Should Classics Just Remove Par From Their Scorecards?

[Wayne_Kozun]

Could someone explain why you need hole pars for a Stableford system?  On a par 72 course your stableford score is simply 108- # of strokes. So why does it matter what par any given hole plays at?  This assumes the normal, linear Stableford system. The scoring system doesn't care if you go birdie - bogey or par -par in Stableford that will gain you four points. Or you could give two points for scoring a four, three points for a three and one point for scoring a five.


Stableford just makes it easier to keep track of your score during the round.


Maybe it is easier to keep track of points but it gets you to the same place in the end.

[Thomas Dai]

I reckon that the first time I played Muirfield, which was many moons ago, there was no data on the tees except hole number and yardage. I think the scorecards mentioned par though.
Atb

[Kalen Braley]

Wayne,


It does matter because the number of points you earn could be offset by something worse than bogey.


For example, if I go birdie/ double bogey, I'm left with 3 points, 3 for the bird, 0 for the double.


But if you're counting all those strokes in aggregate, those two extra strokes will take away points at the end that would have not hurt me otherwise.

[Sean_A]

Or you could give two points for scoring a four, three points for a three and one point for scoring a five.

This would be an interesting version of Stableford!  I bet in the end it wouldn't make much difference to using par.  Obviously, doing well on par 3s would be a huge boost to the score so perhaps better players would have an advantage with the new premium placed on par 3s.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Or you could give two points for scoring a four, three points for a three and one point for scoring a five.
This would be an interesting version of Stableford!  I bet in the end it wouldn't make much difference to using par.  Obviously, doing well on par 3s would be a huge boost to the score. 
Ciao

Worth a go though.
Would you use the same stroke index or a different one? Especially, as has been debated on GCA before, as SI is based on match-play not stableford.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff W:  I agree with your idea of keeping short par-5's as par-5's but you forgot the flip side:  to defend par on these holes many clubs plant trees to narrow the landing area.  Or, they stick a pond in front of the green, as on the 8th at Bel Air.  I think I've won the battle to remove that pond, but it was a bloody one.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne,


It does matter because the number of points you earn could be offset by something worse than bogey.


For example, if I go birdie/ double bogey, I'm left with 3 points, 3 for the bird, 0 for the double.


But if you're counting all those strokes in aggregate, those two extra strokes will take away points at the end that would have not hurt me otherwise.

I think it only matters if you limit the downside at 0 points for a double bogey which doesn't have to be the case - we use Stableford for the club championship for most flights at my club and the worst you can score is -1 for a triple bogey. There is also the non linear modified Stableford system that they used to use at the International PGATour event that had a non-linear system to encourage birdies and eagles. But barring non-linearity and floors a Stableford score is directly translatable into a regular stroke count.


And here in North America people often use the ESC method of scoring which limits the worst score on a hole to double bogeys for single digit handicaps and a 7 for 10-18 handicaps. So that is pretty similar to the common Stableford points system with a floor of zero points for a double bogey.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm selfish, and greedy. I want it all. I look for every opportunity to glorify myself. I play the game for self-gratification - to bolster my ego, to feel good about myself, and to impress others. So if I shoot a 76 and it's the best total score in my group, I'm going to be crowing about that score as if par was utterly meaningless; but if it *isn't* the best total score that day, I'll instead focus on my two or three birdies and long string of pars -- as if par were the most important and telling thing in all the world. And on the off-chance that a 76 *ties* for best score of the day, I will find a way to do *both*, ie to hold two mutually exclusive belief systems simultaneously -- par being both meaningless and arbitrary but at the exact same time the most basic and fundamental of all possible metrics.
Ah, it feels nice to admit that...

[John Kavanaugh]

I would like to know the most 4's, 3's or 2's I've ever made in one round. I'm guessing 17, 8 and 4. What an odd way to describe a round.

[Jason Topp]

Removing par might promote the building of holes of 475 yards and from 250-280.  I think such holes can be great fun but we perceive them as brutes if the par is the lower number and as easy if par is the higher number.