker than stroke and I think for probably every golfer that is true. But I will guarantee I also play strokeplay faster than others play matchplay.

I agree slow play is a problem - my club back home was 4h45m for a fourball to play stableford - but I think the problem is the golfers, not the games they're playing. There'd be blokes who could get a round of foursomes to last 4h30 if they put their mind to it.

As far as changing my tune, I've been waiting behind wankers wasting their time and mine since I was 12. I thought it was unavoidable, but then I joined Deal.

I'm not sure I have the energy to take on the battle of trying to change people who don't want to be changed, so I figure the best I can hope for is to avoid courses and events where slow play is likely to be a problem.

[Jud_T]

There are plenty of other threads about this topic.  Those of us who usually play quickly and almost always play a match vs. those who agonize over every 2 footer to as the only way to post a "real" score....ugh.....

[Anthony Gray]

  Honestly never keep score. Don't want to be embarrased for one and don't need competition on my day off either.

  Anthony

[Steve Lang]

  mainly for distances and those pearls of gca instruction like " aim left of the deep chasm of death on the right.."

at one time.. enough of a scorecard golfer to claim a 5 index, but over the years its evolved into why grind/fret over every mistake when you're out for exercise and fun with friends.. after all, i never met a sucker shot i didn;t like.. however competition is another thing..  real men don't take strokes, but if you want some, let's discuss.. the rules of engagement

[Mac Plumart]

I love the last two posts...

One says, I don't keep score as I don't need the competition (I read stress) on my day off.

The other says, competition is another thing...real men don't take strokes.

Seemingly two different mind sets, but both obviously love and enjoy golf.  Both are correct.

For the record, I am with the I don't need/want the stress.  I am just about stressed out of my mind with business/life, so I use golf as my escape to a place of peace and serenity.  A four hour walk in the park, if you will.  Anything that makes it stressful or unfun, I avoid.  Not worth it to me!

[Scott Warren]

Steve, you are right. I compare taking shots and winning to taking a 40m head start from Usain Bolt and then bragging that you beat him in a race.

I know all the arguments why the handicap system is great... I just don't buy it. If the guy I am playing is a higher cap and wants shots, I'll happily give them, but if I am receiving - especially in a singles match - let's just have it and see if I can dig deep enough.

[Tony_Muldoon]

after all, i never met a sucker shot i didn;t like..

 

[Tony_Muldoon]

A plea to those who do keep score, do it on the next tee when it won't slow anyone (including you) down.


Thanks, just sayin...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()