[Pete Lavallee]

Any system can be defeated by those with the will to do so.  That goes for ours and theirs.   I truly believe that no system can be developed that will prevent sandbagging or other cheating by those who wish to do so.  

Tom,

Please explain exactly how someone across the pond  can fatten up their handicap, to a level that they have 4-5 shots in their pocket.

[JohnV]

Dan said:

Nobody seems to understand how ESC works because the organizations have done a poor job explaining it. I've only seen one golfer pick up and use ESC and that was myself. Everyone I know plays out the hole and then adjusts their score afterwards using ESC.

Obviously you play with a different group of people than I do.  I frequently hear guys say, "That's 7, thats all I can take" and pick it up. Unfortunately I sometimes have to educate them that this doesn't apply in tournaments.

ESC seems very well understood at my club.

Brent said:

I might be playing with four clubs, maybe I'm trying a new putter for the first time, maybe I'm playing a couple ProV1's I found instead of my Noodle, whatever. Heck, maybe I'm playing two balls on every hole and three on the one-shotter. I'm just out there by myself having a good old time and not keeping score.

If you are playing two balls, you can't post the score.  If you played in a competition that limited the number of clubs you could carry to 4, you couldn't post.  If you are using 15 clubs you can't post (ie you carry and use the new and old putter).  If you are not playing under the Rules of Golf (with a few exceptions), you can't post.

There are other times you can't post.

I agree that there should be times when a player says, I'm just practicing on the course rather than playing and not have to post.  Unfortunately the current procedures don't allow that.

[JohnV]

Tom,

Please explain exactly how someone across the pond  can fatten up their handicap, to a level that they have 4-5 shots in their pocket.

If I'm playing in the monthly medal and it is obvious that I'm not going to score well that day, so I miss a few more shots on purpose.  The good thing about the British system is that it would take a lot longer to get the handicap up than it does in America.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:  there you go.  One more for the honorable side.  Just don't let Rich see this or you're gonna get cast for movie roles.

 

Pete:  Please.  I don't usually like to think this way, but come on:  play 2-3 medals, miss a few putts, Bob's your uncle there's a bogus handicap.  It's certainly not as EASY to do over there, but it surely can be done.  Hell they give handicaps based on ONE medal round, don't they?  And absent the "Rule 19" thing Rich was describing - which has to be very atypical - your handicap changes glacially slowly.  The unscrupulous could make a killing over there, if they so desired.  They wouldn't last long in any one club, true... but that's kinda the same thing here, at least to some extent.

Late add - thanks, JV.  What is even easier to sandbag in UK system is how you START.

TH

[Pete Lavallee]

In the CONGU system you go up by 0.1 each time you shoot 1 stroke over your handicap. To go up by 4 shots you would have to play poorly in 40 Medal Competitions!

Still think it's easy to cheat in their system!

[Tom Huckaby]

I agree that there should be times when a player says, I'm just practicing on the course rather than playing and not have to post.  Unfortunately the current procedures don't allow that.

JV - proceduraly, wouldn't this fall under going against the stated assumption that honest best effort is given?  By that I mean, sure there's no STATED procedure for declaring a "practice round" - talk about room for abuse - but can't an ethical, honest player just call it practice, to himself, and not post?  I'm talking about the solo rounds Brent described.  Obviously one could just add a 15th club to such rounds to make them non-postable... but isn't what I describe a legitimate following of the spirit of the rules and guidelines?

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

In the CONGU system you go up by 0.1 each time you shoot 1 stroke over your handicap. To go up by 4 shots you would have to play poorly in 40 Medal Competitions!

Still think it's easy to cheat in their system!

Pete: Yes.  You get a new handicap and start over.  Or do this straight from the start.

And I never said it was EASY.  You didn't ask that.  You asked if it could be done.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

I'm not at all saying we stop trying to police against cheaters, nor do I disagree that eventually it catches up to them, just as you state.  That happens here as well.

What I am saying is I prefer to base a system on the honorable, rather than attempt to defeat all attempts at cheating... because I don't think the latter can be done.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:  of course, a vigilant Comp. Committee can easily defeat this.

But of course the same thing can be said here in the US.

Again, the problem isn't any system, the problem is people.  We all want to focus on the cheaters - and sure, there are lots of them.  But fear of Rich casting me in another movie role notwithstanding (and I would be fabulous in such, btw), well... I also believe there are WAY more people who do this correctly and for whom the system works - on both sides of the pond - then there are cheaters.  The cheaters are just the squeeky wheels, so to speak.

TH

[JohnV]

JV - proceduraly, wouldn't this fall under going against the stated assumption that honest best effort is given?  By that I mean, sure there's no STATED procedure for declaring a "practice round" - talk about room for abuse - but can't an ethical, honest player just call it practice, to himself, and not post?  I'm talking about the solo rounds Brent described.
TH

Not if you're a member of a club that really enforces the Handicap System and would post a penalty score if you didn't post your own score.

[ForkaB]

Just to clear up some ignoranc...oops, misunderstandings........

Tom IV

As Pete says, the maximum one's handicap goes up is .1 per bad round.  It would take a helluva lot of intentionally bad stroke play rounds (try 40 in a row!) to get (say) from a 6 to a 10, and....YOU CANNOT START OVER!!!  It is a national system.  If you were a 6 at Santa Teresa you cannot quit, join Rancho del Pueblo and get a 10.

Sean

Up here in Scotland you do need 3 rounds a year or your handicap lapses.  Not sure if the EGU has the same policy.  The clubs I belong to regularly cut sandbaggers and disallow vanity players (i.e. ones who used to play well but are creeping up from 1 to 6) from playing in elite competitions.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Please.  I couldn't register as Tom Huckaby one time and Thomas W. Huckaby another... or even worse, Richard V. Goodale the next time... Come on man.  Those who want to could still defeat the system.

And don't get me started on how painfully easy it would be to get a bogus INITIAL handicap.  Gee, I just can't understand why I shot that 95 in my first medal... And no sir, I never have had a handicap anywhere before....

Look, I understand the barriers are there to stop this - but Pete didn't ask if it was easy, he asked if it could be done.  For a contrarian cynic, you sure have polyanna tendencies when it comes to sandbaggers!

 

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete: Yes.  You get a new handicap and start over.  Or do this straight from the start.

So you can only cheat once, when you first get your handicap. Can people really change handicaps at will in their system? That sounds like a lot better system than the one we have; I know everyone at Balboa has 4-5 shots in their pocket right now!

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete:  agreed, it is definitely easier to cheat here.  

It's just far from impossible to cheat over there.

And for those who play against too many baggers, I have two recommendations:

1.  If you must play net, BEG to play in flighted events - at least you have a chance there;

2. Find a more honorable club.

I have to believe most clubs here do weed out obvious sandbaggers pretty quickly - same as in the UK.  I can say with 100% conviction that sandbagging is not an issue in the vaunted, not royal but pretty darn honorable Santa Teresa Men's Golf Club.  Why?  Because we have a strong group of guys running the competitions.

TH

[ForkaB]

Rich:

Please.  I couldn't register as Tom Huckaby one time and Thomas W. Huckaby another... or even worse, Richard V. Goodale the next time... Come on man.  Those who want to could still defeat the system.

And don't get me started on how painfully easy it would be to get a bogus INITIAL handicap.  Gee, I just can't understand why I shot that 95 in my first medal... And no sir, I never have had a handicap anywhere before....

Look, I understand the barriers are there to stop this - but Pete didn't ask if it was easy, he asked if it could be done.  For a contrarian cynic, you sure have polyanna tendencies when it comes to sandbaggers!

 

Tom

Please refraining from speaking again until you know of what you speak.  You CANNOT just post one 95 and get a (say) 20 handicap in the UK.  I'm too bored to post why this is true yet again.  Go back and read all the posts on this thread and other similar threads as well as the CONGU website and then report back.  Please.  I'm getting tired of your intellectual laziness and argumentation for argumnetation's sake, even if it is seemingly in good humour.  Have a nice day!

[Pete Lavallee]

Tom,

We are in agreement that it is much harder to cheat in their system then.

What I would like to see as a first step in having our system work better would be for the computer to keep track of tournament scores and issue all golfers with a normal AND a tournament handicap. It would be iteresting to see if the two mirrored each other; that would certainly make the peer review process a little easier for the Handoicap Chairman. Of course the tournament handicap would be the one used for all competitions.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

I all candor and honesty, I am not arguing for argument's sake - you know me well enough to know that is FAR from my bag.

I truly do believe one could get an initial bogus handicap quite easily over there.  I recall your prior explanations as to why that might not be so, and I don't buy them now as I didn't buy them then.  Each point you made, there was a way to defeat if one wanted to badly enough.  

So this is not intellectual laziness at all either, though that's an interesting accusation coming from one who demanded yesterday I describe why Pasa plays better rather than looks better and who didn't go back one measly page to find my explanation.

 

In any case this matters not.  I fully grant that it is far easier to cheat and obtain a bogus handicap here than it is there.  If you continue to insist it's impossible over there, then we can continue to argue.

Pete:

What you ask could very easily be done, and in fact I know some clubs do it already.  T scores are separated out in the handicap reports to allow for this.

TH

[JohnV]

Pete,

The computers do keep track of Tournament scores and there is a very specific formula under which they will automatically lower a persons handicap.  But, it requires the Committee at the club to designate an event as a T-Score and the current system says that should only be used for more important events (ie not every Saturday's men's club).

[Tom Huckaby]

JV:

We've received conflicting instructions about T scores.  Awhile back they told us just what you say:  that is, only important events get the designation.  Recently however we've been told ALL club events get such.  What's the scoop?

And I had another question for you many posts back... sorry for so many questions, but you are my main source for these things and to me your word is law.

JV:  I agree that there should be times when a player says, I'm just practicing on the course rather than playing and not have to post.  Unfortunately the current procedures don't allow that.
 
TH:  JV - proceduraly, wouldn't this fall under going against the stated assumption that honest best effort is given?  By that I mean, sure there's no STATED procedure for declaring a "practice round" - talk about room for abuse - but can't an ethical, honest player just call it practice, to himself, and not post?  I'm talking about the solo rounds Brent described.  Obviously one could just add a 15th club to such rounds to make them non-postable... but isn't what I describe a legitimate following of the spirit of the rules and guidelines?


Thanks!

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Sorry man.  We've discussed many, many issues over the years but I honestly didn't recall you caring about this one way or the other.  You have to understand this - handicaps are for people who actually play the game and you've reminded us for years that you no longer play the game.

I play, just not all that often. And my amount of play hasn't ever stopped me from having a keen interest in the game.

You keep talking about honor, but you can't rely on honor. The problem with politics might not be because of the system, but because of the politicians, but that means the system is flawed. If you have a system that requires only honest people get involved it won't work.

The USGA needs to implement real peer review, not run away from it. The flaw was that it was decided handicaps would be more legit if there were more rounds. So they decided they wouldn't let peer review get in the way of posting scores. They wouldn't let anything get in the way of posting scores. It's time to admit that was a bad idea and come up with a system that really uses peer review.

Dan King

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P. J. O'Rourke

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan:

Well said.  Just do explain to me how peer review is NOT part of the system now.  Santa Teresa does it pretty damn well these days.

Once again, my take here is the fault lies with people, not the system.  And I don't want to pander to the lowest common denominator, because we can't possibly go low enough.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

The perfect handicapping system is when the Hon. Sec. of a club, (I was one once at Nchanga G.C.) sees a score  that cleans the board and is inherently fishy, then announces that the miscreants new handicap is thus.

Bob

[Tom Huckaby]

Bob - indeed.  That's the right kind of peer review.  It can happen anywhere.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Huckster

I am not sure why you and the USGA cling to the idea of the single player posting a score.  Why is this so vital to the system?  Is it worth opening another door for cheats?  Aren't there plenty of other opportunities to post scores?  

Remember, one man's gimme is another man's missed putt.  Is it not a good idea for somebody to have some idea if the score a guy shot is legite?  

Ciao

Sean

 

Sean:

I must have missed something.  Where did I cling to the idea that solo scores should be posted?  I've described why they shouldn't several times, and have asked the great authority JV why I think this works under USGA handicap rules.

We're on the same side on this one, my friend.

TH

[ForkaB]

Huckster

Sorry.  When you stated that countersigning wasn't necessary I thought that was condoning singles posting scores.  

Well, I am glad we agree on something.  

Ciao

Sean

Whew!

Glad you got Huck and his fellow apoligists to agree on that one!  That wipes out at least 80-90% of the scores posted under the USGA system.  That's a good start!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()