News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #25 on: July 21, 2022, 01:39:41 PM »
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.


Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted.  You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score.  It's not even encouraged in match play.
To add to this, with the USGA's GHIN system, you're discouraged to post a hole score more than double bogey or triple bogey depending on your existing handicap and the hole handicap. There have been holes I've gotten a triple bogey or worse and the most I could post was a double bogey. My guess is this is done to mitigate the potential for sandbagging, but then it begs the question as to what someone's real handicap should be if the actual score for a round isn't fully accounted for?
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2022, 01:48:37 PM »
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.


Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted.  You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score.  It's not even encouraged in match play.


Why would it be higher? Do you know how you are going to play before you tee off?


My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
I can't speak to non-US rules if they're different, though I thought they no longer were.  In the US, I am not allowed to pick which scores I post, whether I decide ahead of time or not.  If I play with someone and by the rules of golf, I post.  And if I couldn't or didn't post match play scores, I might post 2 or 3 rounds per year. 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 01:57:03 PM by Bernie Bell »

Bernie Bell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2022, 01:59:44 PM »
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.


Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted.  You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score.  It's not even encouraged in match play.
To add to this, with the USGA's GHIN system, you're discouraged to post a hole score more than double bogey or triple bogey depending on your existing handicap and the hole handicap. There have been holes I've gotten a triple bogey or worse and the most I could post was a double bogey. My guess is this is done to mitigate the potential for sandbagging, but then it begs the question as to what someone's real handicap should be if the actual score for a round isn't fully accounted for?
Mike, you're not discouraged from doing it, you're forbidden.  Someone's "real handicap" is whatever it is, so long as we're all playing by the same rules. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2022, 02:19:52 PM »
Yet Another Handicap thread, just what the DG needs!   ;D

In the US its simple.  The "on your honor" system will be abused, gamed, and otherwise screwed up until the end of time.

Implementing attested scores, when something is actually on the line, as the only scores that count towards your cap... is the only way they gonna fix things at this point.

P.S And yes Baggers are the worst, but I don't get how anyone is hurt by vanity cappers? In a real match they almost always end up getting destroyed by someone who carries a legit cap...what am I missing?

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2022, 03:34:55 PM »
Where I play if we wish to post a non-competition score we have to nominate this on the clubs computer before we tee-off (not after). And we must at the same time nominate which colour tees were going to play from and whether it’s a 18-hole on a 9-hole round were going to play. If 9-holes we need to nominate which 9. We then input our scores on completing the round. I believe if we haven’t input the score within a certain time period of initially entering the computer to register a non-comp score then any score ultimately entered becomes void.
Is this the same for others in GB&I (and elsewhere)?
Atb



Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2022, 04:35:19 PM »
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.


People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.


I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes.  The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2022, 04:45:56 PM »
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.


People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.


I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes.  The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.


Erik put that out there like it’s a foregone conclusion. Where’s the data to back it up? I’ve come across way more baggers than vanity handicaps in my experience.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2022, 05:21:47 PM »
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.


Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted.  You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score.  It's not even encouraged in match play.


Why would it be higher? Do you know how you are going to play before you tee off?


My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.


I believe that match play scores are to be posted.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2022, 05:40:06 PM »
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.


People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.


I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes.  The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.


Erik put that out there like it’s a foregone conclusion. Where’s the data to back it up? I’ve come across way more baggers than vanity handicaps in my experience.


I can’t provide a link, but my recollection from my days running club net comps is that the USGA estimates that vanity indexes outnumber actual sandbagger by 3 to 1. 


Think about it: A mulligan on the first tee. Gimme putts of varying lengths. Lift, clean, and place.  The so-called “leaf rule”.  Improper relief from a penalty area. Not taking stroke and distance penalties or the new two stroke penalty option.  I could go on, but you get the idea, and I just described a huge percentage of total rounds played.  Small wonder so many golfers fall apart in competition, or avoid it completely.  Another big one is most likely score when a hole is completed in match play, and a guy is 10’ from the hole.  The vast majority of the time, I see guys add one stroke and record that score, when the the most likely score is TWO additional strokes. 


This is NEVER popular when I write it, but here goes.  In my personal experience, the majority of the sandbagging complaints have been guys who can’t play anywhere close their index when they have to play fully under the Rules complaining about guys who DO play every round under the Rules. They may carry a high index, but the Rules don’t faze them because they play that way ALL THE TIME!


The true sandbagger I’ve seen are guys who don’t record EVERY score the way they are supposed to.  It is NOT common, but I’ll agree that it is a significant problem when it happens. We currently have a club in our senior interclub pod that is notorious for this; their handicap committee is either complicit or afraid.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2022, 05:45:43 PM »
I feel like the system, with a net double as a max score, inherently creates vanity caps.  Net double is better than the old system that was max double for 0-9 hcp.
Net Double is used in surprisingly few counting (8 of the 20) scores. I forget the actual percentage, but it was very low. (Had you asked me while the WHS was being finalized, I was told the number then… my takeaway was "oh, that's almost entirely insignificant.")

How do you know this?
I've seen a lot of tournament scores, etc.

I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
It's not an "instruction" so much as a rule of the handicapping system.

My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
You don't post the "he gave me that twenty-footer for par" score. You post your most likely score.

I can’t provide a link, but my recollection from my days running club net comps is that the USGA estimates that vanity indexes outnumber actual sandbagger by 3 to 1.
There is plenty of data out there. Some people just aren't willing to see it for what it is.

Thanks as usual AG.

This is NEVER popular when I write it, but here goes.  In my personal experience, the majority of the sandbagging complaints have been guys who can’t play anywhere close their index when they have to play fully under the Rules complaining about guys who DO play every round under the Rules. They may carry a high index, but the Rules don’t faze them because they play that way ALL THE TIME!
Truth.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2022, 05:49:35 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, and Lifetime Student of the Game

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2022, 06:18:39 PM »
Reading what all you guys are saying, we are using a “World” Handicap Index in name only.


We are still miles apart in how we actually implement it. Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #36 on: July 21, 2022, 06:47:29 PM »
Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.
They've given some latitude to the various golf associations as far as how they want to run things, but… some things are semi-universal.

What's "world" is the course rating/slope stuff, the 8 of 20, and many other things. https://www.whs.com/articles/2019/acceptable-scores.html sheds some light, too:

Quote
Scores from 18-hole stroke play and 18-hole Stableford competitions will be mandatory, and other formats will be chosen by National Associations from a more comprehensive list. This discretion is provided so that local golfing cultures can be accommodated and to ensure that the new system does not force change on the way the game is played.

While many competitive and recreational formats of play may be acceptable, there are certain rounds that would not be eligible for handicap purposes. Examples include rounds played while being coached, playing alone or those played in scramble or alternate-shot formats.
It's not entirely standardized, but it's much closer to being so than pre-2020.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, and Lifetime Student of the Game

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #37 on: July 21, 2022, 07:34:20 PM »
Okay, I have admit I was discounting folks who never play by the rules and then post scores.


I haven't really ever thought of them as being vain about their handicaps.


The "real" vanity caps I've known were low single digits who could rarely break 90.


One was a 1.something who joined my wife and me prior to US Open qualifying and never made a par. I checked his scores at qualifying and he shot mid-90s.


Another was a member at my club who'd play for money at a 2 shoot 85-90.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #38 on: July 21, 2022, 07:48:46 PM »
Reading what all you guys are saying, we are using a “World” Handicap Index in name only.


We are still miles apart in how we actually implement it. Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.


Too true! The difference is posting casual rounds outside of Tournament play. The vanity handicapper neglects to post poor rounds. The sandbagger posts rounds which are not played in the spirit of the game; perhaps playing in a skins game where he never makes a putt he doesn’t need. Counting every round not played in tournament conditions is the downfall of the US system.


Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.


Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.


Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?


"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #39 on: July 21, 2022, 07:56:39 PM »
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."


Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.


However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events.  And we are not only sticklers about posting scores, but as the organizer told me on my first time with them, "We play by the rules, all of them. We play the ball down and there are NO gimmees."


And he wasn't kidding.  A ball overhanging the lip gets putted out EVERY time.  In fact I missed one that was only about an inch from the cup last winter.
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #40 on: July 21, 2022, 09:00:34 PM »
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."


Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.


However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events. 


The points and skins games played at almost every club are played off of the course handicaps; that’s a perfectly valid reason to have a GHIN handicap even if you never play tournaments.  Those games, for $3 or $6 or $10 or $20 sort of make the world go round at clubs, and they are handicap dependent.


And you’re right; most golfers absolutely do NOT want to play tournament golf fully under the Rules.  Whether it’s because of stress, or fear of being exposed, or whatever, most clubs get only small fractions of the membership in club tournaments, especially championships.


The Mens Golf Association at my club has 190 members.  130 of the 190 are on rosters for the 9 hole Wednesday night better ball match play league.  I think it’s a fair guess that probably half or more of both those numbers are over 55, yet we had only 24 entries in the senior club championship last weekend. 


It would probably be wise to separate the ideas of handicaps and formal competitions in your mind.  While there is of course crossover, neither necessarily depends completely on the other. To me, the world handicap system is an attempt to acknowledge that.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Michael Felton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #41 on: July 21, 2022, 10:19:13 PM »
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."


Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.


However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events.  And we are not only sticklers about posting scores, but as the organizer told me on my first time with them, "We play by the rules, all of them. We play the ball down and there are NO gimmees."


And he wasn't kidding.  A ball overhanging the lip gets putted out EVERY time.  In fact I missed one that was only about an inch from the cup last winter.


There are thousands of people who play regularly around here who have virtually no access to "competition". They still want to play matches with their friends and they still want to be able to say what their handicap is when asked. Why shouldn't they have a handicap with GHIN?


I think a lot of the differences between UK and US as far as whether all scores or only competition scores are included is to do with the culture. In the UK, almost everyone who plays regularly belongs to a club somewhere and plays in the club competitions. Club memberships are pretty reasonable (think $2-5k to join and then $1-3k per year subs). In the US (at least near me), if you're not very well off, then public golf is all you've got (club memberships range from $8k per year up to $1.2 million joining fee and $50k a year). Play once a week at a public course through the season and you've spent as much as a club membership in the UK, except no competitions at all for that, so if non-competition rounds don't count then you don't get a handicap.

Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2022, 10:42:13 PM »
All the money games I play in keep their own handicap system. They use the same formula as the WHS, but only include rounds played in that particular game. That eliminates anyone posting casual rounds not played within the rules and not observed by the other members of the group. It’s amazing how after a year or so of joining the group how each players GHIN index begins to diverge from their money game index. (GHIN is usually higher)  This just reinforces why we keep a separate handicap system for the money game. It eliminates all the sandbagging arguments. I can’t remember a time when anyone ever accused anyone of having a vanity cap or sandbagging. Their index is alway correct as it reflects their last 20 rounds in the “game”.

Richard Fisher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #43 on: July 22, 2022, 06:18:06 AM »
Again, warm agreement with Ally and David on the Brit perspective on this - and Michael is likewise surely right when he says that the proportion of 'club-based' rounds played in the UK is much higher than in the US, which informs the handicap culture.


It's a real shame that we don't have more female golfers posting on GCA, as handicapping protocols under the old LGU were always very different from the old CONGU ones and that perspective would be vv interesting. But in all instances putts had to be holed out if a score was to count for handicap purposes - that was axiomatic and for 95% (?) of UK golfers still is.

James Reader

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #44 on: July 22, 2022, 07:08:36 AM »
The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format.  That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.


Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.


Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here.  I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.

Mike Bodo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #45 on: July 22, 2022, 07:19:55 AM »
Not sure if the GBI handicap system works the same way as the GHIN, but the latter takes the last 10 rounds played, I believe, and throws out the low and high scores posted in that window in adjusting ones index. This year, so far, the majority of my rounds have been in the high 80's and low 90's. I've had a couple rounds in the low 100's and I've shot as low as 84. Thus, I'm all over the map. I know a lot guys lout there like me that are erratic weekend warriros. I'm currently indexed at an 11.8, which is down from a high of 14.7 two years ago. The majority of my rounds are casual with members from my club, family members or frriends (guests), but I take pride in playing my best golf regardless of the situation and do my best to post a legitimate score within the confines of the GHIN structure.


While I only play in a few club tournaments throughout the year, I do partake betting games on some of my rounds just so there is something at stake to be gained or lost. I consider those "competitive rounds" even though they're non-tournament. That said, even when money is on the line putts are given routinely within 3' at most. If say a 3' or 2' putt is on a slippery downhill slope, they're not given as generously and more often than not are putted out. If I'm playing by myself, I won't give myself anything outside of 3' as those putts make for good practice during events or tournaments where you're required to make them.


I'm not sure what I'm trying get at here, as there are all fairly random thoughts, but I guess I'm hoping to shed light on how things are done typically in the U.S. in establishing one's handicap index and perhaps start a debate on what consitutes a competitive round, vs. casual, as I feel it extends beyond just tournaments - especially when there's money on the line.
"90% of all putts left short are missed." - Yogi Berra

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #46 on: July 22, 2022, 08:36:06 AM »
Not sure if the GBI handicap system works the same way as the GHIN, but the latter takes the last 10 rounds played, I believe, and throws out the low and high scores posted in that window in adjusting ones index. This year, so far, the majority of my rounds have been in the high 80's and low 90's. I've had a couple rounds in the low 100's and I've shot as low as 84. Thus, I'm all over the map. I know a lot guys lout there like me that are erratic weekend warriros. I'm currently indexed at an 11.8, which is down from a high of 14.7 two years ago. The majority of my rounds are casual with members from my club, family members or frriends (guests), but I take pride in playing my best golf regardless of the situation and do my best to post a legitimate score within the confines of the GHIN structure.


While I only play in a few club tournaments throughout the year, I do partake betting games on some of my rounds just so there is something at stake to be gained or lost. I consider those "competitive rounds" even though they're non-tournament. That said, even when money is on the line putts are given routinely within 3' at most. If say a 3' or 2' putt is on a slippery downhill slope, they're not given as generously and more often than not are putted out. If I'm playing by myself, I won't give myself anything outside of 3' as those putts make for good practice during events or tournaments where you're required to make them.


I'm not sure what I'm trying get at here, as there are all fairly random thoughts, but I guess I'm hoping to shed light on how things are done typically in the U.S. in establishing one's handicap index and perhaps start a debate on what consitutes a competitive round, vs. casual, as I feel it extends beyond just tournaments - especially when there's money on the line.


GHIN takes the last 20 rounds, and your index is the average of the best 8 differentials, which might not necessarily be the best 8 scores.  No scores are thrown out, high or low.


I think most are referring to a “competitive” round as some form of tournament play, whether stroke play or match play, as opposed to a money game, no matter how much money is at stake. The USGA leaves this designation up to the individual club, but I don’t know of any that record scores in typical points and skins games as “competition” scores.  At most clubs, the scores the club designates as competition scores, such as club championships or Member-Guest tournaments, are entered into GHIN by the club, rather than by the player.  That’s always the case with tournaments run by state golf associations, of course.


There is no difference in the way scores are used in calculating handicap indexes, but the “competition” designation can be important in reviewing scores to determine sandbagging when a player consistently scores at or below his index in tournament play. 


Unfortunately, the most common form of sandbagging is not recording good scores in non-competition rounds, and that’s where a club handicap committee becomes critical.  Good ones monitor the tee sheets regularly to determine whether or not rounds are being posted, but this is too often not the case, and probably doesn’t happen at all at public courses.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2022, 12:35:15 PM by A.G._Crockett »
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2022, 09:13:00 AM »
The only time I see a competitive(C) designation is in a Connecticut State Golf Association event and USGA events would be the same. We have a medal event almost every weekend and they are posted by the committee as “H” for Home. Are there those out there who see the “C” designation used for club events?

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2022, 09:49:52 AM »
The only time I see a competitive(C) designation is in a Connecticut State Golf Association event and USGA events would be the same. We have a medal event almost every weekend and they are posted by the committee as “H” for Home. Are there those out there who see the “C” designation used for club events?
My club uses the C designation for club championships, the Member-Guest (54 holes over three days), and interclub matches.  We do not designate Member-Member scores as C because it is a series of 9 hole matches, but the club DOES enter the scores in GHIN; same for the 9 hole 2 man better ball match play league scores.  The 9 hole scores are entered, then are combined when the next 9 hole score comes in, and designated with an N, rather than a C. 
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

David Cronan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Handicaps: Which problem is worse? Vanity-capping or Sandbagging?
« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2022, 10:10:28 AM »
At a club I belonged to for a number of years, we had a member who carried an 8-10 handicap the entire time. He only posted about 20-25 rounds/year, yet he was seen on the course by himself or with his (seemingly) only friend several times a week. Turns out that he would only play 7-8 holes most of the time, thus he wouldn't post his 9 hole scores. I guess he had a little Costanza in him.



Most of us just resigned ourselves to the fact he was a Sandbagger and we simply didn't invite him to participate in our games. He was always in the mix at handicap events. We figured that if a win at a small, private, family club in the Southeast meant so much to him that he'd go to such lengths to get an advantage, he had bigger problems to contend with.


One summer another member pulled a similar move to the one played on OJ, after he was arrested for the murders of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. The member entered several estimated scores for the aforementioned Sandbagger, which brought his handicap from the 8-10 range, to a 4. At the first event with the new handicap, the Sandbagger was almost in tears when he saw the scorecard, marked with the strokes he was receiving. The rest of us adopted a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" attitude about the infraction.


After appealing to the Head Pro, the scores were removed and his handicap went back up. And he continued to grab shop credits.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back