[Chris Cupit]

We get slaughtered!  I can't break an egg anymore and Don is old as dirt!

However, If you can set that match up, I'm willing to be led to the altar.

PS  Come check out the new course when you can.

[Tom Huckaby]

1998 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 58-60-118
1999 *Bill Hardin and Vincent Massero 63-59-122
2000 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 63-53-116


What are the odds of a legitimate best ball 53?  From a guy who won the handicap tournament three years running?  Scores like this irritate me.

Of course I ought not to speak out of turn.. but something in the recesses of my memory tells me that this Bill Hardin did finally get his... he was drummed out of NCGA and banished forever from tournament play.  I could be thinking of the wrong guy... but that did happen to a multiple winner of an event like this somewhere back not that long ago.

The NCGA does it's best to combat bagging, for sure.  But there's only so much that can be done.

Net 53 better ball at Spyglass under tournament conditions certainly does raise eyebrows.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

We get slaughtered!  I can't break an egg anymore and Don is old as dirt!

Now there's a guy who knows how to set up a pigeon...
 

[Chris Cupit]

Tom,

Those guys should wear masks when they play.  I'd love to know if their handicap indexes reflect the fact that every time they play the try as hard as they can on every hole to shoot the lowest possible score and they enter every score (properly adjusted for equitable stroke control).

Anyway, I used to complain about higher handicappers getting "too many shots" but he more I've read and worked with the handicap system, the more I believe it does a good job equalizing matches with a slight edge to the better player.

Unfortunately, all of the system depends on the honesty of every player and that is impossible to control.

[Dan Boerger]

When a low handicapper plays against a high handicapper and loses there will almost certainly be some disappointment. Frankly, it comes with the territory: the system isn't perfect and, from my observation, a legit 15 handicapper will shoot in the mid 70's more often than a 2 will shot 7 under.

As one of those 10 - 15 guys who is not likely to get much better soon due to family and work commitments, anytime I beat a really good player (let's say 2 or lower) there's a real significant asterisk to that match in my mind. Trust me, I would rather lose with a 2 than I would win with my 12.

Full disclosure - I don't play for high stakes and those that I play frequently with don't consider me "dangerous" with my current handicap.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:

I concur with every word of that.  I just did want to point out who I'd bet on in this type of match.

I've been a staunch defender of the USGA handicap system on here for years... it's usually me and TEP, either in tandem or separately, v. Goodale... I absolutely believe that when the rules are followed and peer review is done correctly, it works very well.

That being said, peer review doesn't tend to catch those who have a strong desire not to be caught.  I'm really not sure what can be done about sandbaggers who want to do it badly enough.  

THis is why inter-club net events have to sadly be taken with a huge grain of salt, so to speak.

Intra-club events ought to be fine.

TH

[Garland Bayley]

1998 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 58-60-118
1999 *Bill Hardin and Vincent Massero 63-59-122
2000 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 63-53-116


What are the odds of a legitimate best ball 53?  From a guy who won the handicap tournament three years running?  Scores like this irritate me.

Absolutely illegitimate. Same people winning every year with scores like that! Absolutely illegitimate. If they played stroke play events on their own ball and played as well as they must have played here. the handicap adjustment rules would kick into effect and crash their handicaps down!

[Pete Lavallee]

I absolutely believe that when the rules are followed and peer review is done correctly, it works very well.

If one follows the rules, why would you need peer review?

Does the CONGU system rely on peer review?

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete:  I have zero desire to get in this again - we've been down this road way too many times and I believe I've answered those questions at least 100 times previously in here.  You know what I think, and I know what you think.

TH

[Pete Lavallee]

I'll take your lack of an argument to be a concession on your part Tom.

[Tom Huckaby]

I'll take your lack of an argument to be a concession on your part Tom.

You may take it that way if you wish, but it certainly wasn't offered as such.

I've just seen a bit too much circular repetitive arguing on this site in the last few months - haven't you?

 

[TEPaul]

If we want more equitable and accurate handicaps over here for starters the USGA Handicap System should require all golfers to post hole by hole. That would immediately do away with the need for voluntary ESC compliance which hasn't reached 50% since it began. Golfers don't even need to know about it, just post their gross hole by hole score and the application and the computer will take care of the rest.

For members of a single club you can't believe what that could do for stroke hole allocation too. Basically after a year or so the computer could instantly figure out exactly where a higher handicapper would individually need his stroke allocation against any particular lower handicpper.

Plus for a handicap committee who actually cares about peer review hole by hole posting is so much easier to figure out how and where somebody is trying to sandbag his handicap.

[Chris Cupit]

One more post--take Hardin and Vuica and have them play Tiger and Phil once a week for a year.  Early on these sandbaggers may win but at the end of the year, assuming they post every score (including the "career" rounds) the handicap system will take care of everything.

After the first revision, especially if early on their scores are tournament scores--exceptional ones at that--their handicaps will be down to where Tiger and Phil start feasting on them.

In the long run, even Hardin and Vuica are toast.  Over the long run, give me the better player.

[Jim Sweeney]

A.G.:

There are several ways theandicap system is built to benefit the lower handicapper.

1) ESC- reduces abnormally high scores. Since higher handicappers' scores are more volitile, more of their scores are adjusted downwards. I am a low handicapper. I adjusted exactly one hole score in all of 2006. Many higher handicappers adjust one or more hole scores downward every round. Thus their posted scores are often two or three or more strokes lower than their actual scores.

2) Averaging the ten lowest of the last twenty differentials. This is really the same as #1- scores for higher handicappers are more volitile, and the ten highest diferentials are eliminated.

3) Then average of the ten lowest differentials is multiplied by .95. This is called the "bonus for excellence." For example, if player A's average differential is 0, 0x .95=0. If player B's avg. differential is 20, 20 x .95 = 19. I.e., the "bonus" cost the higher handicapper one stroke for his match against A.

My 55% - 45% example is an approximation. the exact percentage would depend on how far apart the handicaps were. Two scratch players should split 50-50, and the percentages would get wider as the handicap differences get larger.

You may agree with Archie and that's OK, but I'll go with the guys who set up the system.

The problem is that the system is just that, a system, and if it is not followed very close to exactly, inequities result. So the 80% recommendation fits the system. If you are playing with people who are not true to the system, your perception of what is "right" may be different than the recommendation.

Finally, handicaps are calculated individually. They are equally effective in individual stroke or match play, where they are used at 100% (some local tournament committees may choose to go with a percentage, but it is unlikely they have a good reason to to so. They are helping the better player, but if the better player also has a suspect handicap, what's the point?)

The recommendations for four ball take into account that there are two players but only one ball counts. Thus the effect of volitility, the concept that the higher handicappers' scores will vascillate more than the lower handicappers', is greatly enhanced. It makes sense, then, to regulate that volitility somewhat, to the advantage of the better players.

Hope this helps.

[cary lichtenstein]

Here is how that match works:

If you play against Phil and Tiger, your bio rythms will be off and you'll get beaten like a drum. The excitement will cause you to hit all kinds of shots that you never hit.

[John_Cullum]

The real pisser is when 18 is the number 1 handicap hole and you invariably get pressed on the tee and have to really get on  top to halve the hole.

[Jason McNamara]

For the answer, just watch the People vs. the Pros tournament that is on TV each year. In 2005, Justin Leonard and Ben Crenshaw both won, although in Crenshaw's case it was more a case of his opponent choking (Crenshaw had to give him 14 strokes).

Dan, didn't it wind up being the case that Crenshaw played some total sandbagger?  I remember the guy was up big on Crenshaw (4 or 5?) before falling in the end.

[johnk]

No one has mentioned the course in this scenario.

In the Tiger / Phil imaginary best-ball match against 10-15 hcp'ers, I think it would be very easy to guarantee a Tiger / Phil win by playing a course that's setup as it would be for a major.

Even the tougher PGA setups are going to kill the 10-15 handicapper.  Rolled greens, tucked pins, and tees set up at the limits wouldn't phase Tiger/Phil, but the club players would be lucky to shoot 100 on their own ball, and team net pars and bogies would be common.

Put the club players on a 7400 yd course, and see what happens.

If you played, say Oakmont, the day after the US Open, it'd be no contest.  No way 10 hcp'ers would break 100, while Phil and Tiger would shoot an easy 65.

For example, last year I played Poppy Hills with a 2hcp, 5hcp, 8 (me) and 12hcp on Sunday of the AT&T.  Pins were all tucked, and tees stretched.  Greens were not rolled that day, but they had been for the previous 3.   The scores were 85 (2), 88 (, 94 (6), 106 (12).

What'd Phil do there?  8 birdies, 1 eagle, 3 bogies and a double for a strange 67.

[Mark Pearce]

In my experience, low cappers win most of the time if high cappers are in the field.  

Having had experience with both the USGA and CONGU capping systems I have to say CONGU wins hands down.

1.The game is till played by the rules including holing out 18 times for capping purposes - no estimating!

2.Peer review is still in place.  Golf is a game of honour, but review is essential.

IMO the above two are major flaws in the USGA system!

3.Only competition scores are used for capping.  The USGA is on a noble crusade trying to use all scores for more accuracy AND to get people to maintain caps, but it is a lost cause.  Too many people just want to knock it around and can't be bothered to post.

In any case, most of the time that folks bitch about sandbaggers they haven't played to their handicap.  I can understand being upset going out week after, playing to your cap and losing to a high capper.  Lets be honest though, is this really the case most of the time?

Ciao

Also, CONGU makes it hard for the high handicapper to play to his handicap.  Play better than handicap and the category four golfer loses 0.4 of his 'cap for every shot he beats handicap by.  Shoot net 5 under and thats 2 off the handicap.  Shoot 10 over and you still only get 0.1 back.  Far better than an averaging system, though tough for guys whose game is on the way out.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.:

I adjusted exactly one hole score in all of 2006.

Jim,
One hole?  The whole year?  One triple the whole year?  One LOIBIP the whole year?  Holy Cow!  Either you're not getting out much, and/or I want you on my team if we ever end up at a GCA outing together.

[JohnV]

The real pisser is when 18 is the number 1 handicap hole and you invariably get pressed on the tee and have to really get on  top to halve the hole.

Which is why the USGA Handicap system recommends not having #17 or #18 as either the 1 or 2 handicap hole.  They also recommend that for #1 and #2.

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity...did any of you happen to watch Tiger and Phil in the '04 Ryder Cup together? After watching that I'd take the team of Huckaby and Kavanaugh any, and every, day of the week...straight up!

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - CONGU works great there, our USGA system works as well as can be expected here.  We've battled this countless times before in here.

As for events in which higher cappers compete directly against lower cappers net, my experience is the opposite of yours - the higher cappers nearly always win.  There's always a 20 who shoots gross 85, net 65... kind tough for a 4 to match that with a gross 69.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

PS to John Krystynak - the scores I posted re NCGA Assoc Club 2man were all achieved at Poppy Hills or Spyglass Hill.

 

[Dub_ONeill]

The USGA HAndicap Manual and its appendices  contains a lot of stats on how often a player with an accurate handicap plays at or below his handicap.  My recollection is that it is about once every five rounds and that an average score for a mid handicapper is about three strokes worse than his handicap.  There is also a table that shows the odds of bettering your handicap by various margins. Once you get past four or five shots the odds get very high pretty fast as I recall.  All of which demonstrates that the 20 who shows up at every event and shoots 85 doesn't have a valid handicap or should be at the tables in Las Vegas.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()