Handicapping Rule Change

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Not "draconian" at all. Just a clear reminder to new members about the requirements of the USGA handicap system and the club's handicap committee. Actually it is well presented.
When a club and their handicap committee try to maintain the integrity of the system and prevent sandbagging, how can it be considered draconian?

Completely agree with you.

Peer review is like insurance, underwrite only when there is a claim and deny, deny, deny. That would smarten up the sandbaggers.

In reality, a simple fix would be to disallow index increases of more than 10% in a two year rolling period. Exceptional cases could be appealed to the handicap review committee. Never understood why people are rewarded for their "slumps", providing ample room for timed "peaks". Works quite well for bowling leagues.

[Jeffc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

As happens now with most rounds played in an am event or tournament. It would be the playing partner (s) who attest the score by signing the card after the round and in so doing both the player and marker have confirmed that the score is accurate. This is how we run our men's league year long competition and it works well. Validated Scores are then handed to the pro shop and input into system we use ( Callaway scoring ) if the scorecard is not signed by player and attestor, it gets tossed out.

While not as easy , This is a probably a better system for ensuring score accuracy( a playing partner must attest the score is correct ) than simply allowing the player to enter his score in the GAO some time later at home where he can adjust it as he sees fit and where the attestor is pulled from a drop down list. There have been cases where I am used as an attestor to a playing partner but never checked what score they enterred on the GAO system to see if it was in fact accurate or not.

We can say cheating is only done by a small percentage but we all have stories of and know sandbaggers. nobody likes it, but we complain when ideas are suggested to tighten the system up. The current system if tracking is only good for those who are honest. ( the majority I hope) Meanwhile sandbaggers often pull in prizes every event and people are irked.

Members who track their cap represent a small percentage of all golfers, having a good ( better ?) system in place that deters sandbagging is needed IMO. Some clubs have involved and active handicap committees, some events have a penalty system for too few scores enterred, date of last sore enterred etc.....some use 75% handicaps , these all help .

you're only looking at it from a private club mentality though. As a public player it's a disaster waiting to happen. Heck, even in my mens league, by the time I am done the pro shop is closed. I'm sure they don't want to be burdened by all of this extra work.

And if I want to not enter a score, I just simply don't get my card attested. Not sure that's a solution.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

you're only looking at it from a private club mentality though. As a public player it's a disaster waiting to happen. Heck, even in my mens league, by the time I am done the pro shop is closed. I'm sure they don't want to be burdened by all of this extra work.

And if I want to not enter a score, I just simply don't get my card attested. Not sure that's a solution.

No I've looked at it from both private and public. I am a public player.

In my men's league we have a drop box that scorecards are left in. A volunteer ( me) collects the cards and they are reviewed and enterred in the system. We have over 180 members in our Wednesday league, not all play in the competition mind you. Like with everything else, you rely upon volunteers to make things work.

I've acknowledged that it's easier to tighten things Up for those affiliated with a club.
Fact is Public players are the minority of those who use GAO, but yes a mechanism would need to be established to deal with that.

All scores must be enterred , choosing not to enter a score is cheating. At a club tee times can be cross referenced to score entry, There is a h/c committee for complaints .For the public player having a playing partner be the attestor is a way of putting pressure on the player to not cheat, but yes I suppose that if you really wanted to you could still,cheat.

There will never be a perfect system , but as I said it can be better. As a public player I am supportive of any improvements in the system to eliminate sandbagging.

You can be one of two things, critical and part of the problem or supportive and part of the solution. I've made my choice, Up to you which you choose.

[Jeffc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

No I've looked at it from both private and public. I am a public player.

In my men's league we have a drop box that scorecards are left in. A volunteer ( me) collects the cards and they are reviewed and enterred in the system. We have over 180 members in our Wednesday league, not all play in the competition mind you. Like with everything else, you rely upon volunteers to make things work.

I've acknowledged that it's easier to tighten things Up for those affiliated with a club.
Fact is Public players are the minority of those who use GAO, but yes a mechanism would need to be established to deal with that.

All scores must be enterred , choosing not to enter a score is cheating. At a club tee times can be cross referenced to score entry. For the public player having a playing partner be the attestor is a way of putting pressure on the player to not cheat, but yes I suppose that if you really wanted to you could still,cheat.

There will never be a perfect system , but as I said it can be better. As a public player I am supportive of any improvements in the system to eliminate sandbagging.

You can be one of two things, critical and part of the problem or supportive and part of the solution. I've made my choice, Up to you which you choose.

good for you and it appears it will work for you. I don't believe it will work for the reasons I have presented - it will likely make my handicap less accurate than more.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

good for you and it appears it will work for you. I don't believe it will work for the reasons I have presented - it will likely make my handicap less accurate than more.

So rather than complain, and criticize what do you suggest to make the system better ?

While not all Sandbaggers come from Public players, I've seen my share. It is easier to monitor members of a club. I suppose the other solution is to eliminate the public player designation or force affiliation with a club , many of us are affiliated with clubs due to leagues but not official members of those clubs.

I'm thinking out loud here, but when I hear comments like the one you made above That If I don't want to enter my score I just won't have it attested....Then it's on your playing partner to report that . I suppose that if there will always be those with that mentality and so if caught cheating then they should be penalized , either by expulsion from GAO or having their handicap flagged and penalized in the system.

[Jeffc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

So rather than complain, and criticize what do you suggest to make the system better ?

While not all Sandbaggers come from Public players, I've seen my share. It is easier to monitor members of a club. I suppose the other solution is to eliminate the public player designation or force affiliation with a club , many of us are affiliated with clubs due to leagues but not official members of those clubs.

I'm thinking out loud here, but when I hear comments like the one you made above Thatbif I don't want to enter my score I just won't have it attested....I suppose that if there will always be those with that mentality and that if caught cheating then they should be penalized , either by expulsion from GAO or having their handicap flagged and penalized in the system.

so it's not ok to critique something I don't think will work? I honestly don't know the answer, I don't know how widespread the problem is or enough about the process. I do know that when I see mention of the word "committee" in any discussion, that they people making those decisions are somewhat out of touch with most golfers. I try to play by the rules as much as possible. I can't speak for others but adding another layer of complexity to handicapping may drive me away from an "official" handicap and the fees I pay to GAO every year. I'm sure I am not the only one.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

so it's not ok to critique something I don't think will work? I honestly don't know the answer, I don't know how widespread the problem is or enough about the process. I do know that when I see mention of the word "committee" in any discussion, that they people making those decisions are somewhat out of touch with most golfers. I try to play by the rules as much as possible. I can't speak for others but adding another layer of complexity to handicapping may drive me away from an "official" handicap and the fees I pay to GAO every year. I'm sure I am not the only one.

its fine to critique but when you do it to every proposed , possible solution without providing any suggestion it comes off poorly.

when I say committee I am referring to groups of members at clubs who volunteer to run things. All clubs have a group of members that are responsible for managing different matters . Usually there is a club Captain and other designations.

Clubs affiliated with Golf Canada have a handicap committee whose role among other things is:

The Handicap Committee should provide
guidance to the Club Captain, club officials,
and other club committees on all matters
relating to handicapping:
•
The allocation of handicap strokes to each
hole on the course according to RCGA
Handicap System guidelines;
•
Determination of par;
•
Course setup;
•
Maintaining the playing difficulty of the
course.
•
Verifying Handicap Factors
Also, the Handicap Committee should
examine the results of competitions and take
appropriate action if net scores appear out of
line.

as for adding complexity, The process now is as easy as can be. Score entry takes a matter of a few seconds so I am hoping people are reasonable and have some flexibility. Personally , I would be quite willing to accept a change in process, even if its more complex than the 10 seconds it takes now, if it helped to address the issue of cheating and sandbagging.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Completely agree with you.

Peer review is like insurance, underwrite only when there is a claim and deny, deny, deny. That would smarten up the sandbaggers.

In reality, a simple fix would be to disallow index increases of more than 10% in a two year rolling period. Exceptional cases could be appealed to the handicap review committee. Never understood why people are rewarded for their "slumps", providing ample room for timed "peaks". Works quite well for bowling leagues.

i like this

[Jeffc]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

its fine to critique but when you do it to every proposed , possible solution without providing any suggestion it comes off poorly.

when I say committee I am referring to groups of members at clubs who volunteer to run things. All clubs have a group of members that are responsible for managing different matters . Usually there is a club Captain and other designations.

Clubs affiliated with Golf Canada have a handicap committee whose role is:

The Handicap Committee should provide
guidance to the Club Captain, club officials,
and other club committees on all matters
relating to handicapping:
•
The allocation of handicap strokes to each
hole on the course according to RCGA
Handicap System guidelines;
•
Determination of par;
•
Course setup;
•
Maintaining the playing difficulty of the
course.
•
Verifying Handicap Factors
Also, the Handicap Committee should
examine the results of competitions and take
appropriate action if net scores appear out of
line.

as for adding complexity, The process now is as easy as can be. Score entry takes a matter of a few seconds so I am hoping people are reasonable and have some flexibility. Personally , I would be quite willing to accept a change in process, even if its more complex than the 10 seconds it takes now, if it helped to address the issue of cheating and sandbagging.

good to know I am coming off poorly. So you've never critiqued anything without providing a solution. Good to know.

[Weirfan]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

good to know I am coming off poorly. So you've never critiqued anything without providing a solution. Good to know.

of course I critique, we all do. I am being critical of the current handicap tracking process as not doing an effective job in eliminating sandbagging. The difference is I am open and accepting to change and not being dismissive to every proposed solution. Galted is also often critical of the but at least proposes reasonable and thought out rationales and solutions so doesn't come off as just a whiner. I believe that he also has done lots of work behind the scenes at his club to improve matters.

[OKHC]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

First, the trivia:

• there's no "RCGA" anymore; the organization is now called Golf Canada;
• Canadians have handicap factors; Americans have handicap indexes.

I agree that it's hard to root out sandbaggers. But the handicap system is mathematically rigorous for those who follow the instructions.

Ed, my factor can decrease by 30% over the summer, then increase by 40% from October till May, so I think your 10% proposal is too tight a range. (And when my factor increases, I don't think of it as a 'reward'.)

[WDM1980]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

First, the trivia:

• there's no "RCGA" anymore; the organization is now called Golf Canada;
• Canadians have handicap factors; Americans have handicap indexes.

I agree that it's hard to root out sandbaggers. But the handicap system is mathematically rigorous for those who follow the instructions.

Ed, my factor can decrease by 30% over the summer, then increase by 40% from October till May, so I think your 10% proposal is too tight a range. (And when my factor increases, I don't think of it as a 'reward'.)

The handicap factor or index is supposed to be a measure of the golfer's potential. Unless the factor is less than 5, I don't think that it's reasonable that the player's potential should change by such a large percentage. They may have times when they're getting closer to their potential and other times when they're further away from it. That doesn't mean that their potential is lower, they're simply having a rough patch.

In the UK and Ireland, handicaps are only measured based on competitive rounds. In addition, the factor only goes up by 0.1 if the player has a really bad round that is far outside their expected range for their handicap. They'd need a lot of horrid competitive rounds to move their factor substantially. The handicap factor can go down much faster than it can go up in the UK - it's a little complex, and I don't remember all the details. That system seems reasonable as a very good round indicates a better potential, so the player's handicap should be reduced to reflect this new information.

Given that handicaps are supposed to measure a player's potential, UK system makes more sense. The Canadian and US systems result in wildly fluctuating handicaps which reflect the current status of the player's game rather than the actual potential score. That said, I don't think that only competitive rounds should be used as it reduces the number of data points for those that only play a few competitions a year.

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Ed, my factor can decrease by 30% over the summer, then increase by 40% from October till May, so I think your 10% proposal is too tight a range. (And when my factor increases, I don't think of it as a 'reward'.)

The only way to be fair, particularly for flighted competitiins, is to define potential as your best indicator over a much longer period than just the latest 20 games posted. Over decades, I have observed that most flighted and handicap competitions are won by someone shooting no better than their typical scores but had just gone through a period of unusually highly abnormal poor play. I would not necessarily say sandbagging because the slump might be rooted in a swing change or error but their underlying potential is not the current cap.

If everybody was capped at 10% increase over two years, this establishes potential for everybody at a proven level that was maintained consistently. It would apply to everybody removing the current bias. It would also make 20 game sandbagging no real advantage. Just because people have a range of 4-5 in their factors does not mean their best factor is not their real potential. They just have less of the better games in their top ten currently.

[Ignatius Reilly]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Just thinking about the math behind that claim of a factor going down 30 and back up 40% over a season. (note: I'll use "cap" instead of factor, 'cause it's shorter and the argument doesn't change).

If a player has a cap of 10 early in a season and constantly improves until his cap has dropped 30%, then he ends the season at a 7.

He starts the next season at 7, and his bad winter form takes him up 40% to... 9.8 (or 10).

This doesn't seem all that abnormal or remarkable to me. Is it?

[Galted]

Re: Handicapping Rule Change

Just thinking about the math behind that claim of a factor going down 30 and back up 40% over a season. (note: I'll use "cap" instead of factor, 'cause it's shorter and the argument doesn't change).

If a player has a cap of 10 early in a season and constantly improves until his cap has dropped 30%, then he ends the season at a 7.

He starts the next season at 7, and his bad winter form takes him up 40% to... 9.8 (or 10).

This doesn't seem all that abnormal or remarkable to me. Is it?

Not unusual for someone that takes winter off. Spring and Fall are typical down trends and summer an up trend. That is part of why we have a perceived sandbagging problem. If it is normal for non-summer to raise caps 30-40%, then playing extra poor in those seasons can raise cap to 13-15. Someone with 7 handicap ability carrying a 14 cap in club events is virtually unbeatable. Is that person's proven potential a 7 cap or a 14 cap when the increase is an anomaly? Of course, those who winter in FL come home with lower caps compared to the late Fall and early Spring players so not a level playing field.

With all the variables, current caps are not a true indicator of potential. Best historical cap is a better one because it normalizes across all situations!