This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Open Mic Night: Sandbagging, Part Deux (Duh!)


“ ”


I am going to pick up right where I left off last column. As a reminder, I was responding to various com- ments/suggestions posted by NCGA members regarding the topic of sandbagging. Interestingly enough, two


comments focused on how scores get posted. One felt that current methods do not go far enough; the other felt they go too far. Post: I’ve always thought


scores should be posted hole-by-hole, not by total. This will only add a minute of time to the post- ing process and will offer numerous advantages (better handicapping for match-play vs. stroke-play events, better course handi- capping [which hole should be #1 handicap], better sta- tistics for individuals to help them improve, etc.). It will also help deter


cheating. 1 A peer has an easier


time reviewing a posted score. You can’t expect to remember every stroke an opponent makes, but you should be able to remember what he made on certain holes. 2 The computer can pick


up score-posting irregulari- ties, like a player who tends to post high numbers near the end of the round. 3 Equitable Stroke Con- trol will be automatic, which


by Jim Cowan Director of


Course Rating & Handicapping


E-mail: jcowan@ncga.org


will eliminate improperly adjusted “blow-up” holes. 4 If you doubt whether


a round was really played, you can ask him to replay it to you and see if his “story” matches up to what was posted. I believe this system


would give the handicap committee a good oppor- tunity to identify someone who may be sandbagging. Answer: There is no


denying that hole-by-hole posting would ensure that ESC is applied properly and would assist in the development of the proper ranking of the stroke holes at courses. However, it wouldn’t prevent golfers from tanking or posting high scores to “build” a handicap. And how do you think


golfers would react to man- datory hole-by-hole posting? Face it, we live in a society where people scream at their microwave to hurry up. . . the reaction would not be pretty. Though not the focus of the post, I am troubled by the match play vs. stroke play reference. It seems there are those who feel that the two forms of play do not mix and that match play scores should be excluded from handicap calculations. Their logic escapes me. They think it is okay to use a handicap developed from stroke play for a match, but that low score they recorded en route to a 6 and 5 blowout should not count in their next handicap? Yes, they might have bo-


geyed their way in had they played the last five holes. But


60 / NCGA.ORG / WINTER 2011


given how well they played the first 13 holes, mightn’t they have finished strong? Let’s ask your opponent whether you should be exempt from posting! Some golfers are always


looking for an excuse not to post a low score. Fortunately, the Handicap System does not oblige when it comes to match play.


The same people have an


aversion to posting better- ball scores as well. Appar-


sures that scores get submit- ted in a timely manner with accurate ratings, but even I recognize that we live in a web-based world and that we cannot revoke Internet score posting at this stage of the game. It’s just too popular. Besides, if a golfer is going to cheat, what is to prevent him from doing so on the neighborhood score posting computer? The comment about


A Handicap Index is intended to represent a golfer’s “potential” ability.


ently the only reason they sank all those birdie putts was that their partner already had a par in hand, so the score shouldn’t count. Sorry. A Handicap Index is intended to represent a golfer’s “potential” ability. And these match play and team play scores can go a long way in determining a golfer’s true potential. Post: One way to cut


down on sandbagging is to eliminate Internet score posting. When you look up someone by name it only shows the score, not the course posted at. Make people post at the course on the day they play. Maybe someone the golfer played with will look over his shoul- der and see what he posted. Answer: I am a huge


proponent of posting where you play. The NCGA, after all, was the first association in the country to install score posting terminals at all courses for this purpose. Posting where you play en-


the lack of course name is misdirected. It is not the fact that someone posted a score


via the Internet that blurs the details. It is the fact that you do not know the NCGA/GHIN number of the golfer that gives you less than a complete look. In 2008, a balance was


struck between individual privacy concerns and peer review requirements. If you know the golfer’s number, you see everything. If you don’t, you won’t. How or where the round was posted has no bearing on the display. In summary, I would


have to say we had two more swings and misses (go Giants!). I like the spirit of the suggestions, but golfers will not stand for hole-by- hole posting or revoking all Internet posting. The goal is to make it easier to post scores, not harder. And these ideas still do not deter a golfer intent on cheating. Instead they would only make honest golfers have to work harder to post a score. One more installment to


go next issue.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132