A major problem with Section 10-3 is a player has to be the Jack
the Ripper of sandbaggers to be affected.
More moderate sandbagging, while still a winning strategy, escapes the
clutches of the Section. A review of the
methodology of Section 10-3 will expose its weakness.
The reduction in index for exceptional tournament scores is
a function of the difference between a player’s index and the average
differential of his two best tournament scores (T-scores). For a reduction to occur, this difference
must be greater than the “Standard Difference” set by the USGA. The Standard Difference varies with the
number of T-Scores a player has in his file as shown in the Table below. If a player has three T-Scores, for example,
the difference must be equal to or greater than 4.5. If a player competes on the same course, the
following inequality must be met for an index reduction to occur:
Eq. 1) Standard
Difference ≤ Handicap Index – (Avg. 2 Gross T-Scores – Course Rating) · (113/Slope
Rating)
For simplicity, assume the two gross scores are the same. Since a player’s handicap is his index
multiplied by the Slope Rating divided by 113, Equation 1 can be reduced to:
Eq. 2) Standard
Difference · (Slope Rating/113) ≤ Handicap – (Gross T-Score – Course Rating)
Since a player’s Net Score is his Gross T-Score minus his
handicap, Equation 2 becomes):
Eq. 3) Net Score ≤
Course Rating – Standard Difference · (Slope Rating/113)
Table
Avg. of 2 Net Scores for Reduction in
Handicap Index
(Course Rating = 68.7 Slope Rating = 119)
Number of T-Scores
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5-9
|
10-19
|
Standard Difference
|
4.0
|
4.5
|
5.0
|
5.5
|
6.0
|
Avg. of 2 Best Net Scores[1]
|
64.5
|
64.0
|
63.4
|
62.9
|
62.4
|
Now let’s see what Net Scores are necessary to trigger the
reduction in index. For illustration,
the Course Rating is 68.7 and the Slope Rating is 119. Assume a player has a 17.5 index and 14
T-scores. The Table indicates that if he
has two Net Scores of 63, he will not see a reduction in his index (i.e., his
two net scores average above 62.4). A
17.5 index leads to a handicap of 18. To
have a Net Score of 63, he would have a Gross Score of 81. Two Gross Scores of 81 would lead to an
average tournament differential of 11.7.
To determine if there would be a reduction, the average tournament
differential is subtracted from his index.
In this case, the difference is 5.8 (17.5 – 11.7). To receive a reduction this difference must
be 6.0 or greater. Therefore, the
player’s index is not reduced under Section 10-3 as the Table predicts.
The Table indicates great scores do not necessarily lead to
a reduction in index. The player can further
reduce his chances of getting a reduction by 1) playing in only one tournament
a year , 2) managing his score with discretion in four-ball competitions (e.g.,
finding a water hazard when your partner is safely on the green), and 3)
posting regular rounds as tournament rounds when the handicap committee is not
paying attention.
While Section 10-3 does not always punish the guilty, it can
snare the innocent. For example, assume
a player is a 10.4 index and an 11 handicap on the course described above. He has two net scores of 68 (gross scores of
79) in a tournament, and did not win anything.
His two tournament differentials average 9.8. Later in the season his Handicap Index
increases to 13.9. At this point,
Section 10-3 kicks in and the player’s index is reduced by 1.0. He is assigned
a 12.9R. If the player continues to slump and his Handicap Index increases to
14.9, he is whacked even harder and given a 12.3R.
When Section 10-3 was introduced, its aim was to identify
the flagrant sandbagger and hang a scarlet “R” around his neck. This goal was
never met. Instead, getting an “R”
implies either 1) you are currently in a slump, or 2) you were not clever
enough to avoid being caught.
