| |
Main
Date: 16 Mar 2007 14:07:30
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
I just four-putted my argument over posting a member's match play tournament
as a T score. I feel that scoring is potentially so different and incomplete
in match play, that making these scores "last one year" is absurd. But I
lost the argument with the handicap committee (missed the first putt), lost
the argument with our head pro who just punted it to the CGA (second putt),
and lost it with the Carolina's Golf Associating (third putt).
So I have some questions that I thought I'd throw out here for discussion.
All these questions would apply whether these are T scores or not. But
making them tournament scores makes the issue more important (IMHO).
1) Do you (potentially) record 3 scores for a hole? I assume that if your
opponent concedes to you a 20' putt for a triple bogey 7 because he is lying
10 or something like that, that you would record three scores.
7 - conceded score of 7 (opponent records 11)
6 - ESC score of 6 (for example)
8 - the score that you would have most likely achieved without the
concession (8)
The player who made the concession has a similar issue to deal with.
2) I know that (if things go well) I make about half my 5' putts. If I am
conceded four 5 footers, then I guess that I should arbitrarily chose two of
them to miss and record two scores for those holes (conceded score and
'estimated score'). In reality this is damned awkward to keep track of.
3) Most of these guys will probably want to complete their round, even if it
ends before 18 holes. Are we really going to tell them that they can't do
that (Rule 33-1). Or if they do should they take "par plus strokes" instead
of what they really shot (I shudder to think of the uproar that this will
create). To quote the ROG, "Rules governing stroke play are so substantially
different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of
play is not practicable and is not permitted". And here we are recording
match play as T scores - this is really stupid.
4) Is it legal to "finish a hole" after a concession? If the player is
"considered to have holed out" after a hole is conceded this would seem to
me to possibly be "practice". But I'm not clear on this.
Anyone out there have experience in handling these situation at your local
club?
Thanks
dave (really PO'ed over this one)
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 13:50:30
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:CwxKh.13264$tD2.985@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I just four-putted my argument over posting a member's match play
tournament
> as a T score. I feel that scoring is potentially so different and
incomplete
> in match play, that making these scores "last one year" is absurd. But I
> lost the argument with the handicap committee (missed the first putt),
lost
> the argument with our head pro who just punted it to the CGA (second
putt),
> and lost it with the Carolina's Golf Associating (third putt).
>
> So I have some questions that I thought I'd throw out here for discussion.
> All these questions would apply whether these are T scores or not. But
> making them tournament scores makes the issue more important (IMHO).
>
> 1) Do you (potentially) record 3 scores for a hole? I assume that if your
> opponent concedes to you a 20' putt for a triple bogey 7 because he is
lying
> 10 or something like that, that you would record three scores.
>
> 7 - conceded score of 7 (opponent records 11)
> 6 - ESC score of 6 (for example)
> 8 - the score that you would have most likely achieved without the
> concession (8)
>
> The player who made the concession has a similar issue to deal with.
>
> 2) I know that (if things go well) I make about half my 5' putts. If I am
> conceded four 5 footers, then I guess that I should arbitrarily chose two
of
> them to miss and record two scores for those holes (conceded score and
> 'estimated score'). In reality this is damned awkward to keep track of.
>
> 3) Most of these guys will probably want to complete their round, even if
it
> ends before 18 holes. Are we really going to tell them that they can't do
> that (Rule 33-1). Or if they do should they take "par plus strokes"
instead
> of what they really shot (I shudder to think of the uproar that this will
> create). To quote the ROG, "Rules governing stroke play are so
substantially
> different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of
> play is not practicable and is not permitted". And here we are recording
> match play as T scores - this is really stupid.
>
> 4) Is it legal to "finish a hole" after a concession? If the player is
> "considered to have holed out" after a hole is conceded this would seem to
> me to possibly be "practice". But I'm not clear on this.
>
> Anyone out there have experience in handling these situation at your local
> club?
>
> Thanks
>
> dave (really PO'ed over this one)
>
Just for completeness, Handicap Manual Decision 5-2a/7 states that you can
post an 18 hole score using actual scores even if the match ended prior the
the 18th hole. And this despite rule 33-1 which clearly prohibits this
(unless you assume that the post-match round continued in match play format
which is highly unlikely). See my point #3 above.
Interesting and surprising (although reasonable, IMHO).
dave
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:13:37
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
This story is why I've never been a fan of declaring match play as
tournament scores. Once the committee made the declaration, which they must
do in advance, you and they are stuck with posting this round as a
tournament score.
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:CwxKh.13264$tD2.985@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I just four-putted my argument over posting a member's match play
>tournament
> as a T score. I feel that scoring is potentially so different and
> incomplete
> in match play, that making these scores "last one year" is absurd. But I
> lost the argument with the handicap committee (missed the first putt),
> lost
> the argument with our head pro who just punted it to the CGA (second
> putt),
> and lost it with the Carolina's Golf Associating (third putt).
>
> So I have some questions that I thought I'd throw out here for discussion.
> All these questions would apply whether these are T scores or not. But
> making them tournament scores makes the issue more important (IMHO).
>
> 1) Do you (potentially) record 3 scores for a hole? I assume that if your
> opponent concedes to you a 20' putt for a triple bogey 7 because he is
> lying
> 10 or something like that, that you would record three scores.
>
> 7 - conceded score of 7 (opponent records 11)
> 6 - ESC score of 6 (for example)
> 8 - the score that you would have most likely achieved without the
> concession (8)
>
> The player who made the concession has a similar issue to deal with.
>
> 2) I know that (if things go well) I make about half my 5' putts. If I am
> conceded four 5 footers, then I guess that I should arbitrarily chose two
> of
> them to miss and record two scores for those holes (conceded score and
> 'estimated score'). In reality this is damned awkward to keep track of.
>
> 3) Most of these guys will probably want to complete their round, even if
> it
> ends before 18 holes. Are we really going to tell them that they can't do
> that (Rule 33-1). Or if they do should they take "par plus strokes"
> instead
> of what they really shot (I shudder to think of the uproar that this will
> create). To quote the ROG, "Rules governing stroke play are so
> substantially
> different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of
> play is not practicable and is not permitted". And here we are recording
> match play as T scores - this is really stupid.
>
> 4) Is it legal to "finish a hole" after a concession? If the player is
> "considered to have holed out" after a hole is conceded this would seem to
> me to possibly be "practice". But I'm not clear on this.
>
> Anyone out there have experience in handling these situation at your local
> club?
>
> Thanks
>
> dave (really PO'ed over this one)
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 18 Mar 2007 02:12:48
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
On Sat, 17 2007 13:13:37 -0400, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>This story is why I've never been a fan of declaring match play as
>tournament scores. Once the committee made the declaration, which they must
>do in advance, you and they are stuck with posting this round as a
>tournament score.
So what's the downside for non-sandbaggers?
For non-sandbaggers, the handicap score is the same for T scores or
casual scores.
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 06:50:03
From: Tom Yost
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
On Fri, 16 2007 14:07:30 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>I just four-putted my argument over posting a member's match play tournament
>as a T score. I feel that scoring is potentially so different and incomplete
>in match play, that making these scores "last one year" is absurd.
I agree that using a match play round to "create" an 18-hole stroke
play score for handicap purposes may pose some questions. But in the
bigger picture, I think concern over a few strokes that may or may not
have happened, and becoming PO'ed about a (possibly) lower score
ending up on your handicap shows a sandbagger mentality.
Tom
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:33:47
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
"Tom Yost" <tom@bloodyvikings.com > wrote in message
news:9vrnv2h1nn4l8gcs6je0hdei7509grg5be@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 2007 14:07:30 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >I just four-putted my argument over posting a member's match play
tournament
> >as a T score. I feel that scoring is potentially so different and
incomplete
> >in match play, that making these scores "last one year" is absurd.
>
> I agree that using a match play round to "create" an 18-hole stroke
> play score for handicap purposes may pose some questions. But in the
> bigger picture, I think concern over a few strokes that may or may not
> have happened, and becoming PO'ed about a (possibly) lower score
> ending up on your handicap shows a sandbagger mentality.
>
>
> Tom
We've got an organization of over 600 golfers, so I would not argue that we
don't have some sandbaggers.
But the issue was raised personally by me (Handicap Committee representative
to the Men's Golf Association) and I'm not even playing in the tournament.
dave
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 00:57:44
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
On 16, 3:39 pm, Watson deMeneux <Neverm...@server.it > wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > When I add up my medal play score is when I look at ESC, not before. I
> > come up with two totals - the ESC adjusted score is what is entered
> > into the handicap computer. It is meaningless for anything except
> > the handicap computer. This is true even with medal play.
>
> This is the right answer. And if you don't play all 18, there's a proces
> for estimating scores based upon handicap strokes that would apply. The
> score entered for h'cp purposes is (can be) different again, and has no
> bearing on the score you submit for the tournament.
>
> --
> Watson deMeneux
> -Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.
As T scores are meant to carry more importance than other scores,
doesn't it seem odd to include estimated scores in these? It's one
thing when considering max scores, but what about a matchplay
situation where your opponent is in trouble and concedes you a 4 foot
birdie putt. What score would you record? I can't see how matchplay
scores can ever be sensibly recorded.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 12:42:16
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
On 17 2007 00:57:44 -0700, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com >
wrote:
>As T scores are meant to carry more importance than other scores,
>doesn't it seem odd to include estimated scores in these?
But they don't carry more importance - except via peer review. And
peer review can take these into account.
>It's one
>thing when considering max scores, but what about a matchplay
>situation where your opponent is in trouble and concedes you a 4 foot
>birdie putt. What score would you record?
I'd count a 4 foot putt as a stroke. If I'm wrong, then I'm
underreporting my score a bit. No sandbagging here, so no harm
done.
>I can't see how matchplay
>scores can ever be sensibly recorded.
Trouble is - people who play a lot of matchplay need handicaps
probably more than people who play mainly medal play.
Golf handicapping isn't an exact science. If you are using handicaps
for betting, it is only a starting point - you can always adjust your
bets to whatever you want.
Question: What do you think of picking up when you have reached your
Stableford minimum score? Often in this case you're around your ESC
score anyway.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 13:41:33
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:k2onv2l4360mj7st0aoi89clu8tj2h8pt2@4ax.com...
> On 17 2007 00:57:44 -0700, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >As T scores are meant to carry more importance than other scores,
> >doesn't it seem odd to include estimated scores in these?
>
> But they don't carry more importance - except via peer review. And
> peer review can take these into account.
>
snip
Howard, what are you talking about?????
See section 10-3 of the USGA Handicap Manual. And you might take a hint from
the title of that section which is "Reduction of Handicap Index Based on
Exceptional Tournament Scores".
dave
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 15:31:23
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
On Sat, 17 2007 13:41:33 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>> >As T scores are meant to carry more importance than other scores,
>> >doesn't it seem odd to include estimated scores in these?
>>
>> But they don't carry more importance - except via peer review. And
>> peer review can take these into account.
>>
>snip
>
>Howard, what are you talking about?????
>
>See section 10-3 of the USGA Handicap Manual. And you might take a hint from
>the title of that section which is "Reduction of Handicap Index Based on
>Exceptional Tournament Scores".
My mistake, I didn't know this was automatic - I thought "exceptional
scores" had to be called by the committee.
However, this serves to lower someone's handicap if his tournament
scoring is significantly better than his handicap. I don't think
that your estimated score on lost match play holes is likely to make a
difference here.
The purpose of recording T scores is to catch sandbaggers.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 11:36:14
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
"Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1174118264.833414.251630@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 16, 3:39 pm, Watson deMeneux <Neverm...@server.it> wrote:
> > Howard Brazee wrote:
> >
> > > When I add up my medal play score is when I look at ESC, not before. I
> > > come up with two totals - the ESC adjusted score is what is entered
> > > into the handicap computer. It is meaningless for anything except
> > > the handicap computer. This is true even with medal play.
> >
> > This is the right answer. And if you don't play all 18, there's a proces
> > for estimating scores based upon handicap strokes that would apply. The
> > score entered for h'cp purposes is (can be) different again, and has no
> > bearing on the score you submit for the tournament.
> >
> > --
> > Watson deMeneux
> > -Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.
>
> As T scores are meant to carry more importance than other scores,
> doesn't it seem odd to include estimated scores in these? It's one
> thing when considering max scores, but what about a matchplay
> situation where your opponent is in trouble and concedes you a 4 foot
> birdie putt. What score would you record? I can't see how matchplay
> scores can ever be sensibly recorded.
>
I agree 100% - just couldn't get anyone else around here to see it my way.
dave
|
| |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 08:32:54
From: david s-a
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
Dave Lee wrote:
>
> 4) Is it legal to "finish a hole" after a concession? If the player is
> "considered to have holed out" after a hole is conceded this would seem to
> me to possibly be "practice". But I'm not clear on this.
>
Rule 7-2 (Practice during round)
".....Strokes made in continuing the play of a hole, the result of which
has already been decided, are not practice strokes....."
cheers
david
|
| | |
Date: 17 Mar 2007 11:58:33
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
"david s-a" <dsantwyk@bigpond.net.au > wrote in message
news:560goiF26u4gaU1@mid.individual.net...
> Dave Lee wrote:
>
> >
> > 4) Is it legal to "finish a hole" after a concession? If the player is
> > "considered to have holed out" after a hole is conceded this would seem
to
> > me to possibly be "practice". But I'm not clear on this.
> >
>
>
> Rule 7-2 (Practice during round)
>
> ".....Strokes made in continuing the play of a hole, the result of which
> has already been decided, are not practice strokes....."
>
> cheers
> david
>
Hmm, that question is answered in the ROG in an unambiguous fashion.
How strange :-)
dave
|
| |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 14:40:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
What I have done in match play tournaments is as follows:
1. When I pick up my ball (conceded hole), I write down my most
likely score, and the match play score (win, lose, half).
2. When the match ends there never has been a question about
finishing - we paid for our round, we finished. (The handicap rules
have instructions for partial rounds).
The tournament only cares about the match play scores unless there are
side-bets (eggs). The score that counts for this tournament is the
match play score.
When I add up my medal play score is when I look at ESC, not before. I
come up with two totals - the ESC adjusted score is what is entered
into the handicap computer. It is meaningless for anything except
the handicap computer. This is true even with medal play.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Mar 2007 15:39:40
From: Watson deMeneux
Subject: Re: Scoring, Posting, and Match Play
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> When I add up my medal play score is when I look at ESC, not before. I
> come up with two totals - the ESC adjusted score is what is entered
> into the handicap computer. It is meaningless for anything except
> the handicap computer. This is true even with medal play.
This is the right answer. And if you don't play all 18, there's a proces
for estimating scores based upon handicap strokes that would apply. The
score entered for h'cp purposes is (can be) different again, and has no
bearing on the score you submit for the tournament.
--
Watson deMeneux
-Say it out loud next time you're in a restaurant.
|
|
