Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381248704' post='7970589']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381244266' post='7970153']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381240432' post='7969817']
[quote name='mshills' timestamp='1381239711' post='7969751']
Nailed it right there. Insufficient information to know what happened and to draw a conclusion. The two major problems I see are that:

- Too few holes. If he was +1 thru 17, then OK, I get suspicious. But the high odds against a player going ten strokes deep versus his cap is for eighteen holes, not thirteen holes. Golf is not played over thirteen holes any more than it is played on the driving range, or there would be a hell of a lot more Tour-caliber players out there.

- Not enough history. Where a bagger becomes obvious is a regular pattern of going deep versus his cap in tournament play. This one looks a little funny and certainly justifies paying close attention to his prior and future score postings, but to call someone a cheat is, IMO, serious business. You'd better be [u]sure[/u]. In this case, all we have is 13 holes, not even one single full round of golf. No way would I call someone a cheat based on that.
[/quote]

Would you mind giving us the odds on beating your handicap by 10 strokes in 13 holes?
[/quote]

Again, what you fail to understand is that IT DOESN"T MATTER.

It doesn't matter unless you are trying to PREDICT whether or not someone will shoot a round that beats their handicap by 10 strokes over 13 holes. The odds of NO assistance (other than circumstantial evidence) in determining whether a round that has been shot was shot by someone with a legitimate handicap.

Let me try putting it this way.

Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) is a relatively rare form of cancer of the blood cells that fight off infection, that strikes about 3-4 out of every 100,000 children each year.

You're a pediatrician, and a mom shows up with her 6 year old. She's been running a fever for a week, nauseous, achy, lethargic. The blood cells that fight off infection are markedly elevated in her blood stream. Mom asks you if this means that her daughter has leukemia. [b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not. [/i][/b]Rare things occur rarely. Common things are common. When you hear hoofbeats you look for horses, not zebras. Chances are that she has some sort of viral infection...and not leukemia.

That is an appropriate use of odds (incidence) data.

What you are trying to do is more like this.

You are pediatrician. Mom shows up with her 6 year old looking for a second opinion. She's been to see her own pediatrician, and (unfortunately) the little girl has been diagnosed with ALL. You then turn to the mother and insist that the diagnosis has to be wrong, because "[i]leukemia is rare in children" [/i]

That is an INAPPROPRIATE use off odds data. You cannot (responsibly) tell this woman that the diagnosis of leukemia was incorrect, simply because it is a rare disease. You have to take a look at the individual circumstances, and what went into making the diagnosis before drawing any conclusions. Unless you want to do that family a HUGE disservice, and expose yourself to a nasty malpractice suit.

Likewise, it is irresponsible to accuse someone of cheating because in an ISOLATED (partial) round of golf, they shot well below their handicap. Just like fact that leukemia is rare didn't prevent (sadly) this woman's child from developing the disease....the fact that such low rounds are rare by amateur golfers doesn't mean that you aren't in the presence of someone how just happened to have done it.

Because sometimes you hoofbeats are, in fact, coming from zebras.....
[/quote]

And yet, in this situation that we are discussing, the horses are that he's a sandbagger and the zebras are that he's a guy who had a fluke good round. And yet you lot are all saying we have to assume it's zebras because we have no proof that it's horses.

Take your analogy above. We have no prior test here, just a woman who came in with a kid with a fever, asking if it's leukemia or something else. Not a case of someone coming in for a second opinion who already had the evidence. In this case, as you quite succinctly stated (hahahahahaha - I kill me sometimes), it's much more likely that it's a viral infection, so viral infection = common, leukemia = rare. Sandbagger = common, freak day = rare. And so, apparently your opinion is that we have to assume it's leukemia unless we have evidence that it's a viral infection. Start the chemo!!!

I think Eye2+'s point and I know mine is that it's more likely that someone who shot so far under their handicap had a questionable handicap than that they had that freak day that almost no one will have.
[/quote]

No, still missing the mark.

I'm saying that all you can say with the OP situation is that you EITHER have a cheater OR you have a golfer who had one of those "magical" rounds where everything went his way for 13 holes....and in the absence of additional information you have no basis to definitively say that its one or the other. Because---as I keep trying to get you to see---rare events DO happen, and they happen frequently if you pool of people you are looking is large enough.

The first scenario in my analogy is akin to betting---at the start of the day----whether your opponent will shoot ten strokes below his handicap. Looking at the odds, the smart money bets that he won't. Chances are you won't lose the bet...but you might. In this capacity you are using the odds to PREDICT what the outcome of an event will be. Odds are, the kid won't turn out to have leukemia.

The second scenario, one is using the odds in a FORENSIC capacity. IOW, you have an event that has ALREADY occurred (in this case the diagnosis of leukemia...or the guy shoots a round that is 10 strokes below his stated handicap), and you are trying to determine WHY it occurred. The odds of someone having leukemia (3 per 100,000) or shooting that kinds of super-low round (about 1:80 000) ISN'T low enough to reliably state that you have an incorrect diagnosis, or that you have a definite sandbagger.

Because---if you don't look for additional information---you WILL (eventually) miss a child who was correctly diagnosed...and you will besmirch the character of an honest golfer.[b][i] Just because viral infections are common, isn't proof (by itself) that THIS child doesn't have leukemia....and the fact that sandbaggers are common isn't proof (by itself) that THIS person is a cheater. [/i][/b]

...and your mistake is in presuming that it is.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381250827' post='7970751']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381247233' post='7970469']
[b]"That's fine, it just means you're gullible."[/b]

Since you love odds so much, let me give you one. The odds of acing a 200-yard hole is 150,000 to 1. So if someone in this forum said they just had their first ace, which happens to be a 200-yard hole, are you going to doubt them because you don't want to put faith on 0.0000000667%? Or are you going to congratulate them.

All we know here is that there is a 12 guy (who was once a 9), went on a hot streak of 1 birdie, 10 pars, 2 bogeys. We don't know why he went from a 9 to 12, we don't know how he got those pars, we dont know how he played in the previous rounds. All we have is a 13-hole sample. If OP told us that he played that way the 5 previous rounds against other 5-7 handicappers to make it to the final round, then yes I would be skeptical. But I am not wiling to label anyone a cheater just because the odds make it look unlikely. I never tried to argue the accuracy of odds. They are what they are. But no one here is trying to predict anything. And just because odds have no significance to me, does that make me gullible?
[/quote]

Maybe it is a personal bias but I'm less inclined to question someone when I know they can't sandbag a hole in one. Generally there isn't any gain by someone scoring an ace.

However with a tournament there is an incentive to sandbag. Also, with a handicap you can intentionally impact what your odds are for the accomplishment.

A much different scenario.
[/quote]

What I'm trying to say is that odds in golf are nothing but statistics to what has already happened. Where odds in poker are mathematical equations based on limited possibilities on what can happen. They only have significance when you are trying to predict something [b][i][u]PRIOR[/u][/i][/b] to play, so in this case, if I were to ask you to predict a 12 handicapper's score would be no different than asking you to predict the chances of any player hitting an albatross, which is 6 million to 1. But does it matter? The only significant thing odds tell me is that it's pretty darn difficult to get an albatross, and that's it. Just because something with high odds happened, with the little information available, I don't think is enough to label anyone a victim or a cheater.
I'm trying to take a neutral stance here, while you are already jumping into conclusions about whether the guy was cheating or not based on probabilities [u][i][b]AFTER[/b][/i][/u] something has happened. All I'm saying is [b]NOT YET [/b]because there isn't enough information. And as I've said before, this topic could go either way, whether its a low handicapper who feels the person with the higher handicap is cheating, or the higher handicap player who feels he deserves more strokes because he just got his butt kicked.

[vtnerf]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381249365' post='7970635']
I'm sure this sounds nice in your head, but you only need to play 13 holes to post an official score.

The aggregate data will weed out the concerns you raise.
[/quote]

But when you post only 13 holes, don't you post hole-by-hole for that specific course??? You can't just post 13 holes based on a total rating for the entire 18. Thus, the handicapped holes are taken into account.

And what aggregate data are you talking about?????? 18 holes of golf? You cannot extrapolate 13 holes to count 18. If so, Phil's front 9 28 would have accounted for a 56 earlier this year.

[Shiram]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381253140' post='7970963']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381249365' post='7970635']
I'm sure this sounds nice in your head, but you only need to play 13 holes to post an official score.

The aggregate data will weed out the concerns you raise.
[/quote]

But when you post only 13 holes, don't you post hole-by-hole for that specific course??? You can't just post 13 holes based on a total rating for the entire 18. Thus, the handicapped holes are taken into account.

And what aggregate data are you talking about?????? 18 holes of golf? You cannot extrapolate 13 holes to count 18. If so, Phil's front 9 28 would have accounted for a 56 earlier this year.
[/quote]

http://www.usga.org/bookrule.aspx?id=14379

To post a 9-hole score, the player must play 7 to 12 holes, and at least 7 holes must be played in accordance with the principle of the Rules of Golf. To post an 18-hole score, the player must play at least 13 holes in accordance with the principles of the Rules of Golf. (See Decisions [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Decision-05/#5-1a/3"]5-1a/3 through 5-1a/5[/url].)

If 13 or more holes are played, the player must post an 18-hole score. If 7 to 12 holes are played, the player must post a nine-hole score. In either case, scores for unplayed holes must be recorded as [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] plus any handicap strokes that the player is entitled to receive on the unplayed holes. (See Section [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14377#4-2"]4-2[/url] and [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14379#5-1"]5-1a[/url] .)
[i]Example:[/i] A player with a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#CourseHandicap"]Course Handicap[/url][/i] of 30 stops playing after 16 holes because of darkness. Hole 17 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 3 and is the number 18 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 3 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 1 handicap stroke for an X-4 on hole 17. Hole 18 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 4 and is the number 12 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 4 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 2 handicap strokes for an X-6 on hole 18.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381249958' post='7970675']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381248704' post='7970589']
[And yet, in this situation that we are discussing, the horses are that he's a sandbagger and the zebras are that he's a guy who had a fluke good round. And yet you lot are all saying we have to assume it's zebras because we have no proof that it's horses.

Take your analogy above. We have no prior test here, just a woman who came in with a kid with a fever, asking if it's leukemia or something else. Not a case of someone coming in for a second opinion who already had the evidence. In this case, as you quite succinctly stated (hahahahahaha - I kill me sometimes), it's much more likely that it's a viral infection, so viral infection = common, leukemia = rare. Sandbagger = common, freak day = rare. And so, apparently your opinion is that we have to assume it's leukemia unless we have evidence that it's a viral infection. Start the chemo!!!

I think Eye2+'s point and I know mine is that it's more likely that someone who shot so far under their handicap had a questionable handicap than that they had that freak day that almost no one will have.
[/quote]
The problem I have is that I think it somewhat presumptuous to immediately think of the guy as a horse rather than a zebra, unless he has raised suspicion in the past that he may not be a zebra after all.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Because zebras are not so rare that you can just ASSUME that you are dealing with horses when you hear hoofbeats.

[b][i]Unicorns??[/i][/b] Different story.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381250827' post='7970751']
[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381247233' post='7970469']
[b]"That's fine, it just means you're gullible."[/b]

Since you love odds so much, let me give you one. The odds of acing a 200-yard hole is 150,000 to 1. So if someone in this forum said they just had their first ace, which happens to be a 200-yard hole, are you going to doubt them because you don't want to put faith on 0.0000000667%? Or are you going to congratulate them.

All we know here is that there is a 12 guy (who was once a 9), went on a hot streak of 1 birdie, 10 pars, 2 bogeys. We don't know why he went from a 9 to 12, we don't know how he got those pars, we dont know how he played in the previous rounds. All we have is a 13-hole sample. If OP told us that he played that way the 5 previous rounds against other 5-7 handicappers to make it to the final round, then yes I would be skeptical. But I am not wiling to label anyone a cheater just because the odds make it look unlikely. I never tried to argue the accuracy of odds. They are what they are. But no one here is trying to predict anything. And just because odds have no significance to me, does that make me gullible?
[/quote]

Maybe it is a personal bias but I'm less inclined to question someone when I know they can't sandbag a hole in one. Generally there isn't any gain by someone scoring an ace.

However with a tournament there is an incentive to sandbag. Also, with a handicap you can intentionally impact what your odds are for the accomplishment.

A much different scenario.
[/quote]

It's a personal bias.

...and a bit of intellectual sloppiness.

[vtnerf]

[quote name='Shiram' timestamp='1381253589' post='7971011']
If 13 or more holes are played, the player must post an 18-hole score. If 7 to 12 holes are played, the player must post a nine-hole score. In either case, scores for unplayed holes must be recorded as [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] plus any handicap strokes that the player is entitled to receive on the unplayed holes. (See Section [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14377#4-2"]4-2[/url] and [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14379#5-1"]5-1a[/url] .)
[i]Example:[/i] A player with a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#CourseHandicap"]Course Handicap[/url][/i] of 30 stops playing after 16 holes because of darkness. Hole 17 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 3 and is the number 18 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 3 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 1 handicap stroke for an X-4 on hole 17. Hole 18 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 4 and is the number 12 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 4 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 2 handicap strokes for an X-6 on hole 18.
[/quote]

Thank you for posting that. Given we do not know the handicap of the remaining holes, it cannot be determined what score he would need to post, if doing so.

Not to mention the fact that it was match play, and there is a very high likelihood that he did not putt everything out and simply recorded scores for conceded shots when it was evident he would win the hole. The first 13 at +1 may not be an accurate representation of the real strokes on those holes.

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381252301' post='7970857']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1381251789' post='7970823']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381193113' post='7967769']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381192279' post='7967689']
I kindly asked you to stop replying if you were just going to troll and not stay in topic.
[/quote]
Let me put it another way. Three years ago, I was a twelve handicap. Par on our course is 35 - 36 - 71. I shot 33 - 39 - 72. It was one of those days. Perhaps you can explain that, because I can't. The first time I broke 90, I shot 81. The first time I broke 80, I shot 72. I can't explain that, either. Perhaps you can? But I can assure you, that is all true. I didn't make it up. But it sure does mess with the odds you suggest are unassailable, doesn't it?
These things happen to people everywhere, very often. I've seen it, I've done it and others have either seen it or done it, Odds be dam*ed.
BTW, is anyone who criticizes you or disagrees with you a troll? If so, believe me when I tell you this. There are a lot of us, then.
[/quote]

I agree, they happen to people. Where I disagree is, they are not likely to happen under pressure during USGA club tournaments, including match play, which I played for 8yrs+.
[/quote]

I think there are actually a [u]lot [/u]of people who play better in tournament situations. Not everyone wilts when the pressure or nervousness is upped because it it is a competetion round.
[/quote]

That is true, however, you use the word 'lot'. Lot in relationship to what? I captained a match team of 15 at pvt club, for a number of years, playing multiple clubs over each season and I played team golf for far longer. Sure there are a lot of people that don't wilt under pressure; our club was filled with leaders. That doesn't mean they will dramatically improve their scores under game pressure. Playing to one's handicap, in itself, under game pressure is an accomplishment, even for better amateurs. This discussion seems to evolve around a 12 and 17, but I will add 'honest' handicaps to the discussion. Sure, a few guys over the season would have rounds that were better than their course handicaps, but not lights out as its suggested here. Experience over the years has showed me few had 'great' rds during competition with a few improved strokes. No where near what's suggested in this thread.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='vtnerf' timestamp='1381253902' post='7971031']
[quote name='Shiram' timestamp='1381253589' post='7971011']
If 13 or more holes are played, the player must post an 18-hole score. If 7 to 12 holes are played, the player must post a nine-hole score. In either case, scores for unplayed holes must be recorded as [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] plus any handicap strokes that the player is entitled to receive on the unplayed holes. (See Section [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14377#4-2"]4-2[/url] and [url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14379#5-1"]5-1a[/url] .)
[i]Example:[/i] A player with a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#CourseHandicap"]Course Handicap[/url][/i] of 30 stops playing after 16 holes because of darkness. Hole 17 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 3 and is the number 18 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 3 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 1 handicap stroke for an X-4 on hole 17. Hole 18 is a [i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i] 4 and is the number 12 [i]handicap-stroke hole[/i]. The player will record 4 ([i][url="http://www.usga.org/workarea/linkit.aspx?linkidentifier=id&itemid=14370#par"]par[/url][/i]) plus 2 handicap strokes for an X-6 on hole 18.
[/quote]

Thank you for posting that. Given we do not know the handicap of the remaining holes, it cannot be determined what score he would need to post, if doing so.

Not to mention the fact that it was match play, and there is a very high likelihood that he did not putt everything out and simply recorded scores for conceded shots when it was evident he would win the hole. The first 13 at +1 may not be an accurate representation of the real strokes on those holes.
[/quote]

one other pesky fact: the actual match took place in IRELAND.

thrillhouse nailed this on page 1.

[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1381109324' post='7962831']
Since Barry is in Ireland where it is waaaaaay harder to get a sandbagger cap than it is over here I'd say the guy simply played over his head today.
[/quote]

[deadsolid...shank]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1381254743' post='7971085']
[quote name='deadsolid...shank' timestamp='1381252301' post='7970857']
[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1381251789' post='7970823']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381193113' post='7967769']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381192279' post='7967689']
I kindly asked you to stop replying if you were just going to troll and not stay in topic.
[/quote]
Let me put it another way. Three years ago, I was a twelve handicap. Par on our course is 35 - 36 - 71. I shot 33 - 39 - 72. It was one of those days. Perhaps you can explain that, because I can't. The first time I broke 90, I shot 81. The first time I broke 80, I shot 72. I can't explain that, either. Perhaps you can? But I can assure you, that is all true. I didn't make it up. But it sure does mess with the odds you suggest are unassailable, doesn't it?
These things happen to people everywhere, very often. I've seen it, I've done it and others have either seen it or done it, Odds be dam*ed.
BTW, is anyone who criticizes you or disagrees with you a troll? If so, believe me when I tell you this. There are a lot of us, then.
[/quote]

I agree, they happen to people. Where I disagree is, they are not likely to happen under pressure during USGA club tournaments, including match play, which I played for 8yrs+.
[/quote]

I think there are actually a [u]lot [/u]of people who play better in tournament situations. Not everyone wilts when the pressure or nervousness is upped because it it is a competetion round.
[/quote]

That is true, however, you use the word 'lot'. Lot in relationship to what? I captained a match team of 15 at pvt club, for a number of years, playing multiple clubs over each season and I played team golf for far longer. Sure there are a lot of people that don't wilt under pressure; our club was filled with leaders. That doesn't mean they will dramatically improve their scores under game pressure. Playing to one's handicap, in itself, under game pressure is an accomplishment, even for better amateurs. This discussion seems to evolve around a 12 and 17, but I will add 'honest' handicaps to the discussion. Sure, a few guys over the season would have rounds that were better than their course handicaps, but not lights out as its suggested here. Experience over the years has showed me few had 'great' rds during competition with a few improved strokes. No where near what's suggested in this thread.
[/quote]
Fair point PT. There is big difference between just playing to your handicap and blowing it out of the water in a tournement round (which this was.....through 13 holes). He may have been good under tournament pressure and then wilted under the self imposed pressure of a really good personal round and ended up back around his handcap. That really brings us back around to the fact that without the last holes being completed, it's impossible to really know.

But I do still hold to the truth that there really are a lot of players who do perform better under tournament conditions. I think probably you will see many of them on this board, especially the ones who have competed at higher levels in other sports. I think that ability to perform under pressure translates across the spectrum of different events.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381252651' post='7970907']
No, still missing the mark.

I'm saying that all you can say with the OP situation is that you EITHER have a cheater OR you have a golfer who had one of those "magical" rounds where everything went his way for 13 holes....and in the absence of additional information you have no basis to definitively say that its one or the other. Because---as I keep trying to get you to see---rare events DO happen, and they happen frequently if you pool of people you are looking is large enough.

The first scenario in my analogy is akin to betting---at the start of the day----whether your opponent will shoot ten strokes below his handicap. Looking at the odds, the smart money bets that he won't. Chances are you won't lose the bet...but you might. In this capacity you are using the odds to PREDICT what the outcome of an event will be. Odds are, the kid won't turn out to have leukemia.

The second scenario, one is using the odds in a FORENSIC capacity. IOW, you have an event that has ALREADY occurred (in this case the diagnosis of leukemia...or the guy shoots a round that is 10 strokes below his stated handicap), and you are trying to determine WHY it occurred. The odds of someone having leukemia (3 per 100,000) or shooting that kinds of super-low round (about 1:80 000) ISN'T low enough to reliably state that you have an incorrect diagnosis, or that you have a definite sandbagger.

Because---if you don't look for additional information---you WILL (eventually) miss a child who was correctly diagnosed...and you will besmirch the character of an honest golfer.[b][i] Just because viral infections are common, isn't proof (by itself) that THIS child doesn't have leukemia....and the fact that sandbaggers are common isn't proof (by itself) that THIS person is a cheater. [/i][/b]

...and your mistake is in presuming that it is.
[/quote]

I know rare events happen. I brought that up myself in this thread. I have never denied it.

However, in your example, the score of -10 is actually much more like the fever, not the diagnosis from an earlier doctor. I view your analogy like this:

Kid with fever = score of -10 to handicap (these are both the "results" that we have seen in each instance and the only thing that we know for sure)
leukemia = possible cause of the fever = guy had a freak round of -10 and his handicap is legitimate (both are unlikely, but possible)
viral infection = possible cause of the fever = guy is a sandbagger (both are both likely (relatively) and possible)
positive test for leukemia from previous doctor = someone saying that they've played a lot with this guy and he's a legit 12 handicap (this is the other information being injected into the situation. In your analogy, part 2, there is additional information. In the golf situation we are discussing there is no additional information)

So, as you say we have a situation that is either we have a cheater or we have a magical round. In your analogy, we have a situation that is either a viral infection or leukemia.

In both cases it is impossible to say whether it is one or the other. This I think we both agree on (at least I do and you said it, but I will wait and see if you still do now that I've said it).

However, it is possible to say (as you said when you first brought up your analogy) that, absent the additional piece of information, it is much more likely to be a viral infection than leukemia. In fact, you were so kind as to put what you said in bold and italics so it would stand out. Here it is "[b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not.[/i][/b]" and in this case, the odds are that he didn't have a magical day. That is for the simple reason that there are more sandbaggers shooting -10 than there are honest people shooting -10.

Like this: some mother comes in to the clinic and says that her kid has a fever and she's worried it's leukemia. What are you more likely to think? a: Well, it's unlikely to be leukemia, much more likely to be a viral infection or b: he must have leukemia because I have no evidence that it's a viral infection

Compared with: some guy you've never met says that he got duffed up in a match by a guy who shot ten shots better than his handicap of 12. What are you more likely to think? Either a: well that sounds quite unlikely, he's probably sandbagging or b: he must have had a magical day since I have no proof that he's a sandbagger.

[hogans71]

[quote name='somaplr' timestamp='1381157641' post='7964673']
Your club championship is handicapped? That's bushleague.
[/quote]

I've actually never heard of club championship being handicapped. Ever.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381256035' post='7971151']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381252651' post='7970907']
No, still missing the mark.

I'm saying that all you can say with the OP situation is that you EITHER have a cheater OR you have a golfer who had one of those "magical" rounds where everything went his way for 13 holes....and in the absence of additional information you have no basis to definitively say that its one or the other. Because---as I keep trying to get you to see---rare events DO happen, and they happen frequently if you pool of people you are looking is large enough.

The first scenario in my analogy is akin to betting---at the start of the day----whether your opponent will shoot ten strokes below his handicap. Looking at the odds, the smart money bets that he won't. Chances are you won't lose the bet...but you might. In this capacity you are using the odds to PREDICT what the outcome of an event will be. Odds are, the kid won't turn out to have leukemia.

The second scenario, one is using the odds in a FORENSIC capacity. IOW, you have an event that has ALREADY occurred (in this case the diagnosis of leukemia...or the guy shoots a round that is 10 strokes below his stated handicap), and you are trying to determine WHY it occurred. The odds of someone having leukemia (3 per 100,000) or shooting that kinds of super-low round (about 1:80 000) ISN'T low enough to reliably state that you have an incorrect diagnosis, or that you have a definite sandbagger.

Because---if you don't look for additional information---you WILL (eventually) miss a child who was correctly diagnosed...and you will besmirch the character of an honest golfer.[b][i] Just because viral infections are common, isn't proof (by itself) that THIS child doesn't have leukemia....and the fact that sandbaggers are common isn't proof (by itself) that THIS person is a cheater. [/i][/b]

...and your mistake is in presuming that it is.
[/quote]

I know rare events happen. I brought that up myself in this thread. I have never denied it.

However, in your example, the score of -10 is actually much more like the fever, not the diagnosis from an earlier doctor. I view your analogy like this:

Kid with fever = score of -10 to handicap (these are both the "results" that we have seen in each instance and the only thing that we know for sure)
leukemia = possible cause of the fever = guy had a freak round of -10 and his handicap is legitimate (both are unlikely, but possible)
viral infection = possible cause of the fever = guy is a sandbagger (both are both likely (relatively) and possible)
positive test for leukemia from previous doctor = someone saying that they've played a lot with this guy and he's a legit 12 handicap (this is the other information being injected into the situation. In your analogy, part 2, there is additional information. In the golf situation we are discussing there is no additional information)

So, as you say we have a situation that is either we have a cheater or we have a magical round. In your analogy, we have a situation that is either a viral infection or leukemia.

In both cases it is impossible to say whether it is one or the other. This I think we both agree on (at least I do and you said it, but I will wait and see if you still do now that I've said it).

However, it is possible to say (as you said when you first brought up your analogy) that, absent the additional piece of information, it is much more likely to be a viral infection than leukemia. In fact, you were so kind as to put what you said in bold and italics so it would stand out. Here it is "[b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not.[/i][/b]" and in this case, the odds are that he didn't have a magical day. That is for the simple reason that there are more sandbaggers shooting -10 than there are honest people shooting -10.

Like this: some mother comes in to the clinic and says that her kid has a fever and she's worried it's leukemia. What are you more likely to think? a: Well, it's unlikely to be leukemia, much more likely to be a viral infection or b: he must have leukemia because I have no evidence that it's a viral infection

Compared with: some guy you've never met says that he got duffed up in a match by a guy who shot ten shots better than his handicap of 12. What are you more likely to think? Either a: well that sounds quite unlikely, he's probably sandbagging or b: he must have had a magical day since I have no proof that he's a sandbagger.
[/quote]

Again...No it isn't.

You are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole...and its not going to go.

Population statistics describe POPULATIONS...they do NOT describe individual occurrences. If you attempt to do so with out further information all you are doing is engaging in the same sort of flawed reasoning that lay at the root of all kinds of prejudices and stereotypes.

The event happens with sufficient rarity, that it IS worth looking into the guy's scores. What has he posted for his handicap...and what kind of scores has he shot before in competition.

But it is not rare enough for you to---with ANY intellectual rigor or honesty---to say whether he did or did not cheat WITHOUT looking into the matter farther.

Just like you cannot dismiss every kid who shows up in the pediatricians office (with the symptoms I mentioned earlier) as having the flu. You will eventually miss a case of leukemia...or in this case you will eventually unfairly attack the character of an honest player.

[b][i]Even if it is true that MOST people who shoot that far below their handicap turn out to be cheaters, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS PERSON WAS, IN FACT, CHEATING. [/i][/b]

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381257996' post='7971363']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381256035' post='7971151']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381252651' post='7970907']
No, still missing the mark.

I'm saying that all you can say with the OP situation is that you EITHER have a cheater OR you have a golfer who had one of those "magical" rounds where everything went his way for 13 holes....and in the absence of additional information you have no basis to definitively say that its one or the other. Because---as I keep trying to get you to see---rare events DO happen, and they happen frequently if you pool of people you are looking is large enough.

The first scenario in my analogy is akin to betting---at the start of the day----whether your opponent will shoot ten strokes below his handicap. Looking at the odds, the smart money bets that he won't. Chances are you won't lose the bet...but you might. In this capacity you are using the odds to PREDICT what the outcome of an event will be. Odds are, the kid won't turn out to have leukemia.

The second scenario, one is using the odds in a FORENSIC capacity. IOW, you have an event that has ALREADY occurred (in this case the diagnosis of leukemia...or the guy shoots a round that is 10 strokes below his stated handicap), and you are trying to determine WHY it occurred. The odds of someone having leukemia (3 per 100,000) or shooting that kinds of super-low round (about 1:80 000) ISN'T low enough to reliably state that you have an incorrect diagnosis, or that you have a definite sandbagger.

Because---if you don't look for additional information---you WILL (eventually) miss a child who was correctly diagnosed...and you will besmirch the character of an honest golfer.[b][i] Just because viral infections are common, isn't proof (by itself) that THIS child doesn't have leukemia....and the fact that sandbaggers are common isn't proof (by itself) that THIS person is a cheater. [/i][/b]

...and your mistake is in presuming that it is.
[/quote]

I know rare events happen. I brought that up myself in this thread. I have never denied it.

However, in your example, the score of -10 is actually much more like the fever, not the diagnosis from an earlier doctor. I view your analogy like this:

Kid with fever = score of -10 to handicap (these are both the "results" that we have seen in each instance and the only thing that we know for sure)
leukemia = possible cause of the fever = guy had a freak round of -10 and his handicap is legitimate (both are unlikely, but possible)
viral infection = possible cause of the fever = guy is a sandbagger (both are both likely (relatively) and possible)
positive test for leukemia from previous doctor = someone saying that they've played a lot with this guy and he's a legit 12 handicap (this is the other information being injected into the situation. In your analogy, part 2, there is additional information. In the golf situation we are discussing there is no additional information)

So, as you say we have a situation that is either we have a cheater or we have a magical round. In your analogy, we have a situation that is either a viral infection or leukemia.

In both cases it is impossible to say whether it is one or the other. This I think we both agree on (at least I do and you said it, but I will wait and see if you still do now that I've said it).

However, it is possible to say (as you said when you first brought up your analogy) that, absent the additional piece of information, it is much more likely to be a viral infection than leukemia. In fact, you were so kind as to put what you said in bold and italics so it would stand out. Here it is "[b][i]The answer (predictive) is that odds are that she does not.[/i][/b]" and in this case, the odds are that he didn't have a magical day. That is for the simple reason that there are more sandbaggers shooting -10 than there are honest people shooting -10.

Like this: some mother comes in to the clinic and says that her kid has a fever and she's worried it's leukemia. What are you more likely to think? a: Well, it's unlikely to be leukemia, much more likely to be a viral infection or b: he must have leukemia because I have no evidence that it's a viral infection

Compared with: some guy you've never met says that he got duffed up in a match by a guy who shot ten shots better than his handicap of 12. What are you more likely to think? Either a: well that sounds quite unlikely, he's probably sandbagging or b: he must have had a magical day since I have no proof that he's a sandbagger.
[/quote]

Again...No it isn't.

You are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole...and its not going to go.

Population statistics describe POPULATIONS...they do NOT describe individual occurrences. If you attempt to do so with out further information all you are doing is engaging in the same sort of flawed reasoning that lay at the root of all kinds of prejudices and stereotypes.

The event happens with sufficient rarity, that it IS worth looking into the guy's scores. What has he posted for his handicap...and what kind of scores has he shot before in competition.

But it is not rare enough for you to---with ANY intellectual rigor or honesty---to say whether he did or did not cheat WITHOUT looking into the matter farther.

Just like you cannot dismiss every kid who shows up in the pediatricians office (with the symptoms I mentioned earlier) as having the flu. You will eventually miss a case of leukemia...or in this case you will eventually unfairly attack the character of an honest player.

[b][i]Even if it is true that MOST people who shoot that far below their handicap turn out to be cheaters, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS PERSON WAS, IN FACT, CHEATING. [/i][/b]
[/quote]

If that's what you think, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out where I said that he was, in fact, cheating. I will wait with bated breath

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1381256301' post='7971189']
[quote name='somaplr' timestamp='1381157641' post='7964673']
Your club championship is handicapped? That's bushleague.
[/quote]

I've actually never heard of club championship being handicapped. Ever.
[/quote]

At most of the private clubs I've visited in a few states, Club Championships are flighted, like other club events. Except, "The Club Champion" is determined from a group of golfers playing in the Championship flight, to scratch. I've played in these events as a 1-3 too. I like them better because of the pressure to step up my game. Good or bad now, I am a bit too old for Club Champion flight, as its typically determined from 7k+, presuming the course is that long.

[Shiram]

Why did this thread get so nasty?

Was it possible he was sandbagging? Yes. Was it possible he wasn't? Yes.

Seems like evidence has been presented for both sides.

I don't see why it has to continue.

[eagle1997]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381259252' post='7971471']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381257996' post='7971363']
[b][i]Even if it is true that MOST people who shoot that far below their handicap turn out to be cheaters, DOESN'T MEAN THAT THIS PERSON WAS, IN FACT, CHEATING. [/i][/b]
[/quote]

If that's what you think, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out where I said that he was, in fact, cheating. I will wait with bated breath
[/quote]

kelly only sees fault in the arguments of others, not his own. it would be like attempting to [b]EXPLAIN[/b] to him the [b]PROFOUND HUMOR[/b] we all get from his use of [b]ALL CAPS BOLD[/b] and [i]ITALICS[/i]... and especially [i][b]BOLD ITALICS[/b][/i].

don't hold your breath ty.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381259252' post='7971471']
If that's what you think, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out where I said that he was, in fact, cheating. I will wait with bated breath
[/quote]

[i]"Like this: some mother comes in to the clinic and says that her kid has a fever and she's worried it's leukemia. What are you more likely to think? a: Well, it's unlikely to be leukemia, much more likely to be a viral infection or b: he must have leukemia because I have no evidence that it's a viral infection[/i]. [i]Compared with: some guy you've never met says that he got duffed up in a match by a guy who shot ten shots better than his handicap of 12. What are you more likely to think? Either a: well that sounds quite unlikely, he's probably sandbagging or b: he must have had a magical day since I have no proof that he's a sandbagger."[/i]

For the record I'm going to think that I don't have enough information to decide either way based on ONE isolated event. Because---as I said---rare events do happen...and sometimes they happen when we happened to be there.

The odds don't work in reverse here. Yes...if you gave me 50 000 kids....the ovewhelming majority of them will have some sort of virus. But that doesn't mean that the kid sitting in your office isn't the one who has leukemia...and the doc who dismisses it without at least considering it, is the doc who eventually gets sued---and puts a child's life at-unnecessary-risk--- because he missed the diagnosis.

What you did in that post is sometimes referred to as "[i]Throwing the information out there and letting your audience connect the dots." [/i] It is a way of indirectly levelling an accusation at someone by LEADING your audience to draw a particular conclusion, without EXPLICITLY stating it for them.

So---no---, you did not explicity accuse the guy the OP was referring to of cheating, but you also meant ---in that passage I quoted---for that conclusion to be drawn.

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Shiram' timestamp='1381259431' post='7971485']
Why did this thread get so nasty?

Was it possible he was sandbagging? Yes. Was it possible he wasn't? Yes.

Seems like evidence has been presented for both sides.

I don't see why it has to continue.
[/quote]

Because some people don't want to accept the [i]possibility[/i] that it was a legitimate round.

As I tell the people I train, "Low probability is not the same as no probability." Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean that it can't happen to you. Or happen in front of you."

...and it is a mental trap to presume that it can't, just because it has a low probability of occurring.

[mshills]

Clearly a few people in this thread spoiling for a fight for no good reason. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably -- except in this thread.

[size=6][b]I[/b][/size]n [size=6][b]B[/b][/size]efore [size=6][b]T[/b][/size]he [size=6][b]L[/b][/size]OCK!

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381266307' post='7971997']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381259252' post='7971471']
If that's what you think, then you should have no trouble at all pointing out where I said that he was, in fact, cheating. I will wait with bated breath
[/quote]

[i]"Like this: some mother comes in to the clinic and says that her kid has a fever and she's worried it's leukemia. What are you more likely to think? a: Well, it's unlikely to be leukemia, much more likely to be a viral infection or b: he must have leukemia because I have no evidence that it's a viral infection[/i]. [i]Compared with: some guy you've never met says that he got duffed up in a match by a guy who shot ten shots better than his handicap of 12. What are you more likely to think? Either a: well that sounds quite unlikely, he's probably sandbagging or b: he must have had a magical day since I have no proof that he's a sandbagger."[/i]

For the record I'm going to think that I don't have enough information to decide either way based on ONE isolated event. Because---as I said---rare events do happen...and sometimes they happen when we happened to be there.

The odds don't work in reverse here. Yes...if you gave me 50 000 kids....the ovewhelming majority of them will have some sort of virus. But that doesn't mean that the kid sitting in your office isn't the one who has leukemia...and the doc who dismisses it without at least considering it, is the doc who eventually gets sued---and puts a child's life at-unnecessary-risk--- because he missed the diagnosis.

What you did in that post is sometimes referred to as "[i]Throwing the information out there and letting your audience connect the dots." [/i] It is a way of indirectly levelling an accusation at someone by LEADING your audience to draw a particular conclusion, without EXPLICITLY stating it for them.

So---no---, you did not explicity accuse the guy the OP was referring to of cheating, but you also meant ---in that passage I quoted---for that conclusion to be drawn.
[/quote]

Turns out you know me better than I do.

[Hstead]

People need to drop this "10 shots better" stuff a the guy had holes to play, five in fact. So no, he wasn't 10 better just as I was not 21 better when I started off birdie birdie on the first two holes. Not the same. Guy played 13 holes. Period. Don't bend the facts to help fit your argument.

[rafal]

Admiral Akbar upon learning his club championship was a net event:

 

[Sean2]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381233053' post='7969425']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1381196177' post='7968027']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381195852' post='7968007']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1381189299' post='7967403']
I now feel bad for the guy who was suspended from our club a couple of years ago. He was a mid-handicapper who always shot well below his HI in tournaments. I now know he was just having a good day during tournaments.
[/quote]

Rare events happen. They don't keep happening to the same person.

As the old saying goes, "[i]Once is happenstance. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern. Four times is a character flaw."[/i]
[/quote]

Thing is Kelly, at our course during a tournament our fast greens become VERY fast, difficult pins become VERY difficult (not to mention the pressure of tournament golf). NO one, not ever our best golfers, crack their handicap. When I read that someone in a tournament, under tough course conditions and tournament pressure, beats their HI by ten strokes, I become a bit dubious.
[/quote]

Understand.

Like I said, rare events are rare...and sometimes you're the unlucky guy standing next to the tree when lightning strikes.

But it doesn't strike twice in the same spot. If he does it once, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he just had one of those magical days. If it happens [i]again[/i], then you have a sandbagger.

Yes, I shot a 75 as 13 index. But it was many years----and I was a much better player---before I shot that score [b][i]again[/i][/b].
[/quote]

And I have posted low scores as well (bunch of sub-80 rounds), but not during a tournament.

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381266586' post='7972021']


Because some people don't want to accept the [i]possibility[/i] that it was a legitimate round.

As I tell the people I train, "Low probability is not the same as no probability." Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean that it can't happen to you. Or happen in front of you."

...and it is a mental trap to presume that it can't, just because it has a low probability of occurring.
[/quote]

Can you show us a single post where someone said the score was impossible?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381277818' post='7972877']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381266586' post='7972021']
Because some people don't want to accept the [i]possibility[/i] that it was a legitimate round.

As I tell the people I train, "Low probability is not the same as no probability." Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean that it can't happen to you. Or happen in front of you."

...and it is a mental trap to presume that it can't, just because it has a low probability of occurring.
[/quote]

Can you show us a single post where someone said the score was impossible?
[/quote]
You, on many occasions, intimated that 84000:1 is pretty much impossible. Anyone who has argued with you that it is possible has been treated rudely, with arrogance and belittlement thrown in for bad measure by you in your effort to cement your position. So, while you have been very careful not to use the word impossible, everyone who has read this thread knows exactly where you stand, not just on the subject of the OP's opponent, but with the many folks who have claimed to have been able to somehow beat the odds, including myself.
For everyone's reference: Posts 21, 33, 34, 43, 84, 110, 124, 129 and others, strongly allude to your mathematical odds being pretty much impossible to beat, leading to only one conclusion, according to you....even though you don't actually come right out with it.
There, that's oua the way. Now I can move on to something important.

[Ballgofarboy]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381115037' post='7963253']
I think it is possible. I played yesterday with a guy that was a 12 and he said his best round every on our course was 71, Par is 70. He had a chance on the last hole, middle of the fairway, 100 yards away, and plugged it in a bunker. Made bogey. He said he was bummed. I could see him doing it and I could also see him being a 12. Granted, shouldn't be happening often, but a 12 could be a couple over for 18 holes I think, and if he was once a 9, he for sure could be a couple over for 18. Just because he was 1 over for 13 doesn't mean he didn't have a couple of doubles ahead of him once the choke factor starts coming into play around hole 16 when he realizes he has a chance to shoot his best round etc etc.
[/quote]

What are the odds that a 12 HCP is going to shoot even or under par, ever in their lifetime? Vegas bookies would take large bets on that one. Add to do it in a tournament. Sorry you were suckered and bamboozled.

I would be a bit miffed at first, then I would probably make it my mission to start tracking this guys rounds as there has to be some hanky panky going on when posting his scores. Sorry I do not enter tournaments to be suckered by some jack a$$ that wants to win at any cost right up to and including cheating on their HCP. Morally not sure how the cat can sleep at night!

[arnold palmtree]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381280000' post='7973083']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381277818' post='7972877']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381266586' post='7972021']
Because some people don't want to accept the [i]possibility[/i] that it was a legitimate round.

As I tell the people I train, "Low probability is not the same as no probability." Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean that it can't happen to you. Or happen in front of you."

...and it is a mental trap to presume that it can't, just because it has a low probability of occurring.
[/quote]

Can you show us a single post where someone said the score was impossible?
[/quote]
You, on many occasions, intimated that 84000:1 is pretty much impossible. Anyone who has argued with you that it is possible has been treated rudely, with arrogance and belittlement thrown in for bad measure by you in your effort to cement your position. So, while you have been very careful not to use the word impossible, everyone who has read this thread knows exactly where you stand, not just on the subject of the OP's opponent, but with the many folks who have claimed to have been able to somehow beat the odds, including myself.
For everyone's reference: Posts 21, 33, 34, 43, 84, 110, 124, 129 and others, strongly allude to your mathematical odds being pretty much impossible to beat, leading to only one conclusion, according to you....even though you don't actually come right out with it.
There, that's oua the way. Now I can move on to something important.
[/quote]

This thread has been quite entertaining. You believe 84,300:1 odds mean something is impossible, but believe a large majority of people can do it.

How does that make sense to you?

[Hstead]

[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381283251' post='7973397']
[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381280000' post='7973083']
[quote name='Eye2+' timestamp='1381277818' post='7972877']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381266586' post='7972021']
Because some people don't want to accept the [i]possibility[/i] that it was a legitimate round.

As I tell the people I train, "Low probability is not the same as no probability." Just because something happens rarely doesn't mean that it can't happen to you. Or happen in front of you."

...and it is a mental trap to presume that it can't, just because it has a low probability of occurring.
[/quote]

Can you show us a single post where someone said the score was impossible?
[/quote]
You, on many occasions, intimated that 84000:1 is pretty much impossible. Anyone who has argued with you that it is possible has been treated rudely, with arrogance and belittlement thrown in for bad measure by you in your effort to cement your position. So, while you have been very careful not to use the word impossible, everyone who has read this thread knows exactly where you stand, not just on the subject of the OP's opponent, but with the many folks who have claimed to have been able to somehow beat the odds, including myself.
For everyone's reference: Posts 21, 33, 34, 43, 84, 110, 124, 129 and others, strongly allude to your mathematical odds being pretty much impossible to beat, leading to only one conclusion, according to you....even though you don't actually come right out with it.
There, that's oua the way. Now I can move on to something important.
[/quote]

This thread has been quite entertaining. You believe 84,300:1 odds mean something is impossible, but believe a large majority of people can do it.

How does that make sense to you?
[/quote]

The odds of hitting a hole in one are a lot higher, and guess what, there have been millions of them. Check the other thread out. There are dozens and dozens, the latest is a woman that is a 12 with a career low of 9 below her HC. Again, the guy played 13 holes not 18. But let's ignore that so the 84,000:1 sounds better. Not to mention, he admitted he had been a 9 previously. If you want to believe that a 9 handicap has an 84,000:1 chance of shooting +1 for 13 holes in match play couldn't have happened then fine. I guess you have never been under par for 9 holes in your life. That is sad because it is fun to ride a hot streak as long as you can until the real world wakes us up.

[rafal]

Is he a 9 or a 12? So for the purposes of this thread he's a 9 shooting +1 thru 13...OK....but for purposes of winning tournament he's a 12? And you argue he doesn't sandbag and all is fair?

Just look at the stuff you write just to defend the indefensible.