[Erik J. Barzeski]

Again, do you have a problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" of handicaps in the eClub you administer to?

Already answered, but for perhaps the third time: no. It's a single digit percentage, all soft.

Again, why do you want to allow semi-rapid upward movements of handicap without limits? Do you dislike that the system doesn't let you sandbag?

At the end of the day, Chris, you think it's "bad" but I and others including the USGA/R&A/WHS seem to think it's a good thing, and instituted it for reasons, as they say. You may disagree with those reasons (but I also don't think you really understand the reasons), but that's all it is: your opinion, and you disagree. And all the red text you can muster doesn't change the fact that it's your opinion.

[Chris Hughes]

Again, do you have a problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" of handicaps in the eClub you administer to?

Already answered, but for perhaps the third time: no. It's a single digit percentage, all soft.

[Previously you said 4 in your eClub.  Four of how many?  If there's no inherent problem, why are you so hung up on the "rule"?]

Again, why do you want to allow semi-rapid upward movements of handicap without limits? Do you dislike that the system doesn't let you sandbag?

[I want to allow handicaps to move naturally, as they will, and as they always have.  "Semi-rapid movement" is a steaming pile of bovine dung, as is the "anti-abuse" rule known as the "soft/hard-cap". 

The handicap system was functioning just fine as is, and the new "anti-abuse" rule known as the "soft/hard-cap" makes life way easier on sandbaggers while unfairly penalizing lots and lots and lots of active and honest golfers.]


At the end of the day, Chris, you think it's "bad" but I and others including the USGA/R&A/WHS seem to think it's a good thing, and instituted it for reasons, as they say.


[list the reasons as you believe them to be, please.]


You may disagree with those reasons (but I also don't think you really understand the reasons) [I'd argue that you as a surrogate for the USGA/R&A/WHS, have no understanding of how sandbaggers work their magic.], but that's all it is: your opinion, and you disagree. And all the red text you can muster doesn't change the fact that it's your opinion.


[Well, that's your opinion...but the facts are in my favor.]

I look forward to your responses...


Cheers[/list]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

[Previously you said 4 in your eClub.  Four of how many?  If there's no inherent problem, why are you so hung up on the "rule"?]

Ah, good to see you being your intellectually dishonest self once again. And… I'm not the one who is "hung up on the rule". That'd be you. I don't really think about it, or worry about it, except to counter your BS here.

[I want to allow handicaps to move naturally, as they will, and as they always have.  "Semi-rapid movement" is a steaming pile of bovine dung, as is the "anti-abuse" rule known as the "soft/hard-cap". 

The handicap system was functioning just fine as is, and the new "anti-abuse" rule known as the "soft/hard-cap" makes life way easier on sandbaggers while unfairly penalizing lots and lots and lots of active and honest golfers.]

I don't agree, and the USGA/R&A/WHS doesn't either. But what do they know? (This is a rhetorical question, which we'll revisit later.)

[list the reasons as you believe them to be, please.]

Ask them if you want the full list. I don't speak for them; I just think you're full of 💩.

[I'd argue that you as a surrogate for the USGA/R&A/WHS, have no understanding of how sandbaggers work their magic.]

Yeah, I'm not a surrogate, I just… again… 💩.

[Well, that's your opinion...but the facts are in my favor.]

What facts are those exactly? This is where we revisit the idea of a rhetorical question, btw, since I don't really care about your answer as it's certainly as delusional as anything else.[/list]

[Chris Hughes]

 
EB:  I'm not the one who is "hung up on the rule". That'd be you. I don't really think about it, or worry about it, except to counter your BS here.

[Your behaviour would indicate otherwise.  How many members are there in that eClub you are so proud of?]

EB:  I don't (want to allow handicaps to move naturally), and the USGA/R&A/WHS doesn't either. 

[Why not?  Please be specific.]

EB:  Ask them if you want the full list. I don't speak for them; I just think you're full of 💩.

[Res ipsa loquitur...  That said, you can't "list the reasons", because you don't know.]

EB:  Yeah, I'm not a surrogate, I just… again… 💩.

[Res ipsa loquitur...  And again, you simply do not understand how sandbaggers work their magic.]

EB:  What facts are those exactly?

[The fact that in 2023, at any point in time 12.5-13.5% of ALL handicap holders were caught in the soft/hard-cap "anti-abuse" seine net.  This implies that 25-27% of ALL active & honest golfers are caught up in the soft/hard-cap "anti abuse" seine net -- this is unacceptable!!]

EB:  This is where we revisit the idea of a rhetorical question, btw, since I don't really care about your answer as it's certainly as delusional as anything else.

[Of course you don't care, you can't handle the truth.  ]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The amount of times I have to repeat myself is getting really old, Chris, and your ongoing intellectual dishonesty (or, really, just straight up dishonesty) is also getting old.

[Your behaviour would indicate otherwise.  How many members are there in that eClub you are so proud of?]

Buddy, you're the one who continues to drive this bus. I have no problems with the capping situation.

I've already answered the question as to how many members I have. And the number capped in any way is in the single digits.

And I've never said or indicated that I'm "proud" of it (I'm not ashamed of it or anything, but it's not something to be "proud" of either) — I administrate an eClub for golfers who want to have an official handicap index. I do this as part of a bunch of the volunteer work for my AGA. Again, I'm not "ashamed" of giving back to the game through my volunteer efforts, but I wouldn't say I'm "proud" of my eClub, either. It just "is." You do know it's a fully supported thing, right? For example: https://nysga.org/eclubs.

Boy, you're obsessed with my eClub. You probably spend more time thinking about it than I do.

EB:  I don't agree (want to allow handicaps to move naturally), and the USGA/R&A/WHS doesn't either. 
[Why not?  Please be specific.]

That's not my quote (I added the blue back for what you removed/added). More dishonesty. As I've said a few times now… you'll want to ask the USGA/R&A/WHS why they put the capping in place. They'll give you their reasons. I think others gave some reasons earlier, too.

Also, there's nothing "natural" about it. The entire system is contrived, made up, created. You keep using the word "natural" but there are better words: "unabated" or "unchecked" work better. You don't want caps that limit upward movement, the USGA/R&A/WHS do.

Imagine a guy who is a 3.3 who signs up for a net event in three months. Wanting to win, his plan is to post 20 scores all much higher than his index, so he gets more strokes. Well, the system in place now is going to limit his handicap's upward movement. Maybe he only needs three extra strokes… But he'll have a hard time getting to four or five added strokes.

I don't think it's a bad idea to "cap" that fella's upward movement. You seem to think that guy should be able to play the event as a 9.5. You and I (and the USGA/R&A/WHS) disagree there.

[Res ipsa loquitur...  That said, you can't "list the reasons", because you don't know.]

Yeah, IANAL, but that doesn't apply here (this isn't a tort case nor am I negligent in some way). And I think I have a pretty good grasp as to their reasoning, but since it's their reasoning I'd rather you hear it straight from them. One of the reasons seems to be pretty evident given the name: "anti-abuse."

[Res ipsa loquitur...  And again, you simply do not understand how sandbaggers work their magic.]

You can say this about you: regardless of how dumb something is, once you latch on, you latch on.I've also never said (nor has the USGA/R&A/WHS) that this is going to catch ALL sandbaggers.

[The fact that in 2023, at any point in time 12.5-13.5% of ALL handicap holders were caught in the soft/hard-cap "anti-abuse" seine net.  This implies that 25-27% of ALL active & honest golfers are caught up in the soft/hard-cap "anti abuse" seine net -- this is unacceptable!!]

The only fact there is the 12.5-13.5% (we'll assume for now that's a valid number). The rest are opinions. You said "facts" (plural) and then listed a single fact. Also, why did you double that number to get "25-27%" and why does it "imply" anything when the "fact" is (stipulated to be) 12.5-13.5%? You also, as I've said before, have absolutely no idea how many of those golfers are "honest."

Let's assume they're all honest (a big assumption): the USGA/R&A/WHS could still want to limit the upward movement of a handicap even IF someone isn't trying to game the system. A handicap is a measure of your "demonstrated ability" and if you're playing a competition where you were a 3.3 only four months ago, it seems like that should weigh into your "demonstrated ability" as well. The cap system keeps a little bit longer history than just 20 scores. Without the cap, you'd be throwing out the history of your 21st round entirely. The cap keeps those rounds slightly relevant because a handicap index is the demonstrated ability, and so within the last year, the golfer has demonstrated the ability to play to a 3.3. Note also that there's no downward cap.

Does it suck for the golfer who injures himself and can't put up the same scores as he used to? Yes, but also a) that golfer is injured, and wouldn't be competing in other sports anyway, b) in cases like that, the administrator can manually adjust the handicap. This cap system is just the automated way of handling it.

I disagree entirely that it's "unacceptable" (your opinion) and that is all this boils down to: you have convinced yourself that your opinion here is "factual" and can't get past the idea that it's just an opinion, and one which the USGA/R&A/WHS disagree with.

EB:  This is where we revisit the idea of a rhetorical question, btw, since I don't really care about your answer as it's certainly as delusional as anything else.

[Of course you don't care, you can't handle the truth.  ]

Your opinions are not "the truth" Chris.

[Chris Hughes]

EB:  "Imagine a guy who is a 3.3 who signs up for a net event in three months. Wanting to win, his plan is to post 20 scores all much higher than his index, so he gets more strokes."


This isn't how sandbaggers operate... 

Real sandbaggers constantly manage their handicap to higher levels and then shoot better scores to win tournaments...

...the new system you are a surrogate for, completely whiffs in this scenario.

(while simultaneously penalizing a very large % of the active and honest golfers).

How many members in that eClub of yours?

[Charlie Goerges]

This isn't how sandbaggers operate... 

Real sandbaggers constantly manage their handicap to higher levels and then shoot better scores to win tournaments...

I realize I'm going off the topic here, but I've always been fascinated by sandbaggers, without really ever knowing what it is they do. I can remember reading an article in Golf Digest in the early 90s about sandbagging and it described a very painstaking process where they appear to legitimately shoot worse (but not too much worse) and only trying to game the system bit by bit and making it look totally natural. I specifically remember one sandbagger discussing underclubbing just once in a round, but on a water hole. I thought at the time, there is no way I could imagine a sandbagger like that ever being caught. Who is ever going to dispute a 2 handicap shooting a 77 that could/should have been a 75, never mind that the 77 is pushing a 72 out of the calculation. And how much money is that sandbagger realistically going to win as a result? It just doesn't seem worth the effort but, like I said, fascinating.

[Jim Hoak]

This probably isn't the right place for a discussion on sandbagging, but my experience is that there are many more people going in the opposite direction, with "vanity handicaps."  Players not recording their truly allowable, USGA GHIN score on a hole far outnumber those who try to inflate their handicap.  Vanity handicappers are seen more favorably than sandbaggers, but both varieties undermine the game with untrue handicaps.  "Give me a double," when a triple would be allowed, is cheating--to themselves and to everyone who is their unfortunate future partner..
I believe that the handicap system is integral to the integrity of the game we love, and the USGA is trying to legislate in a very difficult area.  The product we have now can and should always be tweaked to be made better, but I believe that it is vastly better than the old system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This isn't how sandbaggers operate... 

I suppose you'd know. 

You've fully depleted any sh--- I had to give, Chris. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you're dishonest, intellectually and otherwise. You confuse facts with (your) opinions. You can't explain how 12.5-13.5% became 25-27%, nor do you seem to understand what an eClub is or how it functions. You dodge points made against you by just… ignoring them and repeating questions that have already been answered. I've had a number of people read over this topic to see if I'm missing something, and after they come back with some form of "man, that Chris guy…" we have a chuckle, they confirm how I've read most everything here, and we go on about our days.

I wrote a decent bit above, and you come back with this 💩. Ha. I shouldn't be surprised. But I am done.

This probably isn't the right place for a discussion on sandbagging, but my experience is that there are many more people going in the opposite direction, with "vanity handicaps."  Players not recording their truly allowable, USGA GHIN score on a hole far outnumber those who try to inflate their handicap.  Vanity handicaps are seen more favorably than sandbaggers, but both varieties undermine the game with untrue handicaps.I believe that the handicap system is integral to the integrity of the game we love, and the USGA is trying to legislate in a very difficult area.  The product we have now can and should always be tweaked to be made better, but I believe that is vastly better than the old system.

Right on. Vanity handicappers vastly outnumber the sandbaggers.

[A.G._Crockett]

This probably isn't the right place for a discussion on sandbagging, but my experience is that there are many more people going in the opposite direction, with "vanity handicaps."  Players not recording their truly allowable, USGA GHIN score on a hole far outnumber those who try to inflate their handicap.  Vanity handicappers are seen more favorably than sandbaggers, but both varieties undermine the game with untrue handicaps.  "Give me a double," when a triple would be allowed, is cheating--to themselves and to everyone who is their unfortunate future partner..
I believe that the handicap system is integral to the integrity of the game we love, and the USGA is trying to legislate in a very difficult area.  The product we have now can and should always be tweaked to be made better, but I believe that it is vastly better than the old system.

Jim,


Good post; spot on.  Vanity handicaps far, far outnumber actual sandbaggers; they always have, and the gap is getting bigger all the time as the USGA continues to tweak the handicap system. 


I’ll add this to your post: At least at private clubs, IF a Handicap Committee is doing its job, most of the methods used by sandbaggers largely disappear. The ability to quickly check posted scores against the tee sheet has improved dramatically, and this is becoming even easier and more effective with software like Cap Patrol.  (I know this isn’t really possible at most public courses, so please don’t tell me about it!)


This discussion comes up from time to time here, and it always amuses me that there is griping about sandbagging, AND griping about things the USGA is doing to fight it, like soft and hard caps.  I suspect that it may even be the same people…


As to the soft and hard caps, I’ll just say this: I play EVERY tournament at my club (and there are a lot!) both gross and net, and I’ve already played 15 senior tournaments, all but two with a net component, in 2024, plus a dozen or so interclub net four ball matches.  In all of that, I haven’t heard a single player, NOT ONE, complaining about being capped.

[Rob Marshall]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

[John Kavanaugh]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

Typical vanity handicap excuses.

[Kalen Braley]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

Rob,

This has been my experience as well and always seemed to be more prevalent in the higher flights where I played. Seeing an "alleged" 15 shoot two consecutive rounds in the 70s left peeps salty, but yet the next tourney it would happen again.

While I don't disagree with common wisdom there are there are more vanity caps, it only takes one bagger to spoil the show.

[Carl Johnson]

What if you're not a player who wants to be a vanity handicapper, but many of the guys you play with are?  Does that put pressure on you to go for a little vanity, too?  Otherwise, won't you fellow players tend to think you're a sandbagger?

[A.G._Crockett]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

The guys that just won our net four ball match play tournament are a 3.1 and a +1.4.  They beat my partner and I in the second round; I'm a 6.0 and my partner is a 13.5.
The bottom line is that if you can play to your index, whatever it is, you can win.  If you can't, you lose.  End of story.

[Rob Marshall]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

The guys that just won our net four ball match play tournament are a 3.1 and a +1.4.  They beat my partner and I in the second round; I'm a 6.0 and my partner is a 13.5.
The bottom line is that if you can play to your index, whatever it is, you can win.  If you can't, you lose.  End of story.

AG, there is a big difference between handicap stroke play and match play. I was referring to stroke play. You missed my point. Playing one 15 is different than playing a whole field of them. You also play to your index 20 or 25% of the time. If you do it more than that I would question your handicap. I play handicap events when it’s the only way I can get on my course that day or weekend. I know one of the 15’s in the field is going to shot net 63. So shooting my index isn’t going to win me anything. End of story.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Higher handicappers:

• Have more variability in their scores (up and down)
• Are more plentiful in general.

Yes, the winner will often come from a bunch of 15s instead of a smaller number of 2s. Doesn't mean they're sandbagging.

[Rob Marshall]

Higher handicappers:

• Have more variability in their scores (up and down)
• Are more plentiful in general.

Yes, the winner will often come from a bunch of 15s instead of a smaller number of 2s. Doesn't mean they're sandbagging.

Never said they were sandbagging Erik. Just the reality of handicap stroke play……….

[John Kavanaugh]

The world needs more purse builders.

[A.G._Crockett]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

The guys that just won our net four ball match play tournament are a 3.1 and a +1.4.  They beat my partner and I in the second round; I'm a 6.0 and my partner is a 13.5.
The bottom line is that if you can play to your index, whatever it is, you can win.  If you can't, you lose.  End of story.

AG, there is a big difference between handicap stroke play and match play. I was referring to stroke play. You missed my point. Playing one 15 is different than playing a whole field of them. You also play to your index 20 or 25% of the time. If you do it more than that I would question your handicap. I play handicap events when it’s the only way I can get on my course that day or weekend. I know one of the 15’s in the field is going to shot net 63. So shooting my index isn’t going to win me anything. End of story.

1. I’m completely aware of the math of rounds that meet or better your current index; I think you know EXACTLY what I meant by “playing to your index”.  I have 20+ guys on the roster for our 65+ interclub team, and I keep track of net differentials for each player. Some guys consistently play within a relatively small range of their current index, and some guys don’t, and it has NOTHING to do with what that index is, high or low.


2. I’m sure you can craft an explanation of the “big difference” between match and stroke play as it pertains to high vs low handicaps and chances of winning, but PLEASE don’t. I think it’ll make my head hurt.


3. I’m not sure that I’ve seen many (or ANY!) large field net stroke play events that aren’t flighted, but it’s a straw man anyway. For ANY given player with ANY given index, the larger the field, the less his chances of winning; he’s only got a 1 in 5 chance of meeting or bettering his index, and if there are 20 other players, some of them will. (It IS a mathematical reality that higher indexes shoot scores in a wider range than lower indexes, which one reason most large net events are flighted, though not the best reason, but that still has little to do with the outcome of a tournament.)


4. I’ve been involved in running net events, both stroke and match play, at my clubs for nearly 20 years now, and I’ve heard the complaint about a 15 index shooting a net 63 more times than I care to remember. Forget for a moment that we’d have to know that player’s course handicap for those numbers to be useful; in MY experience, the complaint is almost always a guy with a vanity cap, who just got whipped by a guy who plays fully under the Rules all the time, and isn’t bothered by playing out of a divot, or missing a 3’ putt, or takes the max allowable score instead of picking up and saying “Give me a five”. 


I’ll say it again, a different way so that you don’t parse words: Post a score that is one of your 8 that will count, and you have a good chance to win, regardless of your index.  Post a score that is one of the 12 that don’t count, and you are less likely to win, regardless of your index.


Just play better.

[Rob Marshall]

Someone who is a legit 2 cannot compete in a non flighted club tournament. A higher handicapper is always going to shot a net 66 or lower. Not saying they are sandbagging. They could all be legit but someone always shoots a low number like that. The 2 then needs to shot 68 or better. I my experience anyway.

The guys that just won our net four ball match play tournament are a 3.1 and a +1.4.  They beat my partner and I in the second round; I'm a 6.0 and my partner is a 13.5.
The bottom line is that if you can play to your index, whatever it is, you can win.  If you can't, you lose.  End of story.

AG, there is a big difference between handicap stroke play and match play. I was referring to stroke play. You missed my point. Playing one 15 is different than playing a whole field of them. You also play to your index 20 or 25% of the time. If you do it more than that I would question your handicap. I play handicap events when it’s the only way I can get on my course that day or weekend. I know one of the 15’s in the field is going to shot net 63. So shooting my index isn’t going to win me anything. End of story.

1. I’m completely aware of the math of rounds that meet or better your current index; I think you know EXACTLY what I meant by “playing to your index”.  I have 20+ guys on the roster for our 65+ interclub team, and I keep track of net differentials for each player. Some guys consistently play within a relatively small range of their current index, and some guys don’t, and it has NOTHING to do with what that index is, high or low.


2. I’m sure you can craft an explanation of the “big difference” between match and stroke play as it pertains to high vs low handicaps and chances of winning, but PLEASE don’t. I think it’ll make my head hurt.


3. I’m not sure that I’ve seen many (or ANY!) large field net stroke play events that aren’t flighted, but it’s a straw man anyway. For ANY given player with ANY given index, the larger the field, the less his chances of winning; he’s only got a 1 in 5 chance of meeting or bettering his index, and if there are 20 other players, some of them will. (It IS a mathematical reality that higher indexes shoot scores in a wider range than lower indexes, which one reason most large net events are flighted, though not the best reason, but that still has little to do with the outcome of a tournament.)


4. I’ve been involved in running net events, both stroke and match play, at my clubs for nearly 20 years now, and I’ve heard the complaint about a 15 index shooting a net 63 more times than I care to remember. Forget for a moment that we’d have to know that player’s course handicap for those numbers to be useful; in MY experience, the complaint is almost always a guy with a vanity cap, who just got whipped by a guy who plays fully under the Rules all the time, and isn’t bothered by playing out of a divot, or missing a 3’ putt, or takes the max allowable score instead of picking up and saying “Give me a five”. 


I’ll say it again, a different way so that you don’t parse words: Post a score that is one of your 8 that will count, and you have a good chance to win, regardless of your index.  Post a score that is one of the 12 that don’t count, and you are less likely to win, regardless of your index.


Just play better.

I’m 62. Ive  posted 96 scores this year. My current index is 1.6. My average score is 75.8. My low round is 70. High is 84. I’m not going very far in net events. I used to play a ton of competitive scratch golf. I agree, I need to play better. Of course I have a vanity handicap right?

[John Kavanaugh]

Rob,


I’m in the exact same boat. You get healthy for a couple of weeks a year and fight a soft cap the other 50 weeks.

[Chris Hughes]

This isn't how sandbaggers operate... 

I suppose you'd know. 

[I sure do.  Again, sandbaggers manage their handicap perpetually, and then shoot better scores in tournaments.  The "soft/hard-cap" system for which you are a surrogate, has no effective mechanism to penalize this sort of behaviour.  The single scenario you described is ludicrous.]


You can't explain how 12.5-13.5% became 25-27%, nor do you seem to understand what an eClub is or how it functions.


[From the USGA:  "In 2023, overall there was a 12-13% incident rate for soft caps and 0.71% incident rate for hard caps." 

So let's call it 12.5-13.5% overall, and keep in mind the sample set is ALL handicap holders, active or otherwise. 

[More from the USGA: "In 2023 there were 3.03 million active golfers. We determine active as having an active Handicap Index at any point in 2023. Active but not posting: about 10 - 15% of active golfers don't post scores (not sure if they are even playing golf)."]

Think about a bank, an open account, and an active account, are entirely different things -- same for GHIN accounts.  Along with another buddy who is curious about the topic, we set two hurdles to define "active" (parsed the numbers in June):


1.  Anyone who has posted 20 scores since the beginning of 2023 (approx. 18 months).

2.  Anyone who has posted 15 or more scores in 2024.

We looked at 100's of accounts and 50%+ don't meet the definition of "active" (obviously subjective, but reasonable).  Put another way, anyone posting less than this probably wouldn't be subject to the "anti-abuse" mechanism known as the "soft/hard-cap". 


The premise for and purpose of an eClub is patently obvious.  A while back you held out the fact that only 4 members of your eClub were caught up in the cap as the only evidence needed to illustrate there's not a widespread problem.  Laughable.

Hey, how many members in that eClub of yours?]


I've had a number of people read over this topic to see if I'm missing something...


[Now that is funny!  How many people participated in the review?  Keeping you up at night?]

I wrote a decent bit above, and you come back with this 💩. Ha. I shouldn't be surprised. But I am done.

[You said the same thing back on June 9th,.  But 14 thousand words later and a panel review of this thread, here we are!]

This probably isn't the right place for a discussion on sandbagging, but my experience is that there are many more people going in the opposite direction, with "vanity handicaps."  Players not recording their truly allowable, USGA GHIN score on a hole far outnumber those who try to inflate their handicap.  Vanity handicaps are seen more favorably than sandbaggers, but both varieties undermine the game with untrue handicaps.I believe that the handicap system is integral to the integrity of the game we love, and the USGA is trying to legislate in a very difficult area.  The product we have now can and should always be tweaked to be made better, but I believe that is vastly better than the old system.

Right on. Vanity handicappers vastly outnumber the sandbaggers.


[Agreed.  That said, active and honest golfers being unfairly punished by the ineffective "anti-abuse" system known as the "soft/hard-cap" outnumber the combination of both those categories, and by many multiples.]

Have a great weekend!!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The premise for and purpose of an eClub is patently obvious.

Cool. You should share your thoughts on that with the class. Because you're almost certainly wrong about that.

I'm glad you quoted the part about how you came back with a bunch of 💩 and that I was done, but since you seem to need something said to you multiple times, I'll quote it again:

I wrote a decent bit above, and you come back with this 💩. Ha. I shouldn't be surprised. But I am done.

You're dishonest, intellectually (in this discussion) and otherwise. I gave you a second (or perhaps a fifth) chance after June, but  you've simply proven yourself to be even more dishonest (and just as incapable of editing and posting properly, what with all of your stupid colored text), so this time, truly, I'm done.

Peace out, sauerkraut.

[Rob Marshall]

I'm sorry for ever starting this thread. And to people in the know the pot calling the kettle black has not gone unnoticed.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()