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.