If the individual I am playing with scores 6 for playing the hole in three under,
I would not be pleased in getting 6 for playing the hole in less strokes.
May you someday find yourself unhappy having played a hole in 4 strokes less than par.
(08-16-2013 04:20 PM)DavidHayes Wrote: [ -> ]May you someday find yourself unhappy having played a hole in 4 strokes less than par.
David,
It was a serious question/comment."Three or more under par" If it is not possible or you think it will never happen then why put 'more'. Or extend the points to 7 for four under.
Sorry if I have not been of any help
:
4 under on a hole will be far more likely when 2 or 3 handicap strokes are received on that hole rather than an albatross/condor with 1 or no handicap strokes.
Due to the inaccuracy of handicaps at that level, I feel limiting the points to 6 is appropriate.
Also with hole pars and maximum handicaps being outside the Rules, net 5 unders, 6 unders etc may be achievable. 'More' handles it.
Simonko,
At least you agree that 4 under is possible with handicaps taken onto account.
I accept that high handicaps might be inaccurate and that would be a good reason for limiting the points. If David agrees with this and that was his reason for the limit, then he could have answered accordingly. I think he missed my point. I was not unhappy at scoring 4 under par. I was unhappy at only scoring equal to the individual I was playing with.
If I've understood correctly, Code Two is trying to eliminate separately catering for the 1 in a million situation in the name of simplicity. Someone shooting a net 4 under on a hole with his opponent shooting a net 3 under would be such a situation.
I'm sure someone losing in match play after shooting what would have been around a net 70 to his opponent's net 80 would be unhappy too, but that is the game, similar to getting an eagle in a Par event.
I didn't miss your point -- I was wishing you well in your quest for a score of 4 under par for a hole.
David,
Thank you for your good wishes.
The comment was my humorous attempt to find out if there was a reason to limit the points. I still do not know, but as it has been mentioned it is a minor point (all rules come under the microscope at some time) I will leave it there.
(08-17-2013 04:09 AM)Simonko Wrote: [ -> ]Due to the inaccuracy of handicaps at that level, I feel limiting the points to 6 is appropriate.
This may well be true of the USGA system but not necessarily true for other systems.
It's more the inaccuracy inherent in any large number, whether that's weighing flour or measuring distances.
Plus the volatility of high markers' scores. Stroke events it doesn't matter too much, it evens out, but with Stableford-type scoring where there's a zero point limit at one end, there should be a maximum limit on points also to balance the volatility.