[Bob_Huntley]

I have been watching, participating and enjoying the Crosby and National Pro-Am for well over forty years. During that time I have witnessed some pretty awful sand-bagging, from the Japanese golf course owner who won and then was DQd some weeks later for using a phony handicap and a few others that had the "round of their lives." Kerry Packer was another but apparently he had received four months of personal instruction from Greg Norman following heart surgery.

The name of Satterfield and a couple of others come to mind that also had the "best round of their lives to win." I have a score card where a client of mine, shot a 71 at Pebble on Sunday, beating his partner, Lee Trevino by a stoke. Off a handicap of seven.

I am not sure what to do about it, however, if I read in a Golf Digest article, that an amateur was described as a three masquerading as a sixteen and played for hundred of thousands of dollars, he would never receive an invitation to any tournament of mine. This years winner blew the rest of the miscreants away with a team score of 38 under and the pro being 4
under.

The one interesting thing about the tourney, is that no amateur who was a runaway winner has ever been invited to return.

There is an article about this years winner, Bill Walters, on The Golf Channel web site.

Bob

[Joe Hancock]

You mean future spectator Bill Walters?

 

[JESII]

Bob,

Have they always used official handicaps for that tournament?

I seem to recall Hank Kuehne playing as an amateur the year before or after he won the US Amateur...my blurry memory appears when I seem to remember his handicap on the screen as a 1 or 2...that would likely be the highest by a current US Amateur champ by about 4 shots...and I really doubt Hank would fudge in hopes of winning that event...I just assumed the amateurs numbers were inflated to give the appearance of helping the pros more...

[Michael Powers]

Anyone can have a career day, however, helping the pro by 34 shots over 4 rounds is probably mathematically impossible.  I wish someone would get a good actuary involved and work out the probability of that one.  There is no way.  Also, it's unfortunate the committee lacks the stones to adjust handicaps between rounds.  It may have saved them some of the embarassment.

[Jerry Kluger]

It does seem odd that you never see the low team playing with any groups where the pro is in contention.  Why is it that the leaders rarely wind up with the sandbaggers?  Most of the top players weren't there so you would think that a sandbagger would have a shot.  I also wonder how many of the sandbaggers know the pro who they are paired with?

[Bob_Huntley]

It does seem odd that you never see the low team playing with any groups where the pro is in contention.  Why is it that the leaders rarely wind up with the sandbaggers?  Most of the top players weren't there so you would think that a sandbagger would have a shot.  I also wonder how many of the sandbaggers know the pro who they are paired with?

Jerry,

The 1989 Pro AM winners were Steve Jones  and Dr. Jim Rheim. Jones had won the pro title the year before. Rheim birdied the last hole for a net eagle(he got 3 strokes) and won by a shot.

JIm Rheim is a member at MPCC and was on the Stanford Golf Team years ago. Qualified for two US Opens as an amateur. I think he is the lowest handicapper to win in the Pro-Am portion of the event since that year.

Bob

[Marty Bonnar]

Bob,
do you maintain your handicap in St Andrews or out there on the peninsula?

My guess would be that your GHIN would be far more accurate than your USGA... (the sombrero and bandana are a real giveaway).

Maybe it's about time that the R&A and the USGA aligned handicaps as well as Rules...

FBD.

[Phil_the_Author]

Guys,

Maybe you're being a bit unfair here. Is it possible that Mr. Walters merely answered the following ad found on the GOLF.com website?

"Want To Break 80? As Seen In Golf Digest. Program Drops 7.5 Shots Next Round. Guaranteed www.Break80Today.com"

[Pete Lavallee]

Maybe it's about time that the R&A and the USGA aligned handicaps as well as Rules...

FBD.

Amen brother!

[Pete Lavallee]

Bob,

Gary McCord mentioned that he played with Bill here in San Diego and that he is a very good money player for, in his exact words, "any amount you would be interested in". The SCGA lookup feature is not working right now, so I can't verify his handicap; he plays out of Del Mar CC. His puting stroke looked pretty damned smooth though on TV.

[Mike Benham]

I have heard under good authority that since the Clemen's hearing is now complete, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will be looking into this matter.

[Jason Connor]

I'm a statistician and my points of view:

In a large field of handicap adjusted stroke play (and pardon my obviousness) the winner is always going to be someone who FAR exceeds his handicap.  And it's well established that high handicaps have high variability.  An 18 handicap can conceivably shoot 80 or 110 on any given day, a 30 stroke swing, whereas a 3 handicap has much less variability in his scores, e.g. pros usually score almost all of their rounds between 65 and 75. 

It is also well established that's it's very, very difficult for a low handicapper to win a large field stroke play event that uses handicaps (whereas he or she has an advantage in a match play tournament with handicaps).  Such events are most often won by mid-high handicappers.  Especially ones like myself who are inconsistent.

Now take a bunch of mid-handicappers (I don't know how many teams there are at the AT&T) and chances are at least one of them will put together 3 great days and post a 25-30 under. It isn't because he's cheating, it's because "someone has to be in the left tail" as we statisticians might say.

For example, the chances of you flipping 10 heads in a row right now is about 1 in 1000 (1 in 1024 actually).  But take 144 GCAers, give us each 10 flips, and now there is a 13% chance that at least one of us will do it.  The same holds true with stroke play.  Take 144 amateurs and one, due to random variation alone, may do something improbable.

Might this guy be a sandbagger, sure.  But statistically it's harder to prove than you think.



As for why the winning pro-amateur team rarely contains a pro in contention for the tournament:  (a) I bet this isn't super rare. I think I recall seeing some cases where the pro was doing well individually and as a team.  But (b) I can't help but think it's easier for an amateur to go low (as described above) when he's not in the limelight.  If the cameras are following his group around on Sunday because his pro is playing in the afternoon, I'm guessing the amateur buckles far more often than not.  That could describe why the winning amateur is oftentimes the main contributor to his team.  I suspect it's hard for an amateur either playing with Tiger or Phil or even in Tiger or Phil's group to keep going low due to the pressure.

[Jason McNamara]

Bob,

Have they always used official handicaps for that tournament?

I seem to recall Hank Kuehne playing as an amateur the year before or after he won the US Amateur...my blurry memory appears when I seem to remember his handicap on the screen as a 1 or 2...that would likely be the highest by a current US Amateur champ by about 4 shots...and I really doubt Hank would fudge in hopes of winning that event...I just assumed the amateurs numbers were inflated to give the appearance of helping the pros more...

JES -

I seem to recall that all the players get an extra couple shots, or at least that may have been the practice previously.

Jason Connor -

Thanks for the stats background - you'll find this table interesting:
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html

Walters would be in the 6-12 range.  He helped his pro by 8.5 shots every day.  That doesn't even count holes where they had the same score.  If his overall score betters his handicap by (say) 4 shots the first day, the odds of that according to the USGA are 121:1.  Doing it 4 days in a row?  Now we're at 214 million:1.  Might as well play MegaMillions or Powerball.

NB:  I don't have Walters' exact scores, so this is unlikely to be exact.   But put it this way:  Say Walters is officially an 8, and PB gives him an extra three shots.  The odds of him shooting his "real" hcp (i.e. 72 + 8 = 80) and thereby helping the team (theoretically) by 3 shots a day are 5:1 for one day, and 625:1 for doing it each of 4 days (therefore helping the team by +12).  Well, Walters helped his team by nearly 3 times as much.

Another note: One advantage the lower handicapper has in this situation is that his handicap is probably based on much longer golf courses.  A lower hcp'er who hits it straight can have wedge into most greens, one who's wilder can switch to irons off the tee and hit (mostly) every fairway.  Pebble probably plays at what, 6100-6200 yards for the am's?

Oh, and here's Sir Bob's link:
http://www.thegolfchannel.com/core.aspx?page=15100&select=25028

[Lou_Duran]

It is a lot more fun competing off a 10 handicap than a two or a three.   The guy could very well be an 11, established from the back tees over many different courses.  Making a bunch of pars and birdies (for net birdies and eagles) from the member's tees on courses he is familiar with and where he has par (or better) as a partner is not far fetched at all.  That he plays regularly for big money only makes it easier relative to the field.

As the statistician noted, the low handicap player seldom has a chance.  I didn't used to like that, but what goes around, comes around. 

[Richard Choi]

I am not defending what happened in AT&T per se, but I myself have shot a net 59 in a small tournament which I followed up with a net 65 to win the tournament by 10 strokes or so.

And I swear to you my handicap was legit (21, course adjusted).

What happened was that I am a fairly long hitter for my size and I go to the range frequently, but I never ever practice any short game.

But whenever I am playing in a serious tournament, about two weeks prior, I go to a local par 3 and practice nothing but short game every day for two weeks (I usually don't play a round during that time).

That usually results in me shooting 3 to 4 strokes lower at a tournament than what I shoot normally. Especially since at these tournaments they use white tees for my flight and that means I usually tee off with a 3 wood or a 4 iron (or less). And on that particular tournament, I had "the round of my life" where I shot 80 (net 59) and 86. Since then (about 7 years ago), I have only shot 82 once and a handful of 84's (even though my handicap is now down to 12+).

So, to me, something like what happened at AT&T is more than plausible...

[Michael Blake]

How's this for sandbagging:

I played in this tournament 7-8 years ago called The World Golf League.

You needed an official USGA handicap.  They then took 80% of that, and THAT's your handicap for the tourney.  I was a 15 then so I was playing as a 12.

I locally qualified to play in the final tourney in Sunset Beach, NC.  There were 30 guys in my handicap flight all playing at 80% of their handicap.

Your score was whatever you shot minus your handicap, for 4 rounds.

Now, I can see someone shooting to their handicap pretty easily one out of four times.  Mind you, we were playing to 80% of our handicap.  Maybe you could have 2 great rounds and do it 2 out of the 4 rounds. 

But there were guys in my flight who were shooting net 67's and 68's for 4 straight rounds.  These are guys who are supposed 15 handicappers, playing as 12's and shooting 79 and 80, four rounds in a row.

Total B.S.


Did I mention winners of each flight won $30,000.


Lawrence Taylor won his flight.

[jeffwarne]

If there were no handicaps perhaps people would practice more

[Wayne_Freedman]

I say we should post tournament scores, only.
That might solve the problem, real quick.

[John Kirk]

Even when an athletic fellow carries a legitimate 10-15 handicap, he can generally raise the quality of his game a notch or two when he really puts his mind to it.  If they play for peanuts all year long, they aren't terribly motivated to give their best.  Then, when there's real incentive, they put forth their best effort.  I think I can play a little better when it matters more.

[Don_Mahaffey]

If you want to see real sandbagging, come play the bar-b-que circut in TX. Lots of great calcuttas, but you better shoot net 60 if you want to make any money.

[Gene Greco]

 Bob:

     I believe when Bing was the host he tossed all handicaps in a bin and assigned each player a handicap for the tournament based on what he witnessed after having watched the invitee play a few holes during a practice round.

[James Bennett]

In Australia, it takes 30 poor competition rounds to increase my handicap by three shots.  So, no good golf in say 7 months and I can increase from a 6.0 to a 9.0 (at 0.1 per bad round).  A bad round is where I play at least two shots worse (compared to my handicap) than the 15th percentile (or so) scorer in the competition, which will be close to the course rating (unless conditions are really tough).

If 'I' put in less than 6 competitive rounds in a year (or so), 'my' handicap lapses.  Five cards (or so) later and 'I' have a new handicap.  It might be 16 based on these cards.  People who play with 'me' might consider me a sandbagger, but 'I' have no choice.  'I' have followed the system.  Of course, the Club (and Match Committee) could have been more diligent in issuing 'me' a new handicap.  (note - my personal handicap has never lapsed, this is just an example).

From my experience, it is difficult for a long-term handicap holder to sandbag more than say three shots in Australia.  However, a holder of a newish handicap can have the wrong handicap for a variety of reasons.  

When I was 12 (many, many, many years ago), at the end of summer holidays I had a net 57, 15 under par for a Medal round.  82 off the stick.  I was hitting a 2 wood to 195 yard holes, a 4 wood to uphill 155 yard holes etc.  I won my grade by one shot, to a poor soul who shot the second best net score that I have ever seen at my club.  I expect he was delighted with how he played, and was not decimated by missiing out on the $10 trophy voucher for the Grade winner.  Neither of us were sandbaggers.

Now, if 'I' am playing in a big money game (or the King Putter, or playing some notable identity on GCA) then perhaps 'I' will seek extra handicap for that event.  Perhaps 'I' wont.

James B

[Mike Benham]

I say we should post tournament scores, only.
That might solve the problem, real quick.

Wayne - do you have any statistics on what percentage of golfers play in tournaments?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob Huntley,

I'm aware of a few incidents where handicaps were inflated, however, I believe that the folks running the show are complicit in this arrangement.

It just gets embarrassing when a win becomes blatantly questionable in terms of the margin of victory.

[JohnV]

Did I mention winners of each flight won $30,000.
Lawrence Taylor won his flight.

Since none of the people who played in that event and didn't sign a waiver before it started waiving all money are no longer amateurs, handicaps shouldn't matter.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()