The Stableford scoring system can add some fun to your weekend round
A few years back I was playing golf at Cherokee Run, a Palmer design about twenty miles outside of Atlanta, and I got paired up with some Australian’s who were in the area for the Masters. There were seven of them, and as I was at the course alone (I was every day during that spring break of my first year teaching), the starter threw me in the mix with them.
As it turned out, I couldn’t have asked for a better situation. Usually when I get paired up it is with somebody who can’t stop talking and is constantly “quick-calling” (yelling “good putt!” before the ball actually gets near the hole) all of my shots, forcing me to turn to the King for help. This group neither chanted sterotypical features of their continent nor acted the least bit disturbed to have me joining their golf trip (that included heading to the Masters, then playing Harbor Town, the Ocean Course at Kiawah, and Pinehurst); actually, they were just the opposite- they let me in on the little game they had going, and they taught me their version of the Stableford.
As I found out, this is the most common game played in Australia, and they were all shocked to learn that I had never once enjoyed a friendly wager based on this system. While The International uses a different version that actually causes a player to lose points after a big number, the game I learned from the Aussies was much more ego-friendly: one point for a bogey; three for a par; five for a birdie; and seven for an eagle.
It was one of the more enjoyable gambling games I’ve ever played because I always felt as though I had a chance to make a roaring comeback, and my score wasn’t affected by a triple. In fact, these guys didn’t even keep score in the traditional sense- when discussing the round later, they gave the results in points rather than in strokes, forcing me to forget about the negative aspects of my day.
And seeing as Cherokee Run was at the time my home course, I did the U.S. proud and sent them on their way with a little less money to spend on the tasty Augusta sandwiches.
Next time you’re standing on the tee trying to figure out what game to play, give the Stableford a try. You can make up your own point system, and it’ll help divert your focus from the hopeless way you’re use to assessing your round.
| « Contrary to popular belief, Mickelson is lucky to be playing in the Tiger Woods era | Michelle Wie fires her caddie- I won't be applying » |
9 comments
All the more, how do you justify writing your previous blog?
Tasha, FOCUS! This blog was about the fun of playing the Stableford System. Nothing else.
Tasha- I just now went back and reread your comment on my last blog, which you decided to bring up, so I'll try to answer the question.
First of all, I taught high school English.
Second of all, since you clearly didn't really read or understand what I wrote, I'll reiterate. I wasn't saying that Michelle Wie firing her caddie was a crime, and I didn't say it was as bad as anything I mentioned. So, I wasn't insulting people who had actually been through those situations.
I brought up those examples because as a pro, Michelle Wie should not be given a free pass when she fails, or when she acts (even if it is through her agent) like a jerk. I was not saying that only she is at fault for the constant excuses, but rather referring to the many people (like yourself) who constantly come to her defense because she is sixteen, or because she has had success in the last few tournaments, or because she's still learning, or because she an "inspiration to young girls." Sure, people are fired all the time, but does that mean that we have no right to comment on a situation such as this, especially when Johnston was not given the respect that any of us would demand from our employer?
I'm sure Michelle Wie doesn't care what I think, but that doesn't bother me, nor will it keep me from expressing my opinions about her.
That's how I justify writing my last blog. It was simply my opinion about the fact that Wie can't always hide behind excuses, which to me, she seems to do. I was simply saying I wouldn't want the job.
Perhaps Tasha, it is you who takes yourself too serioulsy.
So, how about that Stableford scoring system?
My high school English teacher used to say "be precise, concise and to the point" and if you have to reiterate as you did, you failed to present your case well enough in the first place.
But it was good to see that this time, you've written about something fun that you enjoy. That's the spirit!!
This post has 4 feedbacks awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this post
