Handicap golf has always been abused by players manipulating
the system to gain a higher handicap than deserved. The USGA tried a precision strike against
such players with it “Reduction of Handicap Index Based on Exceptional
Tournament Scores (Sec. 10-3).” Players who had two exceptional scores could
have their Handicap Index reduced. The
USGA’s effort, however, was ineffective as any penalty could be easily avoided
by the astute sandbagger. The USGA,
apparently admitting defeat on its war on sandbaggers, eliminated this section
with the adoption of the World Handicap System (WHS).
The WHS took a different approach. Instead of concentrating on tournament scores,
it decided to penalize all exceptional scores whether in or out of competition
(Rule 5-9 of the WHS). This was
carpet bombing without regard to civilian casualties and hoping a sandbagger
might be among the injured.
Before assessing whether Rule 5-9 serves any legitimate
purpose, it is important to understand how it works. As an example, assume a player has a 16.0
Handicap Index. For simplicity further
assume par on the course is 72 and the Slope Rating is 130. This gives the player a course handicap of 18. Now assume the player shots an 81 for a scoring
differential of 7.8. The difference
between his current Handicap Index and his exceptional differential is 8.2
(16.0 – 7.8). Since the difference is greater
than 7.0, the player is subject to an exceptional score reduction.
Under Rule 5.9, a reduction of -1.0 is applied to each of
the player’s most recent score differentials.[1]
Even
though the WHS consider the players 81 an exceptional score, for handicap
purposes he is credited with an even more exceptional score of 79.8 (i.e., a
scoring differential of 6.8). This is
like radar catching you speeding at 65 mph and the officer writing you up for
70 mph. The WHS has not published any
defense of this unusual punishment,
The actual effect on a player’s handicap will depend upon the distribution and placement of his eight best differentials. Assume the player had the following 8 low differentials in his file before the exceptional score: 11.0, 14.0, 15.0, 16.0, 16.0, 17.0,18.0, 21.0. The table below shows the player’s Course Handicap would be reduced by three strokes under Section 5-9 and one stroke if the Section was not applied. In general, the reduction with Sec.5-9 will initially be one or two strokes below what player’s handicap would be without Section 5-9.
Table
Handicap With and Without Rule 5.9 Penalty
|
|
With Penalty |
Without Penalty |
|
Low Differential |
6.8 |
7.8 |
|
Total of Next 7 Differentials |
100.0 |
107.0 |
|
Handicap Index |
13.4 |
14.4 |
|
Course Handicap |
15 |
17 |
The question never answered by the WHS is why an exceptional
round out competition should be penalized?
Here are three possible reasons the USGA might put forward:
1.
Scoundrel Theory -The USGA assumes an
exceptional score indicates the player is a scoundrel and deserving of punishment. Assuming a normal distribution of scoring
differentials, a player with standard
deviation of 3.0 would have a 1 in 333
chance of making his exceptional score or better. While
such exceptional scores would be rare, they are not evidence of cheating beyond
a reasonable doubt. It would be like
assuming the winner of the Powerball Lottery must have cheated since the odds
against winning are astronomical. It is
also clear from the USGA’s own research that high-handicap players are forty-two
times more likely to have the exceptional score discussed above than a low-handicap
player.[2] Therefore, Rule 5-9 continues the USGA
tradition of discriminating against the high-handicap player.
2.
WHS Failure -Another defense of Rule 5-9 would be an exceptional round proves a player’s current Handicap Index is
not a good estimate of his potential and therefore the reduction is
justified. The penalty, however, is
reduced overtime as new differentials are not reduced by -1. If a player enters three scores a week, the
penalty will disappear within 7 weeks. Unlike
the Reduction in Index Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores which
could last a year, a Rule 5-9 only lasts a short period. Which raises the question, if an exceptional
score indicates a player’s Index should be lower, why is the penalty of such
short duration?
3.
Anti-sandbagger Tool -The USGA could
argue Rule 5-9 is another weapon in its war on sandbaggers. This is not a convincing defense of the
Section since it will have no impact on sandbaggers. The unethical player knows enough to dump a
shot in the lake coming in to avoid any penalty. The only one affected is the honest player
who is excited to post a low score.
Unfortunately, he is collateral damage of an unwise policy created by
the technocrats at the USGA and R&A.
Rule 5-9 can have a consequence that is not good for the
game. If a player is having a hot round,
he should not have to be worried about a Rule 5.9 penalty. The handicap
system should encourage those to go as low as they can. If his playing partners give him a three-footer
to speed up play, should he insist on putting to protect against a penalty. If
he misses, he might be viewed as a sandbagger.
Better to take the penalty than hurt his reputation he may reason. A player should not be put in such a
predicament.
So how did Rule 5-9 make into the WHS? The
WHS is not the result research, but of compromise among committee members. The sections on the treatment of exceptional
scores are similar to the old Golf Australia Handicap System. Under that system, a reduction for an
exceptional score was imposed at the discretion of the player’s club. That seemed fair, but the WHS did not want to
give primary authority to clubs. The WHS
first delivers a few penalty whacks and then allows the club to override if it
feels the WHS was unjust. Historically,
clubs are hesitant to act for or against members. If a member had a great round not in
competition, the club’s inertia would lead it to take no action. If the Rule 5-9 penalty were imposed, a
club would take the position that this is the result of the WHS and without
convincing evidence otherwise it must stand.
In its effort to make it look like it is tough on
sandbaggers, the WHS has only imposed collateral damage on the honest player. Thankfully, the damage is short lived, but
has a lasting consequence on the game.
The WHS states the player has the responsibility to make the best score
possible on each hole.[3]
Rule 5-9, however, discourages a
player to live up to this responsibility and that is too bad.
[1] If the difference between a player’s Handicap Index and his scoring differential is between 7.0 and 9.9, the player receives a score reduction of -1. Differences greater than 9.9 receive a score reduction of -2. There are also other sanctions placed upon the player for having an exceptional round. If the player’s low index is now 13.4, under the “soft cap” procedure, a player receives only 50 percent of any increase above in his Handicap Index over 16.4 See Rule 5-8 of the Rules of Handicapping). For example, if his differentials compute to an 18.0 Handicap Index, the soft cap procedure would reduce his Index to 17.2. The “hard cap” limits in increase to five strokes over his Low Handicap Index or 18.4
[2] The USGA Handicap System 2016-2017, Appendix E. A 0-4.9 Index player has a one in 8795 chance of having a net handicap differential of 8.00 or better. The 30.0 Index player has a one in 209 chance.
[3] Rules of Handicapping, Appendix A, USGA, p. 79.
