The Sandbagging Madness has to stop...

[rogolf]

the real rub is going to be if i get pushback from the top. Then i guess reporting to the USGA and carolinas PGA (if applicable) will be the next step....

 

If you report to the USGA, they will likely refer you to your state golf association - that is where I'd start. The PGA have nothing to do with handicapping.

 

https://www.carolinasgolf.org/

[TwistedSister]

A course a friend used to play had a method... when you came to start your round you were given a scorecard with the pro's Signature on it. If you did not turn the card in your score for the day was par for hdcp purposes.

[davep043]

A course a friend used to play had a method... when you came to start your round you were given a scorecard with the pro's Signature on it. If you did not turn the card in your score for the day was par for hdcp purposes.

For better or worse, the return of a scorecard cannot be required on a routine basis:

5-2a/3. Requiring the Return of Scorecards for Handicap Purposes

 

Q: May a Handicap Committee require the returning of scorecards from players in order for a score to be posted?

A: No. However, scorecards may be requested periodically if the Handicap Committee wishes to sample the accuracy with which players are adjusting scores. The club must not take punitive action regarding the scoring record or the Handicap Index if a score is returned sans scorecard.

Here is what the Handicap Committee is authorized to do:

If a player fails to post an acceptable score as soon as practical after completion of the round, the Handicap Committee has three options:

 

1) Post the actual score made by the player;

 

2) Post a penalty scoreequal to the lowest/highest Handicap Differential in the player's scoring record;

 

3) Post the actual score and a penalty score

The Handicap Committee is not required to notify the player prior to posting a penalty score.

[TwistedSister]

ALL the player agreed to the rule... so I guess it is then ok to require it!

[TwistedSister]

and your post indeed di list the remedy. Committee posted a penalty score of PAR .

[bladehunter]

the real rub is going to be if i get pushback from the top. Then i guess reporting to the USGA and carolinas PGA (if applicable) will be the next step....

 

If you report to the USGA, they will likely refer you to your state golf association - that is where I'd start. The PGA have nothing to do with handicapping.

 

https://www.carolinasgolf.org/

 

Thanks ! Good info to have.

 

I knew the pga had nothing to do with handicaps. But I’m also sure they’d love to know if a pro tried to cover up known sandbagging. Or if the pro was on my side and the GM was holding the pros job over his head to look the other way. ( more likely the case ). May not mean anything. But you never know.

 

As for the usga. I haven’t read recently. But a while back when I was digging around I thought I read where you could call in for an audit of a handicap association ?

 

 

Edit- found it. Although I wonder how many teeth it has for the issue wehave ( people not posting rounds at all , and people only positing worst rounds. ).

 

 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/usga-handicap-system-licensing-program-for-clubs-54f48353/usga-club-audit-program-25361.html

[Shilgy]

and your post indeed di list the remedy. Committee posted a penalty score of PAR .

Posting a penalty score of Par is incorrect. It should be the equivalent of the lowest differential of their last 20. How would a penalty score of Par harm a plus player is one issue.

[davep043]

ALL the player agreed to the rule... so I guess it is then ok to require it!

The players at a club cannot authorize a Handicap committee to require things that the governing bodies say the Committee may not do. However, if everyone complies voluntarily, there's nothing to stop them from turning in scorecards. And as shilgy just referenced, the penalty score options are defined, "even par" is not one of them.

 

For bladehunter, you may want to go through the USGA's online Handicap Seminar.

http://www.usga.org/HDCPLicClubSeminar/index.asp

Its nothing too complicated, just an audio review of the Handicap Rules, but they keep a record of who completes the seminar and passes the "final exam". If you're planning to upset things, it may be a good idea to have a semi-formal qualification like this on record.

[HatsForBats]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

[DavePelz4]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

 

Yes and they adjusted his index from 25 to 22ish but that doesn't really fix the issue as he can post 20 rounds before next year's event and wipe the reduction out.

 

I'm thinking the death penalty or making them spend a weekend taking care of Mrs. Pelz's Mother's bunions would be appropriate.

[HatsForBats]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

 

Yes and they adjusted his index from 25 to 22ish but that doesn't really fix the issue as he can post 20 rounds before next year's event and wipe the reduction out.

 

I'm thinking the death penalty or making them spend a weekend taking care of Mrs. Pelz's Mother's bunions would be appropriate.

 

Agreed but at least it is something.

 

I thought T scores stuck around for a year and the only way to reduce their influence would be to play more tournaments or wait out the year? I suppose the player could post 20 horrible scores but then the reduction would be greater since the T scores are so much less than his index?

[bladehunter]

I don’t think that’s true. I’ve had several T scores drop recently from the summer.

 

But I could be wrong.

[ruca]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

 

Yes and they adjusted his index from 25 to 22ish but that doesn't really fix the issue as he can post 20 rounds before next year's event and wipe the reduction out.

 

I'm thinking the death penalty or making them spend a weekend taking care of Mrs. Pelz's Mother's bunions would be appropriate.

As we're resurrecting old threads...

Are you saying any correction is no good because 20 rounds wipes it out?

Isn't that a fundamental flaw of a (8/20) system we're all going to in 2020?

The solution is really rather simple. Apply a congu like reduction over the 2 rounds (21×0.4= 8.4 plus 2 shots exceptional reduction) = new cap of 14.8. Make this mandatory and automatic not optional for a hcp committee

Now cap any yearly increase by 2 shots, so next year's cap is 16.8. (No matter what he posts in the interim)

Any player who thinks they're getting worse by more than 2 shots per year can apply to the committee for 1 extra shot. So the onus on committee is now the other way round.

 

Limits bandits, and mitigates errors from lax committees.

[2ball]

i know this is an old post but happens all the time. Recently out on the west coast i played in a club championshp for seniors, guy who won broke 80 for first time all year!!! 79 gross 67 net to win. A 12 handicap shoots 79 in tournament - i don't think so. When they announced who won everyone moaned...

 

Same thing happened at at 1 day tourney at a club in rancho santa margarita, 5 and 6 handicaps were have banner days shooting net 65 and 64. Really you are averaging 77-76 all year and better your score by 10 or more in a tournament? Don't think so. And took home 7 skins, what???? It's criminal. and who but there buddies are their to witness these great achievements on the course.

 

This post really is missing the key information required to actually make a judgment here. My best guess is the following

 

1) Since the is a 'handicapped league championship for seniors', my guess is that is was playing on a course with a CR of around 70. But why do we have to guess.

 

2) So the winner beat his index by around 3 strokes, but the post doesn't say for sure whether this is course handicap or handicap index of 12. So it could be more (or it could be less). If it is handicap index, then we still cannot judge because we don't know the slope of the course played.

 

Note that in a handicapped event like this it is inevitable that the winner is going to win by playing one of his best rounds of the year, even in a 100% honest world. "Absolute best by one or more strokes" - certainly less likely in an honest world.

 

Maybe with the information required to judge these things, this posted information would be interesting and indicative of sandbagging. In fact it probably is, but how can we know from what is posted here?

 

dave

 

rating 71.6 slope 128

handicap index of 12

[nsxguy]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

 

Yes and they adjusted his index from 25 to 22ish but that doesn't really fix the issue as he can post 20 rounds before next year's event and wipe the reduction out.

 

I'm thinking the death penalty or making them spend a weekend taking care of Mrs. Pelz's Mother's bunions would be appropriate.

As we're resurrecting old threads...

Are you saying any correction is no good because 20 rounds wipes it out?

Isn't that a fundamental flaw of a (8/20) system we're all going to in 2020?

The solution is really rather simple. Apply a congu like reduction over the 2 rounds (21×0.4= 8.4 plus 2 shots exceptional reduction) = new cap of 14.8. Make this mandatory and automatic not optional for a hcp committee

Now cap any yearly increase by 2 shots, so next year's cap is 16.8. (No matter what he posts in the interim)

Any player who thinks they're getting worse by more than 2 shots per year can apply to the committee for 1 extra shot. So the onus on committee is now the other way round.

 

Limits bandits, and mitigates errors from lax committees.

 

"T" scores stay on your record for at least a year, possibly longer (I forget).

 

And there is a formula for adjusting a handicap based on T scores - I'm sure the Handicapping Manual has all that info.

[nsxguy]

This response to an old thread must be a joke. A 12 shooting a 79 gets you all worked up? It happens every single day in any large group of mid caps. Someone is going to play well given normal scoring conditions. Will 1 12-cap shoot 79? Maybe. Will 10 12-caps have 1 shoot 79? Possibly. Will 20 12-caps have 1 shoot 79? Almost certainly. Will 100 12-caps have 1 shoot 79? Absolutely and others will shoot better than that.

 

You bet it's a JOKE !!!

 

A guy shoots a net of ~ -5 and he's a sandbagger ? Ridiculous.

 

And with, on average, over a MILLION rounds per day played in the USa and odds of roughly 276:1 that means there are, on average, about 3,600 rounds PER DAY at -5 net.

 

 

[nsxguy]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Now this is a bit different than the guy who woke up this thread. -21 is roughly -10 and -11.

 

Not even on the charts. Don't the people who run these things have the nitz to DQ these obvious sandbaggers ? (Rhetorical question obviously)

 

 

[HatsForBats]

"T" scores stay on your record for at least a year, possibly longer (I forget).

 

And there is a formula for adjusting a handicap based on T scores - I'm sure the Handicapping Manual has all that info.

 

From GHIN:

 

Why does my handicap have an “R” next to it and what does it mean?

 

In the simplest terms it is an indication that you have scored 3 strokes or more below your handicap index in two or more tournaments over the past 12 months. When this occurs, you are subject to rule 10-3 which may result in a reduction of your handicap. Whether your handicap is reduced and the amount it is reduced is based on a formula that takes into consideration how far below your handicap you score and how many tournament scores you have. This is all applied automatically by the GHIN system...

[ruca]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Have the 2 scores been posted and hopefully as T scores?

 

Yes and they adjusted his index from 25 to 22ish but that doesn't really fix the issue as he can post 20 rounds before next year's event and wipe the reduction out.

 

I'm thinking the death penalty or making them spend a weekend taking care of Mrs. Pelz's Mother's bunions would be appropriate.

As we're resurrecting old threads...

Are you saying any correction is no good because 20 rounds wipes it out?

Isn't that a fundamental flaw of a (8/20) system we're all going to in 2020?

The solution is really rather simple. Apply a congu like reduction over the 2 rounds (21×0.4= 8.4 plus 2 shots exceptional reduction) = new cap of 14.8. Make this mandatory and automatic not optional for a hcp committee

Now cap any yearly increase by 2 shots, so next year's cap is 16.8. (No matter what he posts in the interim)

Any player who thinks they're getting worse by more than 2 shots per year can apply to the committee for 1 extra shot. So the onus on committee is now the other way round.

 

Limits bandits, and mitigates errors from lax committees.

 

"T" scores stay on your record for at least a year, possibly longer (I forget).

 

And there is a formula for adjusting a handicap based on T scores - I'm sure the Handicapping Manual has all that info.

I believe T scores last for 1 yr. The formula would give a result not dissimilar to CONGU.

The issue then is what happens after 1yr and 1day. I would like to see any increase capped to around 2 shots (per yr) as this would virtually eliminate banditry . I don't know if there is any such proposal for the WWHS. (But I'm inclined to keep making the point in the hope that someone from USGA/EGA/CONGU comes across these threads and gets the point).

[Newby]

I believe T scores last for 1 yr. The formula would give a result not dissimilar to CONGU.

The issue then is what happens after 1yr and 1day. I would like to see any increase capped to around 2 shots (per yr) as this would virtually eliminate banditry . I don't know if there is any such proposal for the WWHS. (But I'm inclined to keep making the point in the hope that someone from USGA/EGA/CONGU comes across these threads and gets the point).

 

The CONGU problem is not caps going up but caps not coming down.

The ratchet system of only 0.1 at a time puts an effective cap on how far a bandit can go up in a year.

But given that am/am and 4BBB prizes are the targets of the baggers, they can easily protect their handicap by not playing well in singles comps.

Hopefully the recent requirement to return such scores will help but it depends on the players' handicap secretary - some of whom are complicit in the fraud.

[DaveLeeNC]

i know this is an old post but happens all the time. Recently out on the west coast i played in a club championshp for seniors, guy who won broke 80 for first time all year!!! 79 gross 67 net to win. A 12 handicap shoots 79 in tournament - i don't think so. When they announced who won everyone moaned...

 

Same thing happened at at 1 day tourney at a club in rancho santa margarita, 5 and 6 handicaps were have banner days shooting net 65 and 64. Really you are averaging 77-76 all year and better your score by 10 or more in a tournament? Don't think so. And took home 7 skins, what???? It's criminal. and who but there buddies are their to witness these great achievements on the course.

 

This post really is missing the key information required to actually make a judgment here. My best guess is the following

 

1) Since the is a 'handicapped league championship for seniors', my guess is that is was playing on a course with a CR of around 70. But why do we have to guess.

 

2) So the winner beat his index by around 3 strokes, but the post doesn't say for sure whether this is course handicap or handicap index of 12. So it could be more (or it could be less). If it is handicap index, then we still cannot judge because we don't know the slope of the course played.

 

Note that in a handicapped event like this it is inevitable that the winner is going to win by playing one of his best rounds of the year, even in a 100% honest world. "Absolute best by one or more strokes" - certainly less likely in an honest world.

 

Maybe with the information required to judge these things, this posted information would be interesting and indicative of sandbagging. In fact it probably is, but how can we know from what is posted here?

 

dave

 

rating 71.6 slope 128

handicap index of 12

 

So what this means is that the golfer beat his index by 5.5 strokes. If I go back to my database where I kept detailed scoring records (about 650 rounds), I did this a couple times (not in a tournament setting, BTW but I played no tournaments).

 

So in my mind this SINGULAR EVENT falls in the 'suspicious but not conclusive' category.

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

As the OP of the thread I thought it would be interesting to see what happened in this year's Sr. event in our fair city. Here's a shocker...a guy who went into the event as a 25.2 index shot a net 21 under for 2 rounds and won the event by 7 shots. He had posted 1 round of 87 in 2018 but his other 15 rounds were all between 96 and 106.

 

When I posted this originally, the event had 155 players. This year, only 59.

 

Clearly the madness hasn't stopped.

 

Now this is a bit different than the guy who woke up this thread. -21 is roughly -10 and -11.

 

Not even on the charts. Don't the people who run these things have the nitz to DQ these obvious sandbaggers ? (Rhetorical question obviously)

 

Do we have confirmation that the -21 is the Net Differential rather than the Net in comparison to the players Course Handicap?

 

At my home course, from the senior tees, a 25.2 index shooting a net 11 under their Course Handicap would produce a Net Differential of -5.4 (19.8 - 25.2).

[nsxguy]

"T" scores stay on your record for at least a year, possibly longer (I forget).

 

And there is a formula for adjusting a handicap based on T scores - I'm sure the Handicapping Manual has all that info.

 

From GHIN:

 

Why does my handicap have an “R” next to it and what does it mean?

 

In the simplest terms it is an indication that you have scored 3 strokes or more below your handicap index in two or more tournaments over the past 12 months. When this occurs, you are subject to rule 10-3 which may result in a reduction of your handicap. Whether your handicap is reduced and the amount it is reduced is based on a formula that takes into consideration how far below your handicap you score and how many tournament scores you have. This is all applied automatically by the GHIN system...

 

Thanks. I'd read that before but was too lazy to go look it up.

[Matt J]

If you have the volition it can be fixed. We're talking about having 4 stroke events (or at least a best ball, where you know your postable score) to start the season and requiring club members to play at least 2. Then we'll base the differential off your index or lowest t score diff whichever is lower. I like the Knuth system too!

[nsxguy]

If you have the volition it can be fixed. We're talking about having 4 stroke events (or at least a best ball, where you know your postable score) to start the season and requiring club members to play at least 2. Then we'll base the differential off your index or lowest t score diff whichever is lower. I like the Knuth system too!

 

Have I translated your post correctly ?

 

A 15 has something of a career best and shoots say, 6 under his differential and you want to keep him a 9 ? How long does this stand ?

 

I don't know the Knuth System but I believe Dean Knuth was instrumental in developing the current Handicap System, no ? At least in THAT case the guy has a background for suggesting different ideas.

[2ball]

i know this is an old post but happens all the time. Recently out on the west coast i played in a club championshp for seniors, guy who won broke 80 for first time all year!!! 79 gross 67 net to win. A 12 handicap shoots 79 in tournament - i don't think so. When they announced who won everyone moaned...

 

Same thing happened at at 1 day tourney at a club in rancho santa margarita, 5 and 6 handicaps were have banner days shooting net 65 and 64. Really you are averaging 77-76 all year and better your score by 10 or more in a tournament? Don't think so. And took home 7 skins, what???? It's criminal. and who but there buddies are their to witness these great achievements on the course.

 

This post really is missing the key information required to actually make a judgment here. My best guess is the following

 

1) Since the is a 'handicapped league championship for seniors', my guess is that is was playing on a course with a CR of around 70. But why do we have to guess.

 

2) So the winner beat his index by around 3 strokes, but the post doesn't say for sure whether this is course handicap or handicap index of 12. So it could be more (or it could be less). If it is handicap index, then we still cannot judge because we don't know the slope of the course played.

 

Note that in a handicapped event like this it is inevitable that the winner is going to win by playing one of his best rounds of the year, even in a 100% honest world. "Absolute best by one or more strokes" - certainly less likely in an honest world.

 

Maybe with the information required to judge these things, this posted information would be interesting and indicative of sandbagging. In fact it probably is, but how can we know from what is posted here?

 

dave

 

rating 71.6 slope 128

handicap index of 12

 

So what this means is that the golfer beat his index by 5.5 strokes. If I go back to my database where I kept detailed scoring records (about 650 rounds), I did this a couple times (not in a tournament setting, BTW but I played no tournaments).

 

So in my mind this SINGULAR EVENT falls in the 'suspicious but not conclusive' category.

 

dave

Suspicious alright when the average score in a tourney goes up 4-6 stokes not down. Lets face it if I am playing with and holding this individuals score card (we know each other) i bet he doesnt go low that day.

[Shilgy]

i know this is an old post but happens all the time. Recently out on the west coast i played in a club championshp for seniors, guy who won broke 80 for first time all year!!! 79 gross 67 net to win. A 12 handicap shoots 79 in tournament - i don't think so. When they announced who won everyone moaned...

 

Same thing happened at at 1 day tourney at a club in rancho santa margarita, 5 and 6 handicaps were have banner days shooting net 65 and 64. Really you are averaging 77-76 all year and better your score by 10 or more in a tournament? Don't think so. And took home 7 skins, what???? It's criminal. and who but there buddies are their to witness these great achievements on the course.

 

This post really is missing the key information required to actually make a judgment here. My best guess is the following

 

1) Since the is a 'handicapped league championship for seniors', my guess is that is was playing on a course with a CR of around 70. But why do we have to guess.

 

2) So the winner beat his index by around 3 strokes, but the post doesn't say for sure whether this is course handicap or handicap index of 12. So it could be more (or it could be less). If it is handicap index, then we still cannot judge because we don't know the slope of the course played.

 

Note that in a handicapped event like this it is inevitable that the winner is going to win by playing one of his best rounds of the year, even in a 100% honest world. "Absolute best by one or more strokes" - certainly less likely in an honest world.

 

Maybe with the information required to judge these things, this posted information would be interesting and indicative of sandbagging. In fact it probably is, but how can we know from what is posted here?

 

dave

 

rating 71.6 slope 128

handicap index of 12

 

So what this means is that the golfer beat his index by 5.5 strokes. If I go back to my database where I kept detailed scoring records (about 650 rounds), I did this a couple times (not in a tournament setting, BTW but I played no tournaments).

 

So in my mind this SINGULAR EVENT falls in the 'suspicious but not conclusive' category.

 

dave

Suspicious alright when the average score in a tourney goes up 4-6 stokes not down. Lets face it if I am playing with and holding this individuals score card (we know each other) i bet he doesnt go low that day.

So are you really saying you believe you just plain got pencil whipped? When scores like that do happen every day?

Your assertion that scores go up 4-6 strokes is probably a bit high. Which would be explained by the fact that players do average about 3 strokes over their handicap.

[wkuo3]

One year ago I played in the Naperville city senior championship with approximately 150 players. It was my first true competitive event in 30+ years. The person who won the net was a 14 handicap who had posted 85 as his lowest round in a year. In the 2 day event he shot -24 net with gross rounds of 75-73.

 

This past Wednesday and Thursday was the 2014 city senior championship. Here are the last 2 years of scores posted by the person who won. This is directly cut and pasted from the CDGA (Chicago District Golf Association). Please note that the only two rounds he shot in the 80's were in tournaments.

 

Scoring Record Handicap History

MM/YY Score Type Rating Slope Diff

6/14 98 T 72.2 131 22.3

6/14 97 H 69.8 126 24.4

6/14 99 H 71.1 129 24.4

6/14 101 T 72.1 138 23.7

6/14 98 H 71.1 129 23.6

6/14 105 T 71.6 137 27.5

6/14 96 H 71.1 129 21.8

6/14 100 H 71.1 129 25.3

5/14 97 H 71.1 129 22.7

5/14 97 H 71.1 129 22.7

5/14 95 H 71.1 129 20.9

5/14 98 H 71.1 129 23.6

8/13 87 T 68.6 120 17.3

8/13 84 T 68.3 122 14.5

6/13 91 H 68.3 122 21

6/13 94 H 71.1 129 20.1

6/13 95 H 71.1 129 20.9

6/13 94 H 71.1 129 20.1

6/13 96 H 71.1 129 21.8

6/13 95 H 71.1 129 20.9

 

This is August...and he hasn't posted a score since June. Seriously. You already know where this is going...the guy who posted 2 rounds in the 80's in 2 years shot gross 80-81 with a net score of -17. For entertainment purposes, the guy who won last year who is now a 12, shot a horrifically bad -13. Oh that sucks...how embarrassing.

 

When or how does this madness stop? I talked to the committee and presented facts...including the fact that this year's field was almost 50% less than last year because of the sandbagging. To say it's fallen upon non-caring ears would be an understatement. I threw out some great suggestions from our site including using tournament rounds only, using a percentage of handicap, etc.

 

Any suggestions from people who play in these kinds of events and how it's dealt with?

 

Exactly why there is no handicap in the professional circle.

Bring your game and show it .

 

I have no suggestion but to reference the biggest sandbagger gathering at the annual World Amateur. You can borrow some of their guidelines to spot and remove the sandbaggers. But , it is what it is, sandbagging is part of the game unless playing the game heads up.

[rogolf]

I think I've posted this before, but our Committee used to review entries when received. When an entry came in from a known 'bagger, we would send him a note saying that he was very welcome to play in our tournament, but that the Committee would establish his handicap for our event. We also notified all players that the Committee had already established a total (low) net score for the 54 holes and would not award prizes to those whose score was below that number. (Obviously, we never published the number.)

If the Committees want it to stop, they have to do something besides doing a "Dusty Springfield" (wishing and hoping).

[nsxguy]

i know this is an old post but happens all the time. Recently out on the west coast i played in a club championshp for seniors, guy who won broke 80 for first time all year!!! 79 gross 67 net to win. A 12 handicap shoots 79 in tournament - i don't think so. When they announced who won everyone moaned...

 

Same thing happened at at 1 day tourney at a club in rancho santa margarita, 5 and 6 handicaps were have banner days shooting net 65 and 64. Really you are averaging 77-76 all year and better your score by 10 or more in a tournament? Don't think so. And took home 7 skins, what???? It's criminal. and who but there buddies are their to witness these great achievements on the course.

 

This post really is missing the key information required to actually make a judgment here. My best guess is the following

 

1) Since the is a 'handicapped league championship for seniors', my guess is that is was playing on a course with a CR of around 70. But why do we have to guess.

 

2) So the winner beat his index by around 3 strokes, but the post doesn't say for sure whether this is course handicap or handicap index of 12. So it could be more (or it could be less). If it is handicap index, then we still cannot judge because we don't know the slope of the course played.

 

Note that in a handicapped event like this it is inevitable that the winner is going to win by playing one of his best rounds of the year, even in a 100% honest world. "Absolute best by one or more strokes" - certainly less likely in an honest world.

 

Maybe with the information required to judge these things, this posted information would be interesting and indicative of sandbagging. In fact it probably is, but how can we know from what is posted here?

 

dave

 

rating 71.6 slope 128

handicap index of 12

 

So what this means is that the golfer beat his index by 5.5 strokes. If I go back to my database where I kept detailed scoring records (about 650 rounds), I did this a couple times (not in a tournament setting, BTW but I played no tournaments).

 

So in my mind this SINGULAR EVENT falls in the 'suspicious but not conclusive' category.

 

dave

Suspicious alright when the average score in a tourney goes up 4-6 stokes not down. Lets face it if I am playing with and holding this individuals score card (we know each other) i bet he doesnt go low that day.

 

So you're saying he's cheating ? Or are you saying YOU'D cheat by "pencil whipping" him ?

 

Great call. Especially when there are guys/gals who shoot -5, on average, almost 4,000 times A DAY !!!

 

So you're one of these "I shot -4 honestly today and lost ??? To a 12 ? HE must be cheating !!!" Un-frickin-believable.

 

Just so happens that I almost never have a "casual" round anymore - always have at least a little $ on the line. But in the past, when I DID play casually sometimes, I'd often take chances with shots with little chance of success, inflating my score above what it would have been had I been in a tournament.

 

Tournaments can work both ways. Most guys (IMO) shoot higher scores because they can't control their nerves or they take the same silly chances they take during their casual rounds.

 

Did it ever occur to you that even a higher handicapper, not that a "12" is "high", might just use some good course management skills in a tournament that he mightn't under normal circumstances ? That HE can stay calm and function well under pressure ?

 

And then there are the udder guys (& gals of course). Those that concentrate more on what they're doing and take their "medicine" when they get into trouble and get OUT of the trouble first, and then move on. Shoot at the fat part of the green instead of a tucked pin by water. You know the deal.

 

Handicap aside, these guys are tournament type players.

 

 

All that said, as in the OP on this thread, Naperville should have had the cojones to DQ the winner. -11 and -13 on 2 consecutive rounds defies any reasonable explanation, especially with such a gap in reported scores. i.e. it's "impossible".