Golf Magazine Article...

[BigJim13]

I don't know if anybody saw this article in this months Golf Magazine but I thought I would bring it up. It was an article about the World Amateur tournament in Myrtle Beach and how the Handicap comittee works. The main point behind the story was that they work hard to keep sandbaggers out of the tournament. Now that to me is fine, if someone comes in saying they carry a 12 when they really carry a 2, i have no argument with the committee kicking them out.

My problem was with an actual story from the tournament. One guy came in carrying a 3 or 4 handicap. He shot rounds of 67-69-73-67. This caught the attention of the committee and he was eventually DQ'd. They basically said that no 3 handicap could shoot rounds like that.

Ok fine, I still didnt have a problem with it until I read that the eventual winner of THE WHOLE TOURNAMENT was a golfer who shot 93 in the final round with a 30 cap and wound up with a 63!!! Are you kidding me!!

In my estimation a 30 cap would shoot on avg rounds of what 102 on a par 72 course? Generally speaking of course. Now the handicap committee did investigate this woman and how truthful her cap was, but they basically walked away saying that its easier for a 30 cap to shoot 10 shots lower than her cap than it is for a 3 cap to shoot 10 shots lower.

I just don't see the logic of kicking out the 3 cap that shot those 4 rounds and not kicking out the 30 cap that also shot 10 shots better than her cap.

If anybody read the article and can help clear it up I would appreciate it!

[Jules150]

it is defiantly easier for a 30 cap shave 10 strokes than it is for a 3 handicap to shave 10 strokes. All that 30 capper had to do was keep the ball in play, or not duff any chips, simple things like that. I'd like to see all four rounds of that 30 capper, it would be easier to tell if shes a sanbagger.

[Sean]

Regarding that woman, they did note that she had been playing for a short time, I think it was 8 months or so, and her handicap had continually and steadily dropped and that they thought it was in line with that, considering how much she said she practiced in the 4-6 weeks leading up to the tourney.

It seemed like that 3-cap guy got the shaft more than anything, just based on his story and his competitors saying he was a legit 3.

All I know is those guys have a tough ass job.

[tn-golfnut-from-nj]

One guy came in carrying a 3 or 4 handicap. He shot rounds of 67-69-73-67. This caught the attention of the committee and he was eventually DQ'd. They basically said that no 3 handicap could shoot rounds like that.

I read that as well.
It also said that the course that he shot those low scores, were 6100 yards, plus they played off the ladies tees.
His home course is much longer, therefore its really no surprise that he shot as well as he did.
There was a funny part, when he said that if he could putt decent, he would have shot a 60.

[BigJim13]

Originally Posted by tn-golfnut-from-nj

I read that as well.
It also said that the course that he shot those low scores, were 6100 yards, plus they played off the ladies tees.
His home course is much longer, therefore its really no surprise that he shot as well as he did.
There was a funny part, when he said that if he could putt decent, he would have shot a 60.

Yeah, I play with a guy that is just like that. Great ball striker and LONG, but man its painful to see him putt.

I agree those guys have it tough and I wasnt so much worried about her winning as him being DQ'd. Isnt that what we all play for, those career rounds?

Oh welll...

[warbirdlover]

Yup. Good article.

[ualtim]

We could have used that committee at World Woods.

[West Coast Duffer]

I read that article, and I totally agree that it was a load of crap that they DQ that guy for shooting his best. Even his friends backed up his handicap. It kind of sucks becuase if you get hot and shoot lights out your gonna get grilled and probably DQ'd. they definately need a better system.

[Pa Jayhawk]

I would probably find the 3-4 cap to be more unbelievable. Although I think I would be blacklisting the tournament all together. To go as far as to insinuate someone is cheating and DQ them because they have a few good round put serious question into why they would even have a tournament when it is in turn decided by a judge and not the players.

BTW, I have seen my wife shoot in the 80's as a 28 on a couple occasions, and in the 90's on more times than I can count. Although because of that, she is no longer a 28 I usually play my best golf in tournaments, as I stay focused the entire round. I have had several rounds where the Net was in the 50's, this based on handicaps established and track by leagues as well as off my USGA. My best round ever was in a club championship shooting a 75 as around a 15 to 18 handicap. Should be mentioned that the second day I "played to my ability" by shoot a 62 on the front nine, followed by a 2 under 33 on the back. There was no handicap cap used for the event, nor did I ever play in any other events that year, so it was obviously not a case of sandbagging. Actually at the time, I only kept my handicap because it was a free service as part of our membership and we had a weekend group that we used it for and they entered the majority of my scores.

So I don't see it to remarkable to see a 30 shoot a 93. In the same sense because the toughness of our course my course handicap the end of '06 was 23 (19 USGA) and because I peaked in November I had 7 of 10 rounds in the 80's including 2 scores of 80 in three round, or net 57.

To take it a step further, because we follow the USGA rules on winter play, none of those rounds officially counted towards my handicap because they stop allowing scores to be entered in October. You want to question handicaps, start with the USGA rules and consider their ridiculous idea of how they set up the ESC, and why they don't count November rounds in many states. In an effort to keep people from sandbagging, they open the door for it to be allowed or even forced upon people in some cases. Beginning last year I had to estimate my handicap when playing in my weekend rounds even though according to the USGA I could have played off the 23 I finished with the following year and felt like a sandbagger for playing by the rules. I guess had I played in that tournament under those conditions my option would have been providing a false lower handicap and getting DQ'ed, or getting DQ'ed for being an alleged sandbagger. If the course is not going to follow the rules governed by the USGA, then either don't use their handicap or don't have a tournament. The course should be stripped of their status for doing what they did. Take the high road and don't invite the guy back next year if you think he cheated, and do it in the courses name, don't drag the name of the game through the mud because you find it unbelievable. Kinda bad to accuse someone of cheating simply because they can't conceive of the result without weighing the entire issue.

[World Amateur]

Hey guys, great stuff on this blog. I am glad that this article has received such a good response. While it is true we disqualified the 3 handicap, there were other circumstances. He was actually playing on a handicap tour at a lower index. This and some other issues led to his disqualification. As for June Wang, our champion, you got it right in the previous post. She was improving and while we checked her out, she was flawless in her postings. The postings on this blog are great and I invite any of you who have any other questions to email me directly at tyler@golfholiday.com (I am the 20 something, blue tooth wearer) While it was not truly a blue tooth the article was still good. I will continue to check this blog for any new submissions. Thanks.

Tyler.

[BigJim13]

Originally Posted by World Amateur

Hey guys, great stuff on this blog. I am glad that this article has received such a good response. While it is true we disqualified the 3 handicap, there were other circumstances. He was actually playing on a handicap tour at a lower index. This and some other issues led to his disqualification. As for June Wang, our champion, you got it right in the previous post. She was improving and while we checked her out, she was flawless in her postings. The postings on this blog are great and I invite any of you who have any other questions to email me directly at tyler@golfholiday.com (I am the 20 something, blue tooth wearer) While it was not truly a blue tooth the article was still good. I will continue to check this blog for any new submissions. Thanks.

Tyler.

Interesting! Why wasn't that all brought up in the article? I'm sure I am not the only one who has questioned the decision.

One thing isnt in doubt though, you have a tough job and one I wouldnt want...

[Bignose]

This example, as much as anything shows why one number is insufficent to describe a person. I'd really like to see them play with some math and see if some sort of handicap deviation statistic couldn't be created. This would be a measure of how much flulcuation around the current handicap there is.

I.e. a -3 handicap with a deviation of +- 3 strokes, could be expected to play between zero to -6 around 68% of the time, and could be expected to play between a +3 and -9 95% of the time. If the guy consistently posted outside of plus or minus one deviation, then you've got a sandbagger.

Also, a person with a 3+-3 handicap is going to be more consistent that a 3+-6 handciapper. The problem I guess is that then instead of posting high rounds to sandbag, they will just post rounds with all different scores to try to increase the deviation.

There probably ins't a perfect solution, but, with more information, there is math available to to help identify probable cheaters. More information than just one number, like just the handicap.

[World Amateur]

Good comments. About the deviation. The bottom line is a person is only supposed to be able to shoot their handicap one in ten rounds. It is highly unlikely that a person could do that multiple rounds in a week. If you look at the USGA Handicap book, they have a great table that shows probabilities of a person shooting low numbers. It is truly very difficult to run the handicap committee but it is a huge part of the event. The best way for you guys to see the event is to come this year for our 25th year.

[Pa Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by World Amateur

Hey guys, great stuff on this blog. I am glad that this article has received such a good response. While it is true we disqualified the 3 handicap, there were other circumstances. He was actually playing on a handicap tour at a lower index. This and some other issues led to his disqualification.

Good to see you take pride enough to research and address issues brought up on a forum such as this.

I was a little baffled at some of the comments and did a little research, but as with any research you can not always assure you are getting all the facts through Internet searchs.

Firstly, here is the article initially brought up:
Grill Room: World-Am Championship in Myrtle Beach | Tours & News | Golf.com
Secondly here is the contentions for handicaps used by the World Am:
PGA TOUR SUPERSTORE World Amateur Handicap Championship - The World's Largest Amateur Golf Tournament
"If a player has different handicaps at different clubs, the lowest USGA Handicap Index must be used."

Now is where my confusion and speculation begins. Reading the article in relation to what you stated earlier, it said the other handicap was from he Louisville Golf Tour:
Golf Galaxy Louisville Golf Tour - Golf Tournaments in Louisville Kentucky, KY
and it indicates the following regarding handicap on the tour:
"
Q6. Do I Need an Official USGA Handicap Card?
A6. No, you do not need a handicap card to play in Golf Galaxy® Golf Tour™events. Players use different tee boxes based on an average of your prior three scores(Recreational and/or Tour).
If you do wish to obtain an official USGA handicap card to post your recreational and tournament rounds, you may purchase one through the Golf Galaxy Golf Club...click here for more info"

So I guess where I still question this simply because I probably do not have all the information is as follows. It would appear that because the Louisville Golf Tour is not a USGA sanctioned handicap in the sense that it only take the last 3 rounds and not 10 of the last 20, nor does it even appear to be a set "Club", which I believe is one of the criteria used by the USGA on allowing a valid handicap, then based on the guidlines set up by the World Am mentioned above, his handicap was the lowest USGA established handicap. I can't even be certain from reading their documentation by the LGT if the handicap is slope adjusted or just an average as it states. Actually when I play in my league, our posted scores are even adjusted differently than that of the ESC, so I would actually need to readjust them. Being a part of the confusion in that my league handicap is lower than my USGA for that reason.

So is the contention that he should have used this non valid handicap, in which case as I mentioned in my prior post would likely be grounds for DQ in itself, or is the contention that he should have purchased the card from the Louisville Golf Tour and posted towards his USGA handicap (which I am not sure whether he did or not). I guess I could see if that is the point, although I would also question if the World Am did not open the door for this in their statement (listed above) that you could even have multiple established USGA Handicaps and still participate.

Again, this is in no way an attempt to defame the credibility of the World Am, but more likely a lack of understanding on my part. It is obvious the Organization takes great pride, or you would not be here. More so, because of the statements I made early for lack of having more knowledge of the circumstances, whether I owe an apology for my criticism of the World Am

[World Amateur]

You make some good points. While I am not at liberty to discuss all of the details surrounding this individual I will say this. The fact that on another handicap tour he was playing to a lower index, his exceptional play even after our adjustment system, and some other contributing factors we felt we had no choice in the matter. Also, for people who are past participants we take the lower of their USGA index or World Amateur index. (the world am index is computed the same way the USGA index is computed, but using only their scores from the tournament) You also mentioned posting all of the competitive rounds. This is not necessarily an issue in his case but it certainly is very common. The individual you speak of would have won his flight gross! The argument made in the article is that he could have shot 60. My question to you is why could he go so low, when the rest of his flight with similar handicaps but could not go anywhere near as low as he could. If the courses his flight played were so easy why was he the only one? The fact that his playing partners were arguing that his handicap was accurate even though he could have shot 60 is not an argument for an accurate handicap, in fact it is quite the oposite. How many 3's can shoot 60?