News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2011, 02:09:22 AM »
Bill has it correct. The handicap that matters is course handicap and it determines the ESC limit according to Bill's chart.

The typical after-round conversation in the groups I play would proably most times make the distinction between a real 78 and a 78 with a couple of pick-ups. Most people would say something like "I had a 78 but picked up twice". I'd probably say something more like "It'll go in the computer as a 92 but it was way worse than that". Most poeple seem perfectly aware it's not a real score, they just have no particular interest in the real score as it matters not for the team game, for their bets or for the computer.
Like Scott says, though, that's just a joke.  If you walked into a clubhouse in the UK and said "I shot 79 but picked up twice" you'd never be taken seriously again.  "I shot 37 points with a couple of blobs", however, makes sense.  In the UK, if you say you shot 79 then you shot 79, not a no return.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2011, 02:10:38 AM »
Yes, I have no memory of ever talking about any score in the US except the real score.  Everybody I knew basically thought the ESC business was a scam and yes, we did pick up after not being able to beat a double (not in comps obviously - just friendly play).  Its wierd to think somebody would go on about 78 when they actually shot x, y or z.  They must be odd ducks down south.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brent Hutto

Re: Stableford
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2011, 08:12:53 AM »
Nobody's "going on" about a 78. They're not claiming that's a medal score. They're not claiming it's equivalent of a 78 shot in a stroke-play tournament. My whole point is, they don't shoot medal scores. They don't play in stroke-play tournaments (except once a year in the club championship). They don't compare their games to people who do play in stroke-play tournaments. And nobody's bragging about their score.

We draw into 4-man teams. We keep "points" scores. We tally it up afterward and split the pot. All that matters in that context is your pick-up-after-double score relative to your handicap. And it matters that your handicap is honest.

So don't put words in their mouth. They're answering the (implicit) question "What score are you going to type into the computer" when someone says "What did you shoot". The in-the-computer scores are the only kind that matter because that's what their handicap is based on and having that handicap is the only reason they keep score in the first place.

Believe me, if the "score" were a Rules of Golf stroke-play score they would all answer the same...

"What did you shoot out there today, Bob?"
"I had a DQ".

"How about you, Ray?"
"DQ for me".

"Brent, how'd you do?"
"That would be DQ".
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 08:16:24 AM by Brent Hutto »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2011, 08:27:16 AM »
Nobody's "going on" about a 78. They're not claiming that's a medal score. They're not claiming it's equivalent of a 78 shot in a stroke-play tournament. My whole point is, they don't shoot medal scores. They don't play in stroke-play tournaments (except once a year in the club championship). They don't compare their games to people who do play in stroke-play tournaments. And nobody's bragging about their score.

We draw into 4-man teams. We keep "points" scores. We tally it up afterward and split the pot. All that matters in that context is your pick-up-after-double score relative to your handicap. And it matters that your handicap is honest.

So don't put words in their mouth. They're answering the (implicit) question "What score are you going to type into the computer" when someone says "What did you shoot". The in-the-computer scores are the only kind that matter because that's what their handicap is based on and having that handicap is the only reason they keep score in the first place.

Believe me, if the "score" were a Rules of Golf stroke-play score they would all answer the same...

"What did you shoot out there today, Bob?"
"I had a DQ".

"How about you, Ray?"
"DQ for me".

"Brent, how'd you do?"
"That would be DQ".


Brent

You have lost me.  If its a points game, one would say they had so many points.  Isn't what you slap into the computer the points (I know the score is put in, but the computer translates it)?  What other numbers can you put into the computer if you are allowed to pick up?  I can understand if someone who holed out 18 holes said his points score was such and such and btw his medal score (as it were) was such and such, but the medal score is just for laughs.  The score on the day is the points score - no?  

Ciao
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 08:30:48 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brent Hutto

Re: Stableford
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2011, 08:34:13 AM »
The USGA handicap system doesn't know points from peanuts. This is the essence of the "problem" I have with the system.

If you play a 4-ball match with your same group 100 times a year, then you type in 100 pseudo-stroke-play scores to the handicap computer. Using a bunch of arcane approximations and guesses to get a score from a game that doesn't really admit scorekeeping in the first place.

Or if like some members of my club you play the "points" game 120-150 times a year. Same thing. Each time you type in an interpolated stroke-play score in accordance with the handicap rules.

Then of course a couple rounds a year of actual by-the-Rules stroke play goes into the computer, too. With adjustments to eliminate anything over double-bogey, etc. according to Bill's charts.

But there only one type of score goes into the computer for all those round (as well as rounds practicing on the course by yourself, etc.) and that's a box that says "Score" to which you type in a two or three digit number. So does clarify why "Score" for these guys means only "What are you going to type in the computer"?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2011, 08:44:18 AM »
Brent

That is really odd.  In the UK one types in his score except on the holes he blobbed.  For those one types a "0".  Its the difference between Stableford and Medal.  The final tally is then a Stableford score, not a Medal score.  There is no exact correlation between the two so far as I am concerned, though I bet there are complicated formulas to create a correlation.  I am guessing that if CONGU required 4 medal scores each for handicapping purposes than many UK golfers would be up the creek.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2011, 08:55:01 AM »
Questions for the UK guys.

I really like palying the Stableford system but it is rarely used in the US. I used to go to Mrytle Beach with 12 guys and he developed a quota for each guy based on their ability (and we adjusted every night based on that day's play.)

When you play stableford in the UK, do you use quotas?

Do you use this modified stableford point system?

Points Strokes taken in relation to adjusted fixed score
0 2 strokes or more over, or no score recorded
1 1 stroke over
2 Same number of strokes
3 1 stroke under
4 2 strokes under
5 3 strokes under
6 4 strokes under

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2011, 09:02:48 AM »
Bill,

We use our CONGU handicaps and play a game where net double bogey or worse is 0 pts, net bogey is 1, net par is 2 and so on.  I'm not sure what you mean by a quota or an adjusted fixed score?

All the evidence I have (conversations with US golfers, including at the Mashie last weekend, threads on GCA including this one included) suggests that the US GHIN handicap system is, at best, bonkers.  All that complicated maths to process a bunch of worthless data and to do it so frequently.  Madness.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2011, 09:16:04 AM »
The golf group I play in every weekend (or used to play every weekend before the kid came -- but they're still active) uses a Stableford every Sat & Sunday morning.  Usually 32-48 or so guys in the group.

It works really well because you can pick up after a bogey.  And only scores from within the group count toward the handicap.
We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

Paul Stephenson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2011, 10:12:33 AM »
Stableford is fun, but I think it is totally pointless if it is 1 point for bogey, 2 points for par, 3 points for birdie etc. Then we are just reversing the scoring (plus is better instead of minus) and eliminating anything over a bogey. Might as well just play regular golf and take no more than double. It should be more like 1 for bogey, 2 for par, 4 for birdie, 8 for eagle.

This is exactly how we score our Sunday morning game with about 16-20 single digit handicaps.  We total the gross quotas and then add our handicaps (or subtract in a couple of cases).  Low person gets some money back and then we draw 2-man teams for first and second money..

Our clubs calls this format Quota points.  Is this a uniquely Canadian thing?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 10:14:14 AM by Paul Stephenson »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2011, 10:16:33 AM »
Bill,

We use our CONGU handicaps and play a game where net double bogey or worse is 0 pts, net bogey is 1, net par is 2 and so on.  I'm not sure what you mean by a quota or an adjusted fixed score?

All the evidence I have (conversations with US golfers, including at the Mashie last weekend, threads on GCA including this one included) suggests that the US GHIN handicap system is, at best, bonkers.  All that complicated maths to process a bunch of worthless data and to do it so frequently.  Madness.

Mark,

Thanks, you use the same point system I copied above. You also use net points based on handicaps. Since I brought it up, I should explain how the quota system works. Let's say I am a 6 handicap and my average score would be about 80, one birdie, 9 pars and 7 bogies and one double perhaps.  28 stableford points would be my "quota." Another guys averages 90 and we'll say he averages 4 pars, 9 bogies and 5 others and his "quota" is 17. Our match is then a comparison of how each guy did compared to his quota. It really is the same thing as net scoring, as long as the quota is accurate, but the same can be said for your CONGU handicap.

In Mrytle Beach we had a few guys who did not play all that often, so we guessed at their starting handicap/quota, then averaged the quota plus actual points won each round so guys were not "stuck" with bad handicaps the whole time we were there. It worked out very well and kept the bitching to a minimum.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2011, 10:21:07 AM by Bill Brightly »

Carl Nichols

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2011, 10:34:14 AM »
Brent is describing exactly how things work at my club.  A typical game is a four-ball, with everyone stroking off the low handicap in the group.  Because it's match play, putts for bogeys and double-bogeys are often conceded, usually as irrelevant -- and scores above double-bogey are almost always irrelevant and get discarded when posting a score.  But because we have to post every score in the US, regardless of whether you played medal or match play, you still have to do two things if you're an 8-handicap or below:  (1) estimate what you would've gotten on each hole that you didn't finish; and (2) calculate your score where you take no more than double-bogey on any hole.  That's the score you post into the computer. 

When someone says "I shot 78," I know that he might've been conceded a putt or putts, and did his best to estimate whether he might've made them.  At my club, when someone says that, it usually means they didn't have more than a double.  Instead, someone might say "I shot 78 and posted 77," or something like that, in which case I know that means he made triple on a hole. 

No one is under any misconception that a 78 in those circumstances is the same as a 78 in full medal play. 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2011, 11:16:15 AM »
Bill,

We use our CONGU handicaps and play a game where net double bogey or worse is 0 pts, net bogey is 1, net par is 2 and so on.  I'm not sure what you mean by a quota or an adjusted fixed score?

All the evidence I have (conversations with US golfers, including at the Mashie last weekend, threads on GCA including this one included) suggests that the US GHIN handicap system is, at best, bonkers.  All that complicated maths to process a bunch of worthless data and to do it so frequently.  Madness.

Mark,

Thanks, you use the same point system I copied above. You also use net points based on handicaps. Since I brought it up, I should explain how the quota system works. Let's say I am a 6 handicap and my average score would be about 80, one birdie, 9 pars and 7 bogies and one double perhaps.  28 stableford points would be my "quota." Another guys averages 90 and we'll say he averages 4 pars, 9 bogies and 5 others and his "quota" is 17. Our match is then a comparison of how each guy did compared to his quota. It really is the same thing as net scoring, as long as the quota is accurate, but the same can be said for your CONGU handicap.

In Mrytle Beach we had a few guys who did not play all that often, so we guessed at their starting handicap/quota, then averaged the quota plus actual points won each round so guys were not "stuck" with bad handicaps the whole time we were there. It worked out very well and kept the bitching to a minimum.

Bill

It sounds like your quota is what you expect someone to score and that number changes depending on the person?.  In the UK the quota is always 36 (two points per hole) points, although scoring 36 will invariably get you in the top 15% or so and on a very tough day it may win. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #38 on: May 27, 2011, 11:22:08 AM »
I can't get my head around this line that guys in the US are playing stroke rounds using ESC not just for handicapping but for scoring and then sitting around the clubhouse telling people "I shot a 78" when that 78 included any number of holes where you picked your ball up and wrote down double bogey!

You'd get laughed out of the club if you tried that in the UK or Aus!

My understanding, in any case, was that ESC was a nett double bogey, not scratch double bogey?

No, apparently we aren't as obnoxious as those from OZ, because we don't go around bragging about our scores. It is a secret we share with the computer only.
:P
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #39 on: May 27, 2011, 11:43:18 AM »
In my entire life in golf (some 32 years now) I have known it to be used at every club I have ever been a part of as a member and/or employee.

To say it is rarely used in the US strikes me as odd, though I am rather isolated here in backwoods Appalachia. Perhaps with all of the Scottish/English/Welsh heritage in my area we simply haven't been able to grow out of using Dr. Stableford's scoring system! ;D

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #40 on: May 27, 2011, 01:00:07 PM »
In my entire life in golf (some 32 years now) I have known it to be used at every club I have ever been a part of as a member and/or employee.

To say it is rarely used in the US strikes me as odd, though I am rather isolated here in backwoods Appalachia. Perhaps with all of the Scottish/English/Welsh heritage in my area we simply haven't been able to grow out of using Dr. Stableford's scoring system! ;D

Eric,

I think it's cool that you play stableford on a regular basis. Other than my trips to Mrytle Beach, in 41 years of golfing I bet you I have played 1500 nassaus, maybe 100 skins/Vegas/wolf and have NEVER used stableford in a friendly twosome or foursome match.

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #41 on: May 27, 2011, 01:19:37 PM »
Bill,

I don't play golf on a regular basis these days :(, but when I did there were plenty of quota games, especially with larger groups. The club I worked at while in college did tons of member events using stableford scoring as it was a very popular format there. My friends and I adopted it for our annual golf trip starting back in 1999 and have used it to score probably half of them since.

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #42 on: May 27, 2011, 02:39:38 PM »
Stableford is fun, but I think it is totally pointless if it is 1 point for bogey, 2 points for par, 3 points for birdie etc. Then we are just reversing the scoring (plus is better instead of minus) and eliminating anything over a bogey. Might as well just play regular golf and take no more than double. It should be more like 1 for bogey, 2 for par, 4 for birdie, 8 for eagle.

I too am surprised by folks that say Stableford is rarely used in the US.  We play it all the time.  We use the same point values Steve suggests: 1-2-4-8.  To establish your point goal we subtract one’s handicap from 39.  If you are a 10 cap, your goal is 29, a 20 would have a 19, and so on.  Here in Idaho the game is called “Chicago” for unknown reasons.
 
Fortunately, my best round ever was shot during a game of Chicago involving about 20 guys.  My 73 medal score gave me a +15 for the game.  Bitching was mediated by the bartender.

Paul Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #43 on: May 27, 2011, 08:41:41 PM »
I just played the 1st Round of a Member/Guest Tournament and they are using a Stableford Scoring System:

0 - Double Bogey (keep play moving)
1 - Bogey
2 - Par
4 - Birdie
6 - Eagle
8 - Double Eagle / Hole In One

They make adjustments (1/2 of difference) after each round.  I had to score 34 points today and scored 39 - so tomorrow my target will be 36.5 tomorrow.  However, my partner missed his target by 5 points so his will be lowered by 2.5 points.

Paul
Paul Jones
pauljones@live.com

Joe Grasty

Re: Stableford
« Reply #44 on: May 27, 2011, 09:14:48 PM »
I play a Stableford tournament once a year in the Grapevine Golf Association.  Payout is gross and net.  Managed a first place (net) in the last one.  Ours is scored 8 for albatross, 5 for eagle, 2 for birdie, 0 for par, -1 for bogey, -3 for other.  Actual stroke score is recorded for handicap purposes and the computer spits out the Stableford gross and net scores.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2011, 03:18:56 AM »
Stableford is fun, but I think it is totally pointless if it is 1 point for bogey, 2 points for par, 3 points for birdie etc. Then we are just reversing the scoring (plus is better instead of minus) and eliminating anything over a bogey. Might as well just play regular golf and take no more than double. It should be more like 1 for bogey, 2 for par, 4 for birdie, 8 for eagle.

I too am surprised by folks that say Stableford is rarely used in the US.  We play it all the time.  We use the same point values Steve suggests: 1-2-4-8.  To establish your point goal we subtract one’s handicap from 39.  If you are a 10 cap, your goal is 29, a 20 would have a 19, and so on.  Here in Idaho the game is called “Chicago” for unknown reasons.
 
Fortunately, my best round ever was shot during a game of Chicago involving about 20 guys.  My 73 medal score gave me a +15 for the game.  Bitching was mediated by the bartender.


Dave

Now I am very confused.  Is the point goal net or gross? I assume your +15 was up 15 points on the goal?  It sounds like many of you guys are describing some sort of Stableford spin off unless I am not understanding your terms very well.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brent Hutto

Re: Stableford
« Reply #46 on: May 28, 2011, 06:24:10 AM »
I think the takeaway of this discussion w.r.t the original question is that Stableford per se is not at all widely played in USA. Hardly at all it seems. Various "points" games, some of which are quite close to Stableford scoring are common but the particular game itself is not.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #47 on: May 28, 2011, 04:38:23 PM »
In my entire life in golf (some 32 years now) I have known it to be used at every club I have ever been a part of as a member and/or employee.

To say it is rarely used in the US strikes me as odd, though I am rather isolated here in backwoods Appalachia. Perhaps with all of the Scottish/English/Welsh heritage in my area we simply haven't been able to grow out of using Dr. Stableford's scoring system! ;D

Eric-I guess what game you play in the U.S. depends on where you are. Playing in the Northeast the game that I have predominately played is 4 Ball. We will play a Stableford club tournament maybe once a year. Whenever I do play it I enjoy it.

Thomas McQuillan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #48 on: May 28, 2011, 06:14:46 PM »
One point i havent seen mentioned is that your score in stableford relates to your nett score. If you have a nett par it's two points, nett bogey one and nett birdie is three and so on..

Its not a pointless variation of the game. Handicaps in ireland are calculated through stableford even if the competition is strokeplay. It is a fairer way of calculating handicaps as it decreases the impact of a blow-up hole on a persons handicap.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Stableford
« Reply #49 on: May 30, 2011, 08:06:35 AM »
One point i havent seen mentioned is that your score in stableford relates to your nett score. If you have a nett par it's two points, nett bogey one and nett birdie is three and so on..

Its not a pointless variation of the game. Handicaps in ireland are calculated through stableford even if the competition is strokeplay. It is a fairer way of calculating handicaps as it decreases the impact of a blow-up hole on a persons handicap.

I although I understand the criticism of the U.S. system I think ESC attempts to do the same thing as it also decreases the impact of a blow up hole. As a result it protects the field in club tournaments as well as a friendly four ball. As with anything else it depends on the honesty of those inputting the scores. 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back