| |
Main
Date: 12 Feb 2007 07:27:52
From: simon
Subject: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford.html
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 08:32:20
From: Ron Todd
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 16 Feb, 05:49, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
> Ron Todd wrote:
>
> > Sister of sister-in-law, .....
>
> Ummm....isn't a 'sister of sister-in-law' still a 'sister-in-law'?
>
> Just wondering?
>
> cheers
> david
Yes, she is - just not *my* sister-in-law. ;-)
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 05:54:02
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 15, 10:31 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
>
> >> I thought it was all Tiger's fault?
> >No, I'm sure it was George Herbert Walker's grandson's fault! ;-)
> Well, he was just following Cheney's orders! :-)
When Bush would get a failing grade in school he'd just say, "Sorry
teach, I must've gotten some bad intelligence on that one."
Bush at Yale = Bad Intelligence
|
| |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 05:01:02
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 16, 12:49 am, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
> Ron Todd wrote:
>
> > Sister of sister-in-law, .....
>
> Ummm....isn't a 'sister of sister-in-law' still a 'sister-in-law'?
>
> Just wondering?
>
Don't think so. My brother ried a woman who is my
sister-in-law. Her sister is not my sister-in-law IIUC. She
is my brother's sisters-in-law however. Now in Kentucky....
|
| | |
Date: 17 Feb 2007 08:36:51
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:49 am, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>Ron Todd wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sister of sister-in-law, .....
>>
>>Ummm....isn't a 'sister of sister-in-law' still a 'sister-in-law'?
>>
>>Just wondering?
>>
>
>
> Don't think so. My brother ried a woman who is my
> sister-in-law. Her sister is not my sister-in-law IIUC. She
> is my brother's sisters-in-law however. Now in Kentucky....
>
Yeah...but if your wife had one sister (your sister-in-law) then your
wife is not only your wife...but she is the sister of your
sister-in-law. Furthermore...if your wife had two sisters then at least
two of the sisters are sisters of your sister in law...as well as being
your sisters-in-law!!!!
Your wife has far too many sisters....share them around.
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 23:37:44
From: Simon
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
Normal Stableford isn't worth playing for expert players, as their
disaster holes are so rare that they don't affect the result of a
competion, so I can see why a modified Stableford may enourage them to
play in a more aggressive manner.
However, I can't see the point of modified Stableford for handicap
players. Our skill level isn't high enough for us to take advantage of
the bonuses for good sores. Standard Stableford is probably the best
kind of scoring, especially for higher handicap players. Also, it's
quite easy to use standard Stableford scores for handicap purposes
(that's how the UK handicap system works!)
> I've played modified Stableford net tournaments (of variety used by
> The International). Trouble is with the Modified Stableford is that
> any score better than Double eagle is undefined.
>
> But a high handicap player can hit a hole-in-one with two strokes. (I
> had a hole-in-one when my handicap was that high - but not playing
> Modified Stableford). It didn't happen during the tournament - but
> what score would you give for a triple Eagle?
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D
> Fromhttp://golf.about.com/od/beginners/a/stablefordintro.htm
>
> The International on the PGA Tour and ANZ Championship on the
> European Tour use a Modified Stableford format (so-called because its
> points are awarded on a different scale from that described in the
> rule book).
>
> Both pro tournaments use the same points scale:
>
> =B7 Double bogey or worse - minus-3 points
> =B7 Bogey - minus-1 point
> =B7 Par - 0 points
> =B7 Birdie - 2 points
> =B7 Eagle - 5 points
> =B7 Double eagle - 8 points
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 16:02:24
From: Kev Nurse
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
I once had a 10ft putt for 5 points. Par 5 with an index less than my
handicap (12), hit ball onto green with 2nd stroke. I missed the
putt. I don't know if I will ever have another chance to score 5
points on one hole :-(
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 15:33:06
From: Ron Todd
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 13 Feb, 23:42, Colin Wilson <publ...@removethis.kyneton.net.au >
wrote:
> The highest score I've seen in Stableford was by my daughter, who began
> her golf on a handicap of 45. On a par-4 (index 8), she hit two 3-woods
> to within a foot of the cup, sank the putt and walked off with a nett
> zero for 6 points!
Sister of sister-in-law, plays off 3, holed her 2nd shot at a SI 1 par
5. Not a nett zero, but still those same 6 points.
Also played morning & afternoon rounds at Slaley Hall with a plus 2
golfer. He birdied both of the holes where he was giving the course a
stroke, morning & afternoon. 4 birdies "on demand" was quite
impressive.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Feb 2007 16:49:21
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
Ron Todd wrote:
>
> Sister of sister-in-law, .....
Ummm....isn't a 'sister of sister-in-law' still a 'sister-in-law'?
Just wondering?
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:27:13
From: johnty
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 14 Feb, 10:26, Pat Williams <j...@tiscali.co.uk > wrote:
> > How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
> > scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
> > net score for calculating the Stableford points?
>
> You may be interested in the following.
>
> Dr.Frank Stableford was playing golf almost a century ago from a handicap of +1.
> So he was no mean golfer. In the late 20's and 30's he played at Wallasey which
> is over the river Mersey from Liverpool on the Wirral and anyone who knows that
> area has experienced the winds that howl across the estuary at times. Not having
> many strokes to play with he got fed up with a disaster in the wind at one hole
> which put him out of many competitions. So he devised the Stableford scoring
> system which meant that an individual hole was not necessarily the end of the
> round, for it meant zero points for that hole alone. With his playing ability he
> had 17 other holes to recover, as did everyone else.
>
> The first competition was at Wallasey in May 1932 and from there developed into
> a very popular competition format here in the UK. It used to be played from a
> percentage of the player's handicap (often 7/8ths.) but of recent years the
> format is full handicap. (CONGU's recommendation.) 36 points is an average score
> when playing to your handicap and anything over 40 warrants a hefty cut in handicap.
>
> I once read of a score of 57 points somewhere in France which I thought was
> outrageous but I subsequently discovered that the chap was playing from a 54
> handicap.
>
> Anyone passing by Liverpool give Wallasey a go. It has a classic finishing hole.
>
It is a beautiful course (in the eye of this beholder, anyway).
Sadly, Dr Stableford took his own life when his increasing age-ralted
disabilities prevented him from playing golf.
A littel more at
http://www.ruleshistory.com/scoring
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 15:34:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 12, 12:04 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
>
> There's no evidence that Stableford was the reason the International folded.
I thought it was all Tiger's fault?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 15:03:17
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 13-Feb-2007, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> On Feb 12, 12:04 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> >
> > There's no evidence that Stableford was the reason the International
> > folded.
>
> I thought it was all Tiger's fault?
No, I'm sure it was George Herbert Walker's grandson's fault! ;-)
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 15:31:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:03:17 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>
>On 13-Feb-2007, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 12:04 pm, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > There's no evidence that Stableford was the reason the International
>> > folded.
>>
>> I thought it was all Tiger's fault?
>
>No, I'm sure it was George Herbert Walker's grandson's fault! ;-)
Well, he was just following Cheney's orders! :-)
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 11:08:38
From: Kev Nurse
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 12 Feb, 11:26, "johnty" <john...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> The modified system was worthless.
>
> Real Stableford was specifically designed for handicap play, and is
> unsurpassed in that regard.
I completely agree, Johnty. Stableford for pros is a waste of time.
The pros will be scoring points on every hole and where they score nil
points it will be a double bogey at worst. A player returning, say,
40 points is 4 under par and he will not have a triple bogey on his
card. Its a handicapper's format.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 18:16:09
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 13 Feb 2007 11:08:38 -0800, "Kev Nurse"
<kev@kevnurse.freeserve.co.uk > wrote:
>On 12 Feb, 11:26, "johnty" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> The modified system was worthless.
>>
>> Real Stableford was specifically designed for handicap play, and is
>> unsurpassed in that regard.
>
>I completely agree, Johnty. Stableford for pros is a waste of time.
>The pros will be scoring points on every hole and where they score nil
>points it will be a double bogey at worst. A player returning, say,
>40 points is 4 under par and he will not have a triple bogey on his
>card. Its a handicapper's format.
How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
net score for calculating the Stableford points?
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:15:32
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:16:09 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
>scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
>net score for calculating the Stableford points?
I've played modified Stableford net tournaments (of variety used by
The International). Trouble is with the Modified Stableford is that
any score better than Double eagle is undefined.
But a high handicap player can hit a hole-in-one with two strokes. (I
had a hole-in-one when my handicap was that high - but not playing
Modified Stableford). It didn't happen during the tournament - but
what score would you give for a triple Eagle?
===========================
From http://golf.about.com/od/beginners/a/stablefordintro.htm
The International on the PGA Tour and ANZ Championship on the
European Tour use a Modified Stableford format (so-called because its
points are awarded on a different scale from that described in the
rule book).
Both pro tournaments use the same points scale:
• Double bogey or worse - minus-3 points
• Bogey - minus-1 point
• Par - 0 points
• Birdie - 2 points
• Eagle - 5 points
• Double eagle - 8 points
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 10:26:17
From: Pat Williams
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
>
> How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
> scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
> net score for calculating the Stableford points?
You may be interested in the following.
Dr.Frank Stableford was playing golf almost a century ago from a handicap of +1.
So he was no mean golfer. In the late 20's and 30's he played at Wallasey which
is over the river Mersey from Liverpool on the Wirral and anyone who knows that
area has experienced the winds that howl across the estuary at times. Not having
many strokes to play with he got fed up with a disaster in the wind at one hole
which put him out of many competitions. So he devised the Stableford scoring
system which meant that an individual hole was not necessarily the end of the
round, for it meant zero points for that hole alone. With his playing ability he
had 17 other holes to recover, as did everyone else.
The first competition was at Wallasey in May 1932 and from there developed into
a very popular competition format here in the UK. It used to be played from a
percentage of the player's handicap (often 7/8ths.) but of recent years the
format is full handicap. (CONGU's recommendation.) 36 points is an average score
when playing to your handicap and anything over 40 warrants a hefty cut in handicap.
I once read of a score of 57 points somewhere in France which I thought was
outrageous but I subsequently discovered that the chap was playing from a 54
handicap.
Anyone passing by Liverpool give Wallasey a go. It has a classic finishing hole.
JPW
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 18:25:10
From: Paul Schmitz-Josten
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
Pat Williams in <45d2e3cb$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com >:
>I once read of a score of 57 points somewhere in France which I thought was
>outrageous but I subsequently discovered that the chap was playing from a 54
>handicap.
I witnessed a prize ceremony last year where a guy (HCP 54) won, having
played a gross score of 90, 18 gross points (4 pars, 10 bogeys, 3 double
and 1 triple bogey), equalling 77 Stableford.
His fellow club members cheered heartily and I heard that he had practiced
for about two years before ever playing a tourney.
His new handicap would be around 25, still leaving some room for more...
Ciao & F'Up2 usg
Paul
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 23:42:02
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
> scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
> net score for calculating the Stableford points?
Yes. That's the whole idea of Stableford.
Points are:
Worse than net bogey 0 points
Net bogey 1 point
Net par 2 points
Net birdie 3 points
Net eagle 4 points
So a 30 handicapper who has 2 strokes on a par-4 hole would get two
points for a 6, whereas a scratch player would need a 4 for the same
points score.
The highest score I've seen in Stableford was by my daughter, who began
her golf on a handicap of 45. On a par-4 (index 8), she hit two 3-woods
to within a foot of the cup, sank the putt and walked off with a nett
zero for 6 points!
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 14:59:07
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 13-Feb-2007, Colin Wilson <publish@removethis.kyneton.net.au > wrote:
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>
> > How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
> > scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
> > net score for calculating the Stableford points?
>
> Yes. That's the whole idea of Stableford.
>
> Points are:
> Worse than net bogey 0 points
> Net bogey 1 point
> Net par 2 points
> Net birdie 3 points
> Net eagle 4 points
>
> So a 30 handicapper who has 2 strokes on a par-4 hole would get two
> points for a 6, whereas a scratch player would need a 4 for the same
> points score.
We call that Stableford Net over here (USA). Another popular way of
Stableford with handicaps is the Chicago or quota method.
Your course handicap is multiplied by 2 then that is your quota (as a ten I
would get 20pts). Points are distributed as follows:
double or worse: 0
bogey: 1
par: 2
birdie: 4
eagle 8
double eagle 16
The player with the most points relative to his quota wins!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Feb 2007 08:58:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 14:59:07 GMT, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org >
wrote:
>Stableford with handicaps is the Chicago or quota method.
>Your course handicap is multiplied by 2 then that is your quota (as a ten I
>would get 20pts). Points are distributed as follows:
>
>double or worse: 0
>bogey: 1
>par: 2
>birdie: 4
>eagle 8
>double eagle 16
>
>The player with the most points relative to his quota wins!
My club does this every year (point count can be different). But the
quota really is meaningless - some flights the winner made his quota,
some flights the winner didn't.
The real difference between Chicago Quota and Modified Stableford is
what score you pick up your ball. Double bogey on a hole is the
same for everybody.
The fun difference which we should ignore is seeing at what hole we
reach our quota.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:33:40
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:42:02 GMT, Colin Wilson
<publish@removethis.kyneton.net.au > wrote:
>John van der Pflum wrote:
>
>> How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
>> scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
>> net score for calculating the Stableford points?
>
>Yes. That's the whole idea of Stableford.
>
>Points are:
>Worse than net bogey 0 points
>Net bogey 1 point
>Net par 2 points
>Net birdie 3 points
>Net eagle 4 points
>
>So a 30 handicapper who has 2 strokes on a par-4 hole would get two
>points for a 6, whereas a scratch player would need a 4 for the same
>points score.
>
>The highest score I've seen in Stableford was by my daughter, who began
>her golf on a handicap of 45. On a par-4 (index 8), she hit two 3-woods
>to within a foot of the cup, sank the putt and walked off with a nett
>zero for 6 points!
So, the golfer would have to know how many shots he/she was getting on
a particular hole in order to "pick up" when he was out of the hole,
yes?
--
jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 20:01:38
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
John van der Pflum wrote:
> So, the golfer would have to know how many shots he/she was getting on
> a particular hole in order to "pick up" when he was out of the hole,
> yes?
Yes. That's what the Index on the card is for.
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 08:16:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:33:40 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
>So, the golfer would have to know how many shots he/she was getting on
>a particular hole in order to "pick up" when he was out of the hole,
>yes?
Same as net match play.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Feb 2007 13:48:27
From: Mark Myers
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 08:33:40 -0500, John van der Pflum said...
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:42:02 GMT, Colin Wilson
> <publish@removethis.kyneton.net.au> wrote:
>
> >John van der Pflum wrote:
> >
> >> How would you apply it for a handicapped tournament where there are
> >> scratch golfers and 30 handicappers? Would the score on each hole be
> >> net score for calculating the Stableford points?
> >
> >Yes. That's the whole idea of Stableford.
> >
> >Points are:
> >Worse than net bogey 0 points
> >Net bogey 1 point
> >Net par 2 points
> >Net birdie 3 points
> >Net eagle 4 points
> >
> >So a 30 handicapper who has 2 strokes on a par-4 hole would get two
> >points for a 6, whereas a scratch player would need a 4 for the same
> >points score.
> >
> >The highest score I've seen in Stableford was by my daughter, who began
> >her golf on a handicap of 45. On a par-4 (index 8), she hit two 3-woods
> >to within a foot of the cup, sank the putt and walked off with a nett
> >zero for 6 points!
>
> So, the golfer would have to know how many shots he/she was getting on
> a particular hole in order to "pick up" when he was out of the hole,
> yes?
Yes.
--
k Myers
usenet2 at mcm2002 dot f9 dot co dot uk
I have all the specs and diagrams at home.
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 05:03:00
From: cja
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 12, 5:36 pm, "John Turner" <jgtur...@not.for.use.net > wrote:
> Are we really to believe that this multi-millionaires' golf resort couldn't
> find a sponsor, or has it come time for them to retreat into their enclave
> without the annual invasion.
>
Vickers couldn't get a sponsor to put up the outrageous sum he was
looking for:
http://www.golfdigest.com/search/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20070126international.html
He was also having trouble getting the dates he wanted for the
tourney.
- cja
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:53:44
From: Simon
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 12, 9:45 pm, david s-a <dsant...@bigpond.net.au > wrote:
>
> I may be wrong, but isn't there a European Tour event that uses this
> system? I'm sure it was called 'The Fulford Trophy'.....or something
> like that. I recall many years ago (at least 20 years or so) this event
> being played near York (Fulford?)....and was won on that occasion by
> Aussie Mike Harwood. Mike Harwood still makes the cut in most Oz PGA
> Tour events...but unfortunately doesn't show up on too many leaderboards
> these days. (He was runner-up to Ian Baker-Finch for his 'Open' win back
> in the year dot.) His appearance hasn't changed one little bit over the
> years....still looks as youthful as he was then....tall and
> skinny...unlike some of us who are now quite the opposite!
>
> Is that European Tour 'Stableford' event still extant?
>
> cheers
> david
There was the Murphy's Cup that was played in Fulford, York, back in
the 80's. I went to see it once. I can't remember the exact format for
their 'modified' scoring, but I remember it being confusing to follow
the scoreboards. The scores obviously showed the total points for the
holes played so far. With players at different points around the
course, it was hard to work out who was leading. It was a bit like
showing a leaderboard for a strokeplay event with cumulative scores,
rather than +/- par.
After a couple of years, they changed the format back to normal
scoring. I do remember that an additional prize for the winner was a
huge number of pints of Murphys (a bit like Guinness)
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:26:35
From:
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 12, 10:27 am, "simon" <SimonOnSpo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
> system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
>
> R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
>
> The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
> appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
>
> http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford....
I had this problem with the modified Stableford being claimed to
reward aggressive play, but that's only true part of the time. Sure a
birdie and a bogey is better than two pars, and an eagle and a par is
better than two birdies, but a par and a double bogey, with that -3
award, is worse than two bogeys. Thus a player with a bad drive, with
less than 50% chance to save par, should play it safe most of the time
and try to assure they bogey. A better system would have had -2 for
double bogey. And if they really wanted to encourage better play,
then two bogeys should have been better than a par and a double bogey,
which would be accomplished by assigning a -1 to any score over par.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 01:50:35
From: sfb
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
Normal Stableford has no minus points which encourages folks in trouble to
take career shots. The rumor is the PGA tour went to minus points because
the pros weren't finishing holes pissing off spectators and TV. They would
hit one in the deep rough, say fuck it, fire at the green, miss big, pick up
and walk to the next tee.
<rjeffreyh@earthlink.net > wrote in message
news:1171347995.690899.72310@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 10:27 am, "simon" <SimonOnSpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
>> system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
>>
>> R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
>>
>> The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
>> appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
>>
>> http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford....
>
> I had this problem with the modified Stableford being claimed to
> reward aggressive play, but that's only true part of the time. Sure a
> birdie and a bogey is better than two pars, and an eagle and a par is
> better than two birdies, but a par and a double bogey, with that -3
> award, is worse than two bogeys. Thus a player with a bad drive, with
> less than 50% chance to save par, should play it safe most of the time
> and try to assure they bogey. A better system would have had -2 for
> double bogey. And if they really wanted to encourage better play,
> then two bogeys should have been better than a par and a double bogey,
> which would be accomplished by assigning a -1 to any score over par.
>
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 22:36:54
From: John Turner
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
"simon" <SimonOnSports@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171294071.951369.150910@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
> system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
>
> R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
>
> The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
> appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
>
> http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford.html
>
Are we really to believe that this multi-millionaires' golf resort couldn't
find a sponsor, or has it come time for them to retreat into their enclave
without the annual invasion.
JohnT
|
| | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 23:52:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:36:54 -0000, "John Turner"
<jgturner@not.for.use.net > wrote:
>Are we really to believe that this multi-millionaires' golf resort couldn't
>find a sponsor, or has it come time for them to retreat into their enclave
>without the annual invasion.
It isn't a golf resort. It is a private club.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 19:38:36
From: John Turner
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:jdv1t2di4u4l3tdbrbntijjerg8322qhfo@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:36:54 -0000, "John Turner"
> <jgturner@not.for.use.net> wrote:
>
>>Are we really to believe that this multi-millionaires' golf resort
>>couldn't
>>find a sponsor, or has it come time for them to retreat into their enclave
>>without the annual invasion.
>
> It isn't a golf resort. It is a private club.
Sorry, what I should have said was:
Are we really to believe that this multi-millionaires' private golf resort
............
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 14:01:22
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On Feb 12, 12:15 pm, "simon" <SimonOnSpo...@gmail.com > wrote:
> There's a single tournament on the PGA with the Stableford scoring
> system, it folded, maybe it's not the only factor but to ignore it as
> a factor is ridiculous.
Well, first one might want to establish that it was a factor at
all,
prior to considering to ignore it or not. I'm not aware that any of
the players, or the sponsors, cared about the scoring system at all.
The closest to this is the progressive cuts it used to use which
made it a bit similar to a match play event. They had pretty much
canned that aspect years ago.
|
| |
Date: 13 Feb 2007 08:45:08
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
simon wrote:
> The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
> system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
>
> R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
>
> The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
> appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
>
> http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford.html
>
I may be wrong, but isn't there a European Tour event that uses this
system? I'm sure it was called 'The Fulford Trophy'.....or something
like that. I recall many years ago (at least 20 years or so) this event
being played near York (Fulford?)....and was won on that occasion by
Aussie Mike Harwood. Mike Harwood still makes the cut in most Oz PGA
Tour events...but unfortunately doesn't show up on too many leaderboards
these days. (He was runner-up to Ian Baker-Finch for his 'Open' win back
in the year dot.) His appearance hasn't changed one little bit over the
years....still looks as youthful as he was then....tall and
skinny...unlike some of us who are now quite the opposite!
Is that European Tour 'Stableford' event still extant?
cheers
david
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 11:26:54
From: johnty
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
The modified system was worthless.
Real Stableford was specifically designed for handicap play, and is
unsurpassed in that regard.
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 09:15:32
From: simon
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
There's a single tournament on the PGA with the Stableford scoring
system, it folded, maybe it's not the only factor but to ignore it as
a factor is ridiculous.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 10:31:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
On 12 Feb 2007 09:15:32 -0800, "simon" <SimonOnSports@gmail.com >
wrote:
>There's a single tournament on the PGA with the Stableford scoring
>system, it folded, maybe it's not the only factor but to ignore it as
>a factor is ridiculous.
It should be considered. But I believe that the modified Stableford
system was a plus. I believe that The International got pretty good
ratings for non-Tiger events, possibly because it was different enough
to be interesting.
Today's tour is about corporate sponsorship.
It also appears that the Tiger surge in golf's popularity has run its
course. I doubt the next surge is close - a nice rivalry could get
fan interest, but watching Tiger win this week is pretty much like
watching Tiger win last week, if you are not a connoisseur of the
game.
And there aren't enough connoisseurs to pay the bills.
|
| |
Date: 12 Feb 2007 12:04:59
From: sfb
Subject: Re: A Sad Day for Golf, No More Stableford
|
The Stableford scoring system is alive and well across much of the US. A
tournament that used a Modified Stableford went down the proverbial tubes.
There's no evidence that Stableford was the reason the International folded.
"simon" <SimonOnSports@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1171294071.951369.150910@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> The International, the only golf tournament to use the goofy scoring
> system was canned this weekend due to lack of sponsorship.
>
> R.I.P. Stableford Scoring System, 2/8/07
>
> The Stableford lived a brief tragic and futile life and was unable to
> appeal to the common man or their triumphant leader.
>
> http://simononsports.blogspot.com/2007/02/sad-day-no-more-stableford.html
>
|
|
