Is this Sandbagging?

[Newby]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Too bad. Maybe you should have thought about that before writing the word 🤔

It is Scouse slang.

 

Many Liverpudlians pronounce 'exactly' as 'exakerley'. As Fazackerley is in the north of Liverpool where the scouse accent is very strong, many in south Liverpool (the posh part) take the mickey and say Fazackerley.

[nsxguy]

14 hours ago, Newby said:

The flight ranges were just an example of the problem of two players with adjacent handicaps being in different flights.

In your case the 10 & 11 are still in different flights and the 16 & 25 in the same flight as each other.

Flights should be unnecessary.

 

14 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

For scratch they are necessary but for net there is no need.

 

Flights for net OR gross are necessary.

 

For the former the higher handicappers will win "too often".

 

For the latter the lower handicappers will win "too often".

 

You'd think you guys had never heard of the below,,,,,,,,,

 

https://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

It is Scouse slang.

 

Many Liverpudlians pronounce 'exactly' as 'exakerley'. As Fazackerley is in the north of Liverpool where the scouse accent is very strong, many in south Liverpool (the posh part) take the mickey and say Fazackerley.

Nice to hear about linguistic customs and origins.

[North Butte]

7 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Nice to hear about linguistic customs and origins.

I was on a golf trip to England and having dinner with a big group of golfers. I asked the guy sitting next to me what part of England he was from (because I thought his accent sounded different). He said, originally from Liverpool but he'd lived in the South so long he didn't have the Scouse accent any more.

 

There was a split second of silence and then all everyone around the table busted out laughing. Apparently he really, truly didn't believe he had an accent and the others really, truly knew he did. Once a Scouser, always a Scouser I believe was the phrase used. 

[rogolf]

30 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I was on a golf trip to England and having dinner with a big group of golfers. I asked the guy sitting next to me what part of England he was from (because I thought his accent sounded different). He said, originally from Liverpool but he'd lived in the South so long he didn't have the Scouse accent any more.

 

There was a split second of silence and then all everyone around the table busted out laughing. Apparently he really, truly didn't believe he had an accent and the others really, truly knew he did. Once a Scouser, always a Scouser I believe was the phrase used. 

I know it's off topic, but it's fun.  A few years ago, my wife and I were going to Machrihanish.  It happened to be on a Ryder Cup Sunday being televised from  he US.  We arrived late in the day, left our luggage at the B&B and asked where we could get some dinner.  The golf club was suggested, so away we went.  We walked into the clubhouse and towards the dining area.  Several customers were quite obviously watching the golf on TV.  We stopped at the doorway, and I asked "How are we doing?'  Hearing my accent, he said, in a deep brogue, "Aye, we have it well in hand."  I said, "That's great, cause we're Canadian."  He responded, "Welcome, come on in and enjoy."  It turned out that the matches were not "well in hand" and we watched until Monty sunk a putt to clinch.  Then enjoyed!!

[ChaosTheory]

My senior club has money league games four days a week.  The avid golfers play in some of those and also in casual rounds on some of the other three days.  I think I see a trend of higher scores on the casual days.  I know that many of the guys take on risky shots on the casual days.  To see if they can drive onto or get close to a couple of greens for instance.  They play safe in the money events.

 

Ive not felt anyone is intentionally throwing away strokes, though.  It’s a fine line maybe.

 

Because we have so many money games, I think the best 8 of 20 scores are probably earnestly played.

 

Question:  What would be the downside of the WHS using only say 4 of 20?  Sure, everyone’s index would be lower.  But sandbagging would be a lot more work, at least for those who post all of their rounds.

 

 

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Snowman9000 said:

My senior club has money league games four days a week.  The avid golfers play in some of those and also in casual rounds on some of the other three days.  I think I see a trend of higher scores on the casual days.  I know that many of the guys take on risky shots on the casual days.  To see if they can drive onto or get close to a couple of greens for instance.  They play safe in the money events.

 

Ive not felt anyone is intentionally throwing away strokes, though.  It’s a fine line maybe.

 

Because we have so many money games, I think the best 8 of 20 scores are probably earnestly played.

 

Question:  What would be the downside of the WHS using only say 4 of 20?  Sure, everyone’s index would be lower.  But sandbagging would be a lot more work, at least for those who post all of their rounds.

 

 

 

Using one's index as a sort of a measuring stick as to what one (roughly of course) needs to win, or at least cash (as in games I play in), and since roughly 4 of one's best 8 are at or below one's index, the question I ask myself is, "Is it worth it to sandbag up to 14 or so, of 20 rounds to win as much as I could in any single round ?".

 

The answer, in my case, is a definite "No".

Edited October 9, 2022 by nsxguy

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Snowman9000 said:

Question:  What would be the downside of the WHS using only say 4 of 20?  Sure, everyone’s index would be lower.  But sandbagging would be a lot more work, at least for those who post all of their rounds.

 

 

My take is that the index would change too drastically after a single round if you take only 4 / 20. Besides, sandbagging could occasionally be much easier if the 4 best scores were 4 oldest ones...

[DaveLeeNC]

12 hours ago, Snowman9000 said:

Question:  What would be the downside of the WHS using only say 4 of 20?  Sure, everyone’s index would be lower.  But sandbagging would be a lot more work, at least for those who post all of their rounds.

 

I am not sure that you could say that this would necessarily make sandbagging harder. If the sandbagger does this by not posting his best scores, then a "4 of 20" calculation would magnify the effect. 

 

dave

[North Butte]

In a system where you can post any number you like at any time to GHIN, trying to rejigger the formulas that you run those scores through is useless. No matter what formula you choose a true sandbagger will post whatever it takes to get his desired index. 

[PoolPond]

On 10/3/2022 at 11:16 AM, Abh159 said:

Golf is slow enough as is. I can only imagine how it would be if every single player was "grinding it out" on every single shot...

Exactly. If I'm playing in a 1pm Wed round with a few buddies and all these guys are grinding it out and that's how it is every round I play, I don't think I'll be sticking around that group very long. Just tee it up and swing and when you get to green, have a look and roll it and get the show on the road. We don't need the stalking putt grind all the time.  To answer the question, no, I don't quite consider what you described as sandbagging. It's impossible for you to know, or assume, what these guys would shoot if they decided to grind a little more. In fact, their score could potentially be higher with all that extra grind and pressure. Some of the low rounds are the relaxed rounds and many people shoot lower rounds when playing for fun and are relaxed vs the grind rounds. 

[J13]

Just get rid of the hcp system and instead play different sets of tee's.  We started doing that and it got rid of all the nonsense in money games.  It also changed who showed up which turned out to be a very good thing.

[North Butte]

43 minutes ago, PoolPond said:

Exactly. If I'm playing in a 1pm Wed round with a few buddies and all these guys are grinding it out and that's how it is every round I play, I don't think I'll be sticking around that group very long. Just tee it up and swing and when you get to green, have a look and roll it and get the show on the road. We don't need the stalking putt grind all the time.  To answer the question, no, I don't quite consider what you described as sandbagging. It's impossible for you to know, or assume, what these guys would shoot if they decided to grind a little more. In fact, their score could potentially be higher with all that extra grind and pressure. Some of the low rounds are the relaxed rounds and many people shoot lower rounds when playing for fun and are relaxed vs the grind rounds. 

The other version is these big groups that have like half a dozen different bets riding on each hole. They are playing singles and partners against each other within the foursome, the entire foursome is playing best ball and worst ball against the other foursomes and there is a whole laundry list of junk bets. The group like that at my club basically shuts down the course for 6-7 hours when all 30-40 of them tee off for one of their endless Grind-A-Thons. Not only do they grind forever over that third putt for their double bogey, they stop frequently to have a group discussion of who won which bet on the previous hole. 

 

Years ago I played with a group that was the opposite extreme. The older fellow who ran the group (now deceased, alas) was in charge of enforcing the Main Rule...which was hit and move, hit and move, hit and move. If you got to your ball and nobody else was in the middle of a swing then hit it. People who wanted to stalk putts from all sides or wait around to play "honors" golf were un-invited from the group. If I needed to stop at the turn for a bathroom break I could just catch up with them on the 11th tee or whatever. 

 

I'll admit, that kind of dew sweeper speed golf in 2-1/2 hours is not for everyone. I myself did not stick with that group for long as it all got a bit over the top (if things were moving slow he'd tell people to pick up their 4-5 foot putt for par) but I'd rather be stuck in a Speed Golf group than one of those all-day-long grinding ordeals. 

[Golferpaul]

On 10/7/2022 at 11:35 PM, Mr. Bean said:

 

What exactly is a tournament? A 2-round competition?

 

In my country clubs organize more or less exclusively single round competitions (excl. club championship) and they all tend to be net competitions (most often Stableford for all or >18 Stableford and <18 net stroke play). It is customary to give prize to best scratch scores, normally 1-3 depending on the number of competitors.

The Club Championship is three rounds for the open flight and two rounds for all others.  

[Golferpaul]

On 10/9/2022 at 8:24 AM, Snowman9000 said:

Question:  What would be the downside of the WHS using only say 4 of 20?  Sure, everyone’s index would be lower.  But sandbagging would be a lot more work, at least for those who post all of their rounds.

 

Fewer rounds gets you closer to a player's "potential".  More rounds gets you closer to their "average".  So yes, four out of 20 would be a better reflection of potential.

[Golferpaul]

On 10/10/2022 at 8:20 AM, North Butte said:

In a system where you can post any number you like at any time to GHIN, trying to rejigger the formulas that you run those scores through is useless. No matter what formula you choose a true sandbagger will post whatever it takes to get his desired index. 

This is true for all handicap systems.

[North Butte]

4 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

This is true for all handicap systems.

It is my understanding that the handicap system in UK and other parts of the world requires all rounds to be registered beforehand and the score attested by a marker or fellow competitor. That's the only way NOT to allow golfers to make their own bespoke handicaps by posting vanity or sandbagging scores.

 

That system at least makes it necessary to have the collusion of other golfers in order to sandbag (or vanity 'cap). The GHIN way of doing it makes it as easy as opening the app and punching in made-up numbers. 

[Newby]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

That system at least makes it necessary to have the collusion of other golfers in order to sandbag (or vanity 'cap). 

Unfortunately such groups do exist but it is spotted pretty quickly by clubs and the national authorities have taken pretty draconian action.

 

Generally it manifests itself in open 4BBB competitions but clubs are pretty good at communicating with each other when there are suspicions.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Newby

[North Butte]

40 minutes ago, Newby said:

Unfortunately such groups do exist but it is spotted pretty quickly by clubs and the national authorities have taken pretty draconian action.

 

Generally it manifests itself in open 4BBB competitions but clubs are pretty good at communicating with each other when there are suspicions.

And of course (just in case this doesn't "go without saying") the attestation record is what makes it possible to see how it's being done in those cases. 

[nsxguy]

7 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Fewer rounds gets you closer to a player's "potential".  More rounds gets you closer to their "average".  So yes, four out of 20 would be a better reflection of potential.

 

Except that your handicap "no longer" reflects your potential (as if that could be measured anyway).

 

It now reflects your "demonstrated ability".

 

So I would think 8 of 20 is just fine.

[Golferpaul]

On 10/12/2022 at 3:36 PM, North Butte said:

It is my understanding that the handicap system in UK and other parts of the world requires all rounds to be registered beforehand and the score attested by a marker or fellow competitor. That's the only way NOT to allow golfers to make their own bespoke handicaps by posting vanity or sandbagging scores.

 

That system at least makes it necessary to have the collusion of other golfers in order to sandbag (or vanity 'cap). The GHIN way of doing it makes it as easy as opening the app and punching in made-up numbers. 

If a golfer is intent on sandbagging, he can do it in the UK also.  If he and/or his team are out of the running for a prize, he can just miss a few putts on purpose and inflate his score by two or three strokes.

 

 

[Golferpaul]

23 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Except that your handicap "no longer" reflects your potential (as if that could be measured anyway).

 

It now reflects your "demonstrated ability".

 

So I would think 8 of 20 is just fine.

Nevertheless, fewer rounds gets you closer to potential.

 

For example, If you post 20 rounds with one at 72 and the others at 74 - 85, the 72 is the best reflection of your potential because you have demonstrated that you have the ability to shoot 72.  If you take all 20, it's just an average.

 

I don't know what the correct number of rounds should be but moving from 8 to a lower number will certainly get closer to your potential.

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Nevertheless, fewer rounds gets you closer to potential.

 

For example, If you post 20 rounds with one at 72 and the others at 74 - 85, the 72 is the best reflection of your potential because you have demonstrated that you have the ability to shoot 72.  If you take all 20, it's just an average.

 

I don't know what the correct number of rounds should be but moving from 8 to a lower number will certainly get closer to your potential.

 

Why do you keep going to "potential". What's potential got to do with anything ?

 

Handicaps are to make as level a playing field as possible for disparate talent.

 

Do you think a fair game between 2 or more players should be based on their best round EVER ? If not, why not ? That's the closest you'll ever get to their "potential".

 

Average doesn't work either because of the vagaries of player's rounds and them often "giving up" after "knowing" they're losing, or going to lose, the comp, their bets, whatever.

 

That's why the system is 8 out of 20. Presumably "they" (WHS) have determined that 8 or 20 better represents a fair game than 10 of 20 did.

[rogolf]

I think the soft cap and hard cap in the WHS are a great start to stop handicap indices from increasing too rapidly.  The "exceptional score" also is step (provided it's entered).  The best 8 out of 30 would also make it more difficult for handicap manipulation.  But, cheaters gonna cheat, no matter what the system - figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure!

[Golferpaul]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Why do you keep going to "potential". What's potential got to do with anything ?

 

 

Not everyone agrees with you.  Wiki: "A golf handicap is a numerical measure of a golfer's potential that is used to enable players of varying abilities to compete against one another.

[North Butte]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Why do you keep going to "potential". What's potential got to do with anything ?

 

Handicaps are to make as level a playing field as possible for disparate talent.

 

Do you think a fair game between 2 or more players should be based on their best round EVER ? If not, why not ? That's the closest you'll ever get to their "potential".

 

Average doesn't work either because of the vagaries of player's rounds and them often "giving up" after "knowing" they're losing, or going to lose, the comp, their bets, whatever.

 

That's why the system is 8 out of 20. Presumably "they" (WHS) have determined that 8 or 20 better represents a fair game than 10 of 20 did.

If I'm not mistaken even USGA has lately either stopped saying or is downplaying that "potential" thing, which was another of the idiotic bits of claptrap they've promulgated over the years. Kind of like the "single have no standing" nonsense they included in their bumpf for decades. 

 

The only purpose of ANY handicapping system is to give players of different abilities as close as possible to equal chances to win a game or match. It's not for measuring "potential" or "ability" or anything else. It's for, you know, handicapping games between golfers and how well it does that is the only thing that matters in designing the system.

Edited October 13, 2022 by North Butte

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

Not everyone agrees with you.  Wiki: "A golf handicap is a numerical measure of a golfer's potential that is used to enable players of varying abilities to compete against one another.

 

Wikipedia ?  Wikipedia is written by contributors of all shapes and sizes regardless of expertise. You or *I* can contribute to Wikipedia. Peer review ? Don't know.

 

PRIOR to WHS the USGA described one's handicap as an indication of potential.

 

Potential is now GONE and has been replaced by "demonstrated ability".

 

As in the USGA "

"Handicap Index

The measure of a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating of a golf course of standard playing difficulty"

 

Or from the R&A

 

"Limiting the maximum hole score for handicap purposes to ensure a Handicap Index continues to reflect a player’s demonstrated ability."

 

"Reviewing a player’s Handicap Index on a regular basis to ensure it continues to reflect the player’s demonstrated ability."

 

Other jurisdictions ? Don't know. Don't care.

 

If you can show me another source, more closely related to golf (that Wiki) that still uses "potential" I'll be happy to take a look.

 

Note: Your source s/b dated after Jan 1, 2020. TIA

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Potential is now GONE and has been replaced by "demonstrated ability".

 

As in the USGA "

"Handicap Index

The measure of a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating of a golf course of standard playing difficulty"

 

Well you can't say I never complement USGA. I definitely approve of them finally getting around to correcting that longstanding screw-up. 

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

Well you can't say I never complement (sic) USGA. I definitely approve of them finally getting around to correcting that longstanding screw-up. 

 

Your shallow grasp of how and why the ruling bodies do their job never ceases to amaze. Learning the Rules takes some effort; you don't even seem to try. 🙄

[North Butte]

8 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

Your shallow grasp of how and why the ruling bodies do their job never ceases to amaze. Learning the Rules takes some effort; you don't even seem to try. 🙄

I put effort into things I'm getting paid to do. I'm not about to spend hundreds of hours studying Rules and Decisions for golf which is a game I do for fun. If there's any aspect of a Rule of Golf that can't be understood after a couple minutes spent reading and pondering then it's not applicable to my game.

 

That said, there's no deeper understanding needed to discern that things like "singles have no standing on the course" or "a handicap index measures a golfer's potential" are complete nonsense. Life's too short to spend time trying to come up with rationalizations of silly stuff like that. 

 

But for all their faults, I've got to say that USGA and/or R&A have made more (mostly minor) corrections in the past few years than I saw in the 20 years before that. Telling people not to post solo rounds (not that anyone paid attention) was long overdue. Getting rid of "singles have not standing" and "handicap measures potential" are two more. Saying it's OK to leave the flagstick in while putting, well that's great although plenty of people had been doing that all along. Replace the ball if it's inadvertently moved on the green was a change I'd have never thought they'd made.

 

So I don't know if they are being forced to make such changes by some outside trends or if maybe over time the more ridiculously unserious self-appointed guardians of the game have aged out and been replaced by people with a more reasonable view of the purpose of the Rules. I hope the trend continues, maybe I'll live long enough to run out of stupid junk to point out in the USGA's rulebook!