During my three years as a member of the USGA Rules of Golf Committee from 2015 to 2018, I made one motion. Well, let me restate that—I tried to make one motion. At my very last meeting in December of 2018 I summoned the courage, raised my hand and stated my intent. It did not go well. The chair of the committee, Mark Newell, reminded me that I was not a member of the committee, but rather an advising member, representing state and regional golf associations. As such, I was not allowed to make motions.
My time on the Rules Committee (or at least as an advising member) was one of the most amazing experiences in my career. Not only did I get to be a part of the drafting of the Rules of Golf, I was able to do so during one of the most interesting chapters in golf history. To refresh your memory, the Rules of Golf were completely rewritten for the 2019 rules revisions. Ten years earlier, the USGA and the R&A made a commitment to taking the Rules down to the proverbial “studs” and rebuilding them from the ground up. In the spirit of modernizing the rules, no topic was off the table. No rule was beyond examination. No cow was too sacred. Well, as I was about to find out, perhaps one.
After reminding me of Roberts Rules of Order, chairman Newell gave me the floor to see if a full-fledged member of the committee might be persuaded to carry my motion forward. The room fell silent. For those old enough to understand the reference, E.F. Hutton was about to speak.
My motion was this: I move to change the name of the “Stableford” scoring system to “Points.” I made the case for the change by emphasizing that the intention of our work over the past three years was to “modernize” the rules and make them more approachable. In my view, the term “Stableford” was a barrier to wider adoption of a fantastic scoring system. While Stableford is a form of Stroke Play, it brings out the safety net of Match Play where one bad swing does not derail your entire day. Further, one of the primary objectives of the “modernization project” was to write the rules in “plain English” allowing for easier understanding and cleaner translation into other languages.
I was pleased that my suggestion was quickly turned into a motion, a second, and, after brief discussion, it was unanimously passed by the committee. Happy ending…right? Not so fast there Eddie. The USGA and the R&A are 50-50 partners in the governance of the game. Beginning in the 1950s, the two organizations vowed to bring the game into alignment throughout the world. This led to the standardization of the size of the ball and many other less notable differences were reconciled. To maintain this consensus, the USGA and R&A created a “Joint Rules Committee” that ratifies the work of the two working committees beneath them. Unfortunately for “Points” and fortunately for “Dr. Frank Stableford” my motion was roundly rejected.
While I was disappointed, I was not surprised. I still maintain that a change is warranted. The term “Points” describes the format. Stableford keeps an old man’s legacy alive. If good ol’ Doc Stableford were with us today I would like to think that he would be more interested in the adoption of his format and less interested in what it is called.
