Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?

[Ken Moum]

A.G.,  GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.


And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap,  golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.

[Kalen Braley]

A.G.,  GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.

And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap,  golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.

Ken,

Agreed on this point... once you play a 5-10 rounds with some buddies, you can usually just say 3 per side or something like that and get on with it.

For practical purposes, having a GHIN only matters when playing with people you don't know.  I kept one for awhile a number of years back, but the 'unknown' sand-baggers in local events really turned me off to it.

[cary lichtenstein]

I played with both in money games.


I would never take an individual bet with a sandbagger without an agreement to adjust his handicap, no adjustment, no bet.


The bigger problem is when you have a vanity partner. Since I was usually the low handicap, I got the highest handicap player as my partner. Those were tough rounds and we could never win low and total unless he got a bogey.


I finally gave up those games because playing against sandbaggers and with Vanity guys as a partner got to me. I think I did it for 15 years.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,  GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.


And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap,  golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.

You’re right on both counts.  It is of course the best 8 of the last 20; I’ve edited my mistake. Thanks for the good catch.


As to the second part, we lived without refrigerators or central heat or vaccines for most of human history. I don’t think that’s a good argument against any of those things, or thousands of other things that improve the human condition.  Or the handicap system to make informal games more rational, either.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,  GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.

And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap,  golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.

Ken,

Agreed on this point... once you play a 5-10 rounds with some buddies, you can usually just say 3 per side or something like that and get on with it.

For practical purposes, having a GHIN only matters when playing with people you don't know.  I kept one for awhile a number of years back, but the 'unknown' sand-baggers in local events really turned me off to it.

You guys don’t get out enough.


Apparently neither of you have ever been a member at a club with regular points games of multiple foursomes; I’ve never been a member of a club that didn’t have at least one!  I’m part of 4 different ones at my current club, and there a couple of other groups that I’m not part of.


All of them work pretty much the same way; weekly signups via email, and a “commissioner” makes the tee times and the pairings. Typically there are three or four foursomes, and while the exact format of the games vary, ALL of them depend on handicaps.  Tomorrow morning, for instance, the game I’m in will have three foursomes, with guys playing three different sets of tees.  This week, each group counts one gross and two net scores: other times it’s straight points, sometimes it’s individual low net; the commish decides that in advance. 


The Sunday group I play in is straight group points; that commish puts together teams with close to equal total points quotas. 


The coolest game, which I don’t happen to be playing today, is the Friday afternoon “dogfight”.  That game will typically have about 20 guys; you play points with a $20 buy-in, and then there is a blind draw for teams AFTER the round in the grill over adult beverages. 


In each of these games, you play the tees you wish to play, with that course handicap, so we get young bucks who are scratch or close to it playing from the tips, all the way up to old guys (like me!) in their 60’s and 70’s and even 80’s.  It is an absolute blast; a ton of camaraderie, and great fun.  Different guys every week, and the club pros play a lot of times. 


The best of all was my previous club in GA; a golf-only club that had a club-run $20 points and skins (gross and net) game 5 days a week. The club itself made the pairings and handled the payouts; on a nice Saturday, they’ll have over 50 guys in the game. 


What I’ve just described takes place at clubs all over the country all the time; it’s not only by far the most common use of the handicap system, but would pretty much be impossible without it.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.


Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.


Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?

The current system does do this.  When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made.  This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.

[Wayne_Kozun]

There is a reason that shooting your handicap in most events is more than enough to get in the money in most serious events.

There are good reasons for this even if every score was legitimately entered.  The Handicap is calculated from the average of the best 8 of your last 20 rounds.  By definition you will only beat your handicap 4 out of 20 rounds, or 20% of the time.  But in a tournament you count the full score, not an ESC score, so your non-ESC score may be higher, especially for a high handicapper.  Plus there is a bit more pressure playing in a tournament so that will cause scores to go up.
And that is ignoring the liberal application of the gimme in casual rounds, not playing OB/lost balls properly, etc.

[Pete Lavallee]

I’m in a similar situation. We have a Club Game on Mens day which is Wednesday. It’s an individual game with a $5 buy in; 2 closest to the pins, and games like low net, stableford, best 9 holes. We field 4 groups and have a game amongst ourselves; $15 buy in, front back and overall with greenies or skins. We always use a team format with most common being 2 net balls per hole, sometimes 4 balls on 9 & 18. Because of this we don’t have any sandbaggers because you are constantly trying to contribute to the team. Occasionally we are short a player and have to invite a guy with a vanity handicap, you have very little chance of winning with him on your team!


We’ve also allowed players over the age of 65 to move up to the green tees. Unfortunately the tees are often set well ahead of the green plates which skews the game! I realize that we need to ask the Club to have the plates changed but this could only occur if the SCGA related the course?! I realize this is a first world problem!

[Pete Lavallee]

Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.


Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.


Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?

The current system does do this.  When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made.  This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.

Yes but the adjustment only kicks in if you shoot a net 65 or better. Baggers know exactly when to let off the gas!

[Wayne_Kozun]

Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.


Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.


Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?

The current system does do this.  When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made.  This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.

Yes but the adjustment only kicks in if you shoot a net 65 or better. Baggers know exactly when to let off the gas!

Ok, I just noticed that changed in North America in 2020 when we went to the world system.  It used to be three shots lower than your handicap in two tournaments:

The USGA said prior to January 1, 2020... "A player's USGA Handicap Index will be automatically reduced when he records at least two tournament scores in a calendar year or in his latest 20 rounds that are a minimum of three strokes better than his USGA Handicap Index."

[Pete Lavallee]

The current system drops your 8 keeper scores by 1 stroke if you shoot a net 65 or better in a tournament.

[Rob Marshall]

Our clubs invitational this year used your lowest handicap over the last 12 months. What good is the current system if you don’t use it? It changes every day but you don’t use it?


As far as vanity handicaps go, what you think is a vanity handicap can be far from it. As of today I’m a + .4. I play most of my golf at a par 71 which I think is over rated at 71.3. My average score in 2022 (36 rounds) is 74.8. ~3.8 over par and my course handicap is 0. I know handicap is “potential” but you would tell me I have a vanity handicap. On average I score almost 4 over par and my handicap is 0. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

but you would tell me I have a vanity handicap.

I wouldn't. If you entered tournaments and couldn't break 80, we might. But not if you shoot 75.

[Sean_A]

The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format.  That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.


Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.


Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here.  I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.

The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.

I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.

We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format.  That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.


Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.


Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here.  I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.

The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.

I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.

We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.

Ciao

Interesting post, Sean.  On the one hand you say you refuse to comply unless forced to do so, while on the other you declare the system doesn’t work.  You are, in essence, boasting about NOT having a valid index, and at the same time blaming others for doing the same.


I’d love to see data that shows that the US has a “poor handicap to golfer ratio”.  But that’s not the point anyway, is it? In order to play in almost ANY competition in the US, either at the club level or those sponsored by a state association, you DO have to have a valid USGA handicap, and I don’t think anybody would even be allowed to play in most informal club points games with an index that they just said was correct, instead of a GHIN index.


So perhaps everyone who needs an index has one?  Validity is a separate issue, dependent on both the individual to comply with the rules, and some sort of a peer review system.  And btw, at my club, you’d likely be banned from club tournaments because the handicap committee checks posted scores against the tee sheet.

[A.G._Crockett]

Our clubs invitational this year used your lowest handicap over the last 12 months. What good is the current system if you don’t use it? It changes every day but you don’t use it?

I don’t think this is uncommon.  The Carolinas Golf Association uses the 12 month low index for interclub matches, which are better ball match play.  It doesn’t get rid of all the possible issues, but it does make it harder to game the system in the short run.  The consequence seems to be that very few strokes are typically given, which is great for tha format.


Perhaps think of it as an extreme version of the idea that your index is an expression of your potential?

[Sean_A]

The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format.  That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.


Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.


Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here.  I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.

The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.

I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.

We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.

Ciao

Interesting post, Sean.  On the one hand you say you refuse to comply unless forced to do so, while on the other you declare the system doesn’t work.  You are, in essence, boasting about NOT having a valid index, and at the same time blaming others for doing the same.


I’d love to see data that shows that the US has a “poor handicap to golfer ratio”.  But that’s not the point anyway, is it? In order to play in almost ANY competition in the US, either at the club level or those sponsored by a state association, you DO have to have a valid USGA handicap, and I don’t think anybody would even be allowed to play in most informal club points games with an index that they just said was correct, instead of a GHIN index.


So perhaps everyone who needs an index has one?  Validity is a separate issue, dependent on both the individual to comply with the rules, and some sort of a peer review system.  And btw, at my club, you’d likely be banned from club tournaments because the handicap committee checks posted scores against the tee sheet.

The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.



I am not boasting. Just pointing out that the previous system worked very well and didn't ask me to post casual scores which doesn't interest me....never has. Casual scores are what caused most of the issues in the US. One problem was US golfers not willing to play enough comps to obtain an accurate handicap. So a few things happened. Their handicaps didn't normally travel well abroad (which didn't really matter as it mostly holiday golf). The real issue being elite (and hopeful elite) amateurs were taking spaces from locals in non US events then playing very badly because their handicaps were padded by casual play. So the solution is to pad everybody's handicap with casual play.


Most people in the US don't need handicaps because they basically play with mates and don't enter proper comps. So why is the system in GB&I changed because of US issues? The only reason I had a handicap in the US was because I had one as a junior and carried it on when I went public. I needed one to play in a few GAM events, city tournaments and Member-Guest events...so I posted a few scores here and there...trying to make sure my handicap was lower than how I was playing. Most people I knew never bothered, most still don't.


Yes, I expect at some point not to be able to play in club comps until I post some scores. I have posted one score this year...a comp. So if they force me to post a few casual rounds I will. But I disagree with the idea and think its a poor method for calculating handicaps. I never liked the idea of guessing the score for handicap. As I say, the old system worked quite well. The only thing I like about the new system is using 8 of 20 scores. It keeps the handicap dynamic to better reflect current play.


The nonsense about going online in advance to register a round, finding out the handicap of the day from a chart, then posting the score afterward within a time frame, then asking someone to attest the score by going online within that time frame is OTT. I missed doing this for one game because I turn my notifications off. I didn't realize I was asked to attest the score. So the score was thrown out. Its best left to comps where everything is built in for accuracy...at least it is in GB&I.


Ciao

[Tim Martin]

As long as the system allows online posting it will be rife with both vanity and sandbagger outcomes. There is no way to police the golfer who isn’t a member of a private club or doesn’t participate in a public course association i.e. Mens or Womens Club. This pertains to U.S. score posting as I can’t speak to what goes on in GB&I.

[Ken Moum]

When I heard we were exporting our dismal system to the world I had two reactions.


First I was dismayed, but I predicted that UK golfers would either revolt or ignore the main changes.


This thread  proves I was mostly right.


One thing you can't account for is how unserious a lot of American golfers are.


I still can't believe the number of times I've seen four balls of people who paid green fees at a decent course playing a scramble because they all suck.

[Kalen Braley]

I think Sean is exactly on point with his last few posts.

I've played the vast majority of my golf on public courses, and it was fairly rare to bump into someone who actually carries one.

The masses are mostly just out having a good time on a Sunday with buddies and yucking it up. And you see it in their play, taking 5 foot gummies, foot wedges, improper drops, talking about club selection with playing partners, and on and on with unaccounted for rules violations.

If I had to put a number on it, for the average golfer who plays at least 10 rounds per year, maybe 25% if not less, have a USGA cap....

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.

Says who? I've never heard that as a goal of the USGA. That'd be unrealistic, as there are a lot of casual golfers (and the USGA knows this).

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html
https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html

[Sean_A]

The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.

Says who? I've never heard that as a goal of the USGA. That'd be unrealistic, as there are a lot of casual golfers (and the USGA knows this).

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html
https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html

Says me, but as suggested maybe they gave up on that. In any case, for a world system to work ya first gotta sign golfers up...no? The lack of uptake demonstrates the private/public divide in the US. I believe GB&I has had the same problem to a lesser degree. A handicap was always touted as a benefit of club membership. I think this new system allows non-club members to get a handicap, but I'm not sure.

Ciao

[James Reader]

I think this new system allows non-club members to get a handicap, but I'm not sure.

Ciao



It does.  England Golf just announced last week that, one year after its launch, 25,000 people have subscribed to its iGolf service, which provides access to a handicap for golfers who aren’t members of a club.  There’s a similar service called OpenPlay run by Scottish Golf.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Says me, but as suggested maybe they gave up on that.

Pretty sure you can't "give up" on something you were never trying to do. I'd wager it was never the official position of the USGA that they wanted EVERY golfer to have a handicap index. "Every golfer who wants one should be able to get one," maybe. But that's quite different, and they've achieved that goal.

In any case, for a world system to work ya first gotta sign golfers up...no?

The ones who WANT a handicap, yes. And getting a handicap index is pretty easy. And since you can post scores and get an index without even having to play in competitions, it's easier in the U.S. than in some other areas.

The lack of uptake

Again: says who? There are over 3M golfers with a GHIN handicap. And most people don't even play in competitions that require a GHIN, or they play in a weekly league where the league plays with their own handicapping rules (and, often, their own rules, some of which may not be all that well aligned with the USGA's rules or recommendations).

You see 3M+ as a "lack of uptake". I see it as 3M+ is a lot of people, especially since about 2.5M of them will not really ever use it for much more than tracking their progress, an occasional round with some buddies, maybe a member-guest or something…

[Rob Marshall]

Imo If you only post competition scores you’re handicap is going to be higher than if you posted all of your scores. Effectively you are a sandbagger relative to someone who posts all scores. As Bobby Jones said there is golf and there is tournament golf and they are two different games. I never played higher than state level events but everyone’s scores go up in competition at that level.