Stableford Scoring

[North Butte]

Well, we dont handcuff ourselves by requiring a number of scores used by each player. We adopted this after years of playing just straight total strokes, best 3/4, per team. That killed off some of the seniors and high caps from playing(our area hardly ever plays net anything), so this format brought them in.

Huh, your playing best 3 of 4 means if your team had the high guy you're virtually playing all 3 on most holes. Tough to win that way.

You misunderstood my previous post. We don't have a certain number of times a players score had to be used but do change up how many balls count from week to week.

 

[EDIT] Nevermind, totally misread the original description.

[Shilgy]

Well, we dont handcuff ourselves by requiring a number of scores used by each player. We adopted this after years of playing just straight total strokes, best 3/4, per team. That killed off some of the seniors and high caps from playing(our area hardly ever plays net anything), so this format brought them in.

Huh, your playing best 3 of 4 means if your team had the high guy you're virtually playing all 3 on most holes. Tough to win that way.

You misunderstood my previous post. We don't have a certain number of times a players score had to be used but do change up how many balls count from week to week.

 

To me a 3-of-4 gross format implies you're inviting one high handicapper per team to play along as some sort of mascot while the other three guys play in a team game. Sure, the 20-handicap will by blind chance contribute a par and save the team a stroke at some point during the round but why on earth would anyone want to be that sort of fourth wheel?

net, not gross.

 

[Matt J]

We typically blind draw with bingo balls, so no A and B draw, although that might help. It's kind of funny when I think about it.... half our guys are single digit and the other half are 24+

 

We have no "normal" players in the 10 to 18 range.

 

I think we should split boxes and they play the ladies tees, and the rest of us could move back to the members tees, we play to close for my liking due to the age and driving distance of some of our guys.

[DaveLeeNC]

FWIW, my "FridayGolf Group" is typically 3 or 4 foursomes playing as four person teams. We have golfers with indexes between 5 and 30 (and everything in between). We often play a team Stableford and the most common scoring is net at 0 for bogey or worse, 1 for par, 3 for birdie, 5 for eagle, 7 for albatross. Teams are typically 'balanced' with the total index of each team being about the same. But sometimes we play with all the low indexes together, high indexes together, etc. And this form of competition gives us additional flexibility in the (frequent) case of not having all foursomes. In that case the winning team is simply the one with the most points per player.

 

Quite frankly we just don't notice a particular bias in favor of any particular group when all is said and done.

 

dave

[North Butte]

We typically blind draw with bingo balls, so no A and B draw, although that might help. It's kind of funny when I think about it.... half our guys are single digit and the other half are 24+

 

We have no "normal" players in the 10 to 18 range.

 

I think we should split boxes and they play the ladies tees, and the rest of us could move back to the members tees, we play to close for my liking due to the age and driving distance of some of our guys.

 

If it works out that the high handicappers are all fairly short hitters and the low handicaps are at least long enough to manage the back tee, I'm a big fan of evening out what would otherwise be large numbers of strokes given by choosing tees about 4-5 "strokes" apart in rating.

 

One of my favorite friends to play golf with hits the ball about 280 to my 200 yards off the tee (and 5-iron about 210 vs. my 160) and he's also about ten shots better than me in handicap. So I play way forward, he plays way back, it works out amazingly often that we play Par 4's with the same club selection on both shots. The tee difference is worth about 5 strokes but I just play him straight up and it seems to work out OK.

[North Butte]

FWIW, my "FridayGolf Group" is typically 3 or 4 foursomes playing as four person teams. We have golfers with indexes between 5 and 30 (and everything in between). We often play a team Stableford and the most common scoring is net at 0 for bogey or worse, 1 for par, 3 for birdie, 5 for eagle, 7 for albatross. Teams are typically 'balanced' with the total index of each team being about the same. But sometimes we play with all the low indexes together, high indexes together, etc. And this form of competition gives us additional flexibility in the (frequent) case of not having all foursomes. In that case the winning team is simply the one with the most points per player.

 

Quite frankly we just don't notice a particular bias in favor of any particular group when all is said and done.

 

dave

 

In my very limited experience, as long as you play real Stableford with *net* double being the limit it works out perfectly fine no matter what the range of handicaps. The inequity always arises from playing gross Stableford and using the handicap strokes as add-on points at the end.

 

Yet for some reason the groups I'm around always want to do it the brain-dead gross Stableford way even though we have handicaps ranging from maybe 3-4 up into the low 20's.

[Newby]

We have a 'group' of about 70 players of all standards. On any one day there could be 25 - 40 playing. We play in 4s stableford scoring. the best 3 to count. If there are only 3 in a team, the second best score counts twice. We pay an entry fee of £3. The full pot is paid out. £12 each for the winning team. Prizes go down in decrements depending on no of teams. Min £3 per head. Each month handicaps are adjusted. 1 up per £6 total winnings, 1 down per £6 loss in the month.

We have had players playing off 10 or more above or below their official handicap during the season. But at the end of each year no one has ever won more or less than £30-£40 in total.

[dpb5031]

Here's a modified Stableford system I use for golf trips:

Each player gets 100% of his course handicap as the strokes fall on the card, so all points are based off of "NET" scores.

 

12 points - Double Eagle

8 points - Eagle

4 points - Birdie

2 points - Par

1 points - Bogey

0 points - Double Bogey

-3 points - Triple Bogey or Worse

 

Here's the kicker: I adjust handicaps after each round based on how well or poorly the guys play!

 

Stableford Score Next Round Adjustment

 

25 points or less Add 2 strokes

26 to 31 Add 1 stroke

32 to 36 No adjustment

37 to 41 Subtract 1 stroke

42 or more Subtract 2 strokes

 

I keep a big foam scoreboard with columns for each players daily handicap, daily Stableford score, and cumulative score. I make daily payouts and overall payouts at the end, all dependent upon how many guys we have on the trip, how many rounds are played, and how much cash is in the pot.

 

The adjustments serve to keep each player relevant in the competition til the end and typically give each an excellent chance of winning a daily at a minimum. We each throw in a fixed amount of cash in the beginning so there's no collecting each day...I have the envelopes ready to go and hand them out each night over cocktails/dinner with appropriate commentary.

 

This also works well if you want to make it a partner's event. We actually do that on one of the trips I run and add a better-ball match play component as well.

 

I have used this format across a wide range of handicaps with great success...always a fair distribution of winners across HC ranges with no apparent bias, and no complaints. There can be huge point swings from hole to hole, so it often gets quite interesting down the stretch.

 

I'll add one disclaimer/warning: you need to make sure the guys on the trip all have fair starting handicaps! One year we had a guy who for the 25 years I've known him has been in the 8-12 handicap range. So this trip his HC was up to 16 because according to him, his back had been hurting him and he had the shanks when we stopped posting scores in the fall (we're in the Northeast). Our trip wasn't until February, so apparently his back healed and by golly the shanks disappeared...lol. We played 6 rounds and even after the daily adjustments we barely got him back down to his normal range. His nickname since has been "Wire-to-Wire!" :busted_cop:

[Londoner]

Here's a modified Stableford system I use for golf trips:

Each player gets 100% of his course handicap as the strokes fall on the card, so all points are based off of "NET" scores.

 

12 points - Double Eagle

8 points - Eagle

4 points - Birdie

2 points - Par

1 points - Bogey

0 points - Double Bogey

-3 points - Triple Bogey or Worse

 

Here's the kicker: I adjust handicaps after each round based on how well or poorly the guys play!

 

Stableford Score Next Round Adjustment

 

25 points or less Add 2 strokes

26 to 31 Add 1 stroke

32 to 36 No adjustment

37 to 41 Subtract 1 stroke

42 or more Subtract 2 strokes

 

I keep a big foam scoreboard with columns for each players daily handicap, daily Stableford score, and cumulative score. I make daily payouts and overall payouts at the end, all dependent upon how many guys we have on the trip, how many rounds are played, and how much cash is in the pot.

 

The adjustments serve to keep each player relevant in the competition til the end and typically give each an excellent chance of winning a daily at a minimum. We each throw in a fixed amount of cash in the beginning so there's no collecting each day...I have the envelopes ready to go and hand them out each night over cocktails/dinner with appropriate commentary.

 

This also works well if you want to make it a partner's event. We actually do that on one of the trips I run and add a better-ball match play component as well.

 

I have used this format across a wide range of handicaps with great success...always a fair distribution of winners across HC ranges with no apparent bias, and no complaints. There can be huge point swings from hole to hole, so it often gets quite interesting down the stretch.

 

I'll add one disclaimer/warning: you need to make sure the guys on the trip all have fair starting handicaps! One year we had a guy who for the 25 years I've known him has been in the 8-12 handicap range. So this trip his HC was up to 16 because according to him, his back had been hurting him and he had the shanks when we stopped posting scores in the fall (we're in the Northeast). Our trip wasn't until February, so apparently his back healed and by golly the shanks disappeared...lol. We played 6 rounds and even after the daily adjustments we barely got him back down to his normal range. His nickname since has been "Wire-to-Wire!" :busted_cop:

we use the same points but are even more vicious in the handicapping. Every point over 36 on day 1 you get cut. So score 40 your 4 shots off next day. Score 30 you get 6 extra next day. The loser for the day carries the kitty and buys the beer all night. We start with real handicaps and dont play very often guesses. By midweek we get some tight games, and its fun. Ive been 19 hcap and plus 8 within a couple of days. Remember were playing strange courses and all hung over.

[dpb5031]

Here's a modified Stableford system I use for golf trips:

Each player gets 100% of his course handicap as the strokes fall on the card, so all points are based off of "NET" scores.

 

12 points - Double Eagle

8 points - Eagle

4 points - Birdie

2 points - Par

1 points - Bogey

0 points - Double Bogey

-3 points - Triple Bogey or Worse

 

Here's the kicker: I adjust handicaps after each round based on how well or poorly the guys play!

 

Stableford Score Next Round Adjustment

 

25 points or less Add 2 strokes

26 to 31 Add 1 stroke

32 to 36 No adjustment

37 to 41 Subtract 1 stroke

42 or more Subtract 2 strokes

 

I keep a big foam scoreboard with columns for each players daily handicap, daily Stableford score, and cumulative score. I make daily payouts and overall payouts at the end, all dependent upon how many guys we have on the trip, how many rounds are played, and how much cash is in the pot.

 

The adjustments serve to keep each player relevant in the competition til the end and typically give each an excellent chance of winning a daily at a minimum. We each throw in a fixed amount of cash in the beginning so there's no collecting each day...I have the envelopes ready to go and hand them out each night over cocktails/dinner with appropriate commentary.

 

This also works well if you want to make it a partner's event. We actually do that on one of the trips I run and add a better-ball match play component as well.

 

I have used this format across a wide range of handicaps with great success...always a fair distribution of winners across HC ranges with no apparent bias, and no complaints. There can be huge point swings from hole to hole, so it often gets quite interesting down the stretch.

 

I'll add one disclaimer/warning: you need to make sure the guys on the trip all have fair starting handicaps! One year we had a guy who for the 25 years I've known him has been in the 8-12 handicap range. So this trip his HC was up to 16 because according to him, his back had been hurting him and he had the shanks when we stopped posting scores in the fall (we're in the Northeast). Our trip wasn't until February, so apparently his back healed and by golly the shanks disappeared...lol. We played 6 rounds and even after the daily adjustments we barely got him back down to his normal range. His nickname since has been "Wire-to-Wire!" :busted_cop:

we use the same points but are even more vicious in the handicapping. Every point over 36 on day 1 you get cut. So score 40 your 4 shots off next day. Score 30 you get 6 extra next day. The loser for the day carries the kitty and buys the beer all night. We start with real handicaps and dont play very often guesses. By midweek we get some tight games, and its fun. Ive been 19 hcap and plus 8 within a couple of days. Remember were playing strange courses and all hung over.

 

Wow, you guys really like to redistribute the wealth...lol?! It is great fun though. I especially like watching guys try to grind out a net double to avoid the minus 3s.

[Londoner]

Here's a modified Stableford system I use for golf trips:

Each player gets 100% of his course handicap as the strokes fall on the card, so all points are based off of "NET" scores.

 

12 points - Double Eagle

8 points - Eagle

4 points - Birdie

2 points - Par

1 points - Bogey

0 points - Double Bogey

-3 points - Triple Bogey or Worse

 

Here's the kicker: I adjust handicaps after each round based on how well or poorly the guys play!

 

Stableford Score Next Round Adjustment

 

25 points or less Add 2 strokes

26 to 31 Add 1 stroke

32 to 36 No adjustment

37 to 41 Subtract 1 stroke

42 or more Subtract 2 strokes

 

I keep a big foam scoreboard with columns for each players daily handicap, daily Stableford score, and cumulative score. I make daily payouts and overall payouts at the end, all dependent upon how many guys we have on the trip, how many rounds are played, and how much cash is in the pot.

 

The adjustments serve to keep each player relevant in the competition til the end and typically give each an excellent chance of winning a daily at a minimum. We each throw in a fixed amount of cash in the beginning so there's no collecting each day...I have the envelopes ready to go and hand them out each night over cocktails/dinner with appropriate commentary.

 

This also works well if you want to make it a partner's event. We actually do that on one of the trips I run and add a better-ball match play component as well.

 

I have used this format across a wide range of handicaps with great success...always a fair distribution of winners across HC ranges with no apparent bias, and no complaints. There can be huge point swings from hole to hole, so it often gets quite interesting down the stretch.

 

I'll add one disclaimer/warning: you need to make sure the guys on the trip all have fair starting handicaps! One year we had a guy who for the 25 years I've known him has been in the 8-12 handicap range. So this trip his HC was up to 16 because according to him, his back had been hurting him and he had the shanks when we stopped posting scores in the fall (we're in the Northeast). Our trip wasn't until February, so apparently his back healed and by golly the shanks disappeared...lol. We played 6 rounds and even after the daily adjustments we barely got him back down to his normal range. His nickname since has been "Wire-to-Wire!" :busted_cop:

we use the same points but are even more vicious in the handicapping. Every point over 36 on day 1 you get cut. So score 40 your 4 shots off next day. Score 30 you get 6 extra next day. The loser for the day carries the kitty and buys the beer all night. We start with real handicaps and dont play very often guesses. By midweek we get some tight games, and its fun. Ive been 19 hcap and plus 8 within a couple of days. Remember were playing strange courses and all hung over.

 

Wow, you guys really like to redistribute the wealth...lol! It is great fun though. I especially like watching guys try to grind out a net double to avoid the minus 3s.

We had guys who didn't really play but were great holiday animals. With our method you had to do something special to win on consecutive days. To see a non serious player "win" because he had 35 shots was a real joy. Not serious but great times.

[Wriggles]

The league I played for many years had a points quota format. Every week, the quota was calculated, and everyone had their total points they had to make, before they were "plus". So, the captains with the most necessary points picked a threesome or foursome of lesser quotas.

 

0 for double, 1 for bogey, 2 for par, and 3 for birdie, 4 for eagle. No deductions or minus. Picking up at double bogey kept things moving along.

 

For example, for nine holes, let's say a threesome consisted of the captain (14), 2nd(10), and 3rd, (8), team quota 32 points. If the team as a hole finished with 34 points, they scored a +2, or a 30, -2. It didn't matter who scored what, total score and skins are what mattered.

 

Some of the worst golfers were the real heroes of the day. A zero quota guy got 2-3 points occasionally, and literally won for the team.

 

It was a great format.

[Kookaburra1966]

 

The most commonly used system in USA is called GHIN and you only enter a score for the round, no provision for entering hole scores.

 

Except that you can if you want. And it applies ESC for you.

[Kookaburra1966]

I was playing traditional Stableford with my grandparents from the time I got my first handicap. If a 9-year-old can work it out, I'd have to assume that the majority of GolfWRXers could as well.

 

That aside ... for US-based GolfWRXers, what handicap do you use? The USGA "course handicap" is the target differential to the Course Rating, but Stableford is vs par. Do you adjust for the differential (up or down) between Par and Course Rating?

 

And one more thing .. has anyone run a mixed-tee comp using Stableford? It might just work because handicaps would be based on the tee you choose and so everyone has a common reference point. 36 points = net par no matter which tee you're playing.

[Shipwreck]

If I’m not mistaken our men’s groups Stableford is -1 for double bogey or worse, 0 for bogey, 1 for par, 3 for birdie, 5 for eagle and 8 for double eagle or better. So a huge score won’t kill the high HC chance of a good overall score and you can make it up with a par net birdie down the road. Seems to be a good balance for us.

[deadsolid...shank]

Maybe Sergio will propose Augusta change the Masters to Stableford scoring.

[QEight]

Maybe Sergio will propose Augusta change the Masters to Stableford scoring.

 

Perhaps he get's at least the closest to the pin award.

[Deceptively Short]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

[North Butte]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I know I sound like a broken record but the guys at both of the clubs I've belonged to in recent years are just too lazy to dot the cards for their strokes. So they insist on counting points off their gross scores then adding in points at the end for their handicap strokes.

 

Then they complain *constantly* that the higher handicappers (like me) have an advantage because we get so many handicap strokes added on at the end that even with 5-6 blobs we can be well over our points quota. Well, yeah. If they'd just dot the damn card and play real Stableford I'd be having to putt out all those gross doubles to try and salvage a point.

 

Every few years they try the "-1 point for triple" deal but that just annoys the low handicapper who are used to picking up if they don't make bogey. So they never stick with that more than a few rounds.

 

The reason Dr. Stableford designed the game to assign points to net scores was to make it fair to 2-3-4 handicappers, 20-21-22 handicappers and everyone in between. But lots of groups in USA feel the need to bastardize a perfectly workable system to make it *seem* fairer from their own narrow perspective.

 

[soapbox mode off]

[Halebopp]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I know I sound like a broken record but the guys at both of the clubs I've belonged to in recent years are just too lazy to dot the cards for their strokes. So they insist on counting points off their gross scores then adding in points at the end for their handicap strokes.

 

Then they complain *constantly* that the higher handicappers (like me) have an advantage because we get so many handicap strokes added on at the end that even with 5-6 blobs we can be well over our points quota. Well, yeah. If they'd just dot the damn card and play real Stableford I'd be having to putt out all those gross doubles to try and salvage a point.

 

Every few years they try the "-1 point for triple" deal but that just annoys the low handicapper who are used to picking up if they don't make bogey. So they never stick with that more than a few rounds.

 

The reason Dr. Stableford designed the game to assign points to net scores was to make it fair to 2-3-4 handicappers, 20-21-22 handicappers and everyone in between. But lots of groups in USA feel the need to bastardize a perfectly workable system to make it *seem* fairer from their own narrow perspective.

 

[soapbox mode off]

 

So, if I got this right, you (they) basically play Stableford off scratch and then add handicap's worth of points to everyone's "Stableford" score?

[North Butte]

Yes, except they call it a "quota" game. So I'm a 17 handicap which means my quota is 36 point - 17 handicap equals 19 points. A guy who is a 5 handicap has a quota of 31 points.

 

Then we apply Stableford scoring to our gross scores (1 point for gross bogey, etc.) and gross double or worse is 0 points.

 

So at the end of the round I might have five blobs but still make 20 points on the other 13 holes. That would make me "+1 on points" for the round, one more than my quota.

 

In that example, let's say three of my five zero-point holes I had a significant putt left for double. And let's say I'd miss two of those putts. That would put me at 35 real Stableford points but playing off gross and adding in my 17 strokes makes it look like I scored 37. It's stupid.

[Sawgrass]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I know I sound like a broken record but the guys at both of the clubs I've belonged to in recent years are just too lazy to dot the cards for their strokes. So they insist on counting points off their gross scores then adding in points at the end for their handicap strokes.

 

Then they complain *constantly* that the higher handicappers (like me) have an advantage because we get so many handicap strokes added on at the end that even with 5-6 blobs we can be well over our points quota. Well, yeah. If they'd just dot the damn card and play real Stableford I'd be having to putt out all those gross doubles to try and salvage a point.

 

Every few years they try the "-1 point for triple" deal but that just annoys the low handicapper who are used to picking up if they don't make bogey. So they never stick with that more than a few rounds.

 

The reason Dr. Stableford designed the game to assign points to net scores was to make it fair to 2-3-4 handicappers, 20-21-22 handicappers and everyone in between. But lots of groups in USA feel the need to bastardize a perfectly workable system to make it *seem* fairer from their own narrow perspective.

 

[soapbox mode off]

I'm not much of a Stableford participant, so help me with this . . . isn't it true that the "perfectly workable" Stableford system explicitly allows for the Committee to choose the "fixed score" they prefer? R32-1b doesn't even suggest a norm. Or am I missing something?

[North Butte]

The version I play on vacation in UK has always been played at net with 1 point for bogey, 2 for par, 3 for birdie, 4 for eagle. Perhaps that's not the original way it was designed but I thought it was.

[deadsolid...shank]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I've mentioned this in the past DS, as one of the problems I see with the system translating well across the board. I've seen at least three different versions for scoring.

 

If I remember correctly. The pros at the International penalized a point for a bogey and par was worth zero.

 

I've also seen bogey as the basis for zero points, and for one point.

 

Our course when we they host this tournament don't have a negative at all. Make a 10, its still just zero points. Its part of the reason a lot of the lower handicap players don't play. Not enough disparity between birdies and bogies, and when the blow up holes don't exact a penalty, its too skewed to higher caps.

I realize that is just one course's version.

 

But, to me at least, if helps to highlight my issue. I come on the board and say I shot 75 or 80 or 100, or whatever, everyone knows what that means. If someone says they scored 36 points, I really don't know without knowing the scoring system. I just feel like a gross score translates better the board.....if that matters.

[davep043]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

 

I'll speak only for myself, but my first exposure to anything Stableford was the "International" PGA tournament held at Castle Pines in Colorado, from about 1986 to 2006. At that tournament, they organizers chose to use a Modified Stableford scoring format that would accentuate the rewards for really low scores, which served to increase the player's likelihood to take gambles. I've used a similarly modified scoring system when organizing some small events in order to do the same thing, encourage players to take risks to make low scores, and minimize the consequences of poor shots, and eliminating any need to finish a bad hole. I don't see this as an "improvement" over the original system, just as a slightly different way to have fun.

So the simple answer, we change the scoring rules in an attempt to change the player's behavior.

[North Butte]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I've mentioned this in the past DS, as one of the problems I see with the system translating well across the board. I've seen at least three different versions for scoring.

 

If I remember correctly. The pros at the International penalized a point for a bogey and par was worth zero.

 

I've also seen bogey as the basis for zero points, and for one point.

 

Our course when we they host this tournament don't have a negative at all. Make a 10, its still just zero points. Its part of the reason a lot of the lower handicap players don't play. Not enough disparity between birdies and bogies, and when the blow up holes don't exact a penalty, its too skewed to higher caps.

I realize that is just one course's version.

 

But, to me at least, if helps to highlight my issue. I come on the board and say I shot 75 or 80 or 100, or whatever, everyone knows what that means. If someone says they scored 36 points, I really don't know without knowing the scoring system. I just feel like a gross score translates better the board.....if that matters.

 

The issue with gross scores is that so many people will say they "shot 88" without mentioning that they picked up on three holes and said "Put me down for six", were "conceded" half a dozen putts of 2, 3, 4 feet and also played two off the first tee.

 

So truly, unless you know them well or were playing with them you don't know if someone shooting "88" was really 16 over par of if that was a figment of their imagination.

[rogolf]

The Rule book provides the recommended Stableford scoring. Anything else is just a manipulation for some purpose that the organizers think is better for them. Imo, any negative scoring defeats the purpose, as does bonuses for low scores. The bonus tends to favor the higher handicaps where they can get a gross par/net eagle.

[deadsolid...shank]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I've mentioned this in the past DS, as one of the problems I see with the system translating well across the board. I've seen at least three different versions for scoring.

 

If I remember correctly. The pros at the International penalized a point for a bogey and par was worth zero.

 

I've also seen bogey as the basis for zero points, and for one point.

 

Our course when we they host this tournament don't have a negative at all. Make a 10, its still just zero points. Its part of the reason a lot of the lower handicap players don't play. Not enough disparity between birdies and bogies, and when the blow up holes don't exact a penalty, its too skewed to higher caps.

I realize that is just one course's version.

 

But, to me at least, if helps to highlight my issue. I come on the board and say I shot 75 or 80 or 100, or whatever, everyone knows what that means. If someone says they scored 36 points, I really don't know without knowing the scoring system. I just feel like a gross score translates better the board.....if that matters.

 

The issue with gross scores is that so many people will say they "shot 88" without mentioning that they picked up on three holes and said "Put me down for six", were "conceded" half a dozen putts of 2, 3, 4 feet and also played two off the first tee.

 

So truly, unless you know them well or were playing with them you don't know if someone shooting "88" was really 16 over par of if that was a figment of their imagination.

 

But that's the case with any round of golf isn't it? You can pick up putts or hit two off the tee in Stableford too. Those things are exclusive to strokeplay.

[davep043]

The Rule book provides the recommended Stableford scoring. Anything else is just a manipulation for some purpose that the organizers think is better for them. Imo, any negative scoring defeats the purpose, as does bonuses for low scores. The bonus tends to favor the higher handicaps where they can get a gross par/net eagle.

I absolutely agree, higher handicaps get a boost in these tournaments. On the other hand, a higher handicap player is at a disadvantage in a simple medal play situation. When we set up a season full of competitions, I think its appropriate to try to balance formats so that each player gets a little advantage at some point in the season. Using this type of modified Stableford scoring in one event per year is one way to do that.

[Deceptively Short]

Out of curiosity, why do groups modify the Stableford system - why not just use the standard system? Do you perceive a weakness of it or are you trying to encourage different play e.g. more attacking?

Once you get used to it, it becomes second nature but if different groups play a variety of versions I could imagine it getting very complex (and I have found that once things get too complicated there are always some who don’t bother to understand then don’t get involved in the game/match and end up just doing there own thing).

 

I've mentioned this in the past DS, as one of the problems I see with the system translating well across the board. I've seen at least three different versions for scoring.

 

If I remember correctly. The pros at the International penalized a point for a bogey and par was worth zero.

 

I've also seen bogey as the basis for zero points, and for one point.

 

Our course when we they host this tournament don't have a negative at all. Make a 10, its still just zero points. Its part of the reason a lot of the lower handicap players don't play. Not enough disparity between birdies and bogies, and when the blow up holes don't exact a penalty, its too skewed to higher caps.

I realize that is just one course's version.

 

But, to me at least, if helps to highlight my issue. I come on the board and say I shot 75 or 80 or 100, or whatever, everyone knows what that means. If someone says they scored 36 points, I really don't know without knowing the scoring system. I just feel like a gross score translates better the board.....if that matters.

 

One of the reasons for my question is that in the UK I have only ever seen one version of Stableford - if someone suggested that we play a modified version today or in an upcoming tournament I guess he would be laughed out of court as it is a fundamental basis for comparing scores that we all understand.

 

I realise that gross score is of course the fundamental of any round but in the bar after a casual game either singles or some team format the only way I can tell how people did versus those they were playing against is by a net score. Otherwise I need to know everyone’s current handicap to know who has done well versus the rest of the field (maybe just a dozen or so in the roll up) and also if it is singles versus their own expectations. If I shoot a gross 78 it’s all well and fine for me but shocking for a 1 handicapper or maybe the round of his life for a 17 handicapper.

As you say it is something ingrained in the culture and no-one is right or wrong just what you’re used to.