[Ian Galbraith]

That is not what CONGU (our handicapping authority ) is telling us in the UK.

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=10


I've only ever heard that this part will remain basically the same as what we've had with the USGA. That document there says that match play scores should be posted, too, and I've heard nothing but that will be continuing.

That may be true in the USGA jurisdictions  but not in all jurisductions. Look on  e.g. the WHS page


https://whshighlights.usga.org/#!/
 
and click on the acceptable scores tick box. There you'll see explicitly that each jurisdiction has freedom to decide what an acceptable score is.


I suspect this is a fudge to get a compromise acceptable to those places which believe entering casual scores is an anathema to accurate competition handicaps.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That may be true in the USGA jurisdictions  but not in all jurisductions. Look on  e.g. the WHS page


https://whshighlights.usga.org/#!/
 
and click on the acceptable scores tick box. There you'll see explicitly that each jurisdiction has freedom to decide what an acceptable score is.

Thank you. That's the first time I've seen it. What it says is:

Singles and Stableford formats of stroke-play competitions must be submitted by all players. National Associations have discretion within their jurisdiction to decide if other acceptable formats of play can be submitted for handicap purposes, which can be competition and/or recreational play. This gives players plenty of opportunity to submit scores and provide evidence of their potential ability.

[Kalen Braley]

In the US sandbagging is a VERY real issue.
You can change the rules and the procedures all you want. However, it still will never solve the issue and there will always be those who seek to gain an advantage.

Ian,

I'm a little confused here.  If you only post tournament rounds, that are presumably observed by engaged competitors, how does one sand bag?

Unless you mean they intentionally post a whole years worth of crappy tourney scores so they can sandbag one tournament the following year?  I suppose you could do this but the benefit doesn't seem to outweigh entering all those tournies and intentionally shooting bad scores.

[Ian Mackenzie]

In the US sandbagging is a VERY real issue.

I've never actually seen any data on how big of an issue this actually IS. I feel like a lot of people likely over-estimate the problem… but maybe most of those people voicing concerns are simply people who play in a lot of handicapped events, and so they see the same two or three people performing unusually well in those events. That could mean that both sides are right: 2 or 3 out of 400 at a club are sandbaggers (not a big problem), but those same two or three players win 85% of the events and the 80 members who regularly play in them are annoyed (big problem).

Just curious...under what circumstance or under whose "authority" would you ever see data about...ahem...cheating at golf?
The only real "data" I have ever seen came from a famous WSJ article.


Aha..!...found it: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304450604576419670064691208


https://www.hookedongolfblog.com/2013/06/10/lets-call-sandbaggers-what-they-really-are-cheaters




Nobody likes to talk about it because there is zero upside in it for those who want to see it remedied.
It's more widespread than you think and there's a very simple reason why there is now more visibility into it.


I live in Chicago. Our system is run through the CGGA - Chicago District Golf Association.
On my iPad, I have their app. I can enter my scores and I can also see everyone else's in the district. (Yes, Shelly and Terry, you guys, too!!...;-)


More specifically, at your home club, readers can see where fellow members played, on what date and what they posted.
You can also see HDCP trends every two weeks. Then all you need to do is fogure out when the big tournament is, like a Calcutta or member/member....then watch how all the indexes slowly start climbing and CREST the reporting period before the tournament.


Then they all start receding in the ensuing weeks. Swear to effing god...;-)
You can also see people who then "stuff" rounds in from the winter to pad their index. It's all online to see.

[Ian Mackenzie]

In the US sandbagging is a VERY real issue.
You can change the rules and the procedures all you want. However, it still will never solve the issue and there will always be those who seek to gain an advantage.

Ian,

I'm a little confused here.  If you only post tournament rounds, that are presumably observed by engaged competitors, how does one sand bag?

Unless you mean they intentionally post a whole years worth of crappy tourney scores so they can sandbag one tournament the following year?  I suppose you could do this but the benefit doesn't seem to outweigh entering all those tournies and intentionally shooting bad scores.

Kalen, that would be a great start if people began posting "T" scores. Sadly, that does not even happen. 80%+ of golfers dont post them at all...ever.

[Kalen Braley]

Ian,


I would certainly agree with you that sandbagging is the number 1 problem with rounds here in the states, at least in the smaller local tournies.  I've never entered one where someone didn't absolutely smash thier flight... usually in a 12-18 flight where someone shoots 3 rounds in the 70s and wins by double digits net over the next closest person.

And it gets awkward every time with forced smiles and polite claps for the obvious bagger...

P.S.  As to posting tournament scores, this is where the tournament needs to post them for you.  No more self posting of any kind.

[Jim Hoak]

That is not what CONGU (our handicapping authority ) is telling us in the UK.

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=10


I've only ever heard that this part will remain basically the same as what we've had with the USGA. That document there says that match play scores should be posted, too, and I've heard nothing but that will be continuing.

That may be true in the USGA jurisdictions  but not in all jurisductions. Look on  e.g. the WHS page


https://whshighlights.usga.org/#!/
 
and click on the acceptable scores tick box. There you'll see explicitly that each jurisdiction has freedom to decide what an acceptable score is.


I suspect this is a fudge to get a compromise acceptable to those places which believe entering casual scores is an anathema to accurate competition handicaps.

Since these are only proposed rules now, and will not be effective until 1/1/20, it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

[Jim Hoak]

On the subject of handicap cheating--

1)  The USGA requires (or is it recommends?) that all member clubs have a Handicap Chairman, who is to police the system, spot cheaters, and can impose reduced R handicaps on sandbaggers.  Unfortunately, my experience is that most clubs don't do this, and yet everyone gripes about sandbaggers.

2)  In the US, where all scores--recreational or tournament--are to be posted (with a few somewhat minor exceptions), T scores have been allowed to be used for tournament rounds that carry additional weight (through being around longer) in the handicap calculations.  But T scores are supposed to be only for rounds where the club establishes and announces before the round begins that it is a T score round.  So individuals are not to post T scores by themselves; only the club can do that in essence, and then all scores posted for those designated rounds must be T scores.  Again, my experience is that few clubs enforce this procedure.

So, it gets back to the lackadaisical behavior of clubs that is the principal reason that sandbaggers are free to exist.

[John Kavanaugh]

My partner and I win 20% of the tournaments we enter. Whenever we get beat he always thinks it's because of sandbagging. I think our win percentage might be a tad high to be throwing out accusations. Truth is, if you play every round for at least a days pay, play 100% by the rules, putt everything out...there is no one but yourself to blame if you ever lose a club tournament.


There is only one table more miserable than one full of sandbaggers. One full of whiners.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sandbagging is a problem mainly in the US, because the USGA handicap system makes it somewhat feasible. Since your last 20 scores are averaged, it will have an effect to throw in 10 bad rounds. In Europe, where handicaps only ever go up 0.1 no matter how bad your round was, you'd have gained a grand total of 1 stroke when handing in 10 bad rounds. Plus, it's only tournament rounds, so you'd have to play 30 or 40 tournaments to really make a dent in your index. Not realistic.

The new World Handicap System will now bring the US system to everyone, which means sandbagging could become feasible around the world

To be honest, there is quite a bit of sandbagging in Europe as well, but only among new golfers. They can improve faster than their handicap will drop, if they simply don't play a lot of tournaments. Once they plateau handicap-wise, it's over. But they can take 3 or 4 comps along the way.

Ulrich

[SL_Solow]

Ulrich,  the best 10 of the last 20 are computed under the current system.  The proposed change is to the best 8.

[John Kavanaugh]

One thing that makes me sad is that in 2020 I will be old enough to play in the Senior League. Truth of the matter is that I can not afford to post scores from the senior tees. It is a messed up deal.


At Victoria National for instance I wouldn't have half my scores below 90 from the back tees and less than half in the 60's from the front. The rating only varies from 77 to 66 while the slope is 148 vs 125. You don't even need to cheat to have whatever handicap you want. You just need to "play the game".

[Ian Mackenzie]

My partner and I win 20% of the tournaments we enter. Whenever we get beat he always thinks it's because of sandbagging. I think our win percentage might be a tad high to be throwing out accusations. Truth is, if you play every round for at least a days pay, play 100% by the rules, putt everything out...there is no one but yourself to blame if you ever lose a club tournament.


There is only one table more miserable than one full of sandbaggers. One full of whiners.

Unless the data says otherwise...;-)


Hmm...table of dishonest cheaters vs table of guys who play by the rules...?...I'll take table 2 please and, Kavo, send your check over; we will cover it...;-)

[Kalen Braley]

Barney,

Are you sure you're a glass is half full kind of guy?  You sure seem to love to whine about lots of stuff!      

I openly admit I'm a skeptic, it has served me well in my career of almost 20 years, where my jobs paid me to trust but verify everything...

[John Kavanaugh]

If my glass is half full our waitress had a death in the family. Or soon will.

[Kalen Braley]

If my glass is half full our waitress had a death in the family. Or soon will.

Hilarious as usual....

#Winning!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just curious...under what circumstance or under whose "authority" would you ever see data about...ahem...cheating at golf?

Someone could create that kind of data. Maybe even the folks who oversee the handicapping at one of the state golf associations or something, could see which players are posting what kinds of scores, playing what tournaments and shooting what scores in those events, etc. It could be done. It's just a math problem.

Kalen, that would be a great start if people began posting "T" scores. Sadly, that does not even happen. 80%+ of golfers dont post them at all...ever.

The golf association or committee running the event should really enter the scores for the golfers.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sandbagging is a problem mainly in the US, because the USGA handicap system makes it somewhat feasible.

The new World Handicap System will now bring the US system to everyone, which means sandbagging could become feasible around the world

Ulrich

This is the reason I started this thread. Allowing golfers to post casual scores not played in competitive rounds is a recipe for sandbagging!


Here’s a real world example: The Club Presidents son was 4 Handicap. He had twins and took a year off golf to help with the kids. He hits it over 250 off the tee and is a good putter. When he decided to return to golf the next year he posted 19 rounds on the internet all ranging from 82-89 and was given a 15 Handicap. I partnered with him in SCGA Team play and because I got my clock cleaned by a 12 who shot 78 he had to play well to win the team portion. He ended up shooting 78 also. He actually rode over to his Dad, our Team Captain and said he had to do it to win the team portion. They actually won the SCGA Partner Best Ball and proudly displayed their Siver Plate. The next year in our Clubs qualifying Best Ball Tournament they said hang around if you have a good round because we will have a playoff rather than a cardoff because this is a significant event. Our playing companions shot a net 62. We asked if they were going to hang around for a possible playoff they said no way as  the EZ team will easily beat that. Sure enough they each shot 89’s as 15 handicaps and won the Event with a net of score of 60!!! The kicker was that the son didn’t post his score, the father did but didn’t enter it as a Tournament round so the Club DQed them. They left the Club in disgust and the next year the son was cut from his bogus 15 to a 7 at his new Club and left that Club too!


So the moral of the story is: leaveing policing to the Handicap Chairman is a tough sell. Nobody wants to confront a fellow golfer and accuse him of being a cheater. I realize his is how it’s supposed to work in the USGA System but it’s very hard to do in real life.


The 2 Clubs that I belong to that use Tournament handicaps (best 5 out of the last  10 Tournament rounds)  have greatly reduced the usual suspects from winning most Events.


So my question is: do we need to put the onus on indidual Clubs to enforce honesty? Surely a computer generated Tournament handicap would do this and save evderybody a lot of work and grief!!!

[Jim Hoak]

This discussion is boiling down to a disagreement between the merits of the USGA system where most all scores, tournament and recreational, are posted, and the R&A system, where traditionally only tournament, usually singles scores, are posted.  So how do you come up with a single world-wide system that applies to all?  As a US golfer, who plays some in the UK every year, I understand the merits of both systems.

The central dilemma in my mind is that the style of how golf is normally played is different in each of our countries.  In the US, most of my golf is partner better-ball, match play competition on a recreational basis for a small wager--or some variation thereof. In the UK, a lot of the non-recreational golf may be singles, with a small tournament played on many weekends.  In the US, I don't play more than 1-2 tournament rounds all year.  I don't see the golf at my US clubs ever going to regular weekly tournaments, and I don't see many UK clubs wanting to post recreational rounds--especially partners, match play, recreational rounds.  In the US, if we adopted the UK system, I might only have a couple of rounds to post all year.  And my US friends don't want to have regular tournaments--especially if they require singles play.

Therefore, I think the real problem is not which handicap system is best, but rather how do you devise a unified system that accommodates the different playing preferences of each country?  I don't see all countries ever adopting the same style of play.  So if we are going to have a world-wide handicap system some compromise is needed.  Maybe it will be concluded that given our varying playing preferences a unified system is not possible.  But I think the proposed system is worth a try; it was devised after a lot of negotiation and study.  Let's give it a chance to see how it works.  Nothing need be cast in stone forever.

[Ken Moum]

And my US friends don't want to have regular tournaments--especially if they require singles play.

To be realistic, those people don't need an international handicap.


I have had this discussion with people who never play competition, and don't even wager in casual rounds.


The only rational argument for a "system" is that it makes it possible to compete against people you don't know.


Make it like the CONGU system and sandbagging disappears. I have asked a number of Scots about sandbaggers and all but one didn't know what it was.


On another point, the real problem with using casual rounds is that you aren't measuring one of the primary skills in the sport... the ability to play under pressure.


This means that folks who can play under pressure don't even need to cheat.


I've given up all hope that we will ever see a handicap "system" that achieves the goal.of allowing reasonable competition among players of disparate abilities.

[Pete Lavallee]

Jim,


The flaw in our System is the Handicap Chairmean must intervene when a sandbagger works his magic; as the USGA says use “pier review”. I frankly can’t see how the CONGU System folded to the USGA,s every round is sacred philosophy?

[Dave McCollum]

I must admit I didn't read much of this thread.  I no longer play tourneys and don't really give a crap about handicaps.  Yet, two things struck me that I've always wondered about.  Before getting to those, when I did play tournaments back when I was learning the game, sandbagging seemed to be less of an issue as my HC went down and I played with better players.  I was never any good, but when I escaped the the high double-digit HC range and went to a 10 or so or below, there seemed to be less baggers.


I play in the USGA domain.  Many years ago, I used to play in a match play competition.  The guy that ran this event said that some USA golfers from around here went to play in Ireland and were taught there how to play match play.  He said that Irish guys told them that the proper way to handicap a match was to have the low capper play scratch and give the higher player 66-75% of the difference between caps (whichever makes the math easier) to the higher capper.  This is match play only, and all I ever play these days.  The assumption is that you can't give full HC in match play.  Well, this made sense to me and for the next 20 years or so this is how we handicapped matches and they came out remarkably even.  We even did yearly match play tournaments based on this formula.  That worked out fine.  The higher handicaps and sandbaggers complained of course that they weren't getting their full strokes, but they quickly shut up when we pointed out that they were getting their shots on the hardest holes while the better player was not, whatever his/her HC.  It worked.


Then I went to Ireland and played some matches.  The golfers I met there had never heard this system.  I'd have matches with better players and they'd give me the full difference between our handicaps and I'd always win (extremely small sample).  I'd tell them before the match that you can't give full HC in match play.  They'd say it's fair.  It was match play, so if I was out of the hole making a jumbo, I lost.  But if I was making pars on my stroke holes, I was hard to beat.  I could never figure this out.  For 20+ years we'd be using this "Irish" system that worked to perfection.  Everyone won or lost in almost perfect balance to how well they played.  Somebody, please, explain this to me.


The other thing that bothers me about such discussions is that low scores do happen.  It's happened to me when I was just learning the game.  I was just learning, earnest in posting scores, establishing a HC, playing by the rules, and all that.  Some guy invites me to a member-guest at another club when I was playing poorly.  I don't remember, but I suppose I was about an 18 cap at the time.  The guy who invited me was a fairly good single-digit capper, say a 7.  I was a hack.  That week before I went out on the range to practice and found something that seemed to work.  I played the event and shot 3 over and 4 over on my own ball (best ball) that weekend while my partner ham-and-egged when I didn't.  We weren't cheats, it just happened.  It was embarrassing, but it happens.  It doesn't seem like I won the lottery.  I was trying to play well and I did.  There's a difference that statistics don't cover.                           

[Rich Goodale]

Jim,


The flaw in our System is the Handicap Chairmean must intervene when a sandbagger works his magic; as the USGA says use “pier review”. I frankly can’t see how the CONGU System folded to the USGA,s every round is sacred philosophy?

Pete


A few years ago I was "Match and Handicap" Secretary at my local club (Aberdour), and one of the requirements for my job per CONGU was an annual review of all handicaps in the club and cutting or raising their handicaps with clear distinctions as to what constituted (in effect) "sandbaggers" or "vanities."


It allowed protests to be considered and worked perfectly.


It ain't hard to do.


Rich

[Sean_A]

Dave


The percentage change in matchplay changed several years ago.  I think it went from 75% difference to 90% difference in 4ball.  Singles its full handicap. 


I don't think there is any question there is historically a much larger scope for handicap cheating in the US.  Until there is a culture of proper attesting and scores being checked by a third party this will always be the case. As mentioned previously, the big problem in the US is tons of club guys who rarely play many comps so handicapping using the method in the rest of the traditional golf world is difficult.  I think it is a mistake to use friendly scores for a few reasons.  First, there is a big risk of lack of accuracy due to weak attesting etc.  Second, the culture will continue in most of the traditional golf countries of posting loads of comps scores except in the US...they will still post overwhelmingly friendly games....creating uncomparable situations.  Third, a proper handicap is only really necessary in a proper comp.  Friendly golf is not a good reason to make such a drastic change.  I would rather have tighter controls insuring higher accuracy rather than making sure Bobby and Johnny Hacksticks can have some sort of "official" handicap for use with folks while on holiday.   


Ciao

[Pete Lavallee]

Rich,


I would imagine that adjustments in your CONGU System were minor. What was the most strokes you had to cut somebody by? I doubt you had to take a 15 down to a 7!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()