New World Handicaps 2020

[BlackDiamondPar5]

Pre-registration seems like a great opportunity to legitimately sandbag. Whereby the golfer has a tournament coming up. He likes his handicap where it is and has been playing very well recently compared to his HC. He has enough scores for HC and the next score entered would cause a higher score used in the HC calc to fall off and would lower his handicap. So golfer decides to forego posting the next few rounds by not pre-registering.

[CaseyC]

If the thought that entering hole by hole scores is a terrible burden, those same people won't put in any work on or for a HC committee.

 

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> If the thought that entering hole by hole scores is a terrible burden, those same people won't put in any work on or for a HC committee.

>

 

Quite right. I think any changes to USGA or CONGU handicapping must be cognizant of the fact that 99-plus percent of handicap holders have no interest in supplying hole by hole scoring statistics or in serving on any sort of committee.

 

So that leaves us with the same point. Hole by hole scoring is a complete red herring in this discussion. It's not been part of USGA's proposed 2020 changes and it won't change anything about the basic nature of handicap computation or the scores that go into it or the supposed peer review that in reality seldom takes place.

 

Then again, neither does "net double bogey" instead of ESC or "8 of 20" instead of "10 or 20" have much of anything to do with anything.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> > >

> >

> > My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

> As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

>

 

Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would certainly suffer. Pretty sad because that will hurt golf courses and clubs... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

 

Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

 

I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

 

[North Butte]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:>

> I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

 

It won't necessarily be Grint but I've long suspected that the USGA's big fear isn't lack of comparability between USGA and Rest of World handicaps. It's about staying relevant to the clubs and associations. If it were up to "rank and file" golfers, they'd defect in a heartbeat to some well publicized, advertising hyped, social-media-connected alternative handicap system. Keeping the clubs and associations in their pocket is the only thing keeping USGA from becoming a tournament sponsor and Rules officiator without owning the handicap system.

[davep043]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

>

> Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

>

> I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

>

Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

 

As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

 

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > If the thought that entering hole by hole scores is a terrible burden, those same people won't put in any work on or for a HC committee.

> >

>

> Quite right. I think any changes to USGA or CONGU handicapping must be cognizant of the fact that 99-plus percent of handicap holders have no interest in supplying hole by hole scoring statistics or in serving on any sort of committee.

 

People want a number they can call "official" without having to do all the work.

 

 

[CaseyC]

 

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> If it were up to "rank and file" golfers, they'd defect in a heartbeat to some well publicized, advertising hyped, social-media-connected alternative handicap system.

Sounds like a business opportunity. Maybe you should jump on it. Of course, it would have to be free to the end user.

 

 

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

> >

> > Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

> >

> > I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

> >

> Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

>

> As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

>

 

I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @CaseyC said:

> > > If the thought that entering hole by hole scores is a terrible burden, those same people won't put in any work on or for a HC committee.

> > >

> >

> > Quite right. I think any changes to USGA or CONGU handicapping must be cognizant of the fact that 99-plus percent of handicap holders have no interest in supplying hole by hole scoring statistics or in serving on any sort of committee.

>

> People want a number they can call "official" without having to do all the work.

>

>

 

Yes. That is always the majority’s desire. Which is why there’s no reason to think USGA is going to try and force them otherwise by requiring hole by hole entry.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

>

> I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

At my home club, I don't believe its much of a problem at all, but we do have a moderately active active Handicap Committee. We didn't always have any committee, and when we started improving things, a few players were IRATE that someone dared to check up on them. Things are calmer now, a few years down the road.

Where I hear of the biggest complaints are in city-wide events open to the general public. I understand at least a little bit how difficult it is must be to maintain appropriate oversight in muni and internet clubs, and I have to imagine that that is where the worst offenders keep their handicaps. I honestly can't be certain that instituting some type of attestation procedure would decrease the perceived problems, but at least it would require a conspiracy of at least two players to manipulate handicaps.

And you're not the first one to suggest I look like Feherty. I'll claim to be better looking (at least 11 years ago when that photo was taken) but he's got WAY more money.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> >

> > I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

> At my home club, I don't believe its much of a problem at all, but we do have a moderately active active Handicap Committee. We didn't always have any committee, and when we started improving things, a few players were IRATE that someone dared to check up on them. Things are calmer now, a few years down the road.

> Where I hear of the biggest complaints are in city-wide events open to the general public. I understand at least a little bit how difficult it is must be to maintain appropriate oversight in muni and internet clubs, and I have to imagine that that is where the worst offenders keep their handicaps. I honestly can't be certain that instituting some type of attestation procedure would decrease the perceived problems, but at least it would require a conspiracy of at least two players to manipulate handicaps.

> And you're not the first one to suggest I look like Feherty. I'll claim to be better looking (at least 11 years ago when that photo was taken) but he's got WAY more money.

>

 

@LICC My tournament play is limited to multi-day Member Guests and I've seen no indication of or real serious talk about sandbagging. Certainly guys get their chops busted of they have a good day, but that's just bar talk. This particular club has a strong well respected Pro and if they suspected problems they'd definitely deal with it.

 

Then there is a circle of about 40 or so other guys, some I might play with once per year (private, public and semi private). While all may not personally know each other they are always friends with at least a few in the group. Never seen issues there either and if there was justice would be swift.

 

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

> >

> > Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

> >

> > I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

> >

> Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

>

> As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

>

 

Dave, I know you are an expert and a great wealth of knowledge on this topic. But honestly that may hinder you at being objective of the level of complexity that will be tolerated for maintaining an index. Kind of like the inventor, engineer or product manager that thinks his product is the best on the market. Has all the features and flexibility anyone could ever need. Then can't understand the tepid reception by the customer

The problem is that the customer doesn't need all that sophistication and complexity.

[LICC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > >

> > > I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

> > At my home club, I don't believe its much of a problem at all, but we do have a moderately active active Handicap Committee. We didn't always have any committee, and when we started improving things, a few players were IRATE that someone dared to check up on them. Things are calmer now, a few years down the road.

> > Where I hear of the biggest complaints are in city-wide events open to the general public. I understand at least a little bit how difficult it is must be to maintain appropriate oversight in muni and internet clubs, and I have to imagine that that is where the worst offenders keep their handicaps. I honestly can't be certain that instituting some type of attestation procedure would decrease the perceived problems, but at least it would require a conspiracy of at least two players to manipulate handicaps.

> > And you're not the first one to suggest I look like Feherty. I'll claim to be better looking (at least 11 years ago when that photo was taken) but he's got WAY more money.

> >

>

> @LICC My tournament play is limited to multi-day Member Guests and I've seen no indication of or real serious talk about sandbagging. Certainly guys get their chops busted of they have a good day, but that's just bar talk. This particular club has a strong well respected Pro and if they suspected problems they'd definitely deal with it.

>

> Then there is a circle of about 40 or so other guys, some I might play with once per year (private, public and semi private). While all may not personally know each other they are always friends with at least a few in the group. Never seen issues there either and if there was justice would be swift.

>

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

> > >

> > > Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

> > >

> > > I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

> > >

> > Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

> >

> > As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

> >

>

> Dave, I know you are an expert and a great wealth of knowledge on this topic. But honestly that may hinder you at being objective of the level of complexity that will be tolerated for maintaining an index. Kind of like the inventor, engineer or product manager that thinks his product is the best on the market. Has all the features and flexibility anyone could ever need. Then can't understand the tepid reception by the customer

> The problem is that the customer doesn't need all that sophistication and complexity.

 

I would guess if the same person sandbagged you twice, he wouldn't be very welcome to play in your group again.

[nsxguy]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

> > >

> > > Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

> > >

> > > I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

> > >

> > Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

> >

> > As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

> >

>

> I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

 

Damn, leave the site for a few days and look what happens !!! LOL Can't believe there's another thread on this so soon after the other one finally lost steam. and look how long this one has gotten !!!

 

OK, firstly, IMO, sandbagging is one of the most overhyped "problems" in golf. When I was in SE Asia playing Stablefords, every time a guy made more than 39 points and won, at the "ceremony" at the bar afterwards, when he was announced, he'd routinely be called a "sandbagging ___________ ". Mostly in jest of course but note the word "mostly". Guy has an exceptional round and right away he's a sandbagger. Ridiculous LMAO

 

Secondly, again IMO (just in case I have to say IMO all the time), @"North Butte" is spot on with pretty much everything in this thread. Other than his inferred US/UK handicaps aren't close that is. LOL

 

@CaseyC 90 posts in over 2 years and HALF of them on this thread. LOL OK, OK, maybe not quite half but,,,,,,,,, Glad you found something on WRX you're passionate about even though, IMO, you're mostly wrong. You suggested way back on the thread that the h-b-h posting, a "3 minutes" was no big deal. Pretty much everywhere nowadays, whenever "users" have to spend MORE time doing something it, at the very least, annoys them.

 

Tell you what, 3 minutes isn't a big deal ? Tonight before you turn on the TV, sit and stare at the blank screen for 3 minutes before you turn it on. Then you'll see how long 3 minutes is. LOL

 

Net-net, would posting h-b-h scores increase or decrease the number of golfers keeping a handicap ? To me it's obvious. And if GHIN, or whoever maintains the system can't get the h-b-h of every golf course and every tee set done, it's a moot point.

 

And to whoever suggested that changing the app(s ?) to handle 8 out of 20 instead of the current 10/20 and not to multiply by .96 I gotta tell you they could change that particular piece of software in about 5 minutes. I'm sure I can't read that software language and I could probably find it in 10 minutes. LOL

 

New "ESC" ? Certainly annoying but mostly a tempest in a teapot, at least amongst mostly serious players. Not-so-serious ? They'll continue to say "Give me 6" as NB suggested and cheat themselves of stroke. Even Dave doesn't care about that. LOL

 

And @davep043, I'm kinda like BDP in that I love your posts and your incredibly objective attitude but i find it hard to follow your line of thought on this subject and I'm surprised at you getting a bit snarky (for YOU that is LOL).

 

OK, that's all I got (for now).

 

 

 

 

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @LICC My tournament play is limited to multi-day Member Guests and I've seen no indication of or real serious talk about sandbagging. Certainly guys get their chops busted of they have a good day, but that's just bar talk. This particular club has a strong well respected Pro and if they suspected problems they'd definitely deal with it.

> >

> > Then there is a circle of about 40 or so other guys, some I might play with once per year (private, public and semi private). While all may not personally know each other they are always friends with at least a few in the group. Never seen issues there either and if there was justice would be swift.

>

> I would guess if the same person sandbagged you twice, he wouldn't be very welcome to play in your group again.

 

This is a big part of having proper handicaps, players holding one another accountable. It works on a smaller scale, like @BlackDiamondPar5 's circle of 40 or so guys or the regular group of 20-some guys who I play with most often, and it works on a larger scale with appropriately active Handicap Committees within clubs. Where it breaks down is when individuals can do what they want with no formal oversight, and no accountability within their group of playing partners.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > @LICC My tournament play is limited to multi-day Member Guests and I've seen no indication of or real serious talk about sandbagging. Certainly guys get their chops busted of they have a good day, but that's just bar talk. This particular club has a strong well respected Pro and if they suspected problems they'd definitely deal with it.

> > >

> > > Then there is a circle of about 40 or so other guys, some I might play with once per year (private, public and semi private). While all may not personally know each other they are always friends with at least a few in the group. Never seen issues there either and if there was justice would be swift.

> >

> > I would guess if the same person sandbagged you twice, he wouldn't be very welcome to play in your group again.

>

> This is a big part of having proper handicaps, players holding one another accountable. It works on a smaller scale, like @BlackDiamondPar5 's circle of 40 or so guys or the regular group of 20-some guys who I play with most often, and it works on a larger scale with appropriately active Handicap Committees within clubs. Where it breaks down is when individuals can do what they want with no formal oversight, and no accountability within their group of playing partners.

>

 

If someone is generally playing individually and informally, and not with the same group regularly, there is no incentive to sandbag. A vanity handicap would be more likely.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

>

> If someone is generally playing individually and informally, and not with the same group regularly, there is no incentive to sandbag. A vanity handicap would be more likely.

That same player might end up playing in your city open. If he's playing solo and still posting, if he's not playing with a regular group who occasionally check on what he posts, he has the ability to inflate his handicap, if he's the dishonest type. There aren't many of them, but enough to give net competitions a bad name in some areas.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> Each system around the world has different strengths and weaknesses. It makes perfect sense for these systems to work together, to pool expertise and experience, to learn from each other, and work towards a system that uses the best parts of each system.

They can learn from each other without creating a common system.

 

>You may want to look inward, to assume that we somehow have the best system, and that everyone else should compromise and accept our system.

 

No, I don't want to look inward. I welcome improvements. But improvements to GHIN can be made without a WHS. I don't think anybody should have to compromise and accept our system

 

 

>I am certain that the USGA system can be improved by learning from outside systems.

I agree.

 

> And for those who say "THIS is how we do it now, anything other than THIS just won't work", you're just wrong.

 

I have never said that.

>Has anyone considered that a system that allows less chance of manipulation might bring more people in than it pushes out?

 

Manipulation will be just as easy as the current system. There are a dozen ways to manipulate the new system just like there are with the current CONGU system

 

> The bottom line, this change is coming. In the US, we're going to have to adapt to the Net Double rule, and everyone who cares about it will figure it out.

 

I like the new ESC rules. They are easier to use than the old rules.

[Newby]

I'm afraid that serious bandits will never be defeated but the vigilance of handicap committees can make life difficult for them. It seems that we are fortunate in that most (virtually all) clubs do follow the CONGU rules and have at least one stalwart doing a good job. And of course the relatively high number of formal competitions helps.

Our problem is that clubs run many 4bbb Opens and there are a large number of pairs who connive to keep their official caps up by returning poor comp scores in order to win good prizes in the Opens further afield. Although we are trying to get on top of it with England Golf requiring players and host clubs having to report scores to the players club. Clubs are networking v high scores around other clubs. Many bandits have had their cap cut hard and some have had caps suspended.

On a different line, in most clubs I'm aware of, between comps, members run roll-ups or fiddles where the groups run their own unofficial handicaps. These are usually played as best 2 or 3 from 4 or 2 from 3. Caps are adjusted on the basis of £s won or lost.

And surprise surprise, one player usually marks the team's card

[Roadking2003]

> @rogolf said:

> The "system" currently provides all the tools required to control sandbagging. The "system" includes the club's Handicap Committee, who just need to fulfill their responsibilities. Also see Rule 1.2 about integrity.

>

I don't know of any system in place today or is proposed that will control sandbagging.

 

[rogolf]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @rogolf said:

> > The "system" currently provides all the tools required to control sandbagging. The "system" includes the club's Handicap Committee, who just need to fulfill their responsibilities. Also see Rule 1.2 about integrity.

> >

> I don't know of any system in place today or is proposed that will control sandbagging.

>

 

That's my point - people (administrators, Committees, players) need to use the system's tools to control sandbagging. If there is sandbagging, these people are failing.

Just like a speed limit - if there's no enforcement, some people will disobey it.

[CaseyC]

> @rogolf said:

 

> That's my point - people (administrators, Committees, players) need to use the system's tools to control sandbagging. If there is sandbagging, these people are failing.

> Just like a speed limit - if there's no enforcement, some people will disobey it.

 

Correct, there is no "passive" system that works. What works is people getting involved.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > > Most don't want to keep two HC services. If the USGA makes it difficult for the rank and file avid golfers to participate then it will be golf's loss. Tournament organizers will find a shrinking pool of eligible participants. Member Guest tournaments would be hurt. Pretty sad... all because we have a fractional minority that wanted a WHS.

> > >

> > > Worse you'd see guys keeping two and only do the minimal to keep a WHS number that may or may not represent their true scoring potential.

> > >

> > > I could even see a day where most golfers defect from the WHS and some enterprising site like the Grint would become the standard for most.

> > >

> > Your perception of "too difficult" is likely to be very different from mine. I believe that players who want to play in real competitions would accept some additional difficulty, especially if the additional effort helps decrease the potential for sandbagging. Many people say they've quit playing net events, given up their handicaps because of sandbagging. Improving the accuracy of handicaps might even bring some of those folks back to competitions. Member Guest events would change, perhaps, although at my club we accept non-official handicaps. We simply take a percentage if we can't verify a handicap with a real live human.

> >

> > As far "most golfers" defecting from the USGA Handicap, I'm sure that will happen about as soon as the sky falls on Chicken Little's head.

> >

>

> I'm asking because I'm not involved with any club tournaments- how bad of a problem is sandbagging? Do you see it in every tournament? Is it more the norm than the exception? Golf is such a streaky game, can you confidently spot it when it happens? (As an aside- because of your profile pic I can't stop hearing Feherty's voice every time I read your posts lol)

 

The problem with sandbagging is that you can have a clean field except for one bagger who wins and you have a sandbagged event. Regarding detection, a single round is hard to judge. But patterns over multiple rounds and events are more obvious.

 

dave

[North Butte]

The beauty of the system back when an "official USGA Handicap" was pretty much limited to members of USGA-affiliated clubs was that virtually anyone who signed up for a competition belonged to an identifiable brick-and-mortar (or "green grass") golf club with a pro or handicap chair who could if necessary be contacted. The clubs didn't want known sandbaggers reflecting poorly on the club, the players had to at least exhibit a little subtlety, knowing that they might be checkup up on and it was all a fairly functional honor system.

 

The downfall of the system is that it was therefore available to only, what, maybe 10% of golfers in the country? It wasn't too far removed from vetting job applicants by only hiring members of the fraternity you belonged to and checking up on them through other brothers wherever it was they hailed from.

[mark m]

A few definitons, and facts/numbers:

* The NGF says there are about 24 million "golfers" in the US. But many play just 1-3 times times per year. There are roughly 5 million "hooked" golfers.

* As Dave mentioned, roughly 80-85% do not have a handicap of any kind. Only about 10-15% have a USGA Handicap Index. There are a number - about 5% - that have a (non-USGA) league handicap - and many of those league scores are posted hole by hole. LOL

* GHIN - Golf Handicap and Information Network ( USGA handicap computation service)

* TPP - Tournament Pairing Program. It comes with the GHIN software and has been around since the early 1990's. Clubs can use it to run/manage their play days/leagues/tournaments. They have made continued improvements to it over the years. It interfaces with GHIN. It does everything you need - you choose the tournament format and import the players. The handicaps come in with the players, and you produce scorecards, pairings and tee times, and can print tee sheets, hole locations, and so on. You can post properly adjusted scores directly to GHIN with one click. It is a great tool. Unfortunately many clubs have not used it despite being available for 25 years. Complete list of what it can do is here:

https://ghin.com/solutions.aspx?id=71&libID=92

* Here in Minnesota, we have moved from TPP to using USGA TM (Tournament Management) /Golf Genius software - new in 2018. As have other states. As mentioned before, Golf Genius offers live scoring.

https://www.golfgenius.com/

* Last year - which was the first year - 184 clubs used the software.

* My state has 66,000 in the GHIN system.

* 440,000 rounds were scored in 2018 with TM. 500,000 rounds scored if you include all related MGA events. We currently rank 6th in rounds scored.

* It will be interesting to see the numbers for this year.

 

 

[Roadking2003]

> @"mark m" said:

> * 440,000 rounds were scored in 2018 with TM. 500,000 rounds scored if you include all related MGA events. We currently rank 6th in rounds scored.

> * It will be interesting to see the numbers for this year.

 

That is a wealth of data. Do you know if it is available to the public? and for statistical studies?

 

[davep043]

> @nsxguy said:

 

> And @davep043, I'm kinda like BDP in that I love your posts and your incredibly objective attitude but i find it hard to follow your line of thought on this subject and I'm surprised at you getting a bit snarky (for YOU that is LOL).

Me, snarky?? o:)

Its possible I did get a little impatient once or twice, but I think we're all back on relatively polite terms now. I care enough about handicaps and fair competitions to volunteer for the committee, to put in a lot of effort to make the system work, so its difficult for me to relate to those who see ANY additional effort on their part as "too much". There ARE more of them than there are of me, almost certainly, but I can keep trying to convert them.

 

 

[Newby]

Continuing the analogy, perhaps I can be considered a prophet?

[Schulzmc]

Most of you know a lot more about the system than I do. My question is this - how will the new WHS affect the following situation?

We have a guy at my club that consistently wins when it matters. Always wins his flight in the member/guest. Wins or places in 5 out of the 6 individual competitions we have each year. Examining his handicap record shows for the last two years his tournament scores have averaged 7.2 strokes better than his regular posted scores. But our handicap committee is at a loss as to what to do, because all his regular scores posted are legit rounds with his friends and others at the club. Either he is purposely missing putts, etc. on a weekly basis in regular rounds to keep his handicap up, or he simply is so clutch he plays better when the pressure is on.

Would a new handicap system that is based primarily on actual competition scores help in this case? It seems like it would.

[Augustok]

If his T scores are that much lower I don’t see how the system doesn’t have him as a R for Reduced handicap. Maybe your committee doesn’t designate some of these events as T scores which would make a difference with the math.

 

On another note since I started this discussion with a question about how the new WHC would be figured I have now looked at my current 20 most recent scores. I added the 8 lowest indices and divided by 8. Next year the same scores will show a handicap index of 14.0. Today my index is 15.7. What will further reduce my index next year, where I generally play with a course handicap today of 18, 2 holes I will not get a stroke, one a par 4 one a par 3. This means net double bogie will be 6 and 5 not 7 that is this year’s maximum should screw up these two holes.