(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 six 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.)
Back in the late 1990’s, the USGA recognized the War on Sandbagggers was not
going well. At the same time there was a
national movement to get tough on crime.
Several states adopted a “Three Strikes Law” where conviction on a third
crime put the defendant away for life.
This draconian belief struck a chord at the USGA. It was time to hit
sandbagger’s with “shock and awe.” If a
Three Strikes Law could keep criminals off the streets, a similar harsh penalty
for exceptional tournament performance could keep sandbaggers off the courses.
Under Sec. 10-3, a player had his
indexed reduced if he had two exceptional tournament scores. It was believed that a player with three
exceptional scores was definitely a sandbagger and had to be hit with a severe
penalty. And thus was born a
handicapping procedure termed Three Strikes and You’re Out (TSYO).
Unfortunately, the USGA did not design a
coherent and equitable handicap procedure.
The resulting TSYO did not advance the war effort. To be fair, TSYO was
only tested in several major golf associations.
Nevertheless, many golfers were treated unfairly under the test
procedure. TSYO did, however,
demonstrate the cavalier methods employed by the USGA in formulating handicap
policy and why its efforts would have little or no effect on sandbagging.
TSYO is too complex for the average
golfer to comprehend. Because it is so
arcane its description has been relegated to the Appendix. While it is bad policy to govern by laws that
cannot be understood, this may have been the USGA’s objective. Complexity may be thought of as the
equivalent of intelligence. If golfers
do not understand the system, they may mistakenly believe it was put together
by really smart people – or at least smarter than they are – and would be less
likely to question the procedure. In
essence, the USGA gains omnipotence and a reduction in flack by burdening the
golf community with unnecessarily complex handicapping procedures.
A listing of the
fatal and obvious flaws of TYSO demonstrates the authors at the USGA were not
really smart people.
Case 1 - HIGHER THIRD EXCEPTIONAL ROUND LEADS TO LOWER REDUCED INDEX
The
stated aim of the TSYO procedure is to penalize a player who has an exceptional
third round. TSYO, however, does not
always meet that objective. Take for
example two players who both have a computed index of 15.0. They have three tournament rounds as shown in
the Table1 below:
Table 1
How the Third Round
Affects the Reduction in Handicap
Player
|
T-Score
Differentials
|
Subject to 3-Strikes?
|
Reduced
Index
|
||
Player A
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
12.0
|
Yes
|
7.3
|
Player B
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
30.0
|
No
|
6.0
|
Player A has a much
better third tournament than Player B, yet his reduced index is higher. So you have the unintended consequence of a
higher score leading to lower index (i.e., a harsher penalty).. TSYO does not meet its objective in
consistently penalizing exceptional third tournament performance.
Case 2 - PLAYER AVOIDS TSYO PENALTY BY PLAYING POORLY
By playing poorly,
a player can eliminate the TSYO penalty.
Assume, for example, a player with a 31.5 index and 13 tournament rounds
who has the T-Scores shown in the Table 2 below:
Table 2
How the Computed Index Affects TSYO Penalty
Index
|
T-Score
Differentials
|
Subject to
3-Strikes?
|
Reduced Index
|
||
31.5
|
23.6
|
24.1
|
24.5
|
Y
|
24.1
|
34.3
|
23.6
|
24.1
|
24.5
|
N
|
26.3
|
This
player’s reduced index would be 24.1 under the TSYO. If the player increases his computed index to
34.3 or higher, however, he is no longer subject to TSYO. His index is then only reduced to 26.3.
This is a case where more
exceptional (i.e., it is more exceptional for a 34.3 index player to have these
T-scores than for a 31.5 index player) performance is penalized less. This is contrary to what TSYO was supposed to
achieve.
Case 3 - PLAYER GETS TSYO PENALTY MERELY FOR
ENTERING A TOURNAMENT
Assume the player with the 31.5
index in the example above had only played in three tournaments. The player would not be subject to the TSYO,
and his reduced index would be 25.8. If
he enters another tournament, however, and plays poorly his TSYO reduced index
would drop to 24.1. This reduction is
contrary to the spirit of the adjustment.
The reduction in index for exceptional performance should not increase
with the number of tournaments played.
Case 4 - PENALTY DOES NOT FIT THE CRIME
Another
example fully illustrates the inequity of the TSYO procedure. Assume you have four player’s with indexes of
12,11,10, and 9. They all have three
tournament rounds of with T-Score differentials of 5.0. Table 3 presents the indexes using the TSYO
procedure.
Table 3
Reduced Handicaps for
Identical Performance
Index
|
TSYO Index
|
Penalty
|
12
|
7.0
|
5.0
|
11
|
7.5
|
3.5
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
9
|
9.0
|
0.0
|
Even though the player with the 10
index just barely qualifies for a TSYO (the 9 index gets no reduction), he
receives the lowest reduced index of all the players. The player with the 11 index receives a
lesser punishment even though his performance was more exceptional.
Case 5 - PLAYER DOES NOT PLAY TO HIS INDEX,
BUT STILL RECEIVES THREE STRIKES PENALTY
Assume a player
with six tournament scores has the following index and T-Scores in his files at
the start of Month1:
Month
|
Index
|
T-Score
Differentials
|
Reduced Index
|
||
Month 1
|
17
|
6.0
|
8.0
|
15.0
|
8.6
|
Month 2
|
16
|
6.0
|
8.0
|
10.0
|
8.0
|
In Month 1, the
player enters a tournament and has a differential of 10.0. This differential is 1.4 strokes above his
index for the tournament. Even though he
did not play to his index, the player comes under TSYO and his reduced index is
dropped to 8.0 in Month 2. This is cruel
and unusual punishment.
Exceptional performance should be
defined in terms of the T-score differential and the index the player is
actually assigned. To base a TSYO
penalty on an index that is not used in a tournament (i.e., the computed
index), will give many players an “exceptional performance” penalty for play
that is truly unexceptional. (Note: In
Month 2, it has been assumed that the player’s computed index dropped to
16.0. He would still get the same TSYO
penalty, however, even if his computed index remained at 17.0.)
Faced with overwhelming evidence
that TSYO had many fatal flaws, you might expect the USGA and the SCGA to be
apologetic. After all, they inflicted
this curious system on much of the golf community without even a cursory
analysis of its impact. If one expected
an expression of regret from these two golf organizations, however, one was to
be disappointed.
Dean
Knuth, Senior Director of Handicapping for the USGA wrote:
”You also point out some of the
concerns about consistency in the application of the test procedure that had
already come to our attention…Generally, golf associations testing the
procedure have been solid in their defense of the procedure and of its
objectives. The USGA is, nonetheless
looking to simplify the procedure further and making its applications more
consistent.[1]”
In essence, Knuth makes the
bureaucratic argument that the USGA was already aware of the errors, everybody
loves TSYO, and the USGA will iron out any minor kinks. Nowhere does Knuth state how such an abysmal
procedure could have left the drawing board.
To do that, Knuth would have had to be critical of himself, the USGA
Handicap Research Team, and the USGA Handicap Procedure Committee. The USGA has never been good as self-criticism,
and this case was no exception.
The response of the Southern
California Golf Association (SCGA) was even weaker:
The
SCGA goes on to cite one example where TSYO does indeed penalize an exceptional
third round. The SCGA did not recognize
that a procedure that may work in some circumstances is not necessarily
equitable.
TYSO
was to be the USGA’s ultimate weapon in the war against sandbagging. When it was actually deployed, however, it
did not necessarily punish a player for a third exceptional score. Nor was any
evidence collected that showed TYSO had any deterrent effect on
sandbagging. Harsh penalties have little
effect if few are ever arrested. A good
system has to capture and punish sandbaggers while at the same time avoid false
arrests of law abiding golfers. TYSO
failed to pass this simple test. Despite
the USGA’s vigorous defense of TYSO, it was quietly dropped and was never made
a part of the Handicap System. Since
1997, the USGA has not made any attempt to employ new procedures in the
War. It has gone with the conventional
defense embodied in Sec.10-3. As will be shown Part V, Sec. 10-3 has proved to be as effective as the Maginot Line
as sandbaggers can easily find a way around it.
The
first two parts of the USGA’s War on
Sandbagging examined the weapons used by the USGA and their lack of
effectiveness. Part III, We Have Met the
Enemy, and He is Us, examines how the Handicap
System actually promotes sandbagging and why the USGA may be losing the battle
for the hearts and minds of the average golfer.
Appendix
“Three Strikes and You’re Out” Explained
TSYO is best
described by an example. The computed
index and T-scores for the player in the example are given below.
Computed
Index
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
12-Month
TSYO Total
|
14.0
|
3.5
|
4.5
|
5.5
|
6
|
Now let’s go though the calculations as set forth in TSYO.
Step 1
|
Determine whether three T-Scores are 3 or more strokes
less than the index computed under Sec. 10-2 of the USGA Handicap Manual,
14.0. Since the player has three
T-Scores that beat his index by at least 3 strokes, we continue.
|
Step 2
|
Average T-Scores #2 and #3
4.5
+5.5
10.0 divided
by 2 =5.0
|
Step 3
|
Subtract the result of Step 2 (5.0) from computed index,
14.0.
14.0
-5.0
9.0
|
Step 4
|
Refer to the Handicap Index Reduction Table (HIRT) shown
below to determine the value to be used.
According to HIRT, the result of Step 3 (9.0) and the total number of
T-Scores shot over the past 12 months (6) give a value of 7.0.
|
Step 5
|
Subtract value derived from HIRT (7.0) from the player’s
Index.
14.0
-7.0
7.0
|
Step 6
|
Subtract player’s lowest T-Score in his T-score file (3.5)
from the result of step 5 (7.0) to determine if a TSYO will occur.
7.0
-3.5
3.5
|
Step 7
|
Since the player’s lowest T-Score differential (3.5) is at
least 3.0 strokes less than the result of Step 5, a TSYO adjustment will
occur. (If no TSYO adjustment is
required, repeat Steps 2 through 5
with T-1 and T-2 to determine 10-3 index.)
|
Step 8
|
TSYO Adjustment is applied by averaging the player’s 3
lowest T-scores:
3.5
4.5
5.5
13.5 divided
by 3 = 4.5
|
Handicap Index Reduction Table (HIRT)
Step 3 Value
|
Number of
Tournaments
|
|||||||
2
|
3
|
4
|
5-9
|
10-19
|
20-29
|
30-39
|
40+
|
|
<3.9
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
4.0-4.4
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
4.5-4.9
|
1.8
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
5.0-5.4
|
2.6
|
1.9
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
5.5-5.9
|
3.4
|
2.7
|
1.9
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
6.0-6.4
|
4.1
|
3.5
|
2.8
|
1.9
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
6.5-6.9
|
4.8
|
4.3
|
3.7
|
2.9
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
7.0-7.4
|
5.5
|
5.0
|
4.5
|
3.8
|
3.0
|
2.1
|
1.0
|
0.0
|
7.5-7.9
|
6.2
|
5.7
|
5.3
|
4.7
|
3.9
|
3.1
|
2.2
|
1.0
|
8.0-8.4
|
6.8
|
6.4
|
6.0
|
5.5
|
4.8
|
4.1
|
3.2
|
2.2
|
8.5-8.9
|
7.4
|
7.1
|
6.7
|
6.2
|
5.7
|
5.0
|
4.2
|
3.3
|
9.0-9.4
|
8.1
|
7.8
|
7.4
|
7.0
|
6.5
|
5.9
|
5.2
|
4.4
|
9.5-9.9
|
8.7
|
8.4
|
8.1
|
7.7
|
7.3
|
6.7
|
6.1
|
5.4
|
10.0-10.4
|
9.2
|
9.0
|
8.8
|
8.4
|
8.0
|
7.6
|
7.0
|
6.4
|
10.5-10.9
|
9.8
|
9.5
|
9.4
|
9.1
|
8.7
|
8.3
|
7.8
|
7.2
|
11.0-11.4
|
10.4
|
10.2
|
10.0
|
9.7
|
9.4
|
9.1
|
8.6
|
8.1
|
11.5-11.9
|
11.0
|
10.8
|
10.6
|
10.4
|
10.1
|
9.9
|
9.4
|
8.9
|
12.0-12.4
|
11.5
|
11.4
|
11.2
|
11.0
|
10.7
|
10.5
|
10.1
|
9.7
|
12.5-12.9
|
12.1
|
11.9
|
11.8
|
11.6
|
11.4
|
11.1
|
10.8
|
10.5
|
13.0-13.4
|
12.6
|
12.5
|
12.4
|
12.2
|
.12.0
|
11.8
|
11.5
|
11.2
|
13.5-13.9
|
13.2
|
13.1
|
12.9
|
12.8
|
12.6
|
12.4
|
12.2
|
11.9
|
14.0+
|
13.7
|
13.6
|
13.5
|
13.4
|
13.2
|
13.0
|
12.8
|
12.6
|
No comments:
Post a Comment