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.