Best Sandbagger I have ever seen... wow!

[dubbelbogey]

I'm on the side of those who don't put much stock into net golf events. To me, they're a way to have a bit of fun, but I come from other sports where handicapping isn't a thing. There's sometimes tiers (or flights), but within those flights it's straight up play. I can't imagine what a tennis match would be like if I had to start some number of games down 0-15 because my rating is 4.56 and my opponents rating is a 4.32 (for those familiar with USTA ratings, those aren't real rating values, of course, I'm hypothetically imposing golf's model on tennis). Sure sandbagging can occur in that teams/players can play in a weaker division than they should, but it's less of a thing there because you get moved up in divisions very rapidly if you win. Plus, it's harder to move back down the chain. You win, you're moving up and are generally staying there.

 

I get that handicap play is a long standing part of golf and I see no reason to call for its abolition, but I would prefer to see much more competition in terms of flights, rather than individual handicap.

 

I know this sounds simplistic, but I generally think winning should be mostly accomplished by those that are better.

 

(And this probably should've been posted in the unpopular opinion thread...)

Edited September 2, 2020 by dubbelbogey

[enfuego]

Did he even need to sandbag? Sounds like he would still have won playing as a 1-3.

[jmkenn0]

what was the winning gross score out of curiosity?

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, jmkenn0 said:

what was the winning gross score out of curiosity?

 

194 (3 rounds)

[Kossuvissy]

39 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

194 (3 rounds)

 

If the playing cap was 7, then gross score was 71+73+71 = 215. Net score was 194. Not bad for a dude of age 68+...

 

(C6 wrote '...the card showed a course handicap of 7 for him...')

Edited September 3, 2020 by Kossuvissy

[nsxguy]

37 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

194 (3 rounds)

 

2 minutes ago, Kossuvissy said:

 

If the playing cap was 7, then gross score was 71+73+71 = 215. Net score was 194.

 

Oopsie. Right you are !!!

[C6 Snowboarder]

1 hour ago, jmkenn0 said:

what was the winning gross score out of curiosity?

 

here ya go - Amateur Div Gross Scores

50 yr  and up - 205

54 yr and up - 216

63 yr and up - 210

68 yr and up - 211  with the sandbagger taking 2nd Gross at 215.

 

and the top 2 Local Pros shooting 207 and 210 Gross (yes everyone played the same back Tees - it was tough for this 73 old guy, couple of guys in the upper age group  did not finish,  I talked with a few of them - they said they were just too damn tired.)

and the Top Local Pro shooting a Net 215 with a 1 handicap. ( yes - some local pros have handicaps - about half of them ,  give them a break - some have 3 kids and work the front counter checking players in all day- I don't know how some make enough money to have a family )

 

What did I miss ?    I think the Sandbagger was about 5'9"  and drove a Ram Pickemup truck  and lives a good 7-8 hour ride to home - don't know how he got in 5 scores in the 80s within 5 days after the tourney - with a travel day in there- but it is a bit obvious to me he is try to get those 3 low score off his GHIN record. 

[C6 Snowboarder]

And a quick Note to the Elite Player Klebs01 -  Your definition of Serious golf may differ with some of us ..  but for me  all competitive golf is Serious for me.  I play in a lot of Pro Ams with  4 or 5 Local Pros who are very good and I believe it to be an honor to be asked to be on his team. I get repeat invites because I take it seriously - I am soon to be 74 yr old.. and the Pros putting together a competitive team could ask a bunch of 20-40 yr olds who can hit the ball 300 yards. but a few of them don't take golf seriously.  I really dont care about the Pro Shop Script we amateurs might win at these - got enough of that over the years, it is doing as best I can every time I play.   

 

BTW -- some of the Pro Ams are pretty serious - I have been invited to Pro Ams in Vegas , both large Oregon Open Pro Ams, and  to Pebble Beach Pro Am 2X  -( no Not the ATT Big one )  and we were scheduled to play in a Pro Am at St Andrews, Carnoustie,  and KingsBarn a few months ago but Covid put the Kibosh on that. We are now Scheduled for next year.  So Serious -- yes - to me it is a serious play. So take a Chill Pill.

[nsxguy]

 

Some of you guyz let yerselves get triggered so easily,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

[davep043]

I wonder if this is the "best sandbagger".  Isn't the best one the one who doesn't get caught?  When you go THIS low, it looks really obvious.  The guy who just shaves enough strokes to win by a couple, but not stand out, that to me is by far the best one.  

[deadsolid...shank]

I have to admit that while I agree with Klebs on most issues, I don’t here. And I do find it a bit condescending. 99% of us here don’t play to put food on the table. But that doesn’t mean we’re not taking our putt for that $2 Nassau just as seriously as  the guys onTV. That is our means of competition, the way to continue to feel as though we’re still able to play for “something”. 
 

I don’t know, but maybe age plays into that more than people realize. There are so many things we can’t do now athletically, that golf still allows at least a little bit of it. But the reality is, for the vast majority of us, we do have to use net competitions to have this. 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The organizers obviously have no balls or experience. He should have been dealt with after day two and thrown out on day 3.  After that he should banned for life from any future events at this club and the club pro should be on the phone with his colleagues at other clubs in the region alerting them about this guy.

Edited September 3, 2020 by BlackDiamondPar5

[DavePelz4]

Ah these sandbagger stories always stir up some memories.  Will share the quick version of a 2 day senior event I played in many moons ago where a 16, who hadn't shot lower than an 85 in a full season of posting, shot a GROSS 75-73 and was net -26 in a 2 day event. They let him keep everything but he was not allowed back.

 

The following year there was another person who shot something like -16 and hadn't broken 90 all year.  His gross scores were something like 82-83.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think we all have a story similar to the OP’s or DP4. We’ve all been on the wrong end of that guy. And that’s where I can see Kleb’s viewpoint of net competitions.  It’s a valid thing. But we still have to have the net fornat for the vast majority of us to be able to compete. 
 

The bagging issue, which has been covered ad naseum here, is another issue. One that l, until only competition scores which are posted only by the committee or pros, isn’t going away. I hate internet posting. People don’t even have to put any effort into their bagging anymore. 

[BIG STU]

On 9/2/2020 at 10:01 AM, cardoustie said:

that guy would be adjusted after day 1 and thrown out after day 2 at most events ,,, certainly at the Myrtle Beach "Worlds"

Back in the day they did not. One of the reasons it is called "The World Sandbagger and Cheaters Open" by us locals. I think now they Police it good. It is going on this week in fact some of them played the course I am a member at now the last 2 days. Attendance is way down though from what I have heard due to C-19 I guess. I know they did not have the famous 19th hole party

[BIG STU]

On 9/1/2020 at 10:16 PM, cardoustie said:

Baggers love big member guests ... where they can win 10k and up
 

not hit and giggle in my books 

Well you know my past some and with some of the crowd I associated with sandbagging in a 10k event would not be a laughing matter. To put it mildly with that amount of money he would be hanging by his Buster Browns from the flagpole

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, BIG STU said:

Back in the day they did not. One of the reasons it is called "The World Sandbagger and Cheaters Open" by us locals. I think now they Police it good. It is going on this week in fact some of them played the course I am a member at now the last 2 days. Attendance is way down though from what I have heard due to C-19 I guess. I know they did not have the famous 19th hole party

 

Any idea how they police it nowadays ? Or adjust 'caps as they go ? 'Cause in 1994 their system wasn't so good.

[8602081]

Little Sad..

 

I see Sandbaggers no different than Cheaters..

 

 

[jvincent]

3 hours ago, BIG STU said:

Well you know my past some and with some of the crowd I associated with sandbagging in a 10k event would not be a laughing matter. To put it mildly with that amount of money he would be hanging by his Buster Browns from the flagpole

 

The new WHS system will limit the hard-baggers movement, assuming they post all their scores. In the case of the person referred to in this thread the three low rounds will presumably set a low handicap for him and he will be stuck with that for a year so even if he gets them out of his last 20 scores the upward movement of his index is limited.

[C6 Snowboarder]

6 minutes ago, jvincent said:

 

The new WHS system will limit the hard-baggers movement, assuming they post all their scores. In the case of the person referred to in this thread the three low rounds will presumably set a low handicap for him and he will be stuck with that for a year so even if he gets them out of his last 20 scores the upward movement of his index is limited.

 

 

I like the old system better, specially the 1 year -- I think the current WHS does the E score for only the 20 current scores  and as soon as those are off the books -- the E score has no effect. And if I read it correctly - a 7 stroke differential difference only give about a 1 stroke reduction.  I my sandbaggers case if he had a 7 stroke reduction - he'd have still beat the field.

[jvincent]

The WHS keeps the low handicap reference for one year. The new exceptional score reduction will disappear after 20 scores.

 

In this particular case, how much did his index drop after the 3 tournament scores were posted? In the new system he can never get his index more than 5 higher than his low point for one year.

[C6 Snowboarder]

25 minutes ago, jvincent said:

The WHS keeps the low handicap reference for one year. The new exceptional score reduction will disappear after 20 scores.

 

In this particular case, how much did his index drop after the 3 tournament scores were posted? In the new system he can never get his index more than 5 higher than his low point for one year.

 

thanks did not know the year thingy was still there.   After his first score , the 1.1 Differential , he has the E applied  - and only the 3 used before that have the 1 stroke reduction applied.  these being a 6.6 , 9.3, and 11.1 differential.  so in his case his handicap did not go down much .. currently he is a 6.7 as of today.  his later 2.1 differential score does not have a E applied.  Seems the previous Exceptional score system was a bit more punishing.

Edited September 3, 2020 by C6 Snowboarder

[BIG STU]

1 hour ago, jvincent said:

 

The new WHS system will limit the hard-baggers movement, assuming they post all their scores. In the case of the person referred to in this thread the three low rounds will presumably set a low handicap for him and he will be stuck with that for a year so even if he gets them out of his last 20 scores the upward movement of his index is limited.

Thanks for the 411 I learn something every time I fire this thing up. But in all reality I do not play any amateur handicap events. Never got my Am status back

[BIG STU]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Any idea how they police it nowadays ? Or adjust 'caps as they go ? 'Cause in 1994 their system wasn't so good.

I think and do not quote me as gospel but I think they use some sort of a breakout rule sorta like bracket drag racing. Yep and around 94 was when the BS began and the next couple of years were not so good as far as the number of players. That was in the days when the Dupont company sponsored it. Of course on a break out rule in golf some will deliberty  Dog it if they see they are going to break out. Cheaters are gonna cheat

[PostandGhost]

Has anyone on here ever opened a thread thinking it was going to be about them, based on the title, and been so relieved to find out the thread is not about them?

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, C6 Snowboarder said:

 

thanks did not know the year thingy was still there.   After his first score , the 1.1 Differential , he has the E applied  - and only the 3 used before that have the 1 stroke reduction applied.  these being a 6.6 , 9.3, and 11.1 differential.  so in his case his handicap did not go down much .. currently he is a 6.7 as of today.  his later 2.1 differential score does not have a E applied.  Seems the previous Exceptional score system was a bit more punishing.

 

So then his starting index would have had to be at least 8.1 or higher for the -7 shot differential "E" to be applied. But it's supposed to apply to ALL 20 of his latest scores effectively reducing his index by 1 full point. So that should've been to 20 scores not just 3. How do you know the 1 shot decrease was only to the last 3 ? Is there some sort of indicator on the record ?

 

So at around 7.1 ( or a little higher after the 1st round) his 2nd diff (2.1 ?) wouldn't have been 7 shots better, so no "E". Same for the 3rd (1.1).

 

Anyway, from 8.1 (or a bit  higher) down to 6.7 certainly sounds plausible.

 

And no biggie but his nets were 64-66-64. So if the 1st was a 1.1 diff the 2nd would've been around 3.1 (not 2.1), assuming he was playing from the same tees.

[C6 Snowboarder]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

So then his starting index would have had to be at least 8.1 or higher for the -7 shot differential "E" to be applied. But it's supposed to apply to ALL 20 of his latest scores effectively reducing his index by 1 full point. So that should've been to 20 scores not just 3. How do you know the 1 shot decrease was only to the last 3 ? Is there some sort of indicator on the record ?

 

So at around 7.1 ( or a little higher after the 1st round) his 2nd diff (2.1 ?) wouldn't have been 7 shots better, so no "E". Same for the 3rd (1.1).

 

Anyway, from 8.1 (or a bit  higher) down to 6.7 certainly sounds plausible.

 

And no biggie but his nets were 64-66-64. So if the 1st was a 1.1 diff the 2nd would've been around 3.1 (not 2.1), assuming he was playing from the same tees.

 

I may have wrote a bit confusing cuz I was being called to the golf course. So what I meant by the last 3 -- is of his 20 scores showing in GHIN , the 10 scores played before he shot his stellar 3 low rounds - of those 10 rounds only 3 of them had the asterisk labeling them as they were used for his calculation.  So those 3 , the 3 stellar rounds and 2 rounds after  the tourney - are the eight best scores currently giving him his handicap. so yes all his previous rounds had the exceptional reduction of 1 applied - but of the 10 previous to his stellar rounds even tho marked and reduced - only 3 of them are being used.

 

Sorry - poorly written i know but I am on my 3rd Gin and tonic and just got off the course missing shooting my age by 1 friggen stroke.

 

yes we all played from the same back tees and in some cases the tee box used was so far back and hidden I did not know they were even there - good thing was the grass on the tee box was almost virgin - no bald spots and no divots.  

 

 

[antip]

8 hours ago, From_Parts_Unknown said:

Has anyone on here ever opened a thread thinking it was going to be about them, based on the title, and been so relieved to find out the thread is not about them?

And then admitted it publicly?

[HatsForBats]

On 9/2/2020 at 12:16 AM, C6 Snowboarder said:

more of story some of you ask.  Course was set up in ball buster type so course rating and slope maybe meaningless.. but it was 6400 yards. normal from these black tees is around 6100 yards.  his differential was 1.1 and 2.1  - and when I say around an 8 handicap -- I dont know his index but the card showed a course handicap of 7 for him and we were playing 90% of handicap. So dont know anymore of the story -- but would you not think with about 100 golfers and one guy is 26 net strokes better than anyone else -- is enough to say  a bit of sandbaggin was the whole story. This was 2 flights , golfers   63 -67 yr  and 68- 79 yr old -,, he was in the 68 and over flight  -  he bested both flights by 26 strokes. Have A great week - it is 80 deg here and many more tourneys to go before the rain comes.. 

 

Perhaps the course rating and slope do matter at least somewhat. For a 300 yard difference the course rating is adjusted up by 1.3 and the slope by 3. Maybe you can convince your local association to adjust the 3 postings to a Rating/Slope more in line with what was actually played. What do you have to lose?

 

Out of curiosity what was the par for the course played?

[C6 Snowboarder]

42 minutes ago, HatsForBats said:

 

Perhaps the course rating and slope do matter at least somewhat. For a 300 yard difference the course rating is adjusted up by 1.3 and the slope by 3. Maybe you can convince your local association to adjust the 3 postings to a Rating/Slope more in line with what was actually played. What do you have to lose?

 

Out of curiosity what was the par for the course played?

 

Par was 72 ...

 

and the slope and rating was not changed for the 3 days even tho the tees were moved back.  Probably to much work to ask them to retroactively go in and change a bunch of numbers -- plus all the checks have been mailed , results posted ...  but I will be seeing the tourney director in the next tourney and I will inquire to why.  it is another 3 day event and will be keeping an eye out for the Sandbaggers name on the Tee Sheets.