Is reverse sandbagging wrong?

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, hockeyplayer21 said:

This started in general golf discussion and was moved accordingly. 

 

"This" meaning this thread ? Or meaning NB's poll ?

[hockeyplayer21]

4 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

"This" meaning this thread ? Or meaning NB's poll ?

This thread.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Imp said:

On the weekend am tours and also the state-run events, scores are either entered by someone on the committee (if hard card) into some software (like GolfGenius) or verified scores entered by the group... because all they do at the end is press the submit to GHIN button. 

In leagues, most have their own home grown tracking of handicap, like a spreadsheet or other and may or may not follow GHIN rules (same course every week, etc..). Like the leagues I'm in, I wrote the software for the bigger league instead of paying for an app, and the other is a spreadsheet because fewer people.

 

This is exactly how my experience has gone. Formal events, clubs, games, whatever, have a member/secretary collect and submit all attested scores.

 

Less formal games will generally record the scores but don't care whether you post or not since they're keeping their OWN handicaps for their own game so a GHIN 'cap isn't needed there.

 

Casual groups, whose players keep a GHIN, would at least check each other's scores and each member would post their own. But then casual groups seldom play elsewhere and seldom need to have their 'caps verified.

 

Even more casual groups "know" each other's games and just play - they seldom even keep a handicap.

 

My personal view of the world has private clubs, hearsay only, is "seeing" players verifying scores amongst themselves and handing the cards into a tournament committee or, for casual play, the pro shop, and those entities would then enter them into GHIN. <--- I have NO idea if that's correct. 

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, hockeyplayer21 said:

This thread.

 

That I would have expected. The poll ? Not sure. Thanks. 👍

[North Butte]

16 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I think you've captured the essence of "peer review" quite nicely.

 

So what's your problem with it ?

I have no problem with peer review, I have no problem with lack of peer review.

 

I simply point out when these thread arise that only a very small portion of rounds posted to GHIN have undergone any meaningful peer review.

 

I do have a problem with USGA's system (GHIN) not offering any way at all to document which rounds have been peer reviewed and which have not. USGA issue various bits of high-minded sounding drivel about how peer review is the key to the handicapping system, yet they make not even a token effort to reflect that in the system they sell to subscribers. That's the problem, in my view.

 

If one of my buddies says he's a 14.3 index, I know him well to either accept that at face value (most of them) or discount it slightly because I know he had some slight vanity 'capping tendencies. If someone I don't play golf with regularly tells me he's a 14.3, I can look him up in GHIN until the cows come home and I'll have no idea if he's a real 14.3 or a totally delusional vanity 'capper who ought to be in the 18's or 19's or a crafty sandbagger who "manages" his posted scores to maintain that 14.3 while actually playing to a 9 or 10. GHIN offers no information whatsoever in that regard. 

[North Butte]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

My personal view of the world has private clubs, hearsay only, is "seeing" players verifying scores amongst themselves and handing the cards into a tournament committee or, for casual play, the pro shop, and those entities would then enter them into GHIN. <--- I have NO idea if that's correct. 

That sounds like a description of what things were like in my little corner of the golf world circa 2002 or so. It's not really been like that at the three clubs of which I've been a member in the 20+ years since then. 

 

But I don't travel much any more and almost all of my playing is solo or with a couple long-standing groups at my home course. So I'm sure there are places of which I'm not aware that still function much as they did two decades ago. I don't think that's normative.

 

And at non-private courses, I can't imagine there's MORE peer review and oversight than at private clubs. Rather the opposite seems more likely.

 

P.S. Also keep in mind that millions of GHIN subscribers don't play at private courses or within stable groups playing together at public or semi-private ones. The system has a lot of solo artists as subcribers, as well. 

[nsxguy]

8 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I have no problem with peer review, I have no problem with lack of peer review.

 

I simply point out when these thread arise that only a very small portion of rounds posted to GHIN have undergone any meaningful peer review.

 

See below - it's normally(?) done where a question/challenge arises.

 

In the old days of carbon copies sent into the local association, a sheet would come back along with all the new handicaps, with one or more players' scores notated and it would ask for it to be reviewed as it was usually well outside the expectation and could have been an error.

 

Didn't happen very often as the secretary, before submitting scores, would likely notice a score that might be incorrect & check it out before sending in the scores.

 

Peer Review

 

Q. What is peer review and why is it important?

A. Peer review is the process by which either a player’s score or Handicap Index® can be confirmed or challenged. While the Handicap Index calculation has built in safeguards to protect against handicap manipulation, the human element is equally important to ensure fair play.

 

Peer review is normally conducted by someone playing in the same group during a round, or by someone who has knowledge of a player’s demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the player’s Handicap Index.

 

To facilitate the process of peer review, scores must be posted as soon as possible after completion of the round. Challenges and disputes should be raised with the player and/or reported to the Handicap Committee of the golf club where the player is a member for consideration. (Rule 4.4, Rules of Handicapping)

[North Butte]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

See below - it's normally(?) done where a question/challenge arises.

 

In the old days of carbon copies sent into the local association, a sheet would come back along with all the new handicaps, with one or more players' scores notated and it would ask for it to be reviewed as it was usually well outside the expectation and could have been an error.

 

Didn't happen very often as the secretary, before submitting scores, would likely notice a score that might be incorrect & check it out before sending in the scores.

 

Peer Review

 

Q. What is peer review and why is it important?

A. Peer review is the process by which either a player’s score or Handicap Index® can be confirmed or challenged. While the Handicap Index calculation has built in safeguards to protect against handicap manipulation, the human element is equally important to ensure fair play.

 

Peer review is normally conducted by someone playing in the same group during a round, or by someone who has knowledge of a player’s demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the player’s Handicap Index.

 

To facilitate the process of peer review, scores must be posted as soon as possible after completion of the round. Challenges and disputes should be raised with the player and/or reported to the Handicap Committee of the golf club where the player is a member for consideration. (Rule 4.4, Rules of Handicapping)

In the true "olden days" handicaps were (nearly) exclusive to private clubs. I'd reckon under that regime the vast majority of posted scores had undergone meaningful peer review. Between the fact that millions of non-private-club members have been added to the handicap system and the fact that (nearly) all scores are posted directly by the golfer using his phone, there's simply no way peer review is going to be anything like as common now. 

 

But I'd imagine among people who frequent a golf rules forum like this one, the proportion will be vastly different (as you've indicated in pointing out this should be in the general forum). Even so, it's running less than 20% at the moment but early days...

[nsxguy]

28 minutes ago, North Butte said:

In the true "olden days" handicaps were (nearly) exclusive to private clubs. I'd reckon under that regime the vast majority of posted scores had undergone meaningful peer review. Between the fact that millions of non-private-club members have been added to the handicap system and the fact that (nearly) all scores are posted directly by the golfer using his phone, there's simply no way peer review is going to be anything like as common now. 

 

But I'd imagine among people who frequent a golf rules forum like this one, the proportion will be vastly different (as you've indicated in pointing out this should be in the general forum). Even so, it's running less than 20% at the moment but early days...

 

Sorry my friend but that poll isn't close to being anywhere near accurate/specific enough. Frankly, it's not worthy of you.

 

Way too many variables. And one question is "Only a few tournament or competition scores were attested and/or reviewed by a Handicap Committee, most scores were not"

 

How on earth would they know ?

 

And to support your argument, you don't add that 25% in with the "always" - so you lump them in with the "None" LOL

 

For one thing, look at the USGA's definition of "Peer Review" as I posted earlier. It happens almost always after the fact; when there's an issue. When it's done properly it's done the same day by the person submitting the scores. Otherwise it's only done when there's an issue.

 

Further, your very first response was "Actually I don’t know.  We have a handicap committee or at least a chairman, but I’ve never heard of them doing anything.  They might be reviewing everything, or nothing, or only cases brought to their attention"

 

"Attested" ? What's that ? I'm betting to most players it's another player in the group actually signing their card. That (almost) never happens unless it's a "formal" (read "outside) event. IME, for a club event, at most (& always in my old club) the scores were kept on 2 or more scorecards and verified before being handed in.

 

Your "assertion" is that less than 10% of the scores entered into GHIN on any given day have been "peer reviewed" by anyone".

 

So the ONLY question in your poll that truly reflects that assertion is the last one, "I only use it to track". 17%

 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

It would be fine with me if they gave them away for free, lord knows USGA could afford it.

 

I'm not sure you know how much the USGA charges an AGA for a GHIN account. I will point out that for juniors, they're free. GHIN isn't cheap to operate, and the USGA operates it at a loss right now.

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

I just want them to stick a flag in GHIN that designates a round as having been attested/peer reviewed or not.

 

To what end? And how does one "verify" this?

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

Then all the solo artists, vanity 'cappers and "track my progress" geeks can use GHIN just like they do today but the actual handicaps will be clearly delineated as such.

 

If you're already breaching the handicapping rules by putting solo rounds in, etc. what's to stop you from continuing to do so with fake "peer review"? What are the mechanics behind all of this, and what if you play a round of golf with three other people (or one other person) who you don't know, and who won't peer attest your round because they're not in GHIN, or whatever other situations might arise?

 

You don't seem to have thought this through very far.

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

But what I'd really settle for would to have USGA's handicap system documentation and marketing come clean about the fact there is no "peer review" required or even tracked by GHIN.

 

Have you read 4.4 in the Handicapping Rules?

 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/rules-of-handicapping.html

 

A score submitted for handicap purposes must be made available for peer review as soon as possible after completion of the round. To facilitate the process of peer review:

(i)

A player, or someone authorized by the player, must submit their score as soon as possible after completion of the round, and

(ii)

The Handicap Committee should ensure a submitted score is posted to the player’s scoring record as soon as possible.

 

There's even a clarification right below it.

 

And that process of peer review does take place and seemingly more often than you or others seem to want to believe. Here's the thing, though, too: if you're posting legitimate scores, there's no need for peer review. And if you and your buddies are all sandbagging OR vanity capping, requiring them to peer review each other's rounds would result in… nothing being different.

 

Again, I don't think you've thought this through very far.

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

I am simply pointing out that saying "peer review" and "handicap committee" over and over means nothing when the actual system (GHIN) is wide open and offers no material support for those concepts.

 

Yeah, that's not true.

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

@iacas described the situation at HIS club as though it were universal

 

No I didn't. I'm pretty sure I didn't talk about "my club" at all. You don't even know what "my club" is.

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

I was pointing out that only a tiny fraction of GHIN handicaps are held by members of clubs like @iacas's.

 

Again, I don't think I talked about "my club."

 

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

He's describing the sort of situation that the USGA implies in their handicap system rules and which may have been the only sort of people holding handicaps in, say, 1980 or so.

 

I would definitely not describe my club as being anything like clubs as they existed in the 1980s. Or 1990s. Or even early 2000s. No. My club is nothing like what you keep talking about.

 

I'm pretty sure in every post above I talked about golf courses where two or a few people are basically the handicap chairmen/committees. And they do look at the scores, and they do ask questions of the people posting those scores.

 

I think that happens more often than you're crediting. Peer review is also just… Bob playing with Steve, and Steve being able to see that Bob posted his 78 or 92.

 

---------

 

@nsxguy is on top of this, it appears. Basically, you don't seem to understand what "peer review" actually is. It doesn't mean that someone scrutinizes every score or even the majority of scores posted.

[North Butte]

26 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry my friend but that poll isn't close to being anywhere near accurate/specific enough. Frankly, it's not worthy of you.

 

Way too many variables. And one question is "Only a few tournament or competition scores were attested and/or reviewed by a Handicap Committee, most scores were not"

 

How on earth would they know ?

 

And to support your argument, you don't add that 25% in with the "always" - so you lump them in with the "None" LOL

 

For one thing, look at the USGA's definition of "Peer Review" as I posted earlier. It happens almost always after the fact; when there's an issue. When it's done properly it's done the same day by the person submitting the scores. Otherwise it's only done when there's an issue.

 

Further, your very first response was "Actually I don’t know.  We have a handicap committee or at least a chairman, but I’ve never heard of them doing anything.  They might be reviewing everything, or nothing, or only cases brought to their attention"

 

"Attested" ? What's that ? I'm betting to most players it's another player in the group actually signing their card. That (almost) never happens unless it's a "formal" (read "outside) event. IME, for a club event, at most (& always in my old club) the scores were kept on 2 or more scorecards and verified before being handed in.

 

Your "assertion" is that less than 10% of the scores entered into GHIN on any given day have been "peer reviewed" by anyone".

 

So the ONLY question in your poll that truly reflects that assertion is the last one, "I only use it to track". 17%

 

There's nothing stopping you from creating your own poll, worded however you like. You can make it precisely reflect your own specific experiences. 

 

I even promise, if you do so, not to criticize your wording for failing to exactly describe my own specific experience. 

 

[North Butte]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I'm not sure you know how much the USGA charges an AGA for a GHIN account. I will point out that for juniors, they're free. GHIN isn't cheap to operate, and the USGA operates it at a loss right now.

 

 

To what end? And how does one "verify" this?

 

 

If you're already breaching the handicapping rules by putting solo rounds in, etc. what's to stop you from continuing to do so with fake "peer review"? What are the mechanics behind all of this, and what if you play a round of golf with three other people (or one other person) who you don't know, and who won't peer attest your round because they're not in GHIN, or whatever other situations might arise?

 

You don't seem to have thought this through very far.

 

 

Have you read 4.4 in the Handicapping Rules?

 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/rules-of-handicapping.html

 

A score submitted for handicap purposes must be made available for peer review as soon as possible after completion of the round. To facilitate the process of peer review:

(i)

A player, or someone authorized by the player, must submit their score as soon as possible after completion of the round, and

(ii)

The Handicap Committee should ensure a submitted score is posted to the player’s scoring record as soon as possible.

 

There's even a clarification right below it.

 

And that process of peer review does take place and seemingly more often than you or others seem to want to believe. Here's the thing, though, too: if you're posting legitimate scores, there's no need for peer review. And if you and your buddies are all sandbagging OR vanity capping, requiring them to peer review each other's rounds would result in… nothing being different.

 

Again, I don't think you've thought this through very far.

 

 

Yeah, that's not true.

 

 

No I didn't. I'm pretty sure I didn't talk about "my club" at all. You don't even know what "my club" is.

 

 

Again, I don't think I talked about "my club."

 

 

I would definitely not describe my club as being anything like clubs as they existed in the 1980s. Or 1990s. Or even early 2000s. No. My club is nothing like what you keep talking about.

 

I'm pretty sure in every post above I talked about golf courses where two or a few people are basically the handicap chairmen/committees. And they do look at the scores, and they do ask questions of the people posting those scores.

 

I think that happens more often than you're crediting. Peer review is also just… Bob playing with Steve, and Steve being able to see that Bob posted his 78 or 92.

 

---------

 

@nsxguy is on top of this, it appears. Basically, you don't seem to understand what "peer review" actually is. It doesn't mean that someone scrutinizes every score or even the majority of scores posted.

I don't post solo rounds, in fact I'm one of the few people I know how never post solo rounds, always post rounds I'm supposed to post and even correctly apply the current NDB rule for blowup holes rather than sticking with ESC. I'd imagine I follow the handicap system rules as closely as you do, or come very close. 

 

But I am  pointing out that millions of golfer post solo rounds, every day. And that there's no way within GHIN to know a solo artist from someone who religiously follows every jot and tittle of the handicap system manual. 

 

Steve "being able to see" what Bob posted is not the same as Steve actually checking to see what Steve posted. I am trying to find out how many people actually believe their scores are being checked by anyone after they post them. 

 

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. In my own personal experience, the number of MY rounds that anyone has ever checked after I posted them is virtually non-existent. Nor have I ever checked more than a small number (few dozen?) of the thousands of rounds I've played with other golfers. 

 

And so far the poll responses seem to indicate that many people on this forum have similar experiences to myself, while relatively few here have the experiences you describe. Not that a silly poll on a forum gives any kind of definitive answer but it's better than just repeating your magical thinking that rounds posted to GHIN are more often than not going through peer review. 

Edited May 10 by North Butte

[nsxguy]

3 minutes ago, North Butte said:

There's nothing stopping you from creating your own poll, worded however you like. You can make it precisely reflect your own specific experiences. 

 

I even promise, if you do so, not to criticize your wording for failing to exactly describe my own specific experience. 

 

 

If you're truly reflecting your own experience why are you trying to validate it with a terribly crafted poll ?

 

But no thanks.

 

You claim not to care, you make a guess and go make a poll.

 

I do care but apparently not quite so much as you do. 

[nsxguy]

7 minutes ago, North Butte said:

But I am  pointing out that millions of golfer post solo rounds, every day. And that there's no way within GHIN to know a solo artist from someone who religiously follows every jot and tittle of the handicap system manual. 

 

Steve "being able to see" what Bob posted is not the same as Steve actually checking to see what Steve posted. I am trying to find out how many people actually believe their scores are being checked by anyone after they post them. 

 

It's my guess that most of those solo golfers you're (not) so worried about don't play for anything except against their buddies, so who cares ? Like yourself they only care about the 3 other guys they play with. Sounds like they're mostly the last cat in your poll.

 

As for being able to see what was posted, again, that is what the USGA says "peer review" is - generally done after there's an issue. Or an unusual score ?

 

As for a committee, or a single person reviewing scores, what's the big deal ? If a submitted NET score is within  say -4 to +15 of the guy's 'cap, do you think it should be reviewed/questioned ?

 

If outside of those (very) rough parameters, maybe a call or an email to the person, and/or those who played with him, just to make sure it was correct ?

 

And there are all sorts of Admin pages/panels/"reports" in GHIN.

 

Frankly, I'd be surprised if there weren't GHIN panel for admins whereby the committee could automate and/or review such things - like the carbon copies handed into the local association 30+ years ago. THEY identified unusual scores and asked the member club to check them.

 

Surely there's somebody here that has current access to their club's data. Maybe they can give us an idea ?

[iacas]

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I don't post solo rounds

 

The "you" there is the general "you" not you specifically. I thought that was obvious. I guess it wasn't?

 

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

But I am  pointing out that millions of golfer post solo rounds, every day.

 

Like I said… when you thought I was talking about you, if ONE posts solo rounds as it is, they're already breaching the rules of handicapping. So, like golfers who roll their ball or breach the rules of golf, changing the rules of handicapping is likely going to have no effect on these players. They're already playing outside the rules.

 

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Steve "being able to see" what Bob posted is not the same as Steve actually checking to see what Steve posted.

 

For the umpteenth time… "actually checking" every score is not what "peer review" is about.

 

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

You're welcome to believe whatever you like. In my own personal experience, the number of MY rounds that anyone has ever checked after I posted them is virtually non-existent.

 

You don't know that.

 

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

And so far the poll responses

 

Your poll indicates a lack of awareness as to what "peer review" is. I couldn't vote in the poll because there's no option that satisfies what I would choose. If forced, I'd choose the 100% option.

 

29 minutes ago, North Butte said:

while relatively few here have the experiences you describe

 

Given your misunderstandings, I'm not sure you really know what I'm describing. I'm describing the peer review that's the Rule: you're describing a committee that manually reviews every score or something. That's not what "peer review" is.

 

You're basing your opinion on both a misunderstanding of what "peer review" is and an assumption that your scores are never looked at by anyone… but you don't really know.

 

Edited May 10 by iacas

[bluedot]

I think it should be obvious that the purpose of peer review is to TRY to insure that the indexes players have going into in a tournament aren’t radically different from their tournament performance.  The primary way that is done at most clubs is twofold.  First, the tee sheet is compared to posted scores, and second, net differentials in tournament play are carefully monitored.  Players who violate the former receive a letter, and players who are a consistent problem in the latter are simply not allowed to play tournaments.  THAT is peer review.

 

IF I say that MY scores have not been “attested” or “peer reviewed” other than by the above, I’ve set up a straw man of the first order.  Literally, there is absolutely NO way to check each individual score of each golfer each day; the staff can’t do that, and certainly a volunteer handicap committee can’t.  Nor should they.

[North Butte]

38 minutes ago, bluedot said:

I think it should be obvious that the purpose of peer review is to TRY to insure that the indexes players have going into in a tournament aren’t radically different from their tournament performance.  The primary way that is done at most clubs is twofold.  First, the tee sheet is compared to posted scores, and second, net differentials in tournament play are carefully monitored.  Players who violate the former receive a letter, and players who are a consistent problem in the latter are simply not allowed to play tournaments.  THAT is peer review.

 

IF I say that MY scores have not been “attested” or “peer reviewed” other than by the above, I’ve set up a straw man of the first order.  Literally, there is absolutely NO way to check each individual score of each golfer each day; the staff can’t do that, and certainly a volunteer handicap committee can’t.  Nor should they.

But the foursome you played in could easily glance in GHIN at the other three players scores as soon as everyone has posted. That is thr essence of peer review, not tee sheet based algorithms and spot checking tournament scores. 
 

it seems to me very few golfers can be arsed to do review of their peers’ posted scores. They rather armwave it away as the responsibility of a “committee”. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 5/9/2024 at 9:16 AM, North Butte said:

The thing of gross scoring inside handicapped flights, frankly, I don't understand at all. It solves no problem and it creates a situation where, unless the flights are REALLY narrow, players in the higher-cap half of each flight have less than half the chance of those in the lower half.

 

 

Net flighted competitions are fine. It just needs to be understood WHY we flight competitions if it's net. 

 

The simple thing is that if you have one hundred 15-to-20-cap golfers playing, there's a decent chance that ONE of them is going to shoot 5-8  strokes better than his index that day. But if they're up against one hundred scratch-to-plus golfers, there's a MUCH lower chance that one of them is going to shoot 5-8 strokes better than his index that day. Higher cap golfers are inherently much more inconsistent than lower cap golfers, so in a completely non-flighted tournament, it's unlikely that the best golfers will ever actually win. 

 

And people then get pissy over it because when you see some 18-cap who shot a net differential of -9 and wins a tournament they get called a sandbagger, when it might have just been a REALLY good day. In a large enough sample size, someone is going to have a REALLY good day. 

 

Now once you flight it, you might need (for numbers purposes) slightly wider flights. I.e. you'll have a bigger flight at 13.1-20.0 index than at 13.1-15.0, 15.1-17.0, and 17.1-20.0. But within the 13.1-20.0 flight, you play net so that the 19.9 cap isn't basically excluded from a shot at winning the thing. 

 

IMHO gross flighted events make little sense. 

[Dewdman42]

 

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

And people then get pissy over it because when you see some 18-cap who shot a net differential of -9 and wins a tournament they get called a sandbagger, when it might have just been a REALLY good day. In a large enough sample size, someone is going to have a REALLY good day. 

 

For sure I totally understand why some net comps would want to also flight them for what you say here...

Edited May 11 by Dewdman42

[Dewdman42]

 

 

4 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

IMHO gross flighted events make little sense. 

 

Oh they make complete sense if you are in a gross comp mindset.  Amateur Players League is a new nationwide league with over 4000 players and growing, started a few years ago, using gross competition in different divisions that are approx 5 strokes apart.  I plan to join soon and have already talked to the head of my local chapter about it, pretty excited about it (https://amateurplayerstour.com).  To me this is more like true competition.  

 

But that is how they do it.  They will vet you when you join, they may or may not use your GHIN to help establish which division you will belong in, and as you play they will track an APT index also to make sure you're still in the appropriate division.   But after that, its all gross, its just that you are competing against people who are roughly similar ability as yourself...with a range of 5 strokes.  I don't really understand the criticism against this approach.  I have been wanting to find something like this and i'm extremely excited that someone is actually doing it, and not in a small way.

 

I am not scratch or even single digit.  Many gross am tournaments I can't even qualify to enter, much less expect to do anything other then embarrass myself against a field of scratch golfers.  The above provides a way for me to do real honest gross competition, but competing against guys that are at most 5 strokes better then me, and actually probably more like 2-3 strokes better then me.  

 

I think even if I were a low single digit or scratch golfer, I would be going to gross events and competing against top guys in the area that are in fact 2-3 or even more strokes better then me.  I don't see how this is any different, it's just providing some stepping stone divisions that I can participate in and be competitive.  I don't expect to win anything soon, I will have to work hard to do so.  In my view that is how it should be.  I'm ecstatic to find a place that I can compete gross without having to be a scratch golfer to do it.

 

 

 

Edited May 11 by Dewdman42

[RCGA]

The problem with reverse sandbagging (or any sort of "handicap management") is that it derails the handicap flights. For our club tournaments, we usually get around 150 players with 4 flights (so ~35 per flight). Something like: 

 

A = 0-5.0

B = 5.1-11

C = 11-16

D = 16+

 

You have 8 handicaps trying to weasel their way into A division and a bunch of 4-5 handicaps trying to avoid A division. So you end up having a really strong B division and an A division where 25% can't break 85. 

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, RCGA said:

The problem with reverse sandbagging (or any sort of "handicap management") is that it derails the handicap flights. For our club tournaments, we usually get around 150 players with 4 flights (so ~35 per flight). Something like: 

 

A = 0-5.0

B = 5.1-11

C = 11-16

D = 16+

 

You have 8 handicaps trying to weasel their way into A division and a bunch of 4-5 handicaps trying to avoid A division. So you end up having a really strong B division and an A division where 25% can't break 85. 

In my admittedly limited experience, most of the guys who routinely vanity cap don’t play in tournaments. A lot of that stuff comes from only playing in groups where everybody does that so you got a bunch of pretend 8 and 10s playing against each other when in reality they’d be 15 or 20s if they played in a tournament. they literally know not what they do.

[SNIPERBBB]

On 5/10/2024 at 2:19 PM, North Butte said:

 

 

But I am  pointing out that millions of golfer post solo rounds, every day. And that there's no way within GHIN to know a solo artist from someone who religiously follows every jot and tittle of the handicap system manual.

 

millions of golfers post solo rounds? theres only 3.2 million people with usga handicaps.So just to get a million people posting solo thats 1 out of 3 handicappers posting solo rounds which would be drastically overestmated. More people I wager dont post rounds than those that post solo.

 

 

not even a million in the single digit range on the male side where most of the vanity solo posters reside

Edited May 13 by SNIPERBBB

[SNIPERBBB]

18 hours ago, RCGA said:

The problem with reverse sandbagging (or any sort of "handicap management") is that it derails the handicap flights. For our club tournaments, we usually get around 150 players with 4 flights (so ~35 per flight). Something like: 

 

A = 0-5.0

B = 5.1-11

C = 11-16

D = 16+

 

You have 8 handicaps trying to weasel their way into A division and a bunch of 4-5 handicaps trying to avoid A division. So you end up having a really strong B division and an A division where 25% can't break 85. 

Thats why a lot of tourneys around here do 2-day tournaments and you're flighted after day 1.

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

millions of golfers post solo rounds? theres only 3.2 million people with usga handicaps.So just to get a million people posting solo thats 1 out of 3 handicappers posting solo rounds which would be drastically overestmated. More people I wager dont post rounds than those that post solo.

 

 

not even a million in the single digit range on the male side where most of the vanity solo posters reside

I had told at least half a million people myself (OK, slight exaggeration) that they should not be posting solo rounds. Every one of them has looked at me like I'm crazy and told me they have always posted solo rounds and always will. Seriously. In my own experience, among people I know, the no solo round thing is totally ignored.

 

So if there are 3.2 million GHIN handicap holders I'll bet at least 1.6 million of them have posted one or more solo rounds in the past year. Nobody, but nobody, outside of hardcore Rules mavens or serious tournament players pays any attention to that particular rule. All you have to do is go back and look at older GolfWRX posts since USGA said not to post solo rounds, you'll find lots of people saying they wouldn't even have a handicap if they couldn't post solo rounds. 

[SNIPERBBB]

10 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I had told at least half a million people myself (OK, slight exaggeration) that they should not be posting solo rounds. Every one of them has looked at me like I'm crazy and told me they have always posted solo rounds and always will. Seriously. In my own experience, among people I know, the no solo round thing is totally ignored.

 

So if there are 3.2 million GHIN handicap holders I'll bet at least 1.6 million of them have posted one or more solo rounds in the past year. Nobody, but nobody, outside of hardcore Rules mavens or serious tournament players pays any attention to that particular rule. All you have to do is go back and look at older GolfWRX posts since USGA said not to post solo rounds, you'll find lots of people saying they wouldn't even have a handicap if they couldn't post solo rounds. 

I'll take that bet.  You are saying that 1 out of 2 score posters have posted A solo round in the last year. Multiple solo rounds would be very. very low  . Thats just not possible . Theres not enough guys that play solo that have a handicap, let alone post, to even come close to that number. There's a lot of ego in male golfers, but to also cheat takes a dedication that even the most ego driven male doesnt generally have.

Edited May 13 by SNIPERBBB

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

I'll take that bet.  You are saying that 1 out of 2 score posters have posted A solo round in the last year. Multiple solo rounds would be very. very low  . Thats just not possible . Theres not enough guys that play solo that have a handicap, let alone post, to even come close to that number. There's a lot of ego in male golfers, but to also cheat takes a dedication that even the most ego driven male doesnt generally have.

Believe it or don't. My experience say there are a good many GHIN subscribers who mostly post solo rounds. And posting at least occasional solo round is nigh universal. Maybe the golfers I meet are very strange and unique. Or maybe the golfers you meet are different than the norm. There's no way to know. I would suggest you post a poll but I've found that to be much more disputatious than you might imagine.

 

None of which matters. My main point is there's nothing in GHIN from which you can deduce who is playing 100% by the rules and posted 100% by the rules versus those who mostly do things like the rules say versus those who simply post whatever they like (including solo rounds) and play however they like. 

[YellowV1x]

I doubt that half of all handicap holders have played a solo round in a given year.  However, of those that do play solo I would bet that the vast majority post their rounds.

[SNIPERBBB]

9 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Believe it or don't. My experience say there are a good many GHIN subscribers who mostly post solo rounds. And posting at least occasional solo round is nigh universal. Maybe the golfers I meet are very strange and unique. Or maybe the golfers you meet are different than the norm. There's no way to know. I would suggest you post a poll but I've found that to be much more disputatious than you might imagine.

 

None of which matters. My main point is there's nothing in GHIN from which you can deduce who is playing 100% by the rules and posted 100% by the rules versus those who mostly do things like the rules say versus those who simply post whatever they like (including solo rounds) and play however they like. 

Certainly there may be areas where there are more score posters that are singles than normal but I extremely doubt that they are close to the majority in any area..

[RCGA]

I post solo rounds as non-solo rounds. Probably accounts for 25% of my entries. 

 

The whole attestation thing is BS and it's a hill I'm willing to die on.