Is this guy a sandbagger?

[Moppy]

" Golfer Z approaches casual rounds as practice rounds and therefore probably shouldn't be submitting these scores to be applied towards his handicap. " - Exactly. I don't participate in tournaments yet, but as an outside observer, with no dog in this fight, I would say that he is sandbagging.

[iacas]

I don't see him as a sandbagger, because he isn't doing anything deliberate to modify his casual scores.  However, I do see a case for his being adjusted by the handicap committee for tournament play.  The committee has the option of only using tournament scores to calculate his index, and this is a case which would justify that modification.

Half of his scores submitted for handicap ARE his tournament rounds, so he's effectively already doing this.

[Strandly]

"Golfer Z approaches casual rounds as practice rounds and therefore probably shouldn't be submitting these scores to be applied towards his handicap." - Exactly. I don't participate in tournaments yet, but as an outside observer, with no dog in this fight, I would say that he is sandbagging.

Yeah I haven't played in any tournaments either so I'm on the outside looking in.  Seems to me the index should be calculated off tournament scores only.  That way people would have to enter and then throw tournaments in order to sandbag.  You would need some sort of exception for new players obviously but overall the fix seems simple.

[Fourputt]

Golfer Z is a real person but not me.  Of his last 20 scores, 9 were tournaments and 11 were non-tournament.  His handicap is primarily determined by his tournament play as his casual play tends to be outside his 10 best differentials.  These results are consistent going back several years.  His handicap index floats between 13 and 10.  In the north central US we tend to have our indexes increase in late Autumn (aeration, poor weather, colder temps, etc ...).  As we start in Spring, the index may increase a bit more and then start to decrease as the weather and conditions improve and we re-find our swings.  His index follows this pattern and there is no reason to think he intentionally pads it.

He plays against 20-25 people of similar handicap.  Each player gets his full course handicap.  Player Z is in the money (top 5) 75% of the time and every year for the past 5 years he wins the most over a 12 tournament schedule or is at least in the top 5 compared to our club's 150 members.

Fortunately, I am never in his flight and my interest is mainly academic.  If the handicap system works and levels the playing field, in theory one player should not consistently have a better "net" record, all other things being equal.  Of course, the handicap system can't capture that unique competitive ability some people have.  Maybe he is just one of those people for whom everything slows down during the heat of competition and he rises to the occasion.

It seems like the consensus is there is nothing going on other than some timely play on Player Z's part.  Thanks for the feed back.  Sorry about all the choices in the poll.  I will do better next time.

If his index is primarily figured by his tournament scores, how can he possibly win that often without his handicap going down?  That doesn't make sense.  If each time he plays a tournament he shoots under his handicap, that score is posted and his index becomes lower, then next time he beats it again, and it gets lower yet.  That's how the system works.  If that isn't happening, then there is something else going on here that I don't understand.

My club had a true sandbagger for about a half season several years ago.  He had placed first or second in every tournament, yet those low scores were never on his handicap when the next tournament came around because he would have posted 15 or 16 "new" rounds between tournaments.  About halfway through the season the handicap committee adjusted and froze his handicap.  He played once more and got majorly pissed off when he found what they had done, and he quit the club.  After the next tournament we drank a toast to his departure.

[Big C]

That's not true at all.

If he plays half his rounds in tournaments by definition he can't be a sandbagger.

Erik, I respectfully disagree. Of course you are correct that his handicap will generally reflect his tournament average, but that's a big difference from reflecting their tournament potential, which is what your index is designed to capture. If 10 of his 11 casual rounds represent the throwaway scores in the handicap calculation, then he has a pretty big advantage on the rest of the field.

Fourputt, to your question: In my men's club (which has a pretty honest membership, and where the handicap committee does frequently adjust based on outlier performances), you would be surprised at how often a net 72 or better would put at or near the top 5 in your particular flight. Shooting a net 72 under tournament conditions is no small feat.

[ghalfaire]

I voted no because the golfer plays by the rules and apparently isn't trying to manipulate the system.  However if the differential in tournaments is that much lower I suspect he will end up with an assigned handicap which the rules also address.  I would think most of us play tournaments for significant prizes differently than playing a $5 Nassau with our buddies.  How much difference it makes in our scores.

I would add that I'm not denying there are sandbags out there.  There are an I know a few, but they are a small minority. But they do things like not use ESC when entering scores,  play the tips and enter scores from the member tees, knowingly take "handicap maintenance shots", etc.  But there are also some who just play better when there is something on the line.  I suspect it is because they concentrate better and do a better job of course management.   I don't think that makes them sandbaggers.

[Meltdwhiskey]

If his index is primarily figured by his tournament scores, how can he possibly win that often without his handicap going down?  That doesn't make sense.  If each time he plays a tournament he shoots under his handicap, that score is posted and his index becomes lower, then next time he beats it again, and it gets lower yet.  That's how the system works.  If that isn't happening, then there is something else going on here that I don't understand.

I had the same question but the re-read his post.  I don't think he ever said that his tournament scores were beating his handicap - but just that his tournament scores were beating his non-tournament rounds.  Apparently, the tournament scores are used to build his 10 or so HC and then he shoots about a 10 over at the tourney.

So (also apparently) a net of even par seems to get you in the top 5 of these tournaments.  That leaves the only explanation to be that the stress of the tourney is taking its toll on the other 20 golfers - but not so much for this guy.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

That's not true at all.

If he plays half his rounds in tournaments by definition he can't be a sandbagger.

Erik, I respectfully disagree. Of course you are correct that his handicap will generally reflect his tournament average, but that's a big difference from reflecting their tournament potential, which is what your index is designed to capture. If 10 of his 11 casual rounds represent the throwaway scores in the handicap calculation, then he has a pretty big advantage on the rest of the field.

Fourputt, to your question: In my men's club (which has a pretty honest membership, and where the handicap committee does frequently adjust based on outlier performances), you would be surprised at how often a net 72 or better would put at or near the top 5 in your particular flight. Shooting a net 72 under tournament conditions is no small feat.

I would dispute your last sentence.  First of all, at least on my home course, tournament conditions are no different from any other round, except for the club championship where we play using a hybrid tee setup.  Otherwise the course is no different from what we play day in and day out.  There is no reason that good round shouldn't result in a net par or better.  (My personal best on my home course was shot in the Club Championship)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

If his index is primarily figured by his tournament scores, how can he possibly win that often without his handicap going down?  That doesn't make sense.  If each time he plays a tournament he shoots under his handicap, that score is posted and his index becomes lower, then next time he beats it again, and it gets lower yet.  That's how the system works.  If that isn't happening, then there is something else going on here that I don't understand.

I had the same question but the re-read his post.  I don't think he ever said that his tournament scores were beating his handicap - but just that his tournament scores were beating his non-tournament rounds.  Apparently, the tournament scores are used to build his 10 or so HC and then he shoots about a 10 over at the tourney.

So (also apparently) a net of even par seems to get you in the top 5 of these tournaments.  That leaves the only explanation to be that the stress of the tourney is taking its toll on the other 20 golfers - but not so much for this guy.

But he also said that the guy is winning an exceptionally high percentage of the tournaments, and that is something to question.  At some point his handicap has to stabilize, and if that isn't happening, the committee should be asking why.

[David in FL]

But he also said that the guy is winning an exceptionally high percentage of the tournaments, and that is something to question.  At some point his handicap has to stabilize, and if that isn't happening, the committee should be asking why.

This is the key for me......

......along with the fact that the tournament rounds are all consistently his low rounds.  Casual round or not, a 10 hcp is going to have some decent rounds just goofing around.  Heck, for most of us, some very good rounds pop up when we're relaxed and just enjoying the day.  Conversely, no matter how hard anyone grinds, there will always be off days......but apparently not for this guy.

Sorry, I'm just not buying it.  At least not as outlined in the OP.

[Meltdwhiskey]

But he also said that the guy is winning an exceptionally high percentage of the tournaments, and that is something to question.  At some point his handicap has to stabilize, and if that isn't happening, the committee should be asking why.

Agreed.  This is very fishy.  This would have to be one steady golfer. I think I've heard that a person plays to their handicap once every 5 rounds or so.  This guy would have to be playing to it almost every time, and never much better or much worse.  If he shot worse, he'd win (or top 5) the tourney by shooting over par.  If he shot better, his HC would come down.  Sounds like he shoots 10 over in every tourney.

[Big C]

I would dispute your last sentence.  First of all, at least on my home course, tournament conditions are no different from any other round, except for the club championship where we play using a hybrid tee setup.  Otherwise the course is no different from what we play day in and day out.  There is no reason that good round shouldn't result in a net par or better.  (My personal best on my home course was shot in the Club Championship)

But he also said that the guy is winning an exceptionally high percentage of the tournaments, and that is something to question.  At some point his handicap has to stabilize, and if that isn't happening, the committee should be asking why.

Just for fun, I looked up the results for one of the Club Championship flights this year. It was a 3 day event (so a net score would be 216). The winner and second place finisher both tied with a 215 (1-under net). Third place was a 223 (7-over). The scores continued to elevate from there, with several golfers in the 230-245 range.

I have no doubt that you are a better pressure player than most, but I still think you underestimate the degree that tournament pressure can weigh on the minds of most amateurs!

[phan52]

Half of his scores submitted for handicap ARE his tournament rounds, so he's effectively already doing this.

This. And if his tournament scores are considerably lower than his regular rounds, as the OP suggests, the tournament scores are already taking care of his handicap without any intervention.

[iacas]

Erik, I respectfully disagree.

Disagree all you want, it's just math, and it works out very simply. If his scores are: 82 , 86, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 86, 82 , 86, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 86, 82 , 86 and the bold rounds are his tournament rounds, guess what his handicap will be? By definition, you can't be sandbagging when the lowest scores you shoot are used to establish your handicap?

The only way to sandbag would be to shoot 15 casual rounds of 86 and then five tournament rounds of 82 or whatever. Then you're sandbagging (not a lot, but a little).

Of course you are correct that his handicap will generally reflect his tournament average, but that's a big difference from reflecting their tournament potential, which is what your index is designed to capture. If 10 of his 11 casual rounds represent the throwaway scores in the handicap calculation, then he has a pretty big advantage on the rest of the field.

What advantage? His ten lowest scores are already being used. He has no advantage. His handicap is as low as it could possibly be given ALL of the scores he's shooting. That he consistently plays TO (or very near to) his potential in tournament rounds is inconsequential - he isn't exceeding his potential.

[Moppy]

If the tournament rounds are determining his handicap, then he is a real statistical oddity to finish the way he does time after time. There is some missing fact here.

[boil3rmak3r]

Disagree all you want, it's just math, and it works out very simply. If his scores are: 82 , 86, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 86, 82 , 86, 82 , 85, 82 , 85, 82 , 86, 82 , 86 and the bold rounds are his tournament rounds, guess what his handicap will be? By definition, you can't be sandbagging when the lowest scores you shoot are used to establish your handicap? The only way to sandbag would be to shoot 15 casual rounds of 86 and then five tournament rounds of 82 or whatever. Then you're sandbagging (not a lot, but a little). What advantage? His ten lowest scores are already being used. He has no advantage. His handicap is as low as it could possibly be given ALL of the scores he's shooting. That he consistently plays TO (or very near to) his potential in tournament rounds is inconsequential - he isn't exceeding his potential.

What about this guy: 84, 79t, 85, 80t, 83, 80t, 85, 78t, etc... That's an example we are eluding to. In this example, the player has a handicap based solely on the 10 rounds that he actually TRIED his best in. My handicap would MOST CERTAINLY be higher if I essentially sandbagged all of my casual rounds. It's simple math... As someone else mentioned, something would be up if a person's casual rounds were never low enough to count as any of their lowest 10.

[iacas]

What about this guy: 84, 79t, 85, 80t, 83, 80t, 85, 78t, etc...

Basically the same guy. Since half of his scores are tournament scores, his handicap will be based on the 79-ish range.

That's an example we are eluding to. In this example, the player has a handicap based solely on the 10 rounds that he actually TRIED his best in. My handicap would MOST CERTAINLY be higher if I essentially sandbagged all of my casual rounds. It's simple math...

You don't play tournaments as often as this guy. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Both your example numbers and mine will result in a player playing TO but not EXCEEDING his potential in his tournament rounds.

[boil3rmak3r]

Basically the same guy. Since half of his scores are tournament scores, his handicap will be based on the 79-ish range. You don't play tournaments as often as this guy. So I'm not sure what your point is. Both your example numbers and mine will result in a player playing TO but not EXCEEDING his potential in his tournament rounds.

I was using the basis of me (or any golfer) having an even split of 10 t rounds and 10 casual rounds. An important point I should have made... Sure, he's playing TO his potential in tournaments, but he's not doing the same in casual rounds. Would his overall handicap lower, in my example, if his 10 casual rounds were all in the 78 to 80 range? Sure it would. In this example, it wouldn't lower by much, but it'd sure go down. What if his tournament scores had a 4 stroke range (I.e. 77 to 81), but all of his casual rounds were higher than 81? If this golfer shot in the same 4 shot range of 77 to 81 in his casual rounds, his overall handicap would lower by, what, 2 strokes maybe?

[Golfingdad]

What about this guy: 84, 79t, 85, 80t, 83, 80t, 85, 78t, etc...

That's an example we are eluding to. In this example, the player has a handicap based solely on the 10 rounds that he actually TRIED his best in. My handicap would MOST CERTAINLY be higher if I essentially sandbagged all of my casual rounds. It's simple math...

As someone else mentioned, something would be up if a person's casual rounds were never low enough to count as any of their lowest 10.

OK, let's do that.  If I extrapolate out your numbers, I get something like: 84, 79T , 85, 80T , 83, 80T , 85, 78T , 84, 79T , 84, 79T , 85, 80T , 83, 80T , 85, 78T , 84, 79T .

If said guy plays the same in his casual rounds as tourney rounds then you get: 79, 79T , 80, 80T , 80, 80T , 78, 78T , 79, 79T , 79, 79T , 80, 80T , 80, 80T , 78, 78T , 79, 79T

I don't even have to go any further with the math than that. The best ten are still the exact same ten. (EDIT:  I'm an idiot, don't bother correcting me ;)) At most, he'll have another 78 or 79 casual round knock off an 80T round. But even if that is so, we're talking about 0.1 or 0.2 difference in index here.  That is nothing. (Second edit:  I will follow up in a susequent post with the correct answer ;))

Anybody calling the golfer in the OP a sandbagger is assuming facts not in evidence.  Based on the follow up of him finishing so well so often, I am skeptical that maybe there are more factors at play here that OP is unaware of that could push the actual golfer in question into the sandbagger category.  But hypothetical golfer Z - with only the facts that have been presented to us - is certainly NOT a sandbagger.

Basically the same guy. Since half of his scores are tournament scores, his handicap will be based on the 79-ish range.

You don't play tournaments as often as this guy. So I'm not sure what your point is.

Both your example numbers and mine will result in a player playing TO but not EXCEEDING his potential in his tournament rounds.

Yes, exactly.