[Chris Hughes]

The provision you link is backward looking and were there any impact/penalty (unlikely) on a sandbagger, it can easily be mitigated before the next tournament comes up on the calendar.  It also makes no distinction between a "tournament" score and any other score -- the "tournament" score provisions were much more stringent and breakers were tripped by scores 3.0 or better.  Exceptional tournament scores could also hang around for a long, long time.

Handicaps can be manually adjusted, too, so players can still be penalized for an exceptional tournament score.

IMO, people spend FAR too much time worrying about sandbaggers. They're not the problem I think many people perceive them to be.

That such a large % of active golfers are caught up in an "anti-abuse" handicap rules provision is indicative of a flawed system.

What % is that? You don't know, right? Just guessing?

I know.  Do you?

As for the Handicap Committee, in the wild sitting committees that are both diligent and willing to take action, are rare.

GCA loves its anecdata.


Case closed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

What % is that? You don't know, right? Just guessing?

I know. Do you?

Cool. What's the number? How do you define "a large %"?

[cary lichtenstein]

the handicaps of Honest Players who turn in every score are always lower than the cheats

[Michael Morandi]

The handicap system works best for net medal events. It does not capture the player, however rare, who has a few blowup holes every round but is otherwise consistent. It misses hole  by hole volatility. I play a guy who is a 10 but pars 12-14 holes a round. I won’t bet him.

[Chris Hughes]

What % is that? You don't know, right? Just guessing?

I know. Do you?

Cool. What's the number? How do you define "a large %"?

What's the number at your club?


In your opinion what would meet the definition of "a large %"?


2%?


12%?


22%?


More?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Cool. What's the number? How do you define "a large %"?

What's the number at your club?
In your opinion what would meet the definition of "a large %"?2%?12%?22%?More?

Currently I have 4 members at my club soft capped, none hard capped. I just ran the report. One of those has been playing with an injury.

What are your answers? You spoke as if it was nation-wide, too, not just at your club: "That such a large % of active golfers are caught up in an "anti-abuse" handicap rules provision is indicative of a flawed system."

I don't see that as a flaw, either — the purpose of the hard and soft caps are to prevent someone from ballooning their index quickly.

[archie_struthers]

 


"Just when I thought I got out they dragged me back in".


Say you shoot ten straight 85's  which for a lot of people might be a month of golf , and your 7 handicap doesn't change , think that's an accurate reflection of your trend?   that's a problem 

[A.G._Crockett]

"Just when I thought I got out they dragged me back in".


Say you shoot ten straight 85's  which for a lot of people might be a month of golf , and your 7 handicap doesn't change , think that's an accurate reflection of your trend?   that's a problem 

C’mon, Archie; this is a straw man of the first magnitude.




In addition to the fact that 10 straight 85s is a hypothetical along the lines of Haley’s Comet coming thru my kitchen while I’m fixing breakfast, the purpose of an index is “demonstrated playing ability”, not “trend”. 

[Michael Felton]

"Just when I thought I got out they dragged me back in".


Say you shoot ten straight 85's  which for a lot of people might be a month of golf , and your 7 handicap doesn't change , think that's an accurate reflection of your trend?   that's a problem 

Archie - all the scores that are in your top 8 are from the last two months. It's hardly like it's an out of date handicap. I think you'd have more traction complaining that you've only beaten your handicap twice in twenty rounds. It's just that you have a lot of rounds close to your handicap and one 75, which pulls down your average.

[Chris Hughes]

Cool. What's the number? How do you define "a large %"?

What's the number at your club?
In your opinion what would meet the definition of "a large %"?2%?12%?22%?More?

Currently I have 4 members at my club soft capped, none hard capped. I just ran the report. One of those has been playing with an injury.

GCA loves its anecdata.

[archie_struthers]

 


To Mike and A.G.   It's not like I'm gonna quit playing


However when you drive it bad consistently it's hard to play to your handicap. That's an outlier but true for me.  If we weren't playing match play and skins 95% of the time it would be different. To your point Michael I would surely bet that within the net thirty days , now that the winds are abating here on the shoreline , that I will shoot two or three rounds in the low 70's, which will drop my handicap further. We also play mostly skins in the big game and match play partners in our groups, which make birdies a priority and grinding out a low medal score becomes a penalty going forward. So grinding out a low medal score isn't a priority. I would guess this is the norm if not the rule for a lot of us.


Until someone comes up with a better system as said got to man up and play better.  It's kind of like marking the ball in front of your ball instead of behind it on the greens , it only works for the non-edgers among us !

[Mark Pearce]

Say you shoot ten straight 85's  which for a lot of people might be a month of golf , and your 7 handicap doesn't change , think that's an accurate reflection of your trend?   that's a problem 

So 8 of the 10 rounds before that averaged a 7 handicap?  That's a month ago.  Your example actually defeats your own argument, doesn't it?

[archie_struthers]

 


Somehow this always happens. After another decade perhaps I will give up


I UNDERSTAND your handicap is a measure of your POTENTIAL. It's just not a fair reflection of reality and doesn't relate to what I will likely shoot tomorrow in our Friday game. That's why only a few people can win a championship in your club at medal play, but the field grows dramatically if you switch to match. Our handicaps are derived from medal scores, yet 90% of us play match play and skins on a daily basis. So the outlier is the guy who has potential and occasionally shoots a really low score relative to their daily average. They are punished by the system.


So architecturally speaking if I had my druthers tomorrow we would play stroke play from the tips and the pins would be brutally hard . You would then eliminate 75% of the field and the young guys who hit it 325 would not be hitting short irons into the par fives. But that wouldn't be fun for anyone but me 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

GCA loves its anecdata.

You asked and I directly answered your question while you've continually ducked mine. And actual data from my club is not "anecdata" - it's actual data, albeit a small sample size (one club).

So what are your answers (and sources)?

I UNDERSTAND your handicap is a measure of your POTENTIAL.

Nah, it's a measure of your demonstrated ability.


https://www.whs.com/articles/2019/playing-handicap.html
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/handicap-index-calculation.html

It's just not a fair reflection of reality and doesn't relate to what I will likely shoot tomorrow in our Friday game.

I disagree.

That's why only a few people can win a championship in your club at medal play, but the field grows dramatically if you switch to match. Our handicaps are derived from medal scores, yet 90% of us play match play and skins on a daily basis.

There's a half decent example of anecdata — a total guess at what form of play we play. I don't remember the last time I played a match against anyone. I just hosted an event and we played a team game within the groups that was basically stroke play with gross and net side games.

[Mark Pearce]

I UNDERSTAND your handicap is a measure of your POTENTIAL.

It's not.  It's a MEASURE of your recent performance (last 20 rounds) as an estimate of your potential.  And your handicap is what it is because of scores you shot in your last 20 rounds.  Your problem is that your current form is worse than your earlier form.  I doubt your potential (or ability) has changed.  Will you be on here complaining when your form returns and you play better than handicap?  Or is the system only broken when you are not playing well by your standards?

[Tony Ristola]

My dads initials were AG and he was wiser than almost all the time . But he didn’t play golf for money lol


Say I shoot a couple scores in the low 70’’s  soon which I will my handicap will plummet. Potential is a bad way to go.


67-67-81-82.   Doesn’t beat 72-72-72-74-  but the former has to give the latter shots when they tee it up in their Monday game

Doesn't anyone negotiate this before teeing off... that used to be standard... and one of the best lines I'd heard when a guy asked for shots was... you go take your strokes in the bathroom before the round!

[archie_struthers]

Tony 


A man after my own heart and Mark anytime you want you can visit us at the shore play in our game and I will give you a fair shot …. Why so serious ??


🧐.    The system is flawed that’s all I’m thinking. 💭

[Rob Marshall]

Tony 


A man after my own heart and Mark anytime you want you can visit us at the shore play in our game and I will give you a fair shot …. Why so serious ??


🧐.    The system is flawed that’s all I’m thinking. 💭

i've always found it interesting that in every handicap tournament at my club someone shoots net 62 to 64. To do that i need to shoot 63 to 65. My low career round is 65 which i did once in 50 years of playing and the last 30 playing around scratch.


Getting into semantics but isn't demonstrated playing ability potential? My current index is around 1.1 and my average score is 75.4.

[Chris Hughes]

GCA loves its anecdata.

You asked and I directly answered your question while you've continually ducked mine. And actual data from my club is not "anecdata" - it's actual data, albeit a small sample size (one club).

So what are your answers (and sources)?

I didn't ask how many folks at your club are affected by the soft/hard-cap.


My question is what % of handicap holders who are both active, and honest, do you believe are affected by soft/hard-cap?

[A.G._Crockett]

GCA loves its anecdata.

You asked and I directly answered your question while you've continually ducked mine. And actual data from my club is not "anecdata" - it's actual data, albeit a small sample size (one club).

So what are your answers (and sources)?

I didn't ask how many folks at your club are affected by the soft/hard-cap.


My question is what % of handicap holders who are both active, and honest, do you believe are affected by soft/hard-cap?

Chris,
I know you're addressing this to Erik, but I'm confused about what you want to see happen.

You reference a club about which you seem to know a LOT about individual handicaps; "fewer than 10 sandbaggers", and 70 members (or 28%) currently in a soft or hard cap situation.

There are ways to accurately know all of this (I don't for my club, and I'm pretty tied into the same situations you're referencing), and perhaps you have access to one of those ways.  But I'm not sure I understand what you're complaining about; you wand   


The soft/hard cap mechanism is meant to help police sandbagging; honest and active golfers have absolutely nothing to worry about, especially since the handicap committee at their club can adjust for injury or illness.  If a club has a lot of members under a soft/hard cap, but not many sandbaggers, isn't the system working exactly as intended? 


One additional note:  IMO (and it is ONLY that!) true "sandbagging" is BY FAR the most overestimated aspect of not only the handicap system, but perhaps of all of competitive golf.  I think it's relatively rare, and happens MUCH less than it used to.  I've helped run net competitions at my previous and current clubs for many years now, and the majority (maybe the VAST majority!) of sandbagging complaints are pretty much the same situation; a vanity handicap guy who isn't used to playing fully under the Rules gets beaten by a higher index guy who does play fully under the Rules, which may be the reason for the much of the difference in their handicaps in the first place.

[Jim Hoak]

In my experience, vanity handicaps are many times more the problem than sandbaggers.  And I don't think that any "computerized" system relying on individual input can cure that.
I'm just thankful, in a general sense, for the handicap system.  It's what makes golf a game for all levels of play--and differentiates it from games--like tennis--where you can only play with people of roughly your own ability.
Maybe some details can be improved.  But don't shoot the messenger!

[archie_struthers]

 


Jim that's a great point ! The handicap system allows many of us to enjoy the company of others in a competitive situation unlike almost any other sport. My parents were avid bowlers and it's about the only sport that has the same potential to have players of differing abilities play and have fun together. 


It's just a shame IMO that the system has to be set up to protect against cheaters (sandbaggers)  Funny that many of these same guys would be horrified to think someone would ever move a ball in the rough or drop one but have no problem missing a putt they don't need


Good point !

[Chris Hughes]

The soft/hard cap mechanism is meant to help police sandbagging; honest and active golfers have absolutely nothing to worry about, especially since the handicap committee at their club can adjust for injury or illness. 


If a club has a lot of members under a soft/hard cap, but not many sandbaggers, isn't the system working exactly as intended? 

Hi A.G.,


There's nothing in particular I want.  Archie was having a whinge and I just joined in!


That said, I completely disagree with the statement underlined above -- active and honest golfers everywhere are getting screwed by the cap! 


By definition, if they are "honest", they are not improperly manipulating their handicap in any way. 


Why should the handicap of any "honest" golfer be prevented from moving naturally? 


And no, the system isn't working well, at all -- it's penalizing a lot of folks that don't deserve it and isn't catching those who do.

[A.G._Crockett]

The soft/hard cap mechanism is meant to help police sandbagging; honest and active golfers have absolutely nothing to worry about, especially since the handicap committee at their club can adjust for injury or illness. 


If a club has a lot of members under a soft/hard cap, but not many sandbaggers, isn't the system working exactly as intended? 

Hi A.G.,


There's nothing in particular I want.  Archie was having a whinge and I just joined in!


That said, I completely disagree with the statement underlined above -- active and honest golfers everywhere are getting screwed by the cap! 


By definition, if they are "honest", they are not improperly manipulating their handicap in any way. 


Why should the handicap of any "honest" golfer be prevented from moving naturally? 


And no, the system isn't working well, at all -- it's penalizing a lot of folks that don't deserve it and isn't catching those who do.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on your last sentence.  I don't have any evidence of a "lot of folks" being impacted, much less penalized by the soft cap.  Additionally, I can't see how it doesn't help reduce sandbagging. 


I think it's a well designed tool to reduce rapid upward movement of indexes, plus it impacts everybody the same way.  You can either try to limit opportunities for sandbaggers, or just let it go; you can't have it both ways.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I didn't ask how many folks at your club are affected by the soft/hard-cap.

Uhhhh…???

What's the number at your club?

--

My question is what % of handicap holders who are both active, and honest, do you believe are affected by soft/hard-cap?

How am I to know whether a golfer I've never met somewhere is "honest"?

I've asked you a few times now and each time you've ducked the question. If you know, what is the answer?

Plus, all that AG said.

By definition, if they are "honest", they are not improperly manipulating their handicap in any way. 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/softcapandhardcap-detailed.pdf

Maybe read the part under the title "Why does the soft cap and hard cap exist?"

And no, the system isn't working well, at all -- it's penalizing a lot of folks that don't deserve it and isn't catching those who do.

Share your numbers, since you "know."

Also, I disagree that it's "penalizing" and my data doesn't support a normal definition of "a lot."

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()