Put me solidly in the camp of those who believe that the issue of sandbagging in the existing U.S. system is VASTLY overblown. And that's not without some data; the USGA estimates, I believe, that there are at least three vanity handicappers for every true sandbagger.
And I say "true" sandbagger because in my experience, the guys that I've known over the years who have been accused of it, have, with one exception, been legitimate indexes who simply played really good golf. More to the point, perhaps, is that they are guys who simply play by the Rules; they take full strokes under ESC, they putt out, they play the ball down, they take stroke and distance penalties, and so on. Further, the guys accusing them are often the vanity guys that do NOT do that stuff, then post a lot of scores that are just too low for an index they have no chance of playing to in competition.
The end-of-the-year Carolinas Golf Association Fourball Tournament of Champions was held earlier this month at Pinehurst. In the Super Senior (65+), the net winner as a team on which on of the guys shot a gross 75 and was getting 13 strokes, for a net 62. He MUST be a sandbagger, except he isn't. I've played with him many times, and he's a legit 13 BY THE RULES who plays a lot of competitive golf and had a GREAT day. But there were people screaming, no doubt about it.
Vanity handicappers want you to think more of them than they really are. Sandbaggers want you to think less of them than they really are. Which sort of person do you think there's more of in the world and the game of golf?
Right, and it ain't even close.
AG, I hear you, but then again, I go to data when and where available.
The internet, the iPad, and the GHIN system gives me that at my fingertips.
For guys at your club, you can track their index. Watch what date the member/member tourney is...THE money event at most clubs. Then watch the trending of handicaps the previous two months as it hits a club-wide apex on, as an aexample, June 1 for a June 14/15 two day tourney.
The event ends then watch as many of the indexes slide back to where they were in April.
Yes, I’m jaded as I don’t get any strokes from anyone at my club... 
I have never competed well in any of the “socialist events” where charity strokes are given to the less fortunate... 
...just to make them feel like they can give you a game....😉 
I wish more clubs of all natures adhered to more strict guidelines for score posting.
Ian,I think the bolded sentence is the key to your opinion, and in MY experience at least, the opinion of most low handicappers about net competitions.
The entire purpose of the handicap system, of course, is to equalize competition between players of widely different skill levels. Which means that really good players are, at times, going to lose to chops. And in a large-field event, that becomes VERY likely, for the simple reason that better players tend to score within a tighter range. If you have a lot of mid to high handicappers, whose scores vary far more anyway, it becomes almost a certainty that one of them have a great day and win the net division. At which point, the sandbagging chorus from the predictably upset low handicappers begins full throat.
I'd add this: The system was devised primarily, I think, for individual match play, and still works best that way. If you play against an INDIVIDUAL with a 12 index, it isn't mathematically likely that he'll have a great day THAT day. But if you're in a field against 20 guys with double digit indexes, then the odds flip, as do your chances of winning net.
I spent a number of years as the president of the MGA at a golf-only club, and I was never disappointed in the expectation of bitching by the low index guys (and we had a LOT of them!) when they got lost in a net competition to a hack (and we had a lot of them, too!) Eventually, my answer became, "Then maybe you shouldn't play in a handicapped competition." It always caught them by surprise.
Like you, I am averse to losing to lesser players. I've found two simple ways to avoid that, however; one is to play better, and the other is to not play net competitions. But blaming the system as being "socialist" is sort of misguided, isn't it?
Thanks for that.
I do get you views.
Funny...qthat sentence was bolded purely by iPad accident.
I fully understand the purpose and 8ntent of the HDCP system and my comments, with cliche emojis, were meant to come across as tongue in cheek sarcasm, not literal statements. I play with guys all the time who range from +3s to 18+ And we enjoy the matches thoroughly.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that we have uncovered sandbagging trends based on data that is verifiable today. This is not conjecture, this is not opinion, this is not suspicion....this is confirmation.
Reject it as you see fit, this is a good debate.
That’s cool.
But, don’t let my data get in the way of your opinions....😉
Ian,
If you uncovered "sandbagging trends based on data that is verifiable", then you must have at least something of a peer review system in place, which the USGA says is a key part of picture for any club conducting net competitions. What you DO about those trends is the next issue, of course. There are clubs that routinely check the scores entered against the tee sheet, and there are clubs that actually enter the scores for individual golfers. All that is needed is a will and some individuals willing to take on the task, whether club employees or a handicap committee of members.
I play in a lot of Carolinas Golf Association senior four balls, and there are payouts for both gross and net in each division. The tournament director ALWAYS explains what he calls "the 14 shot knockout" rule, which gives the CGA the ability to DQ any golfer whose net score betters his index by 14 or more strokes. Doesn't mean they'll do it, but they can, and in any case, they WILL adjust that golfer's index for purposes of the next CGA tournament.
Meanwhile, in CGA interclub matches, you play off your low index for the last 12 months, regardless of how much higher your index might be now, how much golf you've been playing, and so on. Try sandbagging THAT!
In two other senior tournament groups that I play in, the only time you will use your USGA index are the first couple of tournaments you play. After that, your index is based on those tournaments only, regardless of your USGA index.
The point of all of that is that IF the people administering net competitions are doing what they are supposed to be doing, sandbagging just virtually disappears. If the administrators don't do those things, then screaming foul is far less compelling to me.
I'll say it again: Reverse sandbaggers with vanity handicaps are people that want you to think MORE of them than they really are; sandbaggers are people that want you to think LESS of them than they really are. In golf, as in the rest of life, there are vastly more of the former than the latter.