[Niall C]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

Jason,

I think you just made the argument for only posting event scores. The rest of the world thanks you.

Hear ! hear ! Garland

[Niall C]

I recently played in a 2 day event at my club and format called for 85% of handicaps and my course handicap under the new system is a 10 and 85% is 8.5 and the rules would round up from .5.  Seems simple enough but no, the USGA handicap system has some new method of computing 85% and the computation came out to 8.475 so I lost a stroke each day - missed first place by one stroke.

Jerry

Presumably your competitors were similarly affected or did the handicap system only work that way for you ?

Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But assuming not only players who "do the right thing" and proper oversight by clubs, here's the reality:

1. the handicap system works best for match play, either individual or two-man better ball.

2. the system works less well for larger fields, simply because somebody is going to catch lightning in a bottle and shoot an outlier score.  Low index guys have less variation in their scores, higher index guys have LOTS of variation, and so the odds are that the lightning in a bottle guy is going to be a high handicapper.  That's just the way it is.

3. Typically, the higher index guy who shoots the great round in competition has a couple of things going for him.  He plays all his rounds by the Rules, including posting scores that include net double bogey, and a realistic "most likely" score if he picked up.  In four balls, I see guys with a 15' putt for 5 pick up when their partner makes that score or better, and then take the 5, even though they haven't made a putt of that length all day.  And the higher index guy who prospers in competition tends to play a lot of competitive events, and it just doesn't bother him to be under the gun.

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Yes to all of that.

The bell curve of the poorer players is wider. One only needs to look at the old "odds of an exceptional tournament score" chart to see that.

https://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability%20Table.pdf

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am not a sandbagger, but I have noticed, over the years, that I play better under the gun. When playing alone, with my wife, or just a friendly game with a friend I don't seem to concentrate as well. In, say, the member/guest, I seldom play under my handicap (6 at the moment) but will play close to it.


One member at my club is a true sandbagger and wins the member/guest regularly. Two years ago he was denied entry. The pro had lowered his handicap for the tournament and he refused to accept it. He has lost all respect from members but still wants to win so badly that he refuses to change.

[Jason Topp]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

Jason,

I think you just made the argument for only posting event scores. The rest of the world thanks you.

Hear ! hear ! Garland

I would be ok with that although in the US, such an approach would reduce the number of people that have a handicap by a very significant percentage.  Then you are really making it up when you try to figure out a fair match. 

[Garland Bayley]

I am not a sandbagger, but I have noticed, over the years, that I play better under the gun. When playing alone, with my wife, or just a friendly game with a friend I don't seem to concentrate as well.  ...

Tommy,

I think you just made the argument for only posting event scores. The rest of the world thanks you.

[Garland Bayley]

...
1. the handicap system works best for match play, either individual or two-man better ball.
...

So a handicap system based on medal scores works best for match play, but not for medal play?
Got proof?
 

[archie_struthers]

 


I don't play many net events though i'm getting bad enough to be competitive soon{ }   Still don't understand how "potential" is an accurate reflection of your game at any singular point in time, which the new system was supposed to address.


Thanks all for posting!

[JMEvensky]

I don't play many net events though i'm getting bad enough to be competitive soon{ }   Still don't understand how "potential" is an accurate reflection of your game at any singular point in time, which the new system was supposed to address.


Thanks all for posting!

If you're really playing as badly as you say, I can get on a plane 

[Kalen Braley]

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Archie,

I have zero issues with a guy catching fire and shooting 5-6 net shots better than their HC.  Hell even I did that once when I shot my all-time low of 77. 

Where I have issue is when the same guy does it two rounds in a row.  The probability of doing it twice in a row changes from somewhere of 1 in 150 to well over 1 in 20,000.  I'll stick with the math.

[Carl Nichols]

But assuming not only players who "do the right thing" and proper oversight by clubs, here's the reality:

1. the handicap system works best for match play, either individual or two-man better ball.

2. the system works less well for larger fields, simply because somebody is going to catch lightning in a bottle and shoot an outlier score.  Low index guys have less variation in their scores, higher index guys have LOTS of variation, and so the odds are that the lightning in a bottle guy is going to be a high handicapper.  That's just the way it is.

3. Typically, the higher index guy who shoots the great round in competition has a couple of things going for him.  He plays all his rounds by the Rules, including posting scores that include net double bogey, and a realistic "most likely" score if he picked up.  In four balls, I see guys with a 15' putt for 5 pick up when their partner makes that score or better, and then take the 5, even though they haven't made a putt of that length all day.  And the higher index guy who prospers in competition tends to play a lot of competitive events, and it just doesn't bother him to be under the gun.

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Yes to all of that.

The bell curve of the poorer players is wider. One only needs to look at the old "odds of an exceptional tournament score" chart to see that.

https://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability%20Table.pdf

Agree as well.  And not only is the bell curve wider, but 80% of men have an index of 8.0 or higher, so in a large field, there's a very good chance that at least one or two such players will catch lightning in a bottle and be at one end of the curve.   

[Carl Nichols]

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Archie,

I have zero issues with a guy catching fire and shooting 5-6 net shots better than their HC.  Hell even I did that once when I shot my all-time low of 77. 

Where I have issue is when the same guy does it two rounds in a row.  The probability of doing it twice in a row changes from somewhere of 1 in 150 to well over 1 in 20,000.  I'll stick with the math.

Kalen:
Sounds like your problem isn't with the handicapping system (whichever recent iteration we're talking about), but with people who don't play by the rules by entering legit scores.     

[Kalen Braley]

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Archie,

I have zero issues with a guy catching fire and shooting 5-6 net shots better than their HC.  Hell even I did that once when I shot my all-time low of 77. 

Where I have issue is when the same guy does it two rounds in a row.  The probability of doing it twice in a row changes from somewhere of 1 in 150 to well over 1 in 20,000.  I'll stick with the math.

Kalen:
Sounds like your problem isn't with the handicapping system (whichever recent iteration we're talking about), but with people who don't play by the rules by entering legit scores.   

Carl,

Any well built system must account for its various components to ensure the entire thing works as designed.  When the compliance part basically says: "Please be honest when posting scores", then that component of the system is broken, ergo the system is broken.

Using only attested scores posted by a 3rd party in tournament or other events like they used to in the UK, always seemed like a far superior method.

[Carl Nichols]

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

Archie,

I have zero issues with a guy catching fire and shooting 5-6 net shots better than their HC.  Hell even I did that once when I shot my all-time low of 77. 

Where I have issue is when the same guy does it two rounds in a row.  The probability of doing it twice in a row changes from somewhere of 1 in 150 to well over 1 in 20,000.  I'll stick with the math.

Kalen:
Sounds like your problem isn't with the handicapping system (whichever recent iteration we're talking about), but with people who don't play by the rules by entering legit scores.   

Carl,

Any well built system must account for its various components to ensure the entire thing works as designed.  When the compliance part basically says: "Please be honest when posting scores", then that component of the system is broken, ergo the system is broken.

Using only attested scores posted by a 3rd party in tournament or other events like they used to in the UK, always seemed like a far superior method.

Kalen:
How many of the guys in the matches you describe were playing regularly in such tournaments?  In my experience, a very large percentage of US golfers don't play in such events, so that requirement would be unworkable for many.  I also haven't seen enough examples of guys shooting -10 or -12 net over two days to think that's a sufficiently widespread problem to worry about fixing. 

[Greg Clark]

This is a curious one. Surprising or not? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbVjq3csP8
Atb

I wouldn't have thought he was a +1, but he only posted 10 scores.  So only his top 3 were used.  When he posts 10 more, his handicap will go up.


What I did find interesting was that his +12 at St. Anne's Old Links was knocked all the way down to a 4.8 differential due primarily to the conditions of the day adjustment.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I don't play many net events though i'm getting bad enough to be competitive soon{ }   Still don't understand how "potential" is an accurate reflection of your game at any singular point in time, which the new system was supposed to address.

In what way? I'd never heard of that as something it was "supposed to address."

Handicap indices stayed about the same with the move to 8/20 but the removal of 0.96 multiplier.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Sandbagging, or "selective score posting", is an epidemic in the US. Another topic altogether.


I never do well in the "socialist" events where "stroke redistribution" allows some "24-bagger" to beat my gross birdie on a par 3 with his "3 for 1"....


WE just finished our member/member, better ball of pairs event. At no time in the history of the event has a golfer with an index of 2 or better been in the winner's circle with a partner of any ability - high or low.


Like a lot of clubs, we also have the season long matches that are in the same format and are in a huge bracket that eventually yields the winning pair with HDCPs of usually 8-14.


In a membership of around 280, we have around 12 players at scratch or better and we all stopped complaining and now just run our own tourney "at scratch".


If the current hdcp system does not treat all players equally, then is it really worth it?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sandbagging, or "selective score posting", is an epidemic in the US. Another topic altogether.

I don't think it's the problem many seem to think it is. Vanity capping is a MUCH bigger issue.

[archie_struthers]

 


Eric , many of us were playing the trend as it was more indicative of current ability. We generally bet in this group and it worked a little better for us .


The new system makes the daily handicap change but  eight out of twenty scores isn't indicative to me. The basic question is if my low for the year is 68 and my buddies is 72 am I four shots better than him when he beats me 8 out of ten. I think not...

[Jim Hoak]

Just to put an emphasis on Erik's point, vanity handicaps far outnumber sandbagged handicaps.  If players would put down their most likely score when they pick up, and if they would use a net double bogey for a blow up hole as they should instead of just taking a bogey or double, they would find that their handicaps were higher--maybe greatly so--, and they wouldn't have much to complain about!  But ego keeps players at lower handicaps than they truly should.  That is the bottom-line problem--and it's not the fault of the system.

[Tim Martin]

The sandbagger endangers everyone in the field but themself and a possible partner(depends on format). The Vanity handicap only imperils themself and a possible partner while the field gains an advantage by their presence.




 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric , many of us were playing the trend as it was more indicative of current ability. We generally bet in this group and it worked a little better for us.

The new system makes the daily handicap change but  eight out of twenty scores isn't indicative to me. The basic question is if my low for the year is 68 and my buddies is 72 am I four shots better than him when he beats me 8 out of ten. I think not...

You used the "trend" but that's almost exactly what the daily revisions do. It was "what your next revision was likely to be." Now, there's no need for a trend, because it's actually updated the next day.

The new system is just as indicative of your potential as the old one, if not more so since it counts 40% of your best differentials. It's not supposed to represent how you're playing right that instant. I've seen guys shoot 85 73 just as often as I've seen 73 85.

Your "potential" shouldn't change much in your last 12 rounds, and that's only accurate if the first 8 are all counting scores.

[Garland Bayley]

The sandbagger endangers everyone in the field but themself and a possible partner(depends on format). The Vanity handicap only imperils themself and a possible partner while the field gains an advantage by their presence.

Problem is that the vanity cap doesn't pony up money to play a competition, while the sand bagger is all to happy to.

The vanity must be hunted down and engaged in personal money games.

The goal is to find a willing vanity cap and turn them into an annuity.

[Jim Hoak]

Garland, but don’t you agree that vanity handicappers are often the ones who complain the most about the system and accuse all winners of being sandbaggers?
I have no scientific proof, but I think that most golfers would have handicaps at least two points higher if they just followed the rules and controlled their egos.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,

I certainly have seen such occurrences of that. I have no scientific data either.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()