you've been 'A-flighted'

[burritos4breakfast]

course was 69.4/128 extremely tight and OB on half the holes so of course. disgusting. hate this crap

 

 

[elwhippy]

Please explain. As a Brit this is alien to me.

[aenemated]

> @elwhippy said:

> Please explain. As a Brit this is alien to me.

 

US handicap system. Basically; the winner rarely breaks 90 according to his posted scores but managed to fire and 84 and 82 in the tournament the OP (presumably) played in.

 

So, you know, a sandbagger.

 

And why I stopped playing in these. It's not even fun when I'd have to shoot par or better to beat the gangs of 20 something cappers that always seem to have their "best round ever" conveniently on tournament day.

[HonestPlayer]

Without knowing the person. Could have had lessons on a part of his game recently and drastically improved. Improved diet/hydration etc. Too many variables involved. Some horrible holes along with good ones. Another factor might be a drastic improvement in course management during that competition. Hot putter another possibility.

[Carolina Golfer 2]

Looks like his lowest score of the year --88---was played on the tournament course, which is a stroke easier than his home course. So it's conceivable he could have shot even s few strokes better on it.

I may be naive, but I don't think a samdbagger would take the time to come online to post that.

 

That said. That is quite a gap between 1st and second place.

 

That said. I understand how a net 65 can really piss off a scratch or low single cap. Hopefully they had a gross and net division.

[phatchrisrules]

Being horribly unfamiliar with this system, can someone explain to me how 9 under on the front 9 on Sunday equates to 34? Wouldn't that be like 27 on most courses? Or is that the net score being posted?

[SkiSchoolPro]

I think 34 gross, -9 net

> @"Carolina Golfer 2" said:

> Looks like his lowest score of the year --88---was played on the tournament course, which is a stroke easier than his home course. So it's conceivable he could have shot even s few strokes better on it.

> I may be naive, but I don't think a samdbagger would take the time to come online to post that.

>

> That said. That is quite a gap between 1st and second place.

>

> That said. I understand how a net 65 can really **** off a scratch or low single cap. Hopefully they had a gross and net division.

 

Good points...will add that 3 of his 4 nines averaged 44, so not too much different than his HC. Of course, the 34 gross is really an outlier. Giving the benefit of the doubt, this course could be shorter than his home course or better suit his game.

It looks like he took more than the max allowed for ESC on 2 holes...not the perfect way to sandbag assuming you properly post ESC (which many guys don't seem to do).

 

I don't see either of these rounds posted yet...if not done by the 15th, then a definite red flag. Also, his score history is in a very tight range...this could indicate a mental block with shooting low scores (he did follow his 34 with 48), but could also be score management or some other sort of HC manipulation.

His HC seems to be trending in the right direction. Was a 14.5 last year and rose to 17 1/15/19, then slowly back down to his current 16.1. More posted scores in June/July than April/May so maybe playing more has helped his game. Of course, maybe he sandbags all year for this tournament (but I don't see any T scores for him, so poor posting if he has played any events that should be).

Not sure if you consider guys like BK who seem to prepare best for big events to be sandbaggers.

 

I've played some of my best rounds in Hawaii- always when teeing off early with little wind. Have also played some of my worst rounds there when the wind is up. If a guy normally plays when it is windy, and played some/all of this tournament without wind, that alone can make a HUGE difference.

 

How big was the field? The larger the field, the more likely it is for some mid or high cap to play a career best round(s).

 

Based on the limited facts provided, I wouldn't indict the guy without knowing more.

 

[ThinkingPlus]

Those are highly suspicious posted scores from a statistical standpoint. Average score was 90.35 with a standard deviation of only 1.35 shots. Very hard to believe that under the variety of environmental conditions (wind, rain, course condition, etc...) the score varies by so little. Looks manufactured to me.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> Those are highly suspicious posted scores from a statistical standpoint. Average score was 90.35 with a standard deviation of only 1.35 shots. Very hard to believe that under the variety of environmental conditions (wind, rain, course condition, etc...) the score varies by so little. Looks manufactured to me.

 

You are right from a purely random statistical point of view, but golf is a mental game. That is why I noted that some golfers can have mental blocks with shooting low rounds. When I was a newer player, I got to the point where I should have been breaking 90, but got hung up on 90-92 for a while before shooting 85 as my first sub 90 round, then 82 as my 2nd sub 90 round. To be clear, his scores could be manufactured or managed as they are in a very tight range, but there are legit explanations as well.

[ThinkingPlus]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > Those are highly suspicious posted scores from a statistical standpoint. Average score was 90.35 with a standard deviation of only 1.35 shots. Very hard to believe that under the variety of environmental conditions (wind, rain, course condition, etc...) the score varies by so little. Looks manufactured to me.

>

> You are right from a purely random statistical point of view, but golf is a mental game. That is why I noted that some golfers can have mental blocks with shooting low rounds. When I was a newer player, I got to the point where I should have been breaking 90, but got hung up on 90-92 for a while before shooting 85 as my first sub 90 round, then 82 as my 2nd sub 90 round. To be clear, his scores could be manufactured or managed as they are in a very tight range, but there are legit explanations as well.

 

Sure we can explain away no extra good rounds, but how about extra bad rounds? Vanity cap? Don't think so.

[IndyArcher]

In my thinking, the only thing worse than jacking with a handicap for the purpose of sandbagging is posting an individual’s information WITH his name and an accompanying accusation without _definitive_ proof that he actually did anything wrong. Pretty uncouth in my book.

[MtlJeff]

34 on the front SMH....that's pretty hilarious. I've never seen a 16 index do that

 

That being said, I'm not a fan of posting guys names on the internet villifying them without their knowledge

[howellhandmade]

> @MtlJeff said:

>

> That being said, I'm not a fan of posting guys names on the internet villifying them without their knowledge

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[larrybud]

> @burritos4breakfast said:

> course was 69.4/128 extremely tight and OB on half the holes so of course. disgusting. hate this crap

>

>

>

>

 

Sure is a "consistent" 16 cap. lol

[dan360]

Sandbagguh bruddah.

[tatertot]

> @dan360 said:

> Sandbagguh bruddah.

 

Textbook ... will never play another handicap event because of these type of things.

[cgr]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> Those are highly suspicious posted scores from a statistical standpoint. Average score was 90.35 with a standard deviation of only 1.35 shots. Very hard to believe that under the variety of environmental conditions (wind, rain, course condition, etc...) the score varies by so little. Looks manufactured to me.

 

Manufactured!? You make it sound so... synthetic. A true bagger would prefer the term "curated", lol

[Rory4Pres]

a 16 handicap that hadn't shot 87 or lower in 20 rounds at his home course shoots a 34 on the front side in tournament play?! Get the **** outta here.

Handicaps make honest people lose their minds and dishonest people win the prizes and tell themselves "everybody does it".

Only want to stop it is to not partake.

[Rory4Pres]

Impressive of him to squeeze in 6 rounds of golf on 7/19.

[DavePelz4]

> @Rory4Pres said:

> Impressive of him to squeeze in 6 rounds of golf on 7/19.

 

That's July 2019. They don't specify the date, just month and year.

[Rory4Pres]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @Rory4Pres said:

> > Impressive of him to squeeze in 6 rounds of golf on 7/19.

>

> That's July 2019. They don't specify the date, just month and year.

 

Roger that, thanks for clarifying. I retract my statement.