SandBagging….Is There Such a Thing?

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by GolfBookie

SandBagging….Is There Such a Thing? I’m not so sure.

In my experience, golfers prefer the bragging rights associated with a lower-than-actual handicap to the monetary and hardware rewards of a higher-than-actual handicap. In the (male) golf groups I’ve been involved in, the social pecking order has usually been set by handicap index….the lower the index, the higher the caste of the player.

How many bad rounds are not recorded because under the 10 out of 20 rule “they’re not going to count” anyway? This common practice quickly leads to a lower index.

In male golf groups, most of the handicaps are lower than they should be. All you really need to do to have an advantage is record all your scores, and your (actual) handicap will give you a slight advantage over others’ too-low handicaps.

Does this happen in women’s groups? I wonder.

Well, you are correct, but SandBagging certainly does still exist.  I believe the distinction is simple: people who play casually are more likely to want the bragging rights of a lower index, and people who play competitively would have a higher incentive to SandBag.

I came across my first instance of Sandbagging last year when I joined a Golf Club and played with them regularly in tournaments.  I actually didn't know the definition of the word until somebody whispered to me about sandbagging, and I had to ask what it was.  Then I came across a guy I was paired with who had like a 25 handicap (mine was 11 at the time) and he shot better than I did (although I did play about 6 strokes above my handicap that day).  That wasn't what made me think he was a Sand bagger.  It was the fact that I checked his scores the next 3 tournaments and he always won 1st or 2nd place in his flight.  But his handicap never lowered throughout the year.  On top of that, he had a pretty good swing.  No idea how he established a 25 index.

On the other hand, I played with some co-workers casually who were single-digit cappers (5-6).  I played a good round and beat both of them, despite being a mid-capper myself.  Not that their indexes were bogus, but I think the lack of incentive to play to a very high index prioritizes our natural instincts to want to brag about our potential, which is reflected in a lower handicap.

Brandon

[Gerald]

In social tournaments it can be a problem, but I rather play (not for money) with I guy cheating about his index than with a guy dropping a ball in the woods, claiming he's just found his ball ........

[ghalfaire]

I voted too low because of how the USGA calculates handicaps.  Your handicap is an estimate of your potential to score and not an average of your scoring potential.  Not that that is bad, just a fact.

The simple answer is of course there are Sand Baggers.  But I think they are a small minority and there are many more "ego handicaps" than Sand Baggers.  But when you run into a Sand Bagger in a tournament it is sure discouraging.

[rebby]

I'd rather not have a handicap. In fact, I've ranted about this in the past. The only reason that I even keep a handicap is because it's required for so many events. Low net scores mean nothing to me. It's all about the gross score. I strongly prefer events where you just go out, play golf, post a score and that's what determines the result.

[rebby]

Almost forgot... I voted "Too High" because of what I observed years ago. When I was a kid at my club I used to do all the scoring for the Tuesday and Wednesday night leagues. The leagues were team based stroke play events. There were 8 or so members per team and the low 5 scores (net) would count for the team's weekly total. A team would earn a given amount of points based on where they placed relative to the other teams in a given week. At the end of the season, the teams would be ranked and play head to head (similar to a match play bracket) until a winner was determined. Anyway, while doing the scoring I noticed an obscene number of +3 or +4 or better low net scores. For example, the front 9 was rated 34.2 and EVERY week I'd be punching in 30's, 28's and even the occasional 26. A team that shot all 33's (net) would rank at the very bottom any given week. This made ZERO sense to me. Based on the handicap calculations the average net score should have been more like 35 or 36 not, 31 or 32. At the end of the first season took all the numbers that I'd gathered for the year and calculated "league handicaps." I used the exact same formula used for their official handicaps but in my calculations, I only used league rounds. The vast majority of players had "league handicaps" that were well below their official handicap, some had a delta as great as 10 strokes. As you might expect, the teams with the biggest discrepancy between official and league handicaps were the teams that won year in, year out. I showed this to the club pro and we made a few changes. The next year we started publishing the "league handicap" on every scoring sheet right next to the player's name and their official handicap. As you might guess, EVERYBODY asked what this number was, "that's your handicap calculation when we only take league rounds into account." You can imagine the uproar from some of the members. Here it was, their "sandbagging" clearly stated where everybody could see it, even posted on the bulletin board. To make matters worse, these numbers were even color coded (if the delta between 9-hole handicaps were greater than 1 stroke, the number would be blue or red). After a few weeks you started to see these numbers normalize a little bit. All of a sudden guys who were 15's for the last 10 years were playing to an 11. Their "improvement" was impeccable. The following year the league voted to use a hybrid handicap depending on the week of play. Week 1 was 100% official handicap. Week 2 was a 90/10 official/league calculation. Week 3, 80/20, and so on until the number reached 95% league and 5% official. For the first year in league history, the playoffs were highly contested and very dramatic. In a few cases, playoffs were even utilized and the winning margin was decreased a significant amount. In short, it was a lot of fun and guys were actually pressured to play well from week to week. The way that a league should be. Sure, this is only a sample set of one club. A sampling of roughly 500 golfers but it's telling nonetheless.

[bplewis24]

Great story rebby.  Sandbagging may not be widespread, but in a league setting there is definite incentive.  That's exactly what I was referring to in my post.

On the other hand, I'm much more likely to have a vanity index than a sandbagging one.  Last year, before I was trying to establish a handicap (before I was a member of the NCGA for the golf club) I played probably 20 rounds and I would basically stop scoring and turn it into a practice round if I played bad enough.  Once I joined the club and knew about sandbagging, and handicaps in general, I stopped doing that.  No mulligans and no sandbagging.  Unless I specifically set out for the round to be a practice round before-hand, I scored it as a regular round.  In fact, sometimes when I play bad and I'm by myself, I will hit extra shots, but still keep the score of my original ball on every hole.

Brandon

[zeg]

Originally Posted by rebby

When I was a kid at my club I used to do all the scoring for the Tuesday and Wednesday night leagues. The leagues were team based stroke play events. There were 8 or so members per team and the low 5 scores (net) would count for the team's weekly total. A team would earn a given amount of points based on where they placed relative to the other teams in a given week. At the end of the season, the teams would be ranked and play head to head (similar to a match play bracket) until a winner was determined. Anyway, while doing the scoring I noticed an obscene number of +3 or +4 or better low net scores. For example, the front 9 was rated 34.2 and EVERY week I'd be punching in 30's, 28's and even the occasional 26. A team that shot all 33's (net) would rank at the very bottom any given week. This made ZERO sense to me. Based on the handicap calculations the average net score should have been more like 35 or 36 not, 31 or 32.

That format is not a great way to gauge handicaps, because your intuitive feeling that the average net score should have been 35 or 36 is possibly incorrect even for perfectly accurate handicaps.  Taking the best 5 of 8 ("or so") golfers biases your scores low.  The average score, sure, should be a bit above net 0, but the method you describe throws out the highest scores from that week and selects those golfers who happened to have a good week.  A simple simulation I just ran suggests that a stroke or two better than the rating is not an unlikely average, and getting down into the 20s a few times in a season should not be too alarming for a 34.2 rating.  Of course, one can tweak the assumptions to push the exact numbers around a bit, but the point is that it's hard sense how statistics will play out.

Not trying to argue that there wasn't sandbagging going on, or that you didn't experience it (and your latter example is pretty strong evidence of it), just that I think there's a tendency to overinterpret good luck as sandbagging.  In a group of more than a few people, someone is going to have good luck almost every week---25% of the golfers should hit their handicap, after all.  If it's the same guy every week, then there's something to worry about.

[rebby]

That format is not a great way to gauge handicaps, because your intuitive feeling that the average net score should have been 35 or 36 is possibly incorrect even for perfectly accurate handicaps.  Taking the best 5 of 8 ("or so") golfers biases your scores low.  The average score, sure, should be a bit above net 0, but the method you describe throws out the highest scores from that week and selects those golfers who happened to have a good week.  A simple simulation I just ran suggests that a stroke or two better than the rating is not an unlikely average, and getting down into the 20s a few times in a season should not be too alarming for a 34.2 rating.  Of course, one can tweak the assumptions to push the exact numbers around a bit, but the point is that it's hard sense how statistics will play out.

Not trying to argue that there wasn't sandbagging going on, or that you didn't experience it (and your latter example is pretty strong evidence of it), just that I think there's a tendency to overinterpret good luck as sandbagging.  In a group of more than a few people, someone is going to have good luck almost every week---25% of the golfers should hit their handicap, after all.  If it's the same guy every week, then there's something to worry about.

Ah, slight misunderstanding. I was taking the average net score of ALL scores, not just those used for team scoring. That's what made my results so alarming. The "sandbagging" was very obvious when you looked at the numbers. It was usually the same guys every week. Much of this was suspected among the members, it just took a little long term analysis to prove it. I remember one guy specifically, his worst round that entire year (including some really bad weather conditions) was a net 33, his best round was a net 26, his average was 30. Once we established the "league handicap" system, his average net score bubbled up to 35 (right on pace with the majority of the others). Handicaps are intended to level the playing field. It's unfortunate that, in some cases, it does just the opposite.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by rebby

Ah, slight misunderstanding. I was taking the average net score of ALL scores, not just those used for team scoring. That's what made my results so alarming. The "sandbagging" was very obvious when you looked at the numbers. It was usually the same guys every week. Much of this was suspected among the members, it just took a little long term analysis to prove it. I remember one guy specifically, his worst round that entire year (including some really bad weather conditions) was a net 33, his best round was a net 26, his average was 30. Once we established the "league handicap" system, his average net score bubbled up to 35 (right on pace with the majority of the others).

Handicaps are intended to level the playing field. It's unfortunate that, in some cases, it does just the opposite.

Ah, yeah that's different.  :-)  Makes me think of Lake Wobegon, where apparently all the children are above average and all the golfers play below their handicaps...

[Cut68]

I"ve seen my best buddy and golfing partner do it........... and we play eachother weekly. We are remarkably evenly matched and a stroke would make a huge difference. I didn't notice it until last year when I found myself giving him 3-4 strokes around. I finally called him on it and he just laughed. His scores were real........ he was just blowing holes he was already out of on purpose. I had a simple way to stop it........ If I holed out for 4 and he was lying 4, his next shot was good, no matter where he was on the hole. After I gave him 4 or 5 chips and bunker shots, he quit. Kind of weird, because he's a real straight-up guy, but losing got the best of him.

[rebby]

I"ve seen my best buddy and golfing partner do it........... and we play eachother weekly. We are remarkably evenly matched and a stroke would make a huge difference. I didn't notice it until last year when I found myself giving him 3-4 strokes around. I finally called him on it and he just laughed. His scores were real........ he was just blowing holes he was already out of on purpose. I had a simple way to stop it........ If I holed out for 4 and he was lying 4, his next shot was good, no matter where he was on the hole. After I gave him 4 or 5 chips and bunker shots, he quit. Kind of weird, because he's a real straight-up guy, but losing got the best of him.

Easy fix. Quit giving strokes either way. Play straight up.

[kpaulhus]

Originally Posted by rebby

Almost forgot... I voted "Too High" because of what I observed years ago.

When I was a kid at my club I used to do all the scoring for the Tuesday and Wednesday night leagues. The leagues were team based stroke play events. There were 8 or so members per team and the low 5 scores (net) would count for the team's weekly total. A team would earn a given amount of points based on where they placed relative to the other teams in a given week. At the end of the season, the teams would be ranked and play head to head (similar to a match play bracket) until a winner was determined. Anyway, while doing the scoring I noticed an obscene number of +3 or +4 or better low net scores. For example, the front 9 was rated 34.2 and EVERY week I'd be punching in 30's, 28's and even the occasional 26. A team that shot all 33's (net) would rank at the very bottom any given week. This made ZERO sense to me. Based on the handicap calculations the average net score should have been more like 35 or 36 not, 31 or 32.

At the end of the first season took all the numbers that I'd gathered for the year and calculated "league handicaps." I used the exact same formula used for their official handicaps but in my calculations, I only used league rounds. The vast majority of players had "league handicaps" that were well below their official handicap, some had a delta as great as 10 strokes. As you might expect, the teams with the biggest discrepancy between official and league handicaps were the teams that won year in, year out. I showed this to the club pro and we made a few changes.

The next year we started publishing the "league handicap" on every scoring sheet right next to the player's name and their official handicap. As you might guess, EVERYBODY asked what this number was, "that's your handicap calculation when we only take league rounds into account." You can imagine the uproar from some of the members. Here it was, their "sandbagging" clearly stated where everybody could see it, even posted on the bulletin board. To make matters worse, these numbers were even color coded (if the delta between 9-hole handicaps were greater than 1 stroke, the number would be blue or red). After a few weeks you started to see these numbers normalize a little bit. All of a sudden guys who were 15's for the last 10 years were playing to an 11. Their "improvement" was impeccable.

The following year the league voted to use a hybrid handicap depending on the week of play. Week 1 was 100% official handicap. Week 2 was a 90/10 official/league calculation. Week 3, 80/20, and so on until the number reached 95% league and 5% official. For the first year in league history, the playoffs were highly contested and very dramatic. In a few cases, playoffs were even utilized and the winning margin was decreased a significant amount. In short, it was a lot of fun and guys were actually pressured to play well from week to week. The way that a league should be.

Sure, this is only a sample set of one club. A sampling of roughly 500 golfers but it's telling nonetheless.

This is how our Sunday game at my club works. If you play every Sunday, and you shoot an awesome round, your more likely to get congratulated than called a sand bagger. If you play once every 2 months, the commissioner will take your Sunday game handicap and compare it to your official. If you shoot something rediculosly low, he will adjust your handicap based on what your official is in the GHIN. So, this prevents someone from coming in every once in a while and screwing the group of regulars out of their money. They even have a sheet to tell you who is winning and losing every week.

Yesterday I shot a gross 72, net 62. Clearly I crushed all of the other scores out there, but I have also played 20 Sunday rounds in the last 6 months, so I "paid my dues" to the group. As a matter of fact, before yesterday's round, the money list had me losing $1 every week on average. $25 entry fee, I was winning $24 a week. Yesterday I brought home $95, so that should put my average up to $27.38 over the last 21 rounds, so I average +$2.38 a week lol.

My index is about a stroke or two lower than my Sunday Game handicap, and Im sure with that 72 in their computer I will get dinged 2 strokes this coming Sunday. Just have to step my game up!

I love playing with my group of guys though, so the money isn't going to stop me from playing.

[TangoDiesel]

Originally Posted by Doctorfro

For me it's about integrity.  I try to be an example for my son in that regard.  I have some low scores (6.2 current index) but my average is almost 82.  If I shoot a 75, I post it.  The problem I have is I don't play enough to post scores to move that 75 out of the last 20 rounds very fast.  And, if I'm not playing alot, my game is not as sharp. So I'm accused of having a vanity handicap if I don't play well.  What do you do? The system is what it is.  The only true handicap is a guy who plays a lot and posts all his scores with no "padded" strokes.  Are there people like that?  Yup.  Unfortunately, it's the baggers who get the attention.  And it makes playing club events frustrating but someone like me rarely has a chance to win unless I absolutely shoot a career round every time out.  Then I'm in a catch 22 situation because my handicap gets even lower.  And chances of shooting career rounds in tournaments is very small.

I have to say that I think Doctorfro is right, golf is about integrity, its not always about the money.  When most people began playing golf - it was for the enjoyment of the game.  That's what is wrong with today's world - everyone trying to get something they  didn't earn.

Do you agree?

Regards,

TangoDiesel

[NM Golf]

Originally Posted by rebby

I'd rather not have a handicap. In fact, I've ranted about this in the past. The only reason that I even keep a handicap is because it's required for so many events. Low net scores mean nothing to me. It's all about the gross score. I strongly prefer events where you just go out, play golf, post a score and that's what determines the result.

I am with you. My association quit paying any gross scores several years ago. Most of the good players left because we could not compete with all the sandbaggers (HELL yes they exist! btw). Strokes will beat you every time you cannot compete with them, especially in match play. Anywho, I decided to run for a position on the board of my local golf association and when I was elected worked to get gross prizes reinstated. My argument was I shot the lowest gross score in 3 consecutive tournaments and because they only payed net I was out of the money each time. I think it is crap to shoot the lowest score in a tournament and get nothing for it. Eventually I got enough votes on the board and got gross prizes back, and all the low handicappers have come back to my association.

[Dabbler]

My long term golf partner who I'm always beating on skins had a handicap of 20 and it was on the way up. I have all his golf scores for the past four months on my iPhone Golfcard application. Six weeks ago on two consecutive weeks, over nine holes, he shot a gross 4 over par the first week and followed it up with a gross level par the second week! These rounds were part of our weekly golf society competition. If people in the group had not known him and his general play over the last year or so, he would have been accused of being the master of all sandbaggers. His handicap is now 15 and he has gone back to the play we usually associate him with. I guess I'm just saying that freak scores do happen and we must not always jump to conclusions.

[rossvanwyk]

Sandbagging is definitely alive and kicking in my opinion.

To be honest, I cannot wrap my head around it. I have always said, I would rather shoot a 75 or a 72 and go home empty handed than shoot an 85 or a 90 and shoot 50 points and clean up the prizes. Seriously.

It's almost like it's not fun if you can't win anything. If people only show up week in and week out because they want to win a few measly bucks or a free glove then something is wrong. You obviously aren't playing golf for the right reasons. I want to get my HC as low as possible. I cannot understand how someone would want to stay at a 15 or a 20HC just so you have a shot at winning prizes. Where's the integrity in that? Do you even feel slightly happy when you win something? My mind boggles.

I want to know I'm going out on the course with an honest handicap. I know when I've shot a great round and when I haven't. When I shoot high 80's, I put my scores in. When I shoot a great 76 or 77, I put it in.

I just can't for the life of me understand how its possibly fun to stay a 20HC or whatever the case is for your whole life just for the sake of winning some prizes or money.

There's a very good scratch golfer at our club and week in and week out he's playing solid golf. Somedays he comes in flat and leaves with nothing. Other's have shot an 88 or 85 off a 24 and they're so 'thrilled' with their win. Although I suspect deep inside, they know, Raymond kicked my ass again today.

[zeg]

Playing gross only is great, but unless you have a lot of golfers at the same skill level, you're not going to get many people in that game.  Net scores, with all their problems, increase the number of competitors who have a chance to win.  It may be annoying to shoot the low gross and rarely win, but remember that if the handicap system works perfectly and you have 50 golfers in your weekly tournament, you should win about once every two years (assuming you are in season half the year).  That is not a flaw, that is the design.

I don't keep an official handicap, but I scrupulously maintain my own records as a matter of personal pride and interest.  While I follow the rules of golf (and the USGA rules for handicapping when, e.g., I give up on a disaster hole or have a round interrupted), I suspect that my personal bias would lead me to err on the "sandbagging" side.  That is, since my goal is to lower my handicap as much as possible, I want to be sure my handicap is no lower than I have earned.

Of course, I believe my handicap index is as accurate as possible, but I try to be aware of my own biases.  Even if there were an error, it doesn't matter because I don't play competitively with my handicap or otherwise.  If I did play competitively, I would probably tend the other way.  My personal belief is that one should do everything possible to be accurate and true, but when there's uncertainty, it's best to take a little less than you think you might be entitled to, not a little more.  That applies to more than just golf---my favorite example is when you're out to dinner with friends and time comes for everyone to figure out what they owe and pay accordingly.  You know you're hanging around with a good crowd when there's a bit too much money left on the table.

[bplewis24]

I got the impression that they simply added some gross score prizes and didn't replace any of the net score stuff.  Seems like a good idea to me.  The single-digit handicappers I played with in my club last year always felt as if they didn't have much chance to win anything no matter what they scored.

Brandon