Ghin handicap vs average score

[MountainKing]

19 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

vanity caps don’t hurt anyone else.  They may or may not be rampant or common I don’t know but they don’t affect me so who cares?  Inflated caps in the other hand ruin tournament play.  What inhave read here are several stories of people who think they are unicorns that defy the known odds.  And i don’t buy that.  If we followed those people around and tracked every shot we would find out why their cap is inflated.  But since we can’t do that we have to just take their word for it, and have these silly debates on the net speculating about what people may or may not be doing to wittingly or unwittingly inflate their caps in some way such that it obviously does not represent their true potential any more.

 

i will contend that the people being defensive about this probably have inflated caps.  But hey I don’t follow them around to know.  But at the tournaments i have participated in over the years they often show up.  And yes I think handicapped tournaments are basically a waste of time, it’s like the every kid gets a trophy mindset.  Except some kids cheat a little bit to improve  their odds of getting a trophy more often.  It’s a joke really.

 

I less defensive and more just curious on your stance.  Any possible scenario you call out that it has to be sandbagging, yet the site you provided, indicates sandbagging is an issue in 1% of the handicaps.   The handicap system sucks, and like you, I don't play in anything that involves handicap or giving strokes based on handicap. If I'm playing somebody better than me, then it's my job to get better if I want to compete with them, not some handicap system's job to balance that out.  I carry one because certain events require a certain handicap to enter, but outside of that I wouldn't bother.  The flaws in the system are more than likely to account for a lot of the situations and discrepancy, not sandbagging.   In all the competition I've played, I rarely have come across a sandbagger, but almost every single one has multiple people with vanity caps, yes they don't hurt anybody other than somebody like me has to watch them shoot a 90 in an event where they're forced to play legit, but given the larger number of them they are going to skew the data you reference in the wrong way. 

[Shilgy]

Same guy was spewing the same nonsense in another thread recently…

He seems to equate long odds to cheating and believes handicaps are meant to make everyone win equally.  Patently absurd presumptions but he posts it very authoritatively to appear correct.  And repeats it ad nauseum.

 

 

[Dewdman42]

15 hours ago, MountainKing said:

 

I less defensive and more just curious on your stance.  Any possible scenario you call out that it has to be sandbagging, yet the site you provided, indicates sandbagging is an issue in 1% of the handicaps.   The handicap system sucks, and like you, I don't play in anything that involves handicap or giving strokes based on handicap. If I'm playing somebody better than me, then it's my job to get better if I want to compete with them, not some handicap system's job to balance that out.  I carry one because certain events require a certain handicap to enter, but outside of that I wouldn't bother.  The flaws in the system are more than likely to account for a lot of the situations and discrepancy, not sandbagging.   In all the competition I've played, I rarely have come across a sandbagger, but almost every single one has multiple people with vanity caps, yes they don't hurt anybody other than somebody like me has to watch them shoot a 90 in an event where they're forced to play legit, but given the larger number of them they are going to skew the data you reference in the wrong way. 

more or less I agree with you except I do not think the word sandbagging = cheating.  They are not exactly the same meaning.  Sandbagging can be done naively and innocently yet it is still sandbagging.  If and and when anyone is using an index for any reason that does not show their true potential, they are sandbagging it, as i have said numerous times wittingly or unwittingly.

 

i think there is a lot of rationalizing and denial going on sometimes too though.  A sandbagger doesn’t have to be an actual intentionally conscious cheater.  It is however still a form of cheating in denial in my view.

 

I dont know of the 1% number you have mentioned and what exactly it represents.  I myself have made no claims whatsoever about what percentage of golfers have inflated  handicaps.  And by the way it would be very very difficult to accurately determine that number either.  Anything that anyone says would be their guess.  
 

But it only takes a few out of any group to have a very negative impact on the legitimacy of handicapped competition.  If it’s only 1% then I’ll take your word for it but it has still impacted most tournaments I have ever played in, and don’t gamble on the course at all partly because if this also.  If it’s the same 1 or two people out if 100 that seem to win more often then you know why.

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dewdman42

[Dewdman42]

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Same guy was spewing the same nonsense in another thread recently…

He seems to equate long odds to cheating and believes handicaps are meant to make everyone win equally.  Patently absurd presumptions but he posts it very authoritatively to appear correct.  And repeats it ad nauseum.

 

 

you are putting words in my mouth now.  That is not civilized discourse by the way.  
 

I said clearly numerous times that people win the lottery with long odds too.  But these are very long odds and the number of unicorns claiming to beat the odds doesn’t add up mathematically to the actual odds.  So yes, it isn’t all a ok.  Maybe some cheating, maybe some sandbaggers in denial.  Probably more of the latter.  Or people that go through some change like new swing thoughts or new gear and get a temporary raise of their index and are able to compete before they trend it back down again, stuff like that.  As far as I’m concerned that is all “sandbagging”.  It means to gain an unfair advantage based on the index change rather than the raw golf performance. 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dewdman42

[MountainKing]

3 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

more or less I agree with you except I do not think the word sandbagging = cheating.  They are not exactly the same meaning.  Sandbagging can be done naively and innocently yet it is still sandbagging.  If and and when anyone is using an index for any reason that does not show their true potential, they are sandbagging it, as i have said numerous times wittingly or unwittingly.

 

i think there is a lot of rationalizing and denial going on sometimes too though.  A sandbagger doesn’t have to be an actual intentionally conscious cheater.  It is however still a form of cheating in denial in my view.

 

I dont know of the 1% number you have mentioned and what exactly it represents.  I myself have made no claims whatsoever about what percentage of golfers have inflated  handicaps.  And by the way it would be very very difficult to accurately determine that number either.  Anything that anyone says would be their guess.  
 

But it only takes a few out of any group to have a very negative impact on the legitimacy of handicapped competition.  If it’s only 1% then I’ll take your word for it but it has still impacted most tournaments I have ever played in, and don’t gamble on the course at all partly because if this also.  If it’s the same 1 or two people out if 100 that seem to win more often then you know why.

 

I disagree with your take on sandbagging, sandbagging is done with intent, even the definition of it describes it as a deliberate act.   Most guys on the golf course doing something naively or innocently end up with vanity caps from my experience (mulligans, gimmie putts, liberal drops etc).   Trending down with your game, or playing a really good stretch of golf because you were able to practice or play a lot in a short period doesn't fit the sandbagging mold, that's just golf.  You see random guys on tour all the time who come out of nowhere and have great stretches, Brian Harmon and Lucas Glover are two recent examples.  I know they don't use handicaps, but it's just an example of how randomly things can come together.

 

Pope of the slope indicates 1% for sandbagging and I think 10% for vanity.  Again, you can't use them as bible for other stats while dismissing these.  They're either an accurate source of reporting, or they're not.  If you're trusting that their other data is fairly accurate, then the same needs to apply here, otherwise anything you said using them as a data reference is irrelevant.

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

more or less I agree with you except I do not think the word sandbagging = cheating.  They are not exactly the same meaning.  Sandbagging can be done naively and innocently yet it is still sandbagging.  If and and when anyone is using an index for any reason that does not show their true potential,

 

You are right. And then wrong.

 

Correct. Sandbagging is NOT the same as cheating. They are not the same meaning.

 

ALL sandbagging is cheating. Not all cheating is sandbagging.

 

Wrong, Sandbagging can NOT be done naively, as clearly implicit in sandbagging is INTENT, as @MountainKing said.

 

Since you yourself use the PoS as a reference, check out the dictionary definition, at least in Miriam-Webster. There is NO definition there that even suggests, especially in this usage of "sandbagging", that it is accidental, naively, or innocent.

 

Face the reality, you've simply got this huge chip on your shoulder. You don't care one bit about "stats". You only care about your opinion/experience.

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by nsxguy

[Dewdman42]

So what would your word be for people who are not consciously meaning to cheat yet still show up to events with inflated caps that do not fairly represent their scoring potential?  They followed the rules as far as they understood them, so if they technically didn’t break any rule then it can’t be called “cheating”, by the letter of the law.  Perhaps your 1% number is for outright cheaters and i would probably argue the number is even lower than that. 
 

However if someone shows up to an event knowing full well that their current cap is higher then usual or higher then their so called potential, higher then their potential within a reasonable range  that isn’t once in a lifetime odds; then they are fundamentally sandbagging the event.  They are using their peculiar situation where their cap happens to be higher than it ought to be for them, for any number of different possible reasons.  But in that moment they are using their abnormally high cap to gain unfair advantage on an event where caps are supposed to even the playing field.  
 

They may or may not even realize they are doing it, but winning an event because your handicap is currently running on the high side is not the same as winning the event because you played what you know to be your best round of golf capability.  That is sandbagging and winning through cap flukes and manipulations.  That is what it means to sand bag something.  It’s like being a nascar driver with better tires that day then everyone else is allowed use.  It is the very definition of sandbagging.

 

i personally think a much higher number then 1% of handicap competitors are turning up to events with various forms of inflated caps.  They may not have plotted out an intentional plan to cheat, but they have rationalized their casual rounds and postings, or they have gone through a rough patch and are just coming back now and their index hasn’t quite caught up to their new current reality, etc  they know they have the nicer tires that day.  You don’t want to call it sandbagging but i do want to call that sandbagging.  It is the thorn in the heel of handicapped play.

 

anyway this discussion is kind of going nowhere don’t you think?  I’m certainly not interested in debating the meaning of words used which is always open to interpretation anyway.  Pointless internet squabbling.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by Dewdman42

[nsxguy]

35 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

So what would your word be for people who are not consciously meaning to cheat yet still show up to events with inflated caps that do not fairly represent their scoring potential?  They followed the rules as far as they understood them, so if they technically didn’t break any rule then it can’t be called “cheating”, by the letter of the law.  Perhaps your 1% number is for outright cheaters and i would probably argue the number is even lower than that. 
 

However if someone shows up to an event knowing full well that their current cap is higher then usual or higher then their so called potential, higher then their potential within a reasonable range  that isn’t once in a lifetime odds; then they are fundamentally sandbagging the event.  They are using their peculiar situation where their cap happens to be higher than it ought to be for them, for any number of different possible reasons.  But in that moment they are using their abnormally high cap to gain unfair advantage on an event where caps are supposed to even the playing field.  
 

They may or may not even realize they are doing it, but winning an event because your handicap is currently running on the high side is not the same as winning the event because you played what you know to be your best round of golf capability.  That is sandbagging and winning through cap flukes and manipulations.  That is what it means to sand bag something.  It’s like being a nascar driver with better tires that day then everyone else is allowed use.  It is the very definition of sandbagging.

 

i personally think a much higher number then 1% of handicap competitors are turning up to events with various forms of inflated caps.  They may not have plotted out an intentional plan to cheat, but they have rationalized their casual rounds and postings, or they have gone through a rough patch and are just coming back now and their index hasn’t quite caught up to their new current reality, etc  they know they have the nicer tires that day.  You don’t want to call it sandbagging but i do want to call that sandbagging.  It is the thorn in the heel of handicapped play.

 

anyway this discussion is kind of going nowhere don’t you think?  I’m certainly not interested in debating the meaning of words used which is always open to interpretation anyway.  Pointless internet squabbling.

 

 

 

Firstly, by accepted WHS standards their handicap is NOT "inflated". That's your OPINION.

 

As far as "demonstrated ability", what would you call it when only the better 40% of one's scores are chosen to calc a cap ?

 

Since you didn't quote me, I'm assuming you're talking to me, but I don't believe I guessed at 1% baggers, but personally, in MY experience, I believe baggers are ONLY those guys who play BIG money games, not the usual(?) club guy or $5 Nassau types.

 

Why ? Pretty simple. If one plays regularly for even a little cash, between greens fees and losing bets, the average player would never recoup his lost cash with relatively small bets.

 

No, they're NOT "sandbagging the event". Once again, following the rules is not cheating nor is it sandbagging. EVERY human endeavor has its normal ups and downs over time.

 

So long as you aren't manipulating your cap to gain an advantage, you are NOT cheating, you are NOT sandbagging.

 

And once again, please try to learn the difference between "then" and "than". By my count you got it WRONG 6 of 7 times. TIA

 

You want to make up your own definitions ? You want to call it sandbagging ? Fine. Knock yourself out. Please !!!

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2023 by nsxguy

[Dewdman42]

again, getting back to the stats put forth by pope of slope...all I can say is that if someone has a proper handicap, they will play within those odds and when they don't it doesn't necessarily absolutely mean their cap was inflated because there is always the possibility for once in a lifetime or whatever, but its highly probable that it was.   its simply not statistically realistic otherwise.  And the number of times we see it happen, clearly the math is off....so caps must be running higher for some people.  I am at least saying the reason for this is not  necessarily out right cheating.  You seem to want to ignore it or claim it's not happening other than a very small number of outright cheaters.  But I think you're wrong.  I think it is happening due to sloppy casual round posting, and due to numerous other rationalizations that people make.  I will leave it to you to decide whether these kinds of unconscious decisions are a form of cheating in denial.

 

 

 

[mark m]

It’s hard to put a solid number on the sandbagging percentage. I would guess private clubs tend to do a better job because their members play most of their golf at their club, and many/most have a real handicap committee and engaged pro-shop staff. Public courses can be a mixed bag because many members play rounds all over and there is little to no oversight at many clubs. Sometimes you have never seen a guy who wins a tournament. They come out of the woodwork. And therefore you have no idea if he has a legitimate handicap or not. This makes it hard to conduct large field net tournaments. Many members won’t play. We flight almost all tournaments to encourage participation and minimize the problems. 
 

Open large field tournaments are big problem. Big Stu mentioned around 20 guys were 86’d last year from the “World Net Championships” in Myrtle Beach. The MN golf association hosts a net championship and see below for the system they use. I checked it previously, and typically scores of 68 to 70 stableford points wins over 36 holes, even with the allowance shown.
 

 
 

 

[Shilgy]

6 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

again, getting back to the stats put forth by pope of slope...all I can say is that if someone has a proper handicap, they will play within those odds and when they don't it doesn't necessarily absolutely mean their cap was inflated because there is always the possibility for once in a lifetime or whatever, but its highly probable that it was.   its simply not statistically realistic otherwise.  And the number of times we see it happen, clearly the math is off....so caps must be running higher for some people.  I am at least saying the reason for this is not  necessarily out right cheating.  You seem to want to ignore it or claim it's not happening other than a very small number of outright cheaters.  But I think you're wrong.  I think it is happening due to sloppy casual round posting, and due to numerous other rationalizations that people make.  I will leave it to you to decide whether these kinds of unconscious decisions are a form of cheating in denial.

 

 

 

Here again though you claim to believe in the odds the pope of slope shows….you even attached the chart….but then out of the other side claim it’s sandbagging if someone is 3+ better than their handicap when it happens thousands of times a day somewhere in the US.

[Dewdman42]

Pope of slope i would  qualify as an industry expert.  But yes i believe him more then unicorns blasting ideas on the internet to the contrary.  Are you aware of any other respected sources of information for these kinds of stats?

 

I never said net -3 is necessarily sandbagging.  You are putting false words in my mouth for what reason I don’t know.  What I have said is that -5 is borderline, meaning it better be the best round they had had in a very long time and -6  had to be the best round in many years, anything over that is either the best round they will EVER have in their life or strong chance of sandbagging.

 

but what I also said is that the real insidious hidden danger of inflated caps are when people get say a -3 when their handicap is, let’s say, 2 higher then reality.  In that case it is hidden and there is no way to know for sure  but in that example the person normally might have netted around -1 which should not be enough to win but with a -3 just might win.  And there was a no way to know now because the player didn’t end up some crazy number under par to shine a light on it.  No club organizer can flag it as anything other then what looks like a great ground.  Not unless they literally track every shot of that player posted to know.   Even though in reality it was a “pretty good” round, probably 2nd best out of 20, but unlikely a truly winning round.  But like I said unless we followed that player around and tracked every shot we have no way of knowing one way or another.  So we smile and hand them the trophy and move on.

 

I actually think it’s far more likely that when people’s caps are inflated they are only inflated by a stroke or two, but sometimes that is all it takes to make the difference between a good score and a winning score.  Another player with an accurate handicap with -3 should be the winner.

 

i also think when someone does get -5 or better, regardless of whether they have an inflated index or not, it’s quite likely it was still a brilliant round for them based on the probability that their index, if inflated at all, would only be inflated by a couple strokes; and quite possibly the true winner.  -5 is borderline because there are people with accurate caps who could theoretically deserve to win with -3 or -4.  So the -5 sandbagger could still be blocking the true winner.  But at -6 and beyond; then bagger or not they had a brilliant round and probably deserves to win

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dewdman42

[nsxguy]

8 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

again, getting back to the stats put forth by pope of slope...all I can say is that if someone has a proper handicap, they will play within those odds

 

 

and when they don't it doesn't necessarily absolutely mean their cap was inflated because there is always the possibility for once in a lifetime or whatever, but its highly probable that it was.   its simply not statistically realistic otherwise.  

 

 

And the number of times we see it happen, clearly the math is off....

 

 

 

Play within WHAT "odds" ?  The PoS table shows the odds of shooting an exceptional score. It says/shows nothing about the range of scores any particular handicap group "should" shoot.

 

"Once in a lifetime ?  For what ? The boxes highlighted in yellow ? The first box in yellow is 379:1. I figure I've played somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 rounds in my life - so that box I "should" have hit a bit over 5 TIMES, yes ? Which, surprisingly(?), sounds just about right as best I can recall.

 

The number of times we see it happen ? What is "it" ? And just how many times DO we "see it happen" ? Right. You (we) have no idea.

 

So a guy with an 8 Handicap Index shoots 70, 1 under. According to you that would seem pretty suspicious, if not impossible, no ?

 

And if he's playing the senior tees where the course rating is 65 ? Now what ? Still "impossible" ?

 

Frankly, I don't think you have any idea what that PoS table actually means.

 

I've actually NEVER seen anybody try to assess their great round(s) differential vs. their actual handicap - so who really knows ?

 

A: No one. Not you and not I. Seems only the PoS has crunched some data - you just don't seem to know how to read it.

 

 

 

 

[Dewdman42]

I know how to read it.  I really don’t understand why you keep arguing with me in a ridiculous and unproductive manner so I am not going to respond to you anymore @nsxguy.  

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dewdman42

[DaveLeeNC]

@Dewdman42 You keep talking like there is some "objective number" that defines the inherent index of a golfer. But most of us do not believe that exists. It is not like the big jar of pennies where you are trying to guess how many pennies are in the jar. There IS an objective answer to that question, but you have to take all the pennies out and count them. And if you do that you get an answer that everyone will agree with. 

 

OTOH, there is no objective answer to the question "what is this person's inherent index at this instant in time". No one knows how to determine that (or even what it means). So we use the best 8 or 20 scores (with a few other tweaks along the way) and call that a golfer's index. You might have a better system in mind, but it will always be some kind of estimate and will never be 'like counting the pennies in the jar'. 

 

dave

[Dewdman42]

I don't have a better handicap system in mind, I think the whole notion of self policing handicapping is entirely flawed.  I mentioned earlier and will mention again, I would far more interested in competing in events if they were all gross events, perhaps with 3-4 different divisions so that I don't have to always lose against scratch golfers,  I would want to play against mid cappers, but for gross.  Yea I would probably not win very often, but at least i would see my TRUE ranking against a field of other mid cappers based on gross, not phoney baloney self policed handicapped net scores.  I could watch my ranking go up or down.  Perhaps eventually I would improve and work my way up to winning my division, perhaps not, but at least it would be completely transparent.  Handicapped tournaments are not transparent.  They are phoney baloney.   More like a casino then anything else.

 

again, putting more words into my mouth, about objective numbers and such.....  don't pretend to read my mind.  I don't believe you have been reading any of my posts with real intent of understanding.  I am well aware that this is not an exact science thank you very much.  That is probably why so many of you are blind to or choose to be ignorant of the possibility of inflated handicaps.  it's a difficult thing to pin down, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.  That is exactly why the stats matter.  But honestly human beings are not wired to understand stats and odds and non linear data very well.  That's why this problem just keeps coasting along.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dewdman42

[Schulzmc]

I think what we are seeing here is a classic example of someone who makes an outrageous claim, gets called out on it, and then resorts to tortured logic and a gradual backing down from their original claim in an effort to save face.

 

It would be so much easier to just say, “You guys are right. I didn’t think that through. My bad.”

 

But then the inter webs would not be nearly so fun…

[Dewdman42]

if only I felt that way, but I don't.  I disagree fundamentally with the people who appear to be attacking me such as you.  Is there no room for disagreement or must you turn to attack mode when people don't agree with you?  Numerous attempts to twist my words around without apparently even trying to understand what i said.  For what reason I do not know.  This forum seems to be full of a lot of very aggressive people from what I can see so far.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dewdman42

[RSinSG]

This thread was an interesting read and a reminder to me to be very careful about posting in the Rules sub forum. It caused me to think of something I saw the other day. It read something like: Imagine if someone from 1950 were transported to today and you showed them a smartphone. You explained with this device you had access to all the great books, medical research and all the history of mankind. And that you use this miracle device to take pictures of cats and argue with strangers.

[Hawkeye77]

I can only express utter amazement that given the endless paragraphs and verbiage, one could claim there is room in his mouth for other people to put more. 

[Dewdman42]

The problem has been people using bully tactics, such as you right now, to attempt to “cancel” me.  They have repeatedly misrepresented what i have said in an effort to do so.  I will always respond when someone misrepresents what i have said, attacks me personally in any way or quotes me.   I don't actually care if we all agree or not there is plenty of room in this world for differing opinions.  There is no reason to be disrespectful about it, and I don’t see the point of misrepresenting other people’s point of view that is just plain dishonest and mean spirited.  But cancel culture disgusts me.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Dewdman42

[Dewdman42]

Net 61 is what, net ~11?  Maybe even lower on some harder courses.  Yes the odds of that  not being sandbagging are not nil but close to it.  I will easily label that as sandbagging.  Sorry if you don’t agree but apparently we just don’t agree.  Oh well.

 

as for all the other arrows you are slinging I can’t be bothered to read it.  You’re just being kind of mean spirited is all I can say.  Everyone has to agree with you or else you will attack and discredit them is all i see.  I don’t really care who you are.  There is just no reason  we can’t have honest conversation on this topic without such animosity and condescension.  Go away and leave me alone.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Dewdman42

[st1800e]

@kmc, time to lock this up?  

[rogolf]

There are no winners in this insolvable debate. Let it die a peaceful end.  

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Dewdman42 said:

Net 61 is what, net ~11?  Maybe even lower on some harder courses.  Yes the odds of that  not being sandbagging are not nil but close to it.  I will easily label that as sandbagging.  Sorry if you don’t agree but apparently we just don’t agree.  Oh well.

 

as for all the other arrows you are slinging I can’t be bothered to read it.  You’re just being kind of mean spirited is all I can say.  Everyone has to agree with you or else you will attack and discredit them is all i see.  I don’t really care who you are.  There is just no reason  we can’t have honest conversation on this topic without such animosity and condescension.  Go away and leave me alone.

 

Net 61 would be -11 if par was 72. If par was 67, -11 would be net 56.

 

You continually show you don't understand how handicaps or the PoS tables work, even after given countless times to explain your "net 61 is sandbagging" theory.

 

Have you explained it once yet ? Nope, just repeat the refrain until it becomes truth.

 

Par 67, CR is 65.5, slope 116. 13 capper shoots 74, net 62 (CH is 12). Sandbagger ? His diff for the round is 7.9, 5.1 better than his index (13). According to your PoS tables he's shot a round still in the WHITE boxes (-5). So is he a sandbagger ? Or does he become a bagger for 1 shot better; net 61 ?

 

"Everyone has to agree with you or else you will attack and discredit them is all i see" I can certainly believe that's all you see. But have you seen anybody agree with you ?

 

Somebody shows me proof I'm wrong and I am more than happy to concede and apologize. You ? You just keep on banging the drum - and fail to substantiate your "point".

 

BTW, didn't you tell me before "I am not going to respond to you anymore @nsxguy". You know you did !!! 🙃 🙃 🙃