(The
United States Golf Association (USGA) has made various attempts to control
players who manipulate their handicaps in order to do well in
tournaments. The name for
such manipulation is “sandbagging.” If the USGA’s effort can be characterized
as a war, then it is not winning. A
series of five posts examines the history and effectiveness of the USGA’s war
plan. Part I details the
flaws of the USGA’s earliest attempt at controlling sandbagging. Part II examines a proposed policy
that increased the penalties for alleged sandbagging. Part III argues the
current handicap system may actually encourage sandbagging. Part IV explains why the USGA could be
losing the effort to win the hearts and minds of local golfers. Part
V examines the flaws in the USGA's current war strategy. Part VI asks if the
USGA's efforts are counterproductive and suggests it may be time for the USGA
to withdraw from the battlefield.)
The USGA’s War on Sandbagging is over. Section 10-3 (Reduction of Handicap Index Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores)
is still part of the Handicap System, but it is merely symbolic. Sec. 10-3 gives the appearance the USGA has
an effective instrument for controlling sandbagging. In reality, the current incarnation of Sec.
10-3 is a failure. Here are some reasons
why Sec. 10-3 is ineffective or inequitable:
1.
Tournament Formats – Many important tournaments
are partner events. They often include
formats (e.g., scramble, foursome) where a score cannot be posted (i.e., Sec.
10-3 has no effect). In four-ball
formats, it is easy for the serious sandbagger to take a high score on a hole
when his partner is in good position.
This eliminates being caught by the strictures of Sec. 10-3.
2.
Inequity
– As discussed in Part V[1],
Sec. 10-3 applies to scores and not to whether a player actually won
anything. It is possible a player can
receive a reduced index, be labeled a sandbagger, yet never place high in a
tournament. This defect was addressed by
Dean Knuth, the USGA director of Handicapping responsible for the
implementation of Sec. 10-3. He
developed what he termed the Tournament Point System. Under this system, a player can receive a
reduced index based on where he places in tournaments, and not on his scores.[2]
While not without its own problems, the
Tournament Point System does correct for this major deficiency of Sec. 10-3.
3.
Non-Uniform Application – There are no strict
guidelines on what determines a Tournament Score for posting purposes. The USGA argues a tournament score should be
reserved for significant events. [3]
This leads to a variety of interpretations.
At one club, a holiday two-best ball-of-four was considered a tournament
score. At another club, even the
member-guest was not considered a major event.
A lack of uniformity leads to disparate results for the same scoring
performance which is antithesis of what a good handicap system should be.
4.
Anomalies – Sec. 10-3 can lead to some strange
results. Assume Player A and Player B
only play rounds together from the same tees.
Player B never posts a score lower that Player A. Under Sec. 10-3, however, it is possible for
Player B to have the lower Course Handicap.
This stems from measuring exceptional performance by the difference of
the T-score differentials and a player’s current index, and not the player’s
index at the time of the tournament.
This makes it possible for a player to receive a reduced index not for
exceptional performance, but for having a higher index some time later. (For
example assume a player had two T-score differentials of 10.0 that were made
when he was a 12.0 index. Months later,
for a variety of legitimate reasons, his index goes to 14.0. The player’s index would now be reduced by
1.0 under Section 10.3.)
5.
Can’t See the Forest for the Trees – By focusing
on major events, the sandbagger is free to ply his trade throughout the year
(and at one major event) without the possibility of receiving a reduced
index. Without an “R” index, even the
biggest handicap scoundrel receives the implicit imprimatur of the USGA. [4]
Handicap Committees have traditionally been loath to reduce a player’s index on
its own. Most committees are only too
happy to rely on Sec. 10-3 for identifying sandbaggers. In essence, Committees are relying on an
enforcement mechanism that does not work.
The USGA knows its war on sandbagging is over. When asked how many players receive a reduced
index, the USGA replied:
“We do not have such
statistics. However, it is a very small
number compared to the total number of players in the system”[5]
(How the USGA knows it is a very small number without statistics is left
unsaid).
The absence of statistics implies the USGA does not have any
on-going evaluation of Sec. 10-3. Apparently, the USGA is not concerned about
the effectiveness of Sec. 10-3 or whether it discriminates against players by
club, association, sex, frequency of tournament participation or handicap
level. Sec. 10-3 will remain part the
Handicap System since bureaucracies do not readily admit to their
mistakes. Rather than having the war on
sandbagging end with a bang by the removal of Sec. 10-3, the war will end on a whimper. Sec. 10-3 will simply be allowed to wither
through benign neglect.
[1]
The USGA’s War on Sandbagging, Part V: Problems With the Current Strategy, www.ongolfhandicaps.com, November 14,
2013.
[2]
Newport, John Paul, “Fighting Back Against Sandbaggers,” Wall Street Journal, July 2, 2011.
[3]
Hovde, Scott, Posting a Score As a Tournament Score, www.USGA.Org, 12/17/2012.
[4]
When a player receives a reduced index through Sec. 10.3, it is identified with
an “R.”
[5]
E-mail to the author from Annie Pollock, Coordinator, Handicap and Course
Rating Administration, 11/21/2013
No comments:
Post a Comment