The Sandbagging Madness has to stop...

[Big Ben]

Welcome to every net Country Club event in the history of golf. I refuse to play in them, unless I know you and your game I’m not wasting my time being sandbagged. I have friends who want to invite me to there Memeber/Guest Every year and what’s the first thing they say? You guessed it, your cap is way too low.

[DavePelz4]

> @llewol007 said:

> I believe that sandbagging will occur only if the individual is allowed to get away with. Really I believe that tournament scores should reflect highly on your handicap for the tournaments you enter. So if that individual enters a score of 75/73 and proceeds to enter a following tournament expecting to be given +14 as his handicap, his handicap will then be reduced by half automatically. If he proceeds to score another tournament score of 75/73, then his handicap should automatically be given a half value again.

 

What happened over the last 4 years is someone wins the event with an unbelievable score, they have their index adjusted and then they never play in the event again.

[Augster]

I guess I don’t understand why they would give a 24 cap (22.3@122 slope) 27 shots. That’s just begging for low net scores.

 

Maybe he shot those good scores because he “concentrates more during tournament rounds” or “competition makes him play better” because casual golf is boring and tourney golf excites him. :)

[llewol007]

Yes unfortunately that happens too many times. If someone can live with themselves then it is what it is.

[Under2hours]

> @Augster said:

> I guess I don’t understand why they would give a 24 cap (22.3@122 slope) 27 shots. That’s just begging for low net scores.

>

> Maybe he shot those good scores because he “concentrates more during tournament rounds” or “competition makes him play better” because casual golf is boring and tourney golf excites him. :)

 

Always the excuse for that magical round that only occurs during a "comp".

 

Love reading this thread as it highlights the issues and regardless seems impossible to police. Here we have a very well run "tour" where players are flighted, and decent prizes for winning. Play mostly private A level courses and laughed at one of the first events, where the C Flight winner 23.1 HC, shot 83 with three birdies!!!! and only 2 holes over a bogey (a quad & double). You'd think after that performance he's be pumped and playing all year (weekly tournaments) .

 

Well next week, was moved to B Flight, shot 107 and hasn't played since.

[mark m]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @llewol007 said:

> > I believe that sandbagging will occur only if the individual is allowed to get away with. Really I believe that tournament scores should reflect highly on your handicap for the tournaments you enter. So if that individual enters a score of 75/73 and proceeds to enter a following tournament expecting to be given +14 as his handicap, his handicap will then be reduced by half automatically. If he proceeds to score another tournament score of 75/73, then his handicap should automatically be given a half value again.

>

> What happened over the last 4 years is someone wins the event with an unbelievable score, they have their index adjusted and then they never play in the event again.

 

Yep. Do you know what has happened to the participation level? I recall it dropped big time about 3 years ago. Unfortunately, there are a lot of baggers out there. Hopefully our new WHS system will prove to be better than the current system. Sandbagging tends to destroy participation over time. Tournament Committees need a good handicap system to increase participation and grow the game.

[DavePelz4]

> @"mark m" said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @llewol007 said:

> > > I believe that sandbagging will occur only if the individual is allowed to get away with. Really I believe that tournament scores should reflect highly on your handicap for the tournaments you enter. So if that individual enters a score of 75/73 and proceeds to enter a following tournament expecting to be given +14 as his handicap, his handicap will then be reduced by half automatically. If he proceeds to score another tournament score of 75/73, then his handicap should automatically be given a half value again.

> >

> > What happened over the last 4 years is someone wins the event with an unbelievable score, they have their index adjusted and then they never play in the event again.

>

> Yep. Do you know what has happened to the participation level? I recall it dropped big time about 3 years ago. Unfortunately, there are a lot of baggers out there. Hopefully our new WHS system will prove to be better than the current system. Sandbagging tends to destroy participation over time. Tournament Committees need a good handicap system to increase participation and grow the game.

 

It appears the participation has gone back up approximately 125. Pretty good all in all. I did a quick scan of the results and didn't see any of the former winners as even having participated in the event.

[DavePelz4]

So I finally have the facts straight...and it's WORSE than what was posted earlier. The guy who won low net was at -15 for the two rounds. Here are his 17 previous scores prior to the event:

 

8/19 92

8/19 91

8/19 93

8/19 92

8/19 93

7/19 90

7/19 90

7/19 92

7/19 90

7/19 91

7/19 90

7/19 92

7/19 91

6/19 90

6/19 91

6/19 92

6/19 91

You'll note that he never shot above 93 in his previous 17 rounds and never shot below 90 either. In fact, he might be one of the most consistent non-tournament players out there. But clearly, when this player gets into serious competition mode, his real ability comes out. The Low Net tournament champion, who hadn't posted a round in the 80's in his last 17 rounds, posted 80 and 83 to win by SEVEN shots.

 

But...let's make this even more entertaining. Sometime after winning the event, he went out and played again. He posted a 90. Shocking.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

[DavePelz4]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

 

Ask and you shall receive...

 

8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

**8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Double posting error. Apologies. Dave

[Newby]

> @llewol007 said:

> I believe that sandbagging will occur only if the individual is allowed to get away with. Really I believe that tournament scores should reflect highly on your handicap for the tournaments you enter. So if that individual enters a score of 75/73 and proceeds to enter a following tournament expecting to be given +14 as his handicap, his handicap will then be reduced by half automatically. If he proceeds to score another tournament score of 75/73, then his handicap should automatically be given a half value again.

It is very probable that the WHS will include an exceptional score reduction process.

 

[Shipwreck]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

>

> Ask and you shall receive...

>

> 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

>

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

DP4, I assume that this is a case of "severe bagging", but it would be FAR more sensible to be posting differentials instead of scores (or even net scores which ignore CR). dave > @DavePelz4 said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

>

> Ask and you shall receive...

>

> 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

>

 

Thanks, very clear. And sorry about the double post. I really need to quit posting from a touch screen. Dave

[HatsForBats]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

>

> Ask and you shall receive...

>

> 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

>

 

What's his current index?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

> >

> > Ask and you shall receive...

> >

> > 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> > **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> > 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> > 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> > 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> > 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> >

>

> What's his current index?

 

If I did the calculations right his index (using those scores) would be 16.9 assuming no T Score reduction. And he is right on the boundary of a T Score reduction of either 1.8 or 2.6 strokes (I was not careful with when I applied round off).

 

dave

[lchang]

Wow! Not even attempting to make it seem plausible!! Like he’s just trying to insult everyone’s intelligence. That would be the most consistent scoring in the history of golf!!!

[DavePelz4]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

> >

> > Ask and you shall receive...

> >

> > 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> > **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> > 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> > 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> > 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> > 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> >

>

> What's his current index?

 

Again...ask and you shall receive.

 

Handicap History

Date Index

8/15/2019 16.1R

8/1/2019 16.1R

7/15/2019 17.1R

7/1/2019 16.2R

6/15/2019 16.7

6/1/2019 17.1

5/15/2019 17.2

5/1/2019 17.4

4/15/2019 16.7R

4/1/2019 16.8R

3/15/2019 16.8R

3/1/2019 16.8R

2/15/2019 16.8R

2/1/2019 16.8R

1/15/2019 16.8R

12/15/2018 16.8R

12/1/2018 16.8R

11/15/2018 16.8R

11/1/2018 16.8R

10/15/2018 17.6

[DaveLeeNC]

What is equally relevant here is that this guy was posting like roughly a 18.3 when he put up T score diff's at 10.8 and 13.2. dave

[MooJersey]

This is why handicapped tournaments are stupid. Unfortunately the only truly fair tournament is a scratch tournament. No strokes given. Too bad most golfers won't ever be good enough to compete in them. ::shrug::

[DaveLeeNC]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > DP4, i assume that this is the sandbagging case that it appears to be. But it would make way more sense to be posting differentials instead of gross (or even net) scores. Dave

> > >

> > > Ask and you shall receive...

> > >

> > > 8/19 90 A 68.9 121 19.7

> > > **8/19 83 T 68.8 122 13.2

> > > 8/19 80 T 68.3 122 10.8**

> > > 8/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > > 8/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > > 8/19 93 A 68.8 122 22.4

> > > 8/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > > 8/19 93 T 68.3 122 22.9

> > > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > > 7/19 92 A 69.7 130 19.4

> > > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > > 7/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > > 7/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > > 7/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > > 7/19 91 H 68.3 122 21

> > > 6/19 90 A 69.6 123 18.7

> > > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > > 6/19 92 A 69.6 123 20.6

> > > 6/19 91 A 69.6 123 19.7

> > >

> >

> > What's his current index?

>

> Again...ask and you shall receive.

>

> Handicap History

> Date Index

> 8/15/2019 16.1R

> 8/1/2019 16.1R

> 7/15/2019 17.1R

> 7/1/2019 16.2R

> 6/15/2019 16.7

> 6/1/2019 17.1

> 5/15/2019 17.2

> 5/1/2019 17.4

> 4/15/2019 16.7R

> 4/1/2019 16.8R

> 3/15/2019 16.8R

> 3/1/2019 16.8R

> 2/15/2019 16.8R

> 2/1/2019 16.8R

> 1/15/2019 16.8R

> 12/15/2018 16.8R

> 12/1/2018 16.8R

> 11/15/2018 16.8R

> 11/1/2018 16.8R

> 10/15/2018 17.6

 

There must be something at play here that has not been stated. This piece of the thread (#173) started with this guy being a 22.3 and getting 27 strokes. That by itself makes no sense unless something else is at play here. Now it looks lie his is more like a 16 or 17 getting 27 strokes.

 

What else is going on?

 

dave

[DavePelz4]

Hi Dave...

 

As mentioned in a subsequent post, the results were all over the place on the city website. The official results were with the guy above who is a 16.1 and had not broken 90 this year, shooting 80 & 83. Apologies for the confusion.

[HatsForBats]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > It's time for the 2019 posting of the Naperville Sandbagging Championship. This year's winner, playing off a 22.3 index and having posted exactly 2 rounds under 95 in 2019 miraculously shot 19 under par for his 2 rounds with gross scores of 89/88 and net scores of 61/62. Congrats to the Champion!

> >

> > Pretty highly sloped courses to shoot those numbers.

>

> Not really...the tees they played from are rated/sloped at 68.3/122 and 68.8/122.

 

With a slope of 122 and an index of 16.1 that is a course handicap of only 17. So my guess is they used 80% of the handicaps? 17 + 17 x .8 = 27 strokes over **2 rounds**.

 

16.1 x 122 / 113 = 17.38

[SkiSchoolPro]

Obviously, the consistency of the scores make them look suspect. Of note, his only other T score was 93. It appears that only 4 of the 20 scores were at his "home" course (3 T scores and 1 H with the same CR/slope). Some players play better at their home course compared to unfamiliar tracks but it might also be easier to make up scores for away play...just an observation, not a judgement.

[DavePelz4]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > It's time for the 2019 posting of the Naperville Sandbagging Championship. This year's winner, playing off a 22.3 index and having posted exactly 2 rounds under 95 in 2019 miraculously shot 19 under par for his 2 rounds with gross scores of 89/88 and net scores of 61/62. Congrats to the Champion!

> > >

> > > Pretty highly sloped courses to shoot those numbers.

> >

> > Not really...the tees they played from are rated/sloped at 68.3/122 and 68.8/122.

>

> With a slope of 122 and an index of 16.1 that is a course handicap of only 17. So my guess is they used 80% of the handicaps? 17 + 17 x .8 = 27 strokes over **2 rounds**.

>

> 16.1 x 122 / 113 = 17.38

 

You are correct...he played off a 17 for both rounds but they used full handicaps. Round 1 he shot gross 80 with 17 strokes for a net 63 (minus 9). Round 2 he shot gross 83 with 17 strokes for a net 66 (minus 6) Par was 144 for 2 rounds, he shot net 129 or minus 15.

[North Butte]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> So I finally have the facts straight...and it's WORSE than what was posted earlier. The guy who won low net was at -15 for the two rounds. Here are his 17 previous scores prior to the event:

>

> 8/19 92

> 8/19 91

> 8/19 93

> 8/19 92

> 8/19 93

> 7/19 90

> 7/19 90

> 7/19 92

> 7/19 90

> 7/19 91

> 7/19 90

> 7/19 92

> 7/19 91

> 6/19 90

> 6/19 91

> 6/19 92

> 6/19 91

> You'll note that he never shot above 93 in his previous 17 rounds and never shot below 90 either. In fact, he might be one of the most consistent non-tournament players out there. But clearly, when this player gets into serious competition mode, his real ability comes out. The Low Net tournament champion, who hadn't posted a round in the 80's in his last 17 rounds, posted 80 and 83 to win by SEVEN shots.

>

> But...let's make this even more entertaining. Sometime after winning the event, he went out and played again. He posted a 90. Shocking.

>

>

I played in a club match play against a supposed 21 handicap. He was even par through 9 holes. Closed me out 8-and-6 with a bogey on the 12th. At that point he was 4 over for 12 holes.

 

He suggested we go ahead and play in the last six holes. Lost a sleeve of balls on the holes after match was won and posted an 88. I reported him.

 

For the next round of the match play tournament, the committee made him play off 8 hcp. Can’t imagine why they didn’t straight up DQ him an award me the win by default. My entry fee was purely wasted.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > > @DavePelz4 said:

> > > > > It's time for the 2019 posting of the Naperville Sandbagging Championship. This year's winner, playing off a 22.3 index and having posted exactly 2 rounds under 95 in 2019 miraculously shot 19 under par for his 2 rounds with gross scores of 89/88 and net scores of 61/62. Congrats to the Champion!

> > > >

> > > > Pretty highly sloped courses to shoot those numbers.

> > >

> > > Not really...the tees they played from are rated/sloped at 68.3/122 and 68.8/122.

> >

> > With a slope of 122 and an index of 16.1 that is a course handicap of only 17. So my guess is they used 80% of the handicaps? 17 + 17 x .8 = 27 strokes over **2 rounds**.

> >

> > 16.1 x 122 / 113 = 17.38

>

> You are correct...he played off a 17 for both rounds but they used full handicaps. Round 1 he shot gross 80 with 17 strokes for a net 63 (minus 9). Round 2 he shot gross 83 with 17 strokes for a net 66 (minus 6) Par was 144 for 2 rounds, he shot net 129 or minus 15.

 

I think we are getting 2 different players confused. Anyways, moving along with your 17 stroke guy the difference for his differential were only -5.3 and -2.9 which is not off the charts. Maybe bring up the scoring pattern of the last 20 scores to your local golf association? They should be able to view his full history rather than being limited to the last 20 plus recent rounds.

[Shipwreck]

The worst I have seen it is in our City Am tournaments. Unless you want to waste the entry fee on the championship flight where the same rotation of 3-4 people win it and all carry +HCs, you take your chances in your respected flight. I normally play the A flight which I believe is 3-8HC range and without fail it’s some 7-8HC player shooting 2-3 under par gross over the course of the tournament.

 

For the cost of these things, it’s not even worth it as you barely make back your entry fee in the end if you win. A good friend of mine said the am tournaments in Utah were cash cows and always paid well. Wish the AGA would change but they won’t.

[DavePelz4]

It's been a few years so I'll share this story of playing in the match play championship of our fine city and you'll understand why I no longer play in the city events.

 

Made it to the quarterfinals in the "B" flight...think I was playing off a 10. Paired up with a guy who was a 12 so I was giving him a shot a side. On the front, I played lights out (for me), shot 38 and was 4 holes down. He shot gross 33 which was a net 27. He was a helluva good player and obviously didn't miss a shot. As we were going to the 10th tee I asked what his real handicap was and he said 4. He said he was so tired of sandbaggers beating him that he BS'd his scores to get into this flight so he could win. I said so you're basically doing to me what others who have done to you.

 

Got beat 3 & 2 (with some other really questionable actions on his part) and after the round I went to the TD and told him what he said about his real index. I asked the TD to go back and look at the guy's index in the event in prior years but that request was turned down and I was referred to as just a sore loser.

 

So my competition these days is with our group of guys where we keep a handicap just for our events and sandbagging doesn't exist.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> Hi Dave...

>

> As mentioned in a subsequent post, the results were all over the place on the city website. The official results were with the guy above who is a 16.1 and had not broken 90 this year, shooting 80 & 83. Apologies for the confusion.

 

Dave, thanks for the clarification. Now it all makes sense.

 

Sounds to me like only exceptional sandbaggers win this event. Your average sandbagger might as well stay home.

 

dave