Is This Club Blatantly Sandbagging?

[Ty_Webb]

34 minutes ago, p1n9183 said:

I'm on the side of thinking that something is not right here and should be reviewed.

Let say that their course rating is pretty low, so their index is higher than it should be. But if they always play at their home course they are probably going to play bad away from home so it should even that advantage out or at least lower it down. 
Also you can say that they are amazing players under pressure and very skilled in match play format, but at the end of the day variance and luck is always going to play a big role between 2 players of similar handicap.

Let's assume that player A have 75% chance of winning a match over player B that only have 25%, there is no way that a player's skill in match play can make such a difference in a match outcome but I prefer to use a number that is hard to argue. (For me.. 60/40, or 65/35 at most)

The odds of winning 21 straight matches with that  generous odds are less than 1% (or 1 in 420). Is this proof that they are "cheating" or something, of course not but is evidence enough to note that something is not right and should be reviewed further.     

They're playing 16 games in each match though. Don't need much of an advantage before that number of players significantly loads things in their favor. The other team has to win 8.5 games to beat them. At a 65/35 split, that's a lot and pretty unlikely (about 10% of the time).

[iacas]

30 minutes ago, billchao said:

Why does the second sentence have to be true? If they're used to playing a tough course that's improperly rated, they're going to both have inflated indexes and have higher skills relative to them. If their home course features a variety of different challenges, I don't see why their game wouldn't travel well.

And on the flip side, some courses and their members take pride in how hard their course is and how tough it's rated, and that bit of vanity ends up hurting them in these kinds of competitions.

Oakmont fields a fierce roster and would be VERY tough to beat in something like this.

[billchao]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Oakmont fields a fierce roster and would be VERY tough to beat in something like this.

I don't think anyone would suggest that Oakmont's CR is for vanity. I meant to write "could end up hurting them."

If a golf course is just legitimately hard, it's going to spit out hardened golfers.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, billchao said:

I don't think anyone would suggest that Oakmont's CR is for vanity. I meant to write "could end up hurting them."

If a golf course is just legitimately hard, it's going to spit out hardened golfers.

I was agreeing with you/jumping off from there.

[billchao]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I was agreeing with you/jumping off from there.

Ah ok I misunderstood. But you did bring to light an oversight on my part.

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Oakmont fields a fierce roster and would be VERY tough to beat in something like this.

Very much so. I think the intimidation factor that a lot of people feel playing against someone who's actually very good is significant. I know that Winged Foot pride themselves on the strength of the club. I think they have something like 40-50 players who are plus something. Club championships there are pretty competitive. Can't imagine Oakmont isn't similar. The more I think about this, the more likely it seems that this club is legit. Winning also breeds confidence and I'm sure the other clubs when they play this one are expecting to lose - that can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.