Golf Magazine Article...

[Pa Jayhawk]

While I am not at liberty to discuss all of the details surrounding this individual I will say this.

I can certainly respect and understand this being the case.

I guess I would simply say that to me from what I understand, and this simply being my opinion, it would appear that the decisions are based on a somewhat arbitrary manner by the officials for the tournament. While I do not agree with that methodology for the reasons I mentioned in my first post in that the outcome could conceivably be decided by an officials expectation, you can't please everyone nor can I expect you to write a explanation of all the details. So I guess I would simply say that as long as the competitors know of this ruling and possibility going into the tournament, then they agreed under those conditions and you have every right to run the tournament how you see fit and best for the organization and the other competitors. So if they don't like the preset rules, it is their option on whether to participate. On the other hand, if it was not common knowledge or even stated in the fine print going into the tournament, I can see how many may have a serious issue on the credibility of the tournament. Myself included, for the reasons indicated in my first post. At least for me there would always be question as to whether the golfer that played the best based on his ability, or in this case legitimate handicap, won the tournament.

I will say that it speaks wonders for the character of the World Am by not only finding threads such as this, but taking the time to comment and educate people on the matter.

Thank you.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

Thinking about this, two other things I will add, and from re reading the article I am assuming based on your name that you are the other person involved in this conversation.
"Said tournament director Mays, preparing in Room 204 minutes before the committee would begin summoning players: "I'm a 3.6, and it would be extremely difficult for me to shoot those scores."
Mays: "The thing is, I don't mind one 67 — but then the 69, 73 and [another] 67? Call this guy up here. There isn't any way he's a 3 handicap."
It would appear at that point the decision was already made, and if it was a misquote then Golf Magazine should like be answering to this comment. Again, this is certainly a preconceived notion be made simply because it is not something for which he could conceive.

This brings up the second point. I am not asking the answer to this, however if the 3 scores that were used to reflect his handicap in the LGT, where in fact included on his USGA handicap as well, it would lead me to believe a couple things for which I would have to give the benefit of the doubt. One, the handicap he provided was likely legitimate as he did provide the scores in question. And two, Mr. Mays made a grievous error in judgment based what was obvious a preconceived notion on something he felt so outlandish that it did not require further investigation. One that led to the disqualification of the person whom possible should have won the tournament for putting together some of the best golf of his life. Again, an official deciding the outcome and not the golfer.

Again though, being unaware of the other circumstance this is just speculation on my part. I would also have to wonder that if he is capable of shooting these scores day after day, there would likely be alot more supporting evidence for which we have not heard regarding the LGT. Which in likelihood would be common knowledge because of prior tournament play to which involved no handicaps. Maybe giving a little credence to the possibility that the course did in fact possibly set up well for his game. I've played courses before where I consistently played about 8 strokes lower than my course handicap, where as I do not do that on my home course that I play 3 times a week.

I guess I have a hard time getting over the old legal terminology that I would rather let 10 guilty people go free than to put 1 innocent one behind bars. So the evidence would have to be pretty substantial, and I'm not sure 3 out of 4 good rounds in a row is enough for me. If he is in fact legit, this likely came at great expense to his character.

 

[Irish]

I don't understand this.....

if I compete in a GUI (Golf Union of Ireland) event I am bound by my GUI handicap. Similarly if I was to compete in the UK it would also be under my GUI because of the receiprical relationship between the GUI and R&A.
I the event was sanctioned by the USGA then surely there is no way you can DQ somebody for playing off that handicap....

IF the competition was unsanctioned then obviously you can do whatever the hell you want

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

I'm actually starting to wonder about this whole deal and fall back to what I initially thought entirely, not that I have even been swayed up to now. I'm seeing things that just don't seem to jibe with what we are being told by the World Am. Looking at the LGT site there appears to only be one "Steve", who did in fact win.
Player of the Year Pts - Louisville, KY | Louisville, KY | Kentucky | Find Your Tour | Golf Galaxy Tour
.. further more, from looking at his handicap which is "75% of Average over par", it is a 3, so with my addition this is a 4 on their scale for 100%. His average was 76, and what is stated on the site.
Tour Handicaps - Louisville, KY | Louisville, KY | Kentucky | Find Your Tour | Golf Galaxy Tour
this just doesn't make sense to me. Even if the slope off the course they played is 155, this only equates to about 1 to 1.5 difference for a 4 handicap, which would put him at a 3, or his claimed index.

It's starting to sound like this all comes down to the fact that his rounds were just to fantastic for Mr. Mays to believe as an equal handicap, or the "other factors" played more into this than his handicap. I can't help but think had Mr. Mays ever managed to shoot 2 67's over a span of 4 days this entire issue would have been moot. I would certainly have to ask why his handicap is being used as the main issue, when the examples they provide actually further support his claimed handicap. I can say with a bit of certainty that it is unlikely I would ever pay the $550 entry fee for this tournament.

 

[SiberianDVM]

It seems to me that this tournament is trying to have it all: anyone with a handicap and $500 is eligible. IMHO the tourney would have more credibility if applicants had to play in some sanctioned amateur events and their handicaps were based on competition scores.

As for me, I wouldn't have to worry about being called to Rm 204, because when I play in big tourneys, I choke and post a score 10 over my handicap.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

It seems to me that this tournament is trying to have it all: anyone with a handicap and $500 is eligible. IMHO the tourney would have more credibility if applicants had to play in some sanctioned amateur events and their handicaps were based on competition scores.

Fully agree, then when it started to hit when Golf Magazine got involved, that by doing whatever they please may drive away some of the $2,096,050 in entry fees and probably a considerably larger amount in sponsorships, they tried to play "Pin the tail on the Sandbagger", to which in this case I am yet to see any evidence to support their claims.

I wonder if the free years subscription to Golf Magazine will still part of their package for next year:laugh:

edit 1 - "Pay your $550 entry fee over there, pick up you're free year of Golf Magazine where can read about the tournament, and pray we don't try and humiliate you and destroy your credibility because you have a few good rounds"

 

[BigJim13]

I'm glad that I am not the only one who thought the Tourney was trying to have it all. I guess I looked at if from my point of view. If I were a 3 handicap and went out and shot scores like that and got booted...I would be irritated to say the least.

I bet that 3 capper played and practiced as much as the 30 capper that won.

In the end it just didnt make sense to me, and while we will never know all the circumstances surrounding his DQ it has been a great discussion.

 

[World Amateur]

Pa Jayhawk you make some valid arguments, however, as I have always said there is more to the story then what is told in the article. As far as it being a split decision made by Steve Mays that is not accurate with what happened. Let me just say this, Steve from Louisville played to a differential of of +2.275 for the four days. (5 1/2 shots lower then his index) The probability (done by the USGA) that he would shoot the first 67 with his incoming index was 800:1, the 69 was 200:1, and the last day was much higher than that. The combination of MANY factors led to the disqualification. Not simply that Mays is a 3.6 and has not shot similar scores. While there is no concrete guide to a handicap committee we use a multitude of factors. As I have said I cannot get into all of them, but we have a very sophisticated computer system and a talented group on the committee. Just using the probabilities provided by the USGA he would shoot 67 and 69 once each in 1000 rounds. (that does not include the second 67 the final day) While the decisions are based slightly on our experiences and opinions rest assured that they are not made lightly or on a whim. The task at hand is very difficult and we attempt to be fair to all players. Disqualifying Steve was one of the more difficult decisions and was debated at length. At the end of the day we felt it was unfair to the rest of his flight to allow him to compete. Thanks you guys for all of your comments and this thread has given me some insight I may have overlooked before. If any of you have any suggestions feel free to include them. We will always be in favor of open dialogue. Pa Jayhawk, I know where you stand but you should consider coming down, I think you may really enjoy this one of a kind event.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

See, for me this all goes back exactly what you are saying. Without being provided the other information and even what you can and did say, I see nothing to support the decision your statements. I think you are even leading to it in your last post, and what seems to be the real issue here with the common observer. The tournament disqualified the guy for what was an "improbability". Which for me, I would say that it should be more of and "Impossibility". I read your statement as it was unfair to the rest of the field because he played really well.

I also think there is another bigger issue here, and it is based on your initial comment

He was actually playing on a handicap tour at a lower index.

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.

Now I am not saying you are being dishonest, but if you are "able" to make claims such as this, then you should also be prepared to support the claim. That comment to me is character assassination and would lead any normal reader to say that he cheated The standard observer only has the information accessible to base their opinion. Which for me is that I would assume the other index in relation to the LGT. If that is not the case say so, if it is then provide information that disputes what it says on their site. Otherwise I would be forced to base my opinion on the research that I did.

To me this is actually starting to sound like deception as a unbiased reader. Probably not your intent, buy it looks this way to me. Your tournament disqualified a guy for and improbability and when Golf Magazine picked up on this you proceed to use unsupported accusation and character assassination to explain why he was disqualified to justify the decision. Unfortunately the information you provide is public knowledge should one take the time to research. Now that it seems less apparent that there is adequate support for the insinuation that he used a false handicap, is going back to the "other information that you are not at liberty to provide". Which to me seem like a whole PR campaign to protect the interest of the tournament.

Again, I am an unbiased reader here, and while initially I actually felt I made a mistake in judgment, I also feel very strongly about character assassination, and therefore felt it was in the best interest of the readers on this forum to further research the information. I've gotta be honest, I expect to find that he played off a lower handicap. When I saw contrary information, there was no effort on your part to dispute this, instead it went to a factor of probability.

Personally at this point even if he is a cheater that did everything you have said and even the stuff you can't say, this is far outweighed in my mind that you have provided unsubstantiated information that goes against the character and integrity of the individual in question, and further I see no evidence to support your claims outside of probability, yet I do see a great amount of information to dispute what you have said, that goes on unexplained.

IMO, until there is an substantiating evidence regarding this "Lower Index" provided that you claimed, I find it hard to view this as anything other that a coverup for a bad decision. And I am not one to automatically believe that "Probabilities" goes hand in hand with "Fact". If you cannot provide that information, IMO you would have been better off providing none, as I can only assume that was stated because you did not feel it would be verified by someone on this forum.

 

[dave.]

We played off the ladies (winter) tees recently, me off 3 and 2 guys off 5, course was at 6000 yards, so almost identical. We all shot in the sixties.

If its true this guy played off the front pegs and at 6100, then any decent guy playing regular golf would and should have shot those numbers. There must be more to this and in effect thats what you have said, there is more we don't know about. Even off 6600 its still fair game for a decent player, only when you get near 6800+ does it become hard.

But to dq the guy is grossly unfair unless is proven he is cheating, and saying someone should only shoot their handicap one in ten I also totally dispute.Sorry, but why can't this guy improve, but the lady who won can? He shot the rounds of his life and got screwed. I'm uncomfortable with the whole 'she is improving he is a cheat arguement'.

Last year a 5 cap at my club got fitted for some new clubs, then broke the course record and was 5 under for 3 rounds. These things can, and do happen.

I shot 2 round in the sixties last year, and played 40 rounds. Two in 1000? No wonder the guy was disqualified, maybe it would have helped to have had a decent player on your committe? I can't believe any low handicapper believes those numbers.

I feel for this guy, totally.

 

[BigJim13]

We played off the ladies (winter) tees recently, me off 3 and 2 guys off 5, course was at 6000 yards, so almost identical. We all shot in the sixties.

If its true this guy played off the front pegs and at 6100, then any decent guy playing regular golf would and should have shot those numbers. There must be more to this and in effect thats what you have said, there is more we don't know about. Even off 6600 its still fair game for a decent player, only when you get near 6800+ does it become hard.

But to dq the guy is grossly unfair unless is proven he is cheating, and saying someone should only shoot their handicap one in ten I also totally dispute.Sorry, but why can't this guy improve, but the lady who won can? He shot the rounds of his life and got screwed. I'm uncomfortable with the whole 'she is improving he is a cheat arguement'.

Last year a 5 cap at my club got fitted for some new clubs, then broke the course record and was 5 under for 3 rounds. These things can, and do happen.

I shot 2 round in the sixties last year, and played 40 rounds. Two in 1000? No wonder the guy was disqualified, maybe it would have helped to have had a decent player on your committe? I can't believe any low handicapper believes those numbers.

I feel for this guy, totally.

This is well put, its the kind of info I have been looking for since I am nowhere near a 3 capper.

It just didnt make sense to me that a 30 capper could improve THAT much while a 3 capper couldn't. I am glad I brought this up as it ate at me for about 2 days.

 

[Pa Jayhawk]

This is well put, its the kind of info I have been looking for since I am nowhere near a 3 capper.

I was hoping to hear an experience from someone of equal caliber as well, as I could only like substantiate that of the 30 handicap.

Actually, I guess I am pretty much where I stood opinion wise in the beginning of this thread, yet worse off. Personally with exception to the comment that I left out at the time, simply because I did not feel I should publicly state without more information. That being that incidents such as this go against everything that is good in the game of golf and strikes against its foundation. That being honesty and integrity. For someone to set up a tournament that IMO preaches such values of questioning the honesty and integrity of their participants based on probabilities, and sets up system to do so in advance, and makes these such "incidents" commonplace then uses the games name in the same sentence is a disgrace.

 

[dave.]

I totally agree. Its no good saying there are 'other reasons', then these reasons turn out to be the 'fact' that a 3 handicapper should only shoot in the sixties every 1000 rounds. Bizarre, utterly bizarre, unless the committe is all high handicappers and they haven't really a clue what its like to play at that level, and all they have is 'average' stats.

Nothing more to say unless more facts are forthcoming.

 

[BigJim13]

Nothing more to say unless more facts are forthcoming.

Yeah, I can't imagine what other info that has been left out that could change my mind at this point, short of the 3 capper using a foot wedge

!

 

[Wi-Golfer]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now & then. Just how are those numbers arrived at? People can, do & have gotten on streaks where everything clicks & nothing they do turns out bad. To say this guy couldn't shoot those scores excpet for every 1000 rds sounds ludicrous to myself.