Golf Magazine Article...

[Bignose]

I'd like to take it a little farther and ask what the calculation says the probabilty of a 30 handicapper shooting a 93 on the course is? How far into the + was the eventual winner's differential?

 

[ezra76]

The problem I have with the whole scenario is the 6100yds. and nobody else in the flight being able to post near the same scores? What were they all 68yrs. old except for the one guy? From my experience, Slope ratings are very inconsistant to actual scores in my area. I usually barely squeak out an 88-89 on a 130-135slope playing 6700-6900yds.. I go play a 118 slope at 6100 and I'll break 80 more times than not. Now if you're talking tournament play, where I'd not feck around and play some course management, 6100 is going to be 3i-9i on almost every par 4 and short iron par 3's. Why the heck would 3caps be playing a course like that?

 

[World Amateur]

Guys I entered this thread to have a open dialogue with avid golfers. As I have said from the beginning I cannot get into everything that went into this one individuals disqualification. As for the argument that there are no "players" on the committee, we have every age range and handicap accounted for. We have everybody from scratch, 30+, and directors of golf. I realize that the fact that I cannot discuss all of the details leads you to believe that this was a decision made on a whim rather then fact. I can only say that is not the case, and we at the tournament want to be fair by not discussing all of the circumstances of an individual player. While the article is factual the person who wrote the article was not in the room while the committee met and made final decisions. He simply saw the end result. With over 4000 participants we have a very difficult task. We do not simply toss the people who are playing their best, we research people individually and if there is just cause then we make decisions. I wish for the integrity of the event I could comment on all the details of this one instance but I cannot, for ours and the individuals privacy. I do not think it is fair to discuss individuals on a online thread. I agree that a person can get hot, I believe they can play their best golf in a week. That is what we want and that is who should become a future champion. That was not what happened in this case. It seems as though many of you are well informed and as always we will accept any suggestions you may have. We use a multitude of factor when evaluating performance and if you can think of something we don't currently use we would be more than happy to listen. Thanks for all of the great posts.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Guys I entered this thread to have a open dialogue with avid golfers.

I can't help but think because you cannot get into the details that the diologue is not really as open as you wish to think. Then I further cannot help but think because the only information that was "open" regarding "the other index" was refuted or simply closed when it was questioned, which was the case. You not only made no effort to explain this part or indicate there was "some other index" outside of what was linked. I would be forced to believe that the dialogue not only lacks being open, but appears somewhat deceptive. So I would say the only dialogue to this point that has not been open is your own.

Now we appear to be into a whole new realm of how difficult a task it is to determine who is cheating, with a field of over 4000+ golfer (I believe the actual count was 3811). Although I believe my thoughts on this whole process was addressed in my prior post, from a business standpoint I can't help but ask if you personally are profiting from the tournament, and if so that perhaps if the work is overwhelming then find a new job. I see no reason why this information would not be open.

While initially I was somewhat impressed by you contribution, and even stated so, at this point I can't help think is was not only deceptive but a matter of PR. As with any conversation on this forum, I do not feel I was any more abrasive to you as I would have been to anyone else on here that post something that appears deceptive to me, including those who have been around much longer than I. A reason this is the only forum for which I still contribute. I like the values and openness of the forum.

To me it seems that we are currently at a point where there is absolutely no evidence on the board to support what you have stated outside of probabilities, because it is not something that can be divulged. Yet the information you can provide, has not been substantiated. So we are really being told that we should believe that he was DQ'ed for good reasons simply because the officials at the tournament "Say so". So until "Kentucky Steve" comes on this forum and tells me that you were right in your decision, or more info is provided I stand by my current opinion.

As far as mentioning names, this is all Public knowledge that was researched from information in the article, or that you provided on this forum. So if it shouldn't be discussed on here than perhaps you should discuss the matter with Golf Magazine and find out where the information came from. I think if something is public knowledge, we have every right to discuss the information to try and formulate an opinion of what is correct. Not only are entitled to do so through freedom of speech, but without doing so we are simply faced with the alternative that we should just take the officials word for it at the expense of the people mentioned. Although you could likely influence my opinion by telling me who leaked this info to Golf Magazine to make it public knowledge. If it was the participant, he opened it up for discussion, in which case I would fail to see why all the information is not more open. If it was the tournament officials, then we have every right to defend Steve's character in his absence and in the presence of such character assassination.

Personally until I see more open information, I am pretty set in my opinion and this conversation is over for me from the perspective of trying to understand the reasoning of the officials at the tournament. However, I can assure you that if you choose to stick around and discuss matters with Avid Golfers on this forum as was your stated intent, the high majority of the people on this forum would not base their opinion of you simply for what you have mentioned on this thread. However to present I cannot help but think based on your participation that your only purpose is defend your tournament with information that has provided with less than open intentions.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I'd like to take it a little farther and ask what the calculation says the probabilty of a 30 handicapper shooting a 93 on the course is? How far into the + was the eventual winner's differential?

Or even more so the 87 she shot in the fourth round or the 92 in the second. I actually don't see that she shot 93 from the scorecard on their site. Kinda makes me question if the whole Golf Magazine article was not done in cooperation with the World Am to show their scrutiny towards handicaps, and just backfired.

http://www.worldamgolf.com/results/results.cfm?flight=34

While I know from seeing a similar circumstance with my own 2 eyes those scores are not "Impossible", I certainly find it to be as "Improbable" as the other

Kinda takes away from the sanctity of winning a tournament, when it is likely done at the expense of your credibility simply because you were not judged in the same way as the others, even though all you did was play your best golf and tried to have a good time.

 

[World Amateur]

Pa Jayhawk, first I can appreciate where you are coming from. Golf Holiday who owns and operates the World Am is a non profit organization. Everything that is collected for the World Am goes into prizes, random drawing, the 19th hole and the operation of the tournament. It is not a profit maker which is what many people believe. As for my final comments on Kentucky Steve. I will say this, he was not doing everything he needed to do to maintain an accurate handicp. It is the players responsibility to maintain an accurate handicap. People are not disqualified from the World Am for playing good golf. I have stated this before but will stand by it. There is an extensive amount of research that goes into anybody being disqualified and that must be reliable evidence. I am not trying to assasinate Steve, he was a truly nice guy and I talked to him multiple times. In fact I hoped that he would come play our event again. We don't like to disqualify people and many timesthe people who get disqualified do so not on their own fault. Many courses handicap chairman is at fault for not taking the proper procedure in posting scores or other issues. Again, I appreciate all of the comments.