Are You a Vanity Capper?

[imsys0042]

24 minutes ago, Carl3 said:

I have been noticing things like the grain and people will sometimes shake their head as if I am crazy, but since I birdied 3 in a row the other day I am staying the course. My regular partner is now asking me to read some of his putts occaissionally. 

I’ve started to pay attention to grain since it does weird things on my home course like make a downhill putt slower and you have to remember to put some extra force on it.  Generally my home course has difficult greens to read and the last two pros have emphasized taking grain into account.

that said, I’m sure we’d have had oodles more fun playing with you instead of them, even if you pulled out a map of the solar system on every green and read putts by the effect of Jupiters pull on them earth.  🤣

[Hugh Jars]

On 7/31/2022 at 9:56 PM, Sandy Lie said:

I’ve played 200 plus rounds a year in my 6 years of retirement. I’m at 144 so far this year. So I see a wide range of H’Cappers that don’t post their rounds even though I felt they played well.  I post them all, the good, bad and ugly.

I mostly see mostly low HDCP’s not post rounds at all.  I see young good players who just post competitive rounds only (tournaments). I see Low HDCPs play poorly and mid round declare it a practice round. Really?  I’ve seen players that don’t post for months! I’ve seen players at our Club who do batch posting which is frowned upon by  our HDCP committee.   
Some players don’t post scores in order to keep their HDCP low so they can get into some tournaments.

Do we care? Well, I do. There are certain things I don’t like.  I hate gimmes! They seem to get longer and longer with a few people I know!  And the rule infraction that is put aside, the drop from relief etc. 

So back to me, I post them all. I do the “hole-by-hole” posting method in GHIN.  By the way I’ve heard that may become the de facto method of posting per the USGA. Anyone else hear about that?

Am I perfect? Far from it, but when I play it is by the rules. I have on occasion ask one of our Pro’s to delete a score after learning I made an error.

Its just a game, do the best you can. A bad day on the golf course? There’s no such thing!
 

 

 

The USGA handicapping system seems more and more like a farcical mess.

[Hugh Jars]

On 7/27/2022 at 9:38 PM, billchao said:

You’re cherry picking results based on average golfers who aren’t used to playing in tour conditions on championship courses. This doesn’t support your argument the way you think it does.

I’m not entirely sure you understand how handicap index works at this point. A 14 handicap is only going to shoot a 14 differential or lower 25% of the time. And that’s differential, not strokes. My low round this year is a 12 over par 84 for a 10.3 differential on a course where my course handicap is 16. At The Stadium Course at TPC Sawgrass, from the TPC tees, my course handicap is 23.

I’d take that bet and I’m a 13.

As in playing to the actual rules of golf for once on slope rated tees that take into consideration the playing conditions expected of that course?

A score of 148 by a 14 handicapper at TPC Sawgrass with slope rating 155, course rating 76.4 equates to a differential of 52.5.

Genuinely curious to know how often do you think a legitimate 14 handicapper would post a score 38.5 differential points above their handicap.

I’m really not entirely sure you understand how handicap index works at this point.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Hugh Jars

[iacas]

4 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

The USGA handicapping system seems more and more like a farcical mess.

And yet governing bodies around the globe used it as the basis for the WHS.

4 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

As in playing to the actual rules of golf for once on slope rated tees that take into consideration the playing conditions expected of that course?

It's a small sample size, and thus almost the definition of cherry picking. Meanwhile, every day, hundreds of thousands of rounds are posted which completely conform to the types of scores you'd expect to see from golfers. So it's surprising to you that by choosing ONE such thing and ignoring a few hundred thousand rounds posted that very same day that you'd be accused of cherry picking? It's the definition.

4 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

A score of 148 by a 14 handicapper at TPC Sawgrass with slope rating 155, course rating 76.4 equates to a differential of 52.5.

No, it doesn't. You've not applied the handicap formula correctly.

4 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

I’m really not entirely sure you understand how handicap index works at this point.

The only thing we can say for certain is that you don't.

Here's the deal, man: you're used to a different type of system. That's it. The system that you know is shifting in the direction of the USGA's system (the WHS is a lot closer to the pre-2020 USGA system than any other system in the world), but where differences remain, you're simply "stuck" in your way of thinking. For many, many golfers, the handicapping system in the U.S. works quite well. Are there abusers? People who apply it incorrectly? Vanity handicappers and sandbaggers? Yes. But here's the thing: there are in Australia, too. And to what lesser extent there are, there are also different levels of engagement, with slightly different goals.

[Big Lex]

7 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

A score of 148 by a 14 handicapper at TPC Sawgrass with slope rating 155, course rating 76.4 equates to a differential of 52.5.

Genuinely curious to know how often do you think a legitimate 14 handicapper would post a score 38.5 differential points above their handicap.

Forgive any math errors I might make here...I checked a couple of times but I still could have missed something. Anyway here goes:

Using the USGA formula, the 148 by a 14 HI player equates to a differential of 31.5. (Differential = (133/155) x (148-76.4) - (PCC adjustment). This ignores that the score must be an adjusted score (equitable stroke control limiting you to net double), but we will ignore the adjustment and the PCC for illustration. 

31.5 / 14 = ~ 2.2 

So his differential was about 2.2 x his handicap index. 

I played Sands Point Golf Club (71.0/133) on June 29 and shot 95. The adjusted differential is 20.4. My current index is 11.1. 

20.4 / 11.1 =~ 1.8

The 95 was my worst differential in my current score set used for handicap purposes, and it probably had 2-3 strokes shaved via equitable stroke control. 

It was the first time I played the course. It was a difficult, Tillinghast course, but it was in great condition, was fairly open, had very little water. It was a bit windy that day but not enough to create any PCC. 

Compared to a course like Sawgrass played at tour level conditions, this was a cakewalk, but it was still harder for me than most of the courses I play. 

I agree that a 148 from a 14 HI player seems, on the surface, to be ridiculous. But it isn't, really. It's unusual, but it's not in the range where you become convinced the system is faulty. It's not even close to that, not when you look at it closely. 

To answer your question, I'm gonna guess that the score the guy posted would happen maybe once in every 20-25 rounds for a 14 hcp, and only in the extreme conditions and situation in which he played (hardest golf course possible, essentially, with very difficult scoring setup). 

There is so much variation in golf scores among handicap players (two days later, on a harder golf course than Sands Point (Yale GC), I had a 16.7 differential, for example), any attempt to distill playing ability down to a single number is going to suffer from occasional outlier results. And this isn't even an extreme outlier. 

The handicap system is statistics (regression), math, basically. It is what it is. The system isn't right or wrong, it is an attempt to capture something by manipulation of numbers. What is surprising or unusual is not that someone shot 2.2x his HI, it's how difficult golf courses are under tournament conditions. I think we underestimate the latter, and blame the surprising score, somehow, on the former. 

How would you change the handicap system to make it better? 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Big Lex

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Using the USGA formula, the 148 by a 14 HI player equates to a differential of 31.5. (Differential = (133/155) x (148-76.4)

Huh?

148-76.5 = 71.5
113/155 = 0.73
0.73*71.5 = 52.1

I see it was 76.4 not 76.5 but okay, adjust a tiny bit.

[Big Lex]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Huh?

148-76.5 = 71.5
113/155 = 0.73
0.73*71.5 = 52.1

I got nothin'

See? I told you to forgive the math errors. 

Ok so my post makes LESS sense. But the spirit is ok. He shot 3x his HI, not 2.2.

 

Edited August 4, 2022 by Big Lex

[GolfLug]

8 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

The USGA handicapping system seems more and more like a farcical mess.

People lie about their scores.  That's what this thread is about. What's that gotta do with the USGA handicapping system? What you are saying is that Australian golfers are immune to lying about their scores because there are bunch of Australian handicapping police monitoring every single round out there for honesty that won't allow vanity/sandbag reporting across the board.  Yeah, ok.    

[mohearn]

8 hours ago, Hugh Jars said:

The USGA handicapping system seems more and more like a farcical mess.

LOL, mostly works though, I guess.  To add to the mix, many (most?) leagues use their own customized handicap for league play, for example a league I'm in uses best 5 nine hole scores of the last 10. (league scores only). Only 1 or 2 out of 36 players even have an official USGA HCP.  

In that sense I might be slightly vanity capped. I post 9 hole rounds (legitimately) and they get combined into an 18 hole score.  For me probably works out to slightly lower my HCP since it's easier for me to have better 9 hole rounds (even back to back 9 hole rounds). I can maintain focus, have less chance of a blowup, etc over 9 holes versus 18. That said I posted a 78 the other day, 18 holes from about 6200 yds.

[RustUK]

9 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

People lie about their scores.  That's what this thread is about. What's that gotta do with the USGA handicapping system? What you are saying is that Australian golfers are immune to lying about their scores because there are bunch of Australian handicapping police monitoring every single round out there for honesty that won't allow vanity/sandbag reporting across the board.  Yeah, ok.    

I think the main difference is with the old UK system(R&A) and I think the Australian one is that the handicap was calculated based on competition rounds only.  I think that gave a fairer reflection of a player's ability when taking a round seriously.  There were no casual rounds included where, frankly, there is more of an opportunity to post inaccurate scores to either sandbag or vanity handicap.

[Shindig]

1 minute ago, RustUK said:

I think the main difference is with the old UK system(R&A) and I think the Australian one is that the handicap was calculated based on competition rounds only.  I think that gave a fairer reflection of a player's ability when taking a round seriously.  There were no casual rounds included where, frankly, there is more of an opportunity to post inaccurate scores to either sandbag or vanity handicap.

Do you not take a round seriously if it isn't sanctioned by someone else?

How do you maintain a handicap if most, if not all, of your play is you and three buddies two Sundays a month?

[RustUK]

I would prefer the need for there to be a certain number of competition scores included within your last 20 rounds to ensure that your ability is monitored correctly under the right conditions.

If you only play with your buddies a couple of times of month and never play in competitions, you don't need an official handicap, you can just work it out amongst yourselves.

The problems arise, generally, when players are allowed to manipulate their handicap by to sandbag, by entering casual rounds.

[Big Lex]

I should really quit while I'm behind 🙂, but given the egregious math error above, I wanted to attempt redemption.

I took the guy's scorecards from the youtube videos, and watched all 4, not just the last one. 

He actually shot 74 75 = 149.

If we apply ESC limiting to net double, I get a score of 57 57 = 114.

If he didn't have an established handicap, he would have been limited to par + 5, and that score would be 66 66 = 132. 

His raw score differential is (113/155) x (149 - 76.4)  = .73 x 72.6 = 53

His ESC-adjusted differential was: (113/155) x (114 - 76.4) = 0.73 x 37.6 = 27.4

His no-hanidcap-established adjusted differential was: (113/155) x (132 - 76.4) = 0.73 x 55.6 = 40.6

Edited August 4, 2022 by Big Lex

[DaveP043]

26 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

People lie about their scores.  That's what this thread is about. What's that gotta do with the USGA handicapping system? What you are saying is that Australian golfers are immune to lying about their scores because there are bunch of Australian handicapping police monitoring every single round out there for honesty that won't allow vanity/sandbag reporting across the board.  Yeah, ok.    

I don't know about Australia specifically, but in many parts of the world a "casual" score MUST be pre-registered and MUST be attested before it is accepted into the system.  It can be done through the phone app, at least in England.  You can read a bit about it here:

https://howdidido.blob.core.windows.net/clubsitespublic/file_fee931f6-0df6-485a-a41f-e94f9145bd6b.pdf

This type of system does make it more difficult to manipulate handicaps.  Not impossible, but not nearly as easy as our system in the USGA areas.

[GolfLug]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

This type of system does make it more difficult to manipulate handicaps.  Not impossible, but not nearly as easy as our system in the USGA areas.

I can see that to a small extent but USGA requires certification too. I am just not seeing this 'farcical mess' that @Hugh Jarsis claiming. That's a huge stretch IMO. 

10 hours ago, iacas said:

And yet governing bodies around the globe used it as the basis for the WHS.

Right. 

There are folks who lie/manipulate scores/handicaps but IMO these are folks who don't use it anywhere meaningful other than stupidly trying to impressing unsuspecting strangers to stroke their 'ego'. There are always exceptions but manipulation can't be rampant in actual serious leagues/competitions with proper custodians in the USGA system either. Sandbagging is easily the bigger of the two evils and it doesn't fly too far either.   

Edited August 4, 2022 by GolfLug

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, GolfLug said:

I can see that to a small extent but USGA requires certification too. I am just not seeing this 'farcical mess' that @Hugh Jarsis claiming. That's a huge stretch IMO. 

He's just trying to be all puffy chested about his system, which has its own set of flaws and limitations.

It's a slightly different set, but it's not like it's flaw-free.

[boogielicious]

[darthweasel]

17 hours ago, iacas said:

He's just trying to be all puffy chested about his system, which has its own set of flaws and limitations.

It's a slightly different set, but it's not like it's flaw-free.

the hint is in his screen name.