1998 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 58-60-118
1999 *Bill Hardin and Vincent Massero 63-59-122
2000 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 63-53-116


What are the odds of a legitimate best ball 53?  From a guy who won the handicap tournament three years running?  Scores like this irritate me.

Of course I ought not to speak out of turn.. but something in the recesses of my memory tells me that this Bill Hardin did finally get his... he was drummed out of NCGA and banished forever from tournament play.  I could be thinking of the wrong guy... but that did happen to a multiple winner of an event like this somewhere back not that long ago.

The NCGA does it's best to combat bagging, for sure.  But there's only so much that can be done.

Net 53 better ball at Spyglass under tournament conditions certainly does raise eyebrows.

TH

Tom,

Those guys should wear masks when they play.  I'd love to know if their handicap indexes reflect the fact that every time they play the try as hard as they can on every hole to shoot the lowest possible score and they enter every score (properly adjusted for equitable stroke control).

Anyway, I used to complain about higher handicappers getting "too many shots" but he more I've read and worked with the handicap system, the more I believe it does a good job equalizing matches with a slight edge to the better player.

Unfortunately, all of the system depends on the honesty of every player and that is impossible to control.

Chris:

I concur with every word of that.  I just did want to point out who I'd bet on in this type of match.

I've been a staunch defender of the USGA handicap system on here for years... it's usually me and TEP, either in tandem or separately, v. Goodale... I absolutely believe that when the rules are followed and peer review is done correctly, it works very well.

That being said, peer review doesn't tend to catch those who have a strong desire not to be caught.  I'm really not sure what can be done about sandbaggers who want to do it badly enough.  

THis is why inter-club net events have to sadly be taken with a huge grain of salt, so to speak.

Intra-club events ought to be fine.

TH

I absolutely believe that when the rules are followed and peer review is done correctly, it works very well.

If one follows the rules, why would you need peer review?

Does the CONGU system rely on peer review?

I'll take your lack of an argument to be a concession on your part Tom.

If we want more equitable and accurate handicaps over here for starters the USGA Handicap System should require all golfers to post hole by hole. That would immediately do away with the need for voluntary ESC compliance which hasn't reached 50% since it began. Golfers don't even need to know about it, just post their gross hole by hole score and the application and the computer will take care of the rest.

For members of a single club you can't believe what that could do for stroke hole allocation too. Basically after a year or so the computer could instantly figure out exactly where a higher handicapper would individually need his stroke allocation against any particular lower handicpper.

Plus for a handicap committee who actually cares about peer review hole by hole posting is so much easier to figure out how and where somebody is trying to sandbag his handicap.

A.G.:

There are several ways theandicap system is built to benefit the lower handicapper.

1) ESC- reduces abnormally high scores. Since higher handicappers' scores are more volitile, more of their scores are adjusted downwards. I am a low handicapper. I adjusted exactly one hole score in all of 2006. Many higher handicappers adjust one or more hole scores downward every round. Thus their posted scores are often two or three or more strokes lower than their actual scores.

2) Averaging the ten lowest of the last twenty differentials. This is really the same as #1- scores for higher handicappers are more volitile, and the ten highest diferentials are eliminated.

3) Then average of the ten lowest differentials is multiplied by .95. This is called the "bonus for excellence." For example, if player A's average differential is 0, 0x .95=0. If player B's avg. differential is 20, 20 x .95 = 19. I.e., the "bonus" cost the higher handicapper one stroke for his match against A.

My 55% - 45% example is an approximation. the exact percentage would depend on how far apart the handicaps were. Two scratch players should split 50-50, and the percentages would get wider as the handicap differences get larger.

You may agree with Archie and that's OK, but I'll go with the guys who set up the system.

The problem is that the system is just that, a system, and if it is not followed very close to exactly, inequities result. So the 80% recommendation fits the system. If you are playing with people who are not true to the system, your perception of what is "right" may be different than the recommendation.

Finally, handicaps are calculated individually. They are equally effective in individual stroke or match play, where they are used at 100% (some local tournament committees may choose to go with a percentage, but it is unlikely they have a good reason to to so. They are helping the better player, but if the better player also has a suspect handicap, what's the point?)

The recommendations for four ball take into account that there are two players but only one ball counts. Thus the effect of volitility, the concept that the higher handicappers' scores will vascillate more than the lower handicappers', is greatly enhanced. It makes sense, then, to regulate that volitility somewhat, to the advantage of the better players.

Hope this helps.

The real pisser is when 18 is the number 1 handicap hole and you invariably get pressed on the tee and have to really get on  top to halve the hole.

No one has mentioned the course in this scenario.

In the Tiger / Phil imaginary best-ball match against 10-15 hcp'ers, I think it would be very easy to guarantee a Tiger / Phil win by playing a course that's setup as it would be for a major.

Even the tougher PGA setups are going to kill the 10-15 handicapper.  Rolled greens, tucked pins, and tees set up at the limits wouldn't phase Tiger/Phil, but the club players would be lucky to shoot 100 on their own ball, and team net pars and bogies would be common.

Put the club players on a 7400 yd course, and see what happens.

If you played, say Oakmont, the day after the US Open, it'd be no contest.  No way 10 hcp'ers would break 100, while Phil and Tiger would shoot an easy 65.

For example, last year I played Poppy Hills with a 2hcp, 5hcp, 8 (me) and 12hcp on Sunday of the AT&T.  Pins were all tucked, and tees stretched.  Greens were not rolled that day, but they had been for the previous 3.   The scores were 85 (2), 88 (, 94 (6), 106 (12).

What'd Phil do there?  8 birdies, 1 eagle, 3 bogies and a double for a strange 67.

A.G.:

I adjusted exactly one hole score in all of 2006.

Jim,
One hole?  The whole year?  One triple the whole year?  One LOIBIP the whole year?  Holy Cow!  Either you're not getting out much, and/or I want you on my team if we ever end up at a GCA outing together.

Just out of curiosity...did any of you happen to watch Tiger and Phil in the '04 Ryder Cup together? After watching that I'd take the team of Huckaby and Kavanaugh any, and every, day of the week...straight up!

PS to John Krystynak - the scores I posted re NCGA Assoc Club 2man were all achieved at Poppy Hills or Spyglass Hill.