Low handicap laments

[Jim Franklin]

Huck -

I have no doubt I would lose net in any type of field. Fortunately our Club Championship is gross not net . And boy did that hurt the old handicap too.

[George Pazin]

Why is it so hard to believe?

I guess I'm just too influenced by my own struggles. Plus, Garland's post rings loud in my ears.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying I don't believe it.

There's a zen koan for you.

 

[Tom Huckaby]

Jim:

I would fully expect the club championship would be gross, and thus would congratulate you on kicking ass that day.  The point was that if that occurred in a large field net event, you'd be crying some big tears if you cared about the result.  

Sean:  net 61 would win maybe half of the large-field net events I've seen.  It would depend on the course, the size of the field and the conditions.  On an easy course with a large field, net 61 might not make the money.

George:

I like the koan.  I just tend to play with a LOT of Garlands, and seeing is believing when one of them does this every single net event.  And I've been playing an average of one of these a month for about 20 years.  I have a lot of data.

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

To me it's just law of averages.  There are a LOT of high handicappers.  One having a round that gets them low 60s net is just normal.

But then again, I also could be exaggerating and my memory could be flawed, having been fleeced so many times this way.

61 ought to win damn near every time no matter what the field.  Somehow the memory of net 59s by 36 cappers is just at the forefront right now.

 

[Guy Phelan]

Sean:

I don't believe the intent of the USGA is to have every golfer obtain an official handicap, although I'm sure they'd love it if they could.  The intent of the system seems to me to be to allow for the reality of US life, in that monthly or more regular medals are not the norm.  Thus they devised a system that strives to allow all rounds to count.  It seems to me people here like it that way...

Thus I don't see that its obvious that the best way to do handicaps is by using competitive scores.  It is there, where monthly medals are the norm.  It just wouldn't work here, where that is not close to being true.

CONGU works there, ours works here.  Note we're talking about only the negatives today... sandbagging and the like... to me that's a small subset of the overall system.  I do think our handicap system works very well for our culture for the vast majority of purposes and instances.

TH

Tom -

I agree with you to a point and then there is the part of me that says, "wait a minute!" WE, AS GOLFERS, KNOW WHO these guys are that sandbag and such and why can't we as a society that respects the game and the culture take these guys to the mat and demand that they have to post scores in a competitive enviornment. It may take a year or more to accomplish; however, when it is accomplished then WE will have handicaps that are indicative of what they should be for ALL golfers and not just those that play by the rules.

Guy

[Tom Huckaby]

Guy:

The worst sandbaggers do get found out; remember also there's the automatic handicap reduction mechanism in place and that does a fine job of decreasing the number of repeat offenders.

But even with all of that, those who want to sandbag will always find a way.

And I really don't think it's that much of a problem, to be honest.  The discussion here isn't about sandbagging as I see it; George seems to believe that all 20s who shoot 85s are automatically sandbaggers - I don't.  I just think there's a lot of 20s and so it's not that incredible that one of them has this type of good round in any large field net event.

Sandbagging does exist and always will; you could just as soon stamp it out as stamp out crime in general.  I do admire your spirit, though!

[Guy Phelan]

Guy:

The worst sandbaggers do get found out; remember also there's the automatic handicap reduction mechanism in place and that does a fine job of decreasing the number of repeat offenders.

But even with all of that, those who want to sandbag will always find a way.

And I really don't think it's that much of a problem, to be honest.  The discussion here isn't about sandbagging as I see it; George seems to believe that all 20s who shoot 85s are automatically sandbaggers - I don't.  I just think there's a lot of 20s and so it's not that incredible that one of them has this type of good round in any large field net event.

Sandbagging does exist and always will; you could just as soon stamp it out as stamp out crime in general.  I do admire your spirit, though!

Thanks!

[Tim Bert]

I was a 15 handicap when I shot my career round in the first round of the 2-day club championship (I was in the C flight.)  I shot a 76.  I think a heck of a lot of guys in the men's club that I had never played with were extremely suspicious - I would have been too.  It just doesn't seem possible.  I was 2 under through 10 holes and 1 under through 14 holes - the entire day was surreal.

The next day, I shot 87.  I still won the flight, but it has been almost 6 years and I haven't broken 80 one time - even when my handicap got as low as an 11.  

Even as an 18 handicap today, I put together rounds with stretches of 6 or 7 holes at 1 or 2 over par.  I also consistently put up a ton of 6s and 7s (and worse, though I can't count the worse in my handicap.)  It would really only take one round where I get rid of every blip to break 80 as an 18.  If I did, it would probably be a once in several years event again.  

I strike the ball better than an 18, but I'm sloppy.  I haven't been in a men's club for 4 years and I don't play for money, so I have no incentive to carry a high handicap.  I'd love to be an 11 or 12, and I'd love to consistently shoot in the mid 80s, with a realistic shot at the 70s more often than once a decade.  The situation frustrates the hell out of me.

I can attest based on that one round that it can happen and it isn't always the result of a dishonest, sandbaging effort.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tim Bert,
With an index of 18, let's say your course handicap is a 20, so at 80%, you get 16 strokes off the low man in a fourball.  As you say, you are capable of 6 or 7 holes in a row at 1 or 2 over, almost all of which will be stroke holes.  

That's nearly half a match where you are going to win or halve most of the holes if the low capper on the other team is even par for that same stretch!  On your "sloppy" holes, if you partner picks you up at all, you guys are a load!  No sandbagging, no career round; just a fact of the handicapping system based on stroke play in a fourball...

THAT is the exact scenario that I see over and over and over in handicapped 4 ball tournaments.

[ForkaB]

The Huck made the telling point some posts above--many more hackers than wannabe/usedto be flatbellies.

Look at the bell curve of 5 and under handicaps--very narrow and pointy.  Scores range from 3-5 under handicap to 5-8 above.  Heavy cluster in the 2 under---> 3 over range.

Now look at the 20 HCPs.  Very broad and flat.  Guys shooting anywhere from 10 under handicap to 30 over.  Weak cluster around 5 under to 10 over.

As there are many times more of them them there are of us, it is virtually impossible for a low handiap to win a net competition.  One of my playing partners won the Order of Merit in Fife some years ago.  I asked him if he had ever won a net competition at our home club (he had probably played in 300-500 at that time, from age 15 to 45).  "No" was the answer.

The real question is, why do any low handicaps give a doo doo as to whether they beat somebody (or even a field) "net?"

If you don't play and think "gross" whilst playing golf you are not golfing, just flogging............

[JESII]

I'm sure this has been covered...Huckaby has referred to it several times through this thread...but I have to ask, Rich, do you ever gamble?

[ForkaB]

Bien sur, M. Deux!  However, never giving or taking strokes when any significant money was at stake.

[Tom Huckaby]

Senor Goodale is wise.  If you care about your wallet, don't give or take many strokes.

And Rich, thanks - it seems pretty obvious to me - there are SO many more 20s than 3s, why would anyone ever be surprised one of the 20s produces a good score in a large field event.... or in any case that the best of the 20's beats the best of the 3s?  It's just a matter of quantity.

That's why if you are a low handicap, you truly ought to play net events with a large spread between handicaps only when there's no other choice; or in any case treat the results with an ocean of salt.  I know that's what I do....

TH

[Joe Hancock]

I'm curious.....are zen koans used with hand-dipped or soft serve?

Signed,

Joe, a recovering 4 handicap

[George Pazin]

I was thinking about this last night.

What's the goal of competition? To show who is best? To have fun? What?

Gross competitions determine who is the best golfer that event - net competitions simply determine who played best relative to his normal game. Completely different animals, if you ask me.

I did think for awhile that the fact that the competitions are apparently mostly won by high handicappers indicated a major flaw in the system, but, as Huck and Rich pointed out, there's more high handicappers, so it makes sense that more would win. If someone produced a study that showed high handicappers won even when the number of competitors was similar, that would indicate a flaw.

Until then, low handicappers should take solace in the fact that winning a net competition is a little like winning a "Most Improved" award - mostly pschobabble fluff.

 

P.S. I like my zen koans on the rocks.

[Tom Huckaby]

Well said, George.

And it is comforting to know that unlike damn near all others on this site, you can learn here and perhaps change a previously staunch opinion.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm sure this has been covered...Huckaby has referred to it several times through this thread...but I have to ask, Rich, do you ever gamble?

Not addressed to me, but I'll answer.

I wouldn't gamble a dime against somebody I didn't know, and whose handicap I didn't have some knowledge of.  Period.

That provision allowed for, these work pretty well:
Team matches with two foursomes playing against each other for a Nassau generally work pretty well with full handicaps.  

Skins games are played gross AND net with large fields and full handicaps, and often exclude par 3's from getting strokes.  

Points games generally work well when they adjust the points weekly, less so when the points required are automatic based on handicaps.
In any event, the amount of money is very small, or I ain't giving strokes to anybody, and wouldn't expect them FROM anybody.  Additionally, there isn't a championship of any kind at stake, which means a lot more to most golfers than a $10 Nassau bet.

[Jerry Kluger]

An interesting factor that I believe greatly affects your  results at your home course is how many away rounds are posted.  You will generally play better at a course that you are familiar with and comfortable with.  When you play another course, especially one that you have not seen before, you are likely to not score as well relative to your handicap.  You then return to your home course and post the away score and your handicap goes up.  If you do this on a regular basis and then play in an event at your home course I believe that your net score will be lower.  I have a friend who plays at least 5 days a week during the summer and most of the time he plays at other clubs.  He correctly posts the away scores and does very well in events at his home course.  

[Garland Bayley]

...
As for the 20 shooting 85, it's the competition part that I don't buy. I just don't see a 20 handicap shooting what is bordering on a career best during competition. If someone did, I would automatically doubt his handicap, that's all I'm saying.
...

I have to disagree! What is the difference between competition and regular play?

Do you mean to say the player cheats during pracitice rounds?

Do you mean the pressure of competition causes players to play worse?

IMHO hogwash!

Did DD cheat to shoot 59 in a tournament? How about Mr. 59, Al G.?

[George Pazin]

Garland, those guys are seasoned professionals. Most high handicappers I know don't come anywhere near their handicaps in competition.

As Bobby Jones said, there's golf, and there's tournament golf, they are not at all the same.

P.S. Not to mention the fact that I'd bet a lot of pros have shot better scores in practice, free-wheeling it, than in tournaments.

[A.G._Crockett]

...
As for the 20 shooting 85, it's the competition part that I don't buy. I just don't see a 20 handicap shooting what is bordering on a career best during competition. If someone did, I would automatically doubt his handicap, that's all I'm saying.
...

I have to disagree! What is the difference between competition and regular play?

Do you mean to say the player cheats during pracitice rounds?

Do you mean the pressure of competition causes players to play worse?

IMHO hogwash!

Did DD cheat to shoot 59 in a tournament? How about Mr. 59, Al G.?

Garland,
Several things happen.  

First, tournament nerves.  It is a lot different at the club level, where you play just a few tournaments a year, compared to a casual round with buddies, even if you play by the rules religiously during the casual rounds.  It's just different.

Second, most of us pick up at least occasionally using ESC in casual rounds, whereas in the tournament you are playing until it drops.  Especially for the high capper, this means that they might make a 10 rather than a 7 on a hole, and do that several times a round.

Third, stroke and distance is in full effect.  In a casual round, most players will NOT go back to the tee if the ball is lost and they didn't hit a provisional.  They either pick up (see above) or play on after assessing themselves a penalty stroke.  Again, this is a bigger factor for the high capper; he'll have more lost balls or unplayable lies, or whatever.

That's why there is so much distrust among low cappers when a 15 shoots a 78 and cleans house.

[Garland Bayley]

George,

There may be golf, and tournament golf, but there are also people who can perform consistently in both situations. Some with attention deficit may actually perform better in tournaments.

So how many 59s (or better) has DD shot in practice?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Second, most of us pick up at least occasionally using ESC in casual rounds, whereas in the tournament you are playing until it drops.  Especially for the high capper, this means that they might make a 10 rather than a 7 on a hole, and do that several times a round.

Third, stroke and distance is in full effect.  In a casual round, most players will NOT go back to the tee if the ball is lost and they didn't hit a provisional.  They either pick up (see above) or play on after assessing themselves a penalty stroke.  Again, this is a bigger factor for the high capper; he'll have more lost balls or unplayable lies, or whatever.

That's why there is so much distrust among low cappers when a 15 shoots a 78 and cleans house.

Your logic for your conclusion escapes me.
 Edit: It is my belief that the people experiencing the first two paragraphs are not going to be the ones shooting a 78 off of a 15.

[George Pazin]

...
Second, most of us pick up at least occasionally using ESC in casual rounds, whereas in the tournament you are playing until it drops.  Especially for the high capper, this means that they might make a 10 rather than a 7 on a hole, and do that several times a round.

Third, stroke and distance is in full effect.  In a casual round, most players will NOT go back to the tee if the ball is lost and they didn't hit a provisional.  They either pick up (see above) or play on after assessing themselves a penalty stroke.  Again, this is a bigger factor for the high capper; he'll have more lost balls or unplayable lies, or whatever.

That's why there is so much distrust among low cappers when a 15 shoots a 78 and cleans house.

Your logic for your conclusion escapes me.

Your argument against me is much stronger.

What don't you understand about AG's post? He listed several reasons why it's rather difficult for high handicappers to better their handicaps significantly. Each, by itself, is reason enough to cast doubt; when taken together, they tend to overwhelm.

As for your argument against me, again, I will point out that you are talking about seasoned professionals, versus high handicappers. There is a reason they are high handicappers. Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few pros had flirted with 59 in casual rounds.

[Bill_McBride]

How many clubs have reverse sandbaggers?

The Saturday group I play with on occasion at Pensacola CC is a riot.  The game is each foursome or fivesome against the others - a dogfight as it was called at the old Newnan (GA) CC.  The typical is two or three best balls at match play vs the other groups' cards.

It is an outrage to watch this event.  Four footers are routinely conceded, knowing full well that is happening in the other groups, or at least you expect it is.  "That's good, nice par!"  

As a result of this, and the tendency to mark down a double for an X, the handicaps of most of this group are too low.

I don't think it's really vanity in this case, but why would anyone want to sport a lower handicap than reality suggests?