Match play final.. Was I hustled?

[HighSpeedScene]

If I could just summarize: theoretically possible, but HIGHLY improbable, for a legit 12 index to be one over after 13 holes.

Personally, considering how the handicap system works, I am fairly surprised at the number of people that have had rounds that were just out and out anomalies considering their index at the time. For context, I hover between 0 and 1 for the last couple of years, and I break par once a season, and that's almost always one under and on a course with a rating below the scorecard par...plenty of 80 in the old playing record as well, though. And I would say that's the far more common scoring distribution for the vast, vast majority of players: one or two scores at or just below their index, a bunch a handful to 10 strokes over their index, and then those scores that never figure in the index calculation because they are outside the best ten of the last twenty. I could post 10 straight 90s and they wouldn't be included in my index for the next revision.

So, I would be very skeptical that the index is accurate if someone is lights out. The way the us system works, lights out is basically your index.

[TripleSingle]

[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]

No one is saying a majority of people did it. No one is saying that a majority of people will do it. I think what people are saying is that this 12 guy could have possibly done it, but we dont know because we don't have enough information. We know nothing about his past rounds, we know nothing about why he went from a 9 to 12.

Think of it as yesterday's weather forecast. Let's say it said 20% chance of rain. But turns out it hailed. Doesn't matter what the odds are, because it already happened. That occurrence happens to be the [b]one[/b] in xxxxx : [u][b]1[/b][/u]. They are called odds because you place your bets BEFORE the event. Once something has already happened, odds have no significance other than "oh wow that was pretty rare" because that event would be considered ABSOLUTE. Now if you asked me what are the chances that it will hail, ofcourse anyone would say slim. So I'm not saying your argument about odds are not accurate. I'm saying they don't matter once something has already happened. Odds are only valid for predicting the NEXT event.

Everyone who plays golf long enough probably understands that their scores will end up being a bell curve. Handicap system doesnt lie, only people do. So if that guy is a cheat, it will eventually be revealed. If I were to play a matchplay against a guy who used to be a 9, and he came out +1 the first 13, would it surprise me? No it wouldnt, because in the back of my mind I know he has the capability, but at the same time I know we still got 5 holes to go. Would I be amazed? yes, if he was +1 after 18. But I am not willing to take a stab at the legitimacy of anyone's handicap using a 13-hole sample.

[wobgon]

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381285991' post='7973645']
If I could just summarize: theoretically possible, but HIGHLY improbable, for a legit 12 index to be one over after 13 holes.

Personally, considering how the handicap system works, I am fairly surprised at the number of people that have had rounds that were just out and out anomalies considering their index at the time. For context, I hover between 0 and 1 for the last couple of years, and I break par once a season, and that's almost always one under and on a course with a rating below the scorecard par...plenty of 80 in the old playing record as well, though. And I would say that's the far more common scoring distribution for the vast, vast majority of players: one or two scores at or just below their index, a bunch a handful to 10 strokes over their index, and then those scores that never figure in the index calculation because they are outside the best ten of the last twenty. I could post 10 straight 90s and they wouldn't be included in my index for the next revision.

So, I would be very skeptical that the index is accurate if someone is lights out. The way the us system works, lights out is basically your index.
[/quote]
That sounds odd.....I am between a 0 and 1 and have broken par at least 10 times this year.....I play about 3 times a week....

[Hstead]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1381284910' post='7973565']
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.
[/quote]

I point out that he is a 9 because he obviously had the ability to play better than a 12, however, at that moment he was a 12. My handicap went up 4 strokes this summer at one point due to some swing changes, no practice, poor short game, etc. When I turned it around, I started playing back towards my more normal handicap. Happens all of the time. Guys at my course know my game. They have watched me struggle and lose money. Now that I have turned it around, they understand that I am going to beat my current handicap for a while and win some of my money back. There is nothing unusual about that at all. It does not make me a sandbagger but quite the opposite, I payed dearly as my handicap rose 4 shots. I reminded them then that I did not want to hear them cry when I turned it around and started winning it back. At one point I could have played in the first flight instead of championship flight, all very legit. I would have even not been competitive in the first flight for a while. But, when I got everything fixed, I could have most likely waxed the first flight guys and then they could have cried about my handicap. There is a reason that you track the handicap continuously. People's games go up and down. It is not unreasonable for the guy to have gone from a 9 to a 12, in our system anyway which is just as relevant since people are using USGA numbers.

So the 12 could be on his high side of his handicap is the point I am making since we know he was once a 9. It is relevant to understand he was a 9 for a reason. If he was "normally" a 15 handicap, then that would be quite different.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1381284910' post='7973565']
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.
[/quote]

We just don't have enough detailed information to determine that yet. There were still 5 holes to go. He could have gone all bogeys to finish +6, or he could have gone all pars to finish +1. We don't even know if the +1 through 13 involved a lot of luck or not. There could be so many reasons to why he's gone from a 9 to a 12. Could be swing changes like Hstead, or could be because of an injury he had.

Here is section 8 regarding handicapping adjustment:
[b]Section 8[/b]

[b]Handicap Adjustment for Injury or Disability[/b]

[b]Q.[/b] Can the Handicap Committee adjust a Handicap Index® for player injury or disability?

[b]A.[/b] Yes. Under Section 8-4b(iii) of the [url="http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/"][b][i]USGA Handicap System[/i][/b][/url] manual, a Handicap Committee can grant an increase in handicap for temporary and permanent disabilities (as determined by the Handicap Committee). The increased handicap must be identified by the letter “L” to indicate that it is for local club use only.
For example, a player having recent wrist surgery may be given a higher handicap while recovering. Whether it is a temporary or permanent adjustment, and the amount of adjustment, is to be determined at the club level by the player’s Handicap Committee.
[u]Temporary Treatment:[/u] Assign a local Handicap Index reflecting current ability—until posting five scores to the player’s Handicap Index—and then go back to observing player’s Handicap Index as calculated.
[u]Permanent Treatment:[/u] Disregard the players’ previous scoring records and assign a temporary local Handicap Index for use until posting five scores to establish a new Handicap Index.

[HighSpeedScene]

[quote name='wobgon' timestamp='1381287014' post='7973733']
[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381285991' post='7973645']
If I could just summarize: theoretically possible, but HIGHLY improbable, for a legit 12 index to be one over after 13 holes.

Personally, considering how the handicap system works, I am fairly surprised at the number of people that have had rounds that were just out and out anomalies considering their index at the time. For context, I hover between 0 and 1 for the last couple of years, and I break par once a season, and that's almost always one under and on a course with a rating below the scorecard par...plenty of 80 in the old playing record as well, though. And I would say that's the far more common scoring distribution for the vast, vast majority of players: one or two scores at or just below their index, a bunch a handful to 10 strokes over their index, and then those scores that never figure in the index calculation because they are outside the best ten of the last twenty. I could post 10 straight 90s and they wouldn't be included in my index for the next revision.

So, I would be very skeptical that the index is accurate if someone is lights out. The way the us system works, lights out is basically your index.
[/quote]
That sounds odd.....I am between a 0 and 1 and have broken par at least 10 times this year.....I play about 3 times a week....
[/quote]

Really? Really low course ratings maybe? Most of the courses I play, tees I play, shooting 20 rounds of 80 would be around a 3 index with the course ratings around 74-75, so you break 80 half the time, bam, you're scratch or near scratch. Throw in a couple of rounds near par that qualify for index calculation, and you're scratch...

Edit: agree it sounds odd, but that's the math. Basically, if I shot 10 scores of 74 in my qualifying scores for my index, for the courses/tees I play. I would be a plus index.

Its a funky system - if I just moved up a set of tees, I doubt my scorea would change much, but due to the reliance on slope and course ratings, my index would go up. Does that more accurately reflect my potential, or does my current index more accurately reflect my potential?

[nbg352]

[quote name='Ballgofarboy' timestamp='1381282963' post='7973357']
[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!
[/quote]
As I said earlier, I did it...shot even par the first time I broke 80. I was a 12 at the time. I was embroiled in a pretty wicked nassau at the time, so yeah, there was pressure. And thank you very much, I sleep just fine at night. In fact, I smile whenever I think of that particular day.

[nbg352]

[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]
It makes sense to me because i have done it and as you've no doubt read, many others on here have also done it. or have witnessed it being done. And i have been involved in enough arguments and discussions with a good many of them on here to have learned to know when I can safely keep my feet on the ground and when I should maybe lift them to avoid possible effluent contamination. Right now, my feet are clean and dry, I feel no need to lift them. So, while I do not believe that a large majority of people can do it, ( that's your exaggeration....almost lifted my feet, there ), I do believe that enough people can and have done it with integrity intact so as to make those odds you quoted seem to be just a little bit "pie in the sky".

[isaacbm]

Were you hustled? Possibly. Is it possible to shoot way under a persons handicap? Of course! I'm currently a +1. I shot 66 on a course rated 74 this year.

How do people think that handicaps go down? People sometimes have jumps in improvement. Most mid handicaps don't better their score one single shot at a time. A lot of the time, someone just suddenly starts shooting 4 or 5 better for all kinds of possible reasons.

Now if a guy "posts" fun rounds that make him a 10 but somehow always shoots under his cap in tourneys, then he's a cheater and the committee should discipline him.

But the thought that anyone can't shoot 7-10 under their handicap every now and then is an inexperienced opinion....IMO.

[HighSpeedScene]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1381297487' post='7974299']
Were you hustled? Possibly. Is it possible to shoot way under a persons handicap? Of course! I'm currently a +1. I shot 66 on a course rated 74 this year.

How do people think that handicaps go down? People sometimes have jumps in improvement. Most mid handicaps don't better their score one single shot at a time. A lot of the time, someone just suddenly starts shooting 4 or 5 better for all kinds of possible reasons.

Now if a guy "posts" fun rounds that make him a 10 but somehow always shoots under his cap in tourneys, then he's a cheater and the committee should discipline him.

But the thought that anyone can't shoot 7-10 under their handicap every now and then is an inexperienced opinion....IMO.
[/quote]

Agree - happens more often when indexes trending down - in this example, guy was trending up - used to be 9, now 12.

In any event, you would agree that it is pretty rare for you to have a differential of minus 8, yes? Pretty anomalous and might raise some eyebrows for those that don't know you and/or not familiar with your game?

[Hstead]

We don't know the guy was trending up. He may be trending down since he was a 9 not that long ago. Like I said, I went up 4 strokes this summer, and now I am trending down. My career best would have been 16 better than that handicap, 63 vs a 7 handicap. I am still trending down now and can better my handicap by 8 easily if I play well, not even my best. I just shot 4 better on Sunday and made a senseless double on 17, and still I didn't win our bucket ball because a guy shot 5 better than his and I tied for second, another guy shot 4 better than his, he shot 2 under par and is a 2 handicap.

Like isaac said, if you don't think a guy can shoot 7-10 better than his handicap, especially when he is trending down, then you haven't been very far around the block. Go to any decent sized net tournament and shooting your handicap is going to get you below middle of the pack, and guess what, all the guys that beat you are not sandbagging. That is how it works.

[isaacbm]

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381298497' post='7974323']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1381297487' post='7974299']
Were you hustled? Possibly. Is it possible to shoot way under a persons handicap? Of course! I'm currently a +1. I shot 66 on a course rated 74 this year.

How do people think that handicaps go down? People sometimes have jumps in improvement. Most mid handicaps don't better their score one single shot at a time. A lot of the time, someone just suddenly starts shooting 4 or 5 better for all kinds of possible reasons.

Now if a guy "posts" fun rounds that make him a 10 but somehow always shoots under his cap in tourneys, then he's a cheater and the committee should discipline him.

But the thought that anyone can't shoot 7-10 under their handicap every now and then is an inexperienced opinion....IMO.
[/quote]

Agree - happens more often when indexes trending down - in this example, guy was trending up - used to be 9, now 12.

In any event, you would agree that it is pretty rare for you to have a differential of minus 8, yes? Pretty anomalous and might raise some eyebrows for those that don't know you and/or not familiar with your game?
[/quote]
Yes very rare but I used to be a plus6 so I still have it in me, especially if I play a high rated course. I used to play courses rated 74-76 all of the time so it was quite a lot easier to have a plus handicap. Now i mostly play with higher handicapped buddies that like to play from 64-6500 with ratings closer to 70. it seems I shoot around par no matter what so playing the easier courses brings my cap up. If I get hot on a higher rated course, I can have the occasional -8 differential.

My point is that some 9 handicaps might have a higher range from low to high scores. Others might play every day and shoot around 80 each time out.

The handicap system is far from a perfect means to predict what someone will shoot.

I shot in the 80's in tourney's this year a couple of times. Does that make me a poser with a vanity cap? I bet you $1000 I can shoot under 75 tomorrow though...

There are a lot of different elements is all I'm saying.

[Club junkie]

[quote name='jihunyu' timestamp='1381293207' post='7974115']
[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1381284910' post='7973565']
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.
[/quote]

We don't even know if the +1 through 13 involved a lot of luck or not.
[/quote]


Judging from the OP post, he never mentioned 20 ft. putts, chip ins or any amount of extra good fortune. I think for even the pros (shooting a 59-62) or anyone to go well below their handicaps long putts are going in and it's pretty obvious from the start of the round luck is going to be in your favour. Hitting all GIR and two putting even through 13 holes isn't something a 9 - 12 handicapper does or they'd be a scratch.

[rafal]

If I were a sandbagger I'd print this thread out for handy reference if I ever was to defend my bull.

[TripleSingle]

[quote name='rafal' timestamp='1381310133' post='7974511']
If I were a sandbagger I'd print this thread out for handy reference if I ever was to defend my bull.
[/quote]

A sandbagger would probably get away with it once..or twice. but over time it will all be revealed.
No one is ruling out the possibility that this guy may have cheated. Not that I'm trying to speak on behalf of other members here, but it seems like most people think its just too premature to accuse anyone of cheating at the moment. We don't know how his handicap went from a 9 to a 12. He may have gone through a slump, or he may have only submitted his bad scores in that 1 year gap in order to gain an advantage at the matchplay.

[stuey01]

I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
If this guy were a 9.4, playing 9 and went to an 11.5, playing 12 he would need to post 21 scores in qualifying competion rounds that are outside the buffer zone (2 shots above CSS is the buffer), 0.1 back for each one.
That's a lot of consecutive bad golf to go from a 9 to a 12.

[kellygreen]

[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 did not state, explicitly, that it was "impossible". But you have very clearly---though indirectly---made the argument that shooting ten strokes under your stated handicap is such a "rare" event, that one could essentially draw the conclusion that they guy was a sandbagger.

...and anyone (including myself) who attempted to call you on that premature conclusion got a lot of haughtiness, and accusations of "not understanding the math" heaped on our heads.

For the record...the application of these kind of odd ratios in the real world and in real-time...is what I do for a living. So I most certainly "understand the math", and how it needs to be applied.

...and one of the lessons that it teaches you pretty quickly is that [i]no matter what the odds, the law of averages eventually runs you to ground. [/i] IOW, if you do something enough times, you will eventually see uncommon events....then rare events....and even incredibly rare events; and that anyone who insists that it can't happen to them is fooling themselves.

What this comes down to is the two basic ways in which people process information in making a decision. The first way, is the way that you have modelled. I call it "The professional gambler". Where someone looks at the probabilities in a given situation, and then decides what to do based on what is the most LIKELY thing to have occurred.[i] Is it likely that---on any given day---that someone will shoot ten strokes below their 'cap? No. Is it likely that that someone who has claimed to have shot ten strokes below their 'cap is a sandbagger? Yes.[/i]

All valid judgements when one is dealing with a POPULATION, or a predictive situation.

But once you starte considering individual cases...and in hindsight the other kind of processing is more appropriate.

It is often referred to as "low incidence, high consequence". IOW, it is how people approach decisions where the odds of something happening are low, but the consequences are catastrophic if it happens...or is failed to be accounted for. It is this kind of information processing that leads people to buy casualty insurance, alarm system....and why leukemia stays on the differential diagnosis list when that 6 year old comes into the pediatrician's office with flu-like symptoms. Its far DOWN on the list of possibilities, but only a poor doc eliminates it without looking into the possibility.

Same here with this guy shooting +1 through 13 holes. Yes, he may be a cheater. But there is also a chance that he just happened to "get hot" at a time when he needed it to happen....and accusing an honest golfer of being a cheater is a "high consequence" action. So the RESPONSIBLE position on this is to withold judgement until MORE information is taken in...and to give the player the benefit-of-the-doubt THIS ONE TIME.

If he's done this more than once...then you're dealing with a cheater.

[QEight]

[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
[/quote]

Another misunderstanding is that R&A has anything to do with handicapping, it does not.

[stuey01]

[quote name='QEight' timestamp='1381323366' post='7974885']
[quote name='stuey01' timestamp='1381319583' post='7974685']
I think there is some misunderstanding regarding how to go from a 9 to a 12 in the R&A system.
[/quote]

Another misunderstanding is that R&A has anything to do with handicapping, it does not.
[/quote]

True enough. CONGU.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381321809' post='7974803']

If he's done this more than once...then you're dealing with a cheater.
[/quote]

Why? That's just another unlikely occurrence. Why couldn't the guy have that magical day twice? Basically you're saying that 84,000:1 is short enough odds that we can just say that's fair, but that 7 billion to 1 means you have a cheat. Where's the cutoff point? Presumably there must be a point between 84000:1 and 7 billion:1 that is the point where you would assume that someone was right on the cusp between lucky and cheating. 7 billion:1 shots happen all the time too. Every time you blink, the odds that the exact point in time when that blink occurred would be then are way longer than 7 billion:1 yet it happened. The odds of you existing are longer than 7 billion:1.

Read this: [url="http://popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html"]http://popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html[/url] All of it. It's quite interesting and covers this exact discussion that we are having. Don't know about you, but I'd far rather fall on the side of Dean Knuth in this one.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Hstead' timestamp='1381299420' post='7974335']Go to any decent sized net tournament and shooting your handicap is going to get you below middle of the pack, and guess what, all the guys that beat you are not sandbagging. That is how it works.
[/quote]

No it's not. You should shoot your handicap or below it roughly 20-25% of the time. That's how the system works. If no one is sandbagging and you play to your handicap, you should land around a fifth of the way down the list and probably around 3 shots behind the winner. If you're finishing below the middle of the pack then a good number of the people above you are cheating. That's a simple fact of the way the system works.

Your handicap is based on the best 10 of your last 20 differentials. Assuming an even spread, that means that of those best 10, you'll be below your handicap roughly half of them and above it roughly half of them. That means that you'll be below your handicap 5 times (approximately) in 20 rounds. That's a quarter or 25%. It's actually slightly lower than that because of the 0.96 multiplier that's included. Hence 20-25%. The handicap is an indication of potential, not average. If you're shooting your handicap and finishing below the middle of the pack, then that would indicate that everyone else has a handicap that is higher than their average. That means that they are cheating. Not all of them, but quite a few.

Incidentally, under the CONGU system, there are two ways to go from a 9 to a 12. The normal way would be to play very badly in a lot of tournaments. I was a +0.5 under CONGU and 27 tournament rounds later, I was a 1.9 (that's up 24 times in 27 rounds). I know that to do that you have to play dreadful golf for a sustained period of time (I got the chip yips). The other way is to get it adjusted by rule 19 (allows for the handicap committee to make adjustments based on play - typically this is used to fight sandbagging, but occasionally if someone had surgery or some such that restricted their ability significantly then they could have it adjusted that way). It's highly unlikely this guy was trending down.

There is however much more chance of a guy under CONGU shooting well under his handicap given the right set of circumstances. CONGU doesn't have a slope rating, so if this guy got his 12 handicap at a club that would have a high slope rating, there's a fair chance that under the US system he'd be more like an 8 or 9. If the match was then played on a course that would have a low slope rating, then his course handicap could have been around 7 or 8, in which case +1 after 13 is not that extreme.

If I had to guess what actually happened here, I'd say that the guy was probably a legit 12 (based on how unusual sandbagging is under CONGU and how hard it is to get your handicap up), had a good day, maybe holed a couple of putts that he doesn't normally and had a couple of holes that he won while still 10 feet away from the hole and the +1 incorporated that being conceded and maybe giving him a par somewhere when his opponent lost his drive. My guess is that the +1 after 13 was most likely more like +4 and maybe the course was easier than the one where he typically got his handicap from. I actually doubt the guy was sandbagging, but then the conversation got onto other things

[stuey01]

Good post Ty_Webb.

Also with CONGU, because you don't record all your rounds, only competitions or supplementary cards declared in advance it is sometimes difficult for a handicap to keep pace with an improving golfer, couple of bad medal rounds, possibly nerves and your shot at getting cut has been missed. Next thing you know this guy goes out and blows the doors off.
Though that is clearly not what happened here as this guy was going the other way from 9 to 12.

[eagle1997]

+1 for ty. a follow-up post from the OP with more information would be incredibly helpful. the OP did say that this match was the club championship, so i'm pretty sure his opponent knew the course very well.

[JustTheTips]

Probably. That is the part that is always left out of scoring. Breaking 80 on bethpage black is not the same as breaking 80 on my local course that maxes out a 6300 yards and a CR of 70. The guy with a 0 handicap on beth page, probably hasn't broken par for the year (Would need like a +6 or so round) while they guy on my course would be doing it pretty much every round. US handicaps sort of take care of that although you always run into a bit of issue in that you can optimize the courses you play a bit to cut (or add) some strokes to your game.

I am pretty sure none of this applies to the OP (CONGRU handicaps and US handicaps pretty much only have the word handicap in common). I find it a bit amusing because 99% of the time we have US handicappers complaining about sandbagging and the CONGRU contigent always chimes in on how that just doesn't happen under their system.

[quote name='HighSpeedScene' timestamp='1381294144' post='7974165']


Really? Really low course ratings maybe? Most of the courses I play, tees I play, shooting 20 rounds of 80 would be around a 3 index with the course ratings around 74-75, so you break 80 half the time, bam, you're scratch or near scratch. Throw in a couple of rounds near par that qualify for index calculation, and you're scratch...

Edit: agree it sounds odd, but that's the math. Basically, if I shot 10 scores of 74 in my qualifying scores for my index, for the courses/tees I play. I would be a plus index.

Its a funky system - if I just moved up a set of tees, I doubt my scorea would change much, but due to the reliance on slope and course ratings, my index would go up. Does that more accurately reflect my potential, or does my current index more accurately reflect my potential?
[/quote]

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381323638' post='7974901']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381321809' post='7974803']
If he's done this more than once...then you're dealing with a cheater.
[/quote]

Why? That's just another unlikely occurrence. Why couldn't the guy have that magical day twice? Basically you're saying that 84,000:1 is short enough odds that we can just say that's fair, but that 7 billion to 1 means you have a cheat. Where's the cutoff point? Presumably there must be a point between 84000:1 and 7 billion:1 that is the point where you would assume that someone was right on the cusp between lucky and cheating. 7 billion:1 shots happen all the time too. Every time you blink, the odds that the exact point in time when that blink occurred would be then are way longer than 7 billion:1 yet it happened. The odds of you existing are longer than 7 billion:1.

Read this: [url="http://popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html"]http://popeofslope.c...ging/gates.html[/url] All of it. It's quite interesting and covers this exact discussion that we are having. Don't know about you, but I'd far rather fall on the side of Dean Knuth in this one.
[/quote]

Yes, the odds of me existing are longer than 7 billion to 1. But it also took a billion years of life on Earth, 65 million years of mammalian and 4 million years of human evolution before Mother Nature managed to pull it off the precise genetic combination that resulted in "me". There is also---according to quantum mechanics---a calculable odds ratio of you falling through the seemingly-solid chair you are sitting on and hitting the floor.

[b][i]Of course it would take more years than the Universe has been in existence in order for one to expect that to actually...finally...occur.[/i][/b]

Events that occur with an odds ratio of 7 billion to 1 DO occur....but they do not occur "everyday". They are beyond what we even call "freak accidents"

Odds:

Being killed by a dog. 700 000 to 1

Dying while in the bathtub: 1 000 000 to 1

Being killed by a tornado 2 000 000 to 1

Dying in a plane crash: 25 000 000 to 1

[b][i]Being killed by falling space debris: [/i][/b][i][b] 5 billion to 1. [/b][/i]

[i][b]Being killed by a falling NASA sattellite: about 4 trillion to 1[/b][/i]

So in this case we are dealing with a pattern that is so FREAKISHLY rare, that a person is more likely be struck by a meteor/falling space junk and KILLED...than they are to shoot two rounds that far below a legitimate handicap.

At that point the odds of me accusing an honest golfer of being a cheater are so vanishingly small, that I"m wlling to take that risk and call the man a cheater. Three rounds that low...and we're into the realm of the same sort of odds of you falling through a solid chair. You---in fact---have a cheater.

[Barry88]

OK guys this thread is getting out of hand. I had over 200 notifications earlier I'm not accusing the guy of being a cheat and I graciously shook his hand afterwards and congratulated him so I'm not a sore loser, I will admit that I was frustrated that after all my effort in beating other guys to get to the final and to lose like that left a bitter taste in my mouth. He told a few of my friends that he was playing well recently before we played our match so I was expecting him to play well but not go on a hot streak like he did under pressure. There was also noticeable gamesmanship too such as taking ridiculously long to play shots (2 hours to play the front 9 in match play with the course to ourselves), didn't say "good shot" until he was a few up in the match etc. He didn't chip in or hole monster putts but hhis lag putting and chipping was immaculate that day. For example: On the Index 1 Par 4, I was putting for birdie from 15 feet and looking good, he chips it stone dead and now my birdie putt is for a half. It was like that all day on the holes he had shots on. Being 4 down after 8 forced me to go for every shot which forces errors naturally.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381329431' post='7975337']
[quote name='Ty_Webb' timestamp='1381323638' post='7974901']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1381321809' post='7974803']
If he's done this more than once...then you're dealing with a cheater.
[/quote]

Why? That's just another unlikely occurrence. Why couldn't the guy have that magical day twice? Basically you're saying that 84,000:1 is short enough odds that we can just say that's fair, but that 7 billion to 1 means you have a cheat. Where's the cutoff point? Presumably there must be a point between 84000:1 and 7 billion:1 that is the point where you would assume that someone was right on the cusp between lucky and cheating. 7 billion:1 shots happen all the time too. Every time you blink, the odds that the exact point in time when that blink occurred would be then are way longer than 7 billion:1 yet it happened. The odds of you existing are longer than 7 billion:1.

Read this: [url="http://popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html"]http://popeofslope.c...ging/gates.html[/url] All of it. It's quite interesting and covers this exact discussion that we are having. Don't know about you, but I'd far rather fall on the side of Dean Knuth in this one.
[/quote]

Yes, the odds of me existing are longer than 7 billion to 1. But it also took a billion years of life on Earth, 65 million years of mammalian and 4 million years of human evolution before Mother Nature managed to pull it off the precise genetic combination that resulted in "me". There is also---according to quantum mechanics---a calculable odds ratio of you falling through the seemingly-solid chair you are sitting on and hitting the floor.

[b][i]Of course it would take more years than the Universe has been in existence in order for one to expect that to actually...finally...occur.[/i][/b]

Events that occur with an odds ratio of 7 billion to 1 DO occur....but they do not occur "everyday". They are beyond what we even call "freak accidents"

Odds:

Being killed by a dog. 700 000 to 1

Dying while in the bathtub: 1 000 000 to 1

Being killed by a tornado 2 000 000 to 1

Dying in a plane crash: 25 000 000 to 1

[b][i]Being killed by falling space debris: [/i][/b][i][b] 5 billion to 1. [/b][/i]

[i][b]Being killed by a falling NASA sattellite: about 4 trillion to 1[/b][/i]

So in this case we are dealing with a pattern that is so FREAKISHLY rare, that a person is more likely be struck by a meteor/falling space junk and KILLED...than they are to shoot two rounds that far below a legitimate handicap.

At that point the odds of me accusing an honest golfer of being a cheater are so vanishingly small, that I"m wlling to take that risk and call the man a cheater. Three rounds that low...and we're into the realm of the same sort of odds of you falling through a solid chair. You---in fact---have a cheater.
[/quote]

Did you read the link? I thought that was fascinating.

[Barry88]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381330958' post='7975479']
OK guys this thread is getting out of hand. I had over 200 notifications earlier I'm not accusing the guy of being a cheat and I graciously shook his hand afterwards and congratulated him so I'm not a sore loser, I will admit that I was frustrated that after all my effort in beating other guys to get to the final and to lose like that left a bitter taste in my mouth. He told a few of my friends that he was playing well recently before we played our match so I was expecting him to play well but not go on a hot streak like he did under pressure. There was also noticeable gamesmanship too such as taking ridiculously long to play shots (2 hours to play the front 9 in match play with the course to ourselves), didn't say "good shot" until he was a few up in the match etc. He didn't chip in or hole monster putts but hhis lag putting and chipping was immaculate that day. For example: On the Index 1 Par 4, I was putting for birdie from 15 feet and looking good, he chips it stone dead and now my birdie putt is for a half. It was like that all day on the holes he had shots on. Being 4 down after 8 forced me to go for every shot which forces errors naturally.
[/quote]

PAR 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 4
INDEX 17 15 7 5 11 1 13 9 3

[b] HIM 4 5 4 5 3 4 5 3 5[/b]

[b] ME 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 3[/b]


PAR 4 4 4 3
INDEX 4 18 16 14
[b] HIM [/b] [b] 4 4 4 3[/b]

[b] ME 4 3 5 4[/b]

[kellygreen]

[quote name='Barry88' timestamp='1381330958' post='7975479']
OK guys this thread is getting out of hand. I had over 200 notifications earlier I'm not accusing the guy of being a cheat and I graciously shook his hand afterwards and congratulated him so I'm not a sore loser, I will admit that I was frustrated that after all my effort in beating other guys to get to the final and to lose like that left a bitter taste in my mouth. He told a few of my friends that he was playing well recently before we played our match so I was expecting him to play well but not go on a hot streak like he did under pressure. There was also noticeable gamesmanship too such as taking ridiculously long to play shots (2 hours to play the front 9 in match play with the course to ourselves), didn't say "good shot" until he was a few up in the match etc. He didn't chip in or hole monster putts but hhis lag putting and chipping was immaculate that day. For example: On the Index 1 Par 4, I was putting for birdie from 15 feet and looking good, he chips it stone dead and now my birdie putt is for a half. It was like that all day on the holes he had shots on. Being 4 down after 8 forced me to go for every shot which forces errors naturally.
[/quote]

The more you tell us about what happened...the more it sounds like you just ran into a buzzsaw.

Happens to everyone if you play any sport long enough.

Forget about it, and move on.

[turtleback]

[quote name='nbg352' timestamp='1381246912' post='7970427']
I would, happily, if only I knew how to quote just what I wanted out of a series of posts, rather than quote the entire dialogue.
[/quote]

Nearly 3000 posts on this site and you still don't know how to use it properly. THAT will give a big boost to your credibility.

This is the point in this thread (actually we passed the point long ago) where it has just become a pi$$ing match. The answer is NOT to start lobbying for the thread to be closed, it is to STOP reading it. Which is what I am going to do, and should have done several pages ago.