Handicap changes regarding 1 shot back per year now starting to show starting to

Kingswood Rover

Just noticing in the last few weeks that people are starting to hit the 10 .one's mark and so their handicap is effectively frozen till next season's opening qualifier. what's feedback have you heard from your club and pals.

Quahog217

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Just noticing in the last few weeks that people are starting to hit the 10 .one's mark and so their handicap is effectively frozen till next season's opening qualifier. what's feedback have you heard from your club and pals.

I think it was a really bad call to be honest, 95% of the people its punishing are honest golfers that are just struggling. I hope its changed next year.

Golfgraffix

It shouldn't make much difference as if they are not playing to their handicap it will be highlighted by the constant asses on the system.

If a player gets more 7 .1s in a row they can be adjusted upwards.

J

Armchair Andy

Having got a 1.5 cut at the start of the year followed by at least 15 .1s, I'm nowhere near playing off my present handicap.

Hard way to play golf. Not that another shot would help but it's pointless golf unless I put together a freak round.

Fighting for the buffer is non existent too so I'm fast losing the gra for the game tbh.

CalamariFritti

@Andy - But to get cut 1.5 you (presumably) shot 41 points or similar? You couldn't be that far off your handicap if you did that.

Generally speaking I think its worth a try. We all know there are people who collect nothing but .1s all year. Nonsensical in so many ways, but thats another story. Anyway, nothing but .1s all year and then they suddenly turn around and shoot 10 under their annual average in the club 'majors'. And they typically clean up in the winter, too. This small minority that's ruining the comps for everyone needs to be dealt with.

And if you genuinely can't play in the buffer for 10+ rounds in a row another half shot or even a full one isn't going to turn around your game either. And for that they have the reviews in place. If it turns out its not fair or not working they might try something else, but its better than not trying to address this issue at all.

Armchair Andy

CalamariFritti wrote:

@Andy - But to get cut 1.5 you (presumably) shot 41 points or similar? You couldn't be that far off your handicap if you did that.

39. Css was 34 on a perfectly balmy April day in the first counting comp of the year. Haven't played too often there since.

Second babog last February has limited practice and range time so it's my own doing as regards playing good golf.


I don't disagree with the 1 shot rule, just happened in the wrong year!!

Russman

I think an unforeseen outcome is guys reaching the full shot back and not bothering to even enter comps because they're figuring it's not worth it - if they're playing bad their h/cap won't increase and they're also thinking they're not playing well enough to gets cut. It'll be interesting to see if club income is impacted.
Personally I've no faith at all in the review after seven 0.1s - I suspect in lots of clubs whether a player gets an upward revision or not will depend on their name and perceived reputation or history of being good once upon a time. Human nature being what it is, I can see many a handicap sec going ".........Joe Bloggs ? Sure I played nine holes with him last year and he played great, no way should he be off 12....."
Typical sledgehammer to crack a nut approach imho to the largely mythical gatherer of 0.1s who then shoots good scores on demand. Reality is most golfers get 0.1s most of the time and someone has to win each comp, chances are it'll be someone who has got a few 0.1s back.

Hoof Hearted2

Kingswood Rover wrote: »

Just noticing in the last few weeks that people are starting to hit the 10 .one's mark and so their handicap is effectively frozen till next season's opening qualifier. what's feedback have you heard from your club and pals.

Automatic HC increase's are frozen at 1 shot per year, there is still the end of year review to be considered.
It's the single best move by CONGU since I don't know when, it's also impossible to please everyone all of the time, but in this case they have it spot on.

Hoof Hearted2

Golfgraffix wrote: »

It shouldn't make much difference as if they are not playing to their handicap it will be highlighted by the constant asses on the system.

If a player gets more 7 .1s in a row they can be adjusted upwards.

J

They can also be adjusted downwards, just so you know.

Hoof Hearted2

Russman wrote: »

I think an unforeseen outcome is guys reaching the full shot back and not bothering to even enter comps because they're figuring it's not worth it - if they're playing bad their h/cap won't increase and they're also thinking they're not playing well enough to gets cut. It'll be interesting to see if club income is impacted.
Personally I've no faith at all in the review after seven 0.1s - I suspect in lots of clubs whether a player gets an upward revision or not will depend on their name and perceived reputation or history of being good once upon a time. Human nature being what it is, I can see many a handicap sec going ".........Joe Bloggs ? Sure I played nine holes with him last year and he played great, no way should he be off 12....."
Typical sledgehammer to crack a nut approach imho to the largely mythical gatherer of 0.1s who then shoots good scores on demand. Reality is most golfers get 0.1s most of the time and someone has to win each comp, chances are it'll be someone who has got a few 0.1s back.

It's true to say that any change to the HC system now will essentially be a sticker plaster on an open wound, and it's also true to say that the honest golfer is been punish because of a tiny minority who are corrupt.
Imo no amount of HC or rules changes will have any impact on cheats in the game, cheaters gonna cheat.

Dtoffee

The question is ..... has it stopped the habitual winners ?

I dont think it has tbh as some are still collecting prizes on a regular basis, but it has caused issues with the once a year winners as they are usually high handicappers who go 0.4 and could lose 2 shots very easily. That 2 shot cut now takes two years to recover and not everyones game will improve to allow for such a cut. If you are a single figure golfer, then your cut is measured in 0.1s and your golf is probably more consistent and can keep you compeditive.

I think the problem has always been the serial winners and the failure to deal with them at the end of year review. If a player has won over ten prizes in a year, then that needs to be addressed with a serious cut applied referencing the number of 0.1s returned by the player during the year.

Its not an easy problem to resolve, but if every club was forced to produce a list of all prize winners for the year accompanied by the number of 0.1s they returned would go a long way to showing who is milking the system.

Russman

Dtoffee wrote: »

The question is ..... has it stopped the habitual winners ?

I dont think it has tbh as some are still collecting prizes on a regular basis, but it has caused issues with the once a year winners as they are usually high handicappers who go 0.4 and could lose 2 shots very easily. That 2 shot cut now takes two years to recover and not everyones game will improve to allow for such a cut. If you are a single figure golfer, then your cut is measured in 0.1s and your golf is probably more consistent and can keep you compeditive.

I think the problem has always been the serial winners and the failure to deal with them at the end of year review. If a player has won over ten prizes in a year, then that needs to be addressed with a serious cut applied referencing the number of 0.1s returned by the player during the year.

Its not an easy problem to resolve, but if every club was forced to produce a list of all prize winners for the year accompanied by the number of 0.1s they returned would go a long way to showing who is milking the system.

Ahh I dunno, I very much doubt there are many people who win 10 prizes in a year. Not saying there are none of course.
Why should winning a prize be a bad thing or something in need of punishment by way of a cut ? The system is designed and intended to work in such a way as your average player shoots to his handicap about once in every 7 rounds and will get 0.1s most of the other times. ie you shoot a score, get cut by whatever and most people will, over the next few games regain a lot of what they lost. That's mostly why you see guys who are almost always within a shot or two of a given handicap over a long period of time.

I'm a good example, I've had 3 cuts this year, losing 1 full shot, 7 or 8 scores in the buffer and I've also had 13 0.1s because I've played pure sh1te all year, so I'm 0.3 higher than I was in January. I've picked up 3 prizes, one win and two seconds, in run of the mill competitions, nothing major, and two of them were in horrendous conditions on Sundays when the field was small and many didn't finish. Its just the way the system is.

Handicap is supposed to be against the course, not whether you won a prize. We had a competition about 2/3 weeks ago and 30pts won one of the classes, surely it can't be suggested that that guy needs a cut if he won a couple of other things during the year too ? By the same token someone could, consistently shoot 37pts and never win a prize. Basing cuts on winning or not is I think judging players by the how bad the rest of the field were on that day.
I'd agree that serial winners of 4-balls, team events etc need to be looked at but IMHO, singles comps by and large take care of themselves with regard to handicaps.

Barnaboy

I have now reached 10 x 0.1 increases for the year, but also got a cut a while ago. I'm a bit confused by the new rule- will I no longer receive 0.1s for the rest of 2016?

Being honest I really hope so, I'll probably be more relaxed in comps, always a real problem for me

Hoof Hearted2

Barnaboy wrote: »

I have now reached 10 x 0.1 increases for the year, but also got a cut a while ago. I'm a bit confused by the new rule- will I no longer receive 0.1s for the rest of 2016?

Being honest I really hope so, I'll probably be more relaxed in comps, always a real problem for me

It's not limited to 10x .1's, it's one full shot higher than your current years lowest.
It's worth bearing in mind this new rule will only impact you negatively if your sole objective is to gain a .1 in competition.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

It's worth bearing in mind this new rule will only impact you negatively if your sole objective is to gain a .1 in competition.

Not sure that's necessarily 100% true in all cases. Some guy who has reached the one shot limit and who's playing rubbish could well decide to not enter competitions and save his €5 or €6 because he feels a) he's not playing well enough to get cut, b) a buffer score does nothing for him, and c) if continues to play bad, his handicap won't be adjusted to reflect that fact. Or he might just feel that the new one shot limit is f--king silly and on principle he's not entering competitions. I wouldn't really describe that fictional guy's sole objective as gaining 0.1 tbh.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Imo no amount of HC or rules changes will have any impact on cheats in the game, cheaters gonna cheat.

Absolutely 100%. Which is why I can't see the logic behind the current narrative or vibe from the powers that be that almost assumes anyone who wins must be some sort of handicap manipulator. Like the ESR, a real handicap cheat, as opposed to someone who has a good day, will be clever enough not to get caught by it.

Benicetomonty

The buffer should mean something to players. Theyre not playing the game with anything close to the right attitude if it doesnt. Not sure how effective the rule will be dealing with handicap builders, and Im outright disappointed with how it will facilitate protectors at the other end of the hc spectrum, but I welcome the effort to try and do something about the situation.

Bottom line, if you shoot a good score off (eg) 10 in June, youre not going to lose the potential to repeat the feat off 8 or 9 a few weeks or months later, barring some sort of medical emergency. Its been a ridiculous year in our place for repeat winners, most obviously in team events, so Id like to have seen those targeted specifically but I certainly dont see the measures introduced as a bad thing.

Hoof Hearted2

Russman wrote: »

Not sure that's necessarily 100% true in all cases. Some guy who has reached the one shot limit and who's playing rubbish could well decide to not enter competitions and save his €5 or €6 because he feels a) he's not playing well enough to get cut, b) a buffer score does nothing for him, and c) if continues to play bad, his handicap won't be adjusted to reflect that fact. Or he might just feel that the new one shot limit is f--king silly and on principle he's not entering competitions. I wouldn't really describe that fictional guy's sole objective as gaining 0.1 tbh.

There's the review after 7 .1's in a row and also the end of year review, if your fictional guy is unaware of the above processes all he has to do is ask or look it up on CONGU.

Hoof Hearted2

Russman wrote: »

Absolutely 100%. Which is why I can't see the logic behind the current narrative or vibe from the powers that be that almost assumes anyone who wins must be some sort of handicap manipulator. Like the ESR, a real handicap cheat, as opposed to someone who has a good day, will be clever enough not to get caught by it.

The powers that be take their lead from the clubs, they do not act autonomously, if you feel or believe the process can be bettered or improved, there is a platform available to facilitate that, make your voice heard.

Kingswood Rover

Russman wrote: »

Not sure that's necessarily 100% true in all cases. Some guy who has reached the one shot limit and who's playing rubbish could well decide to not enter competitions and save his €5 or €6 because he feels a) he's not playing well enough to get cut, b) a buffer score does nothing for him, and c) if continues to play bad, his handicap won't be adjusted to reflect that fact. Or he might just feel that the new one shot limit is f--king silly and on principle he's not entering competitions. I wouldn't really describe that fictional guy's sole objective as gaining 0.1 tbh.

Good point, but it could also be argued that some people who were "i am not playing any of the run of the mill comps cos of the bandits" are now actually playing a bit more. i think both camps are in all reality minute in the grand scheme of people who regularly play in comps. Which brings me on to another point some clubs also play a lot more qualifiers than others which will obviously propel people towards the 10 x .1's above your lowest mark of the current year. For instance My Club Blessington Lakes would play over 70 qualifiers yet i counted less than forty by another of similar size on their How did i do page.

Deise Vu

This rule doesn't effect me in the slightest because, like a lot of social golfers, I wouldn't get remotely near playing 10 Sunday competitions (if you must know, the wife would kill me!).

I wonder is this rule the right solution though? We are all familiar with that contradiction in terms "best high handicap golfer in the club" who wins team events or short hole competitions on a regular basis. I heard there was to be monitoring of 10 hole comps by deeming the back 9 to be 18 points automatically. I think I was told they do this in Kanturk, if someone could confirm? That would certainly soften a few coughs in my club.
The other old perennial is the team comp. nothing you can do about private corporate hospitality bandits but it surely can't be hard to cut open week winners?

At the end of the day I am just glad that I play the game for the fresh air and personal competition, if fellas are clearly cheating on computerised monitoring systems, just imagine what goes on out in the course where we are trusting their honesty completely.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

There's the review after 7 .1's in a row and also the end of year review, if your fictional guy is unaware of the above processes all he has to do is ask or look it up on CONGU.

Yes, but do you seriously believe that any rule like being reviewed after the seven 0.1s, with an element of subjectivity in it, is good ? Most clubs have cliques, groupings etc., and I find it very hard to believe that everyone who has seven 0.1s in a row will be reviewed upwards. Bar talk always has an influence. Maybe I'm being too cynical. As an aside I'd be very interested to see just how many golfers actually have seven 0.1s in a row, I'd imagine it'd be most, or at least a very high proportion.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

The powers that be take their lead from the clubs, they do not act autonomously, if you feel or believe the process can be bettered or improved, there is a platform available to facilitate that, make your voice heard.

Honestly, I don't care enough. As you mentioned, no system will catch people who are determined to get around it in some way. I play my golf and whatever scores I have, I have, be they good, bad or indifferent. All my cards go in and my only objective is to get as low as I can. It just irks me sometimes to see the debate about so-called handicap builders as if they're ten a penny. IMHO they're not, the vast, vast majority of golfers are just fitting into the normal profile of your average club golfer. Every club has a few bad eggs, I could probably name 3 or 4 in my club who are certainly carrying a few shots, but that's about it. Funny thing is, they win f--k all, so I often wonder why they bother.

Uncle Ben

Russman wrote: »

Yes, but do you seriously believe that any rule like being reviewed after the seven 0.1s, with an element of subjectivity in it, is good ? Most clubs have cliques, groupings etc., and I find it very hard to believe that everyone who has seven 0.1s in a row will be reviewed upwards. Bar talk always has an influence. Maybe I'm being too cynical. As an aside I'd be very interested to see just how many golfers actually have seven 0.1s in a row, I'd imagine it'd be most, or at least a very high proportion.

It is not solely up to hcap review committee to evaluate this. If you believe you should get an increase make your argument for it. Be it a .5 or 1 or 2 shot increase.

Your hcap committee will have to apply to your provincial governing branch anyway and they will either approve or reject the application.

As an aside, those people with hcaps of 28 can now apply for an increase to 54.
Any takers?

Russman

Uncle Ben wrote: »

It is not solely up to hcap review committee to evaluate this. If you believe you should get an increase make your argument for it. Be it a .5 or 1 or 2 shot increase.

Your hcap committee will have to apply to your provincial governing branch anyway and they will either approve or reject the application.

As an aside, those people with hcaps of 28 can now apply for an increase to 54.
Any takers?

I fully take your point, but in reality very few, if any, golfers will be ar$ed writing in looking for shots back. So in a sense I guess it will work:).
Plus the review process itself is putting a lot more work on predominantly volunteer handicap secretaries, when I'd argue the new one shot limit isn't really necessary or actually achieving anything over the previous limit. Its almost like a rolling end of year review. Although I think (open to correction) that previously it was two shots above your 1st Jan handicap as opposed to your lowest of the current year, like in the new regime. Obviously there should be some limit, I just think one shot is a bit tight with the amount of competitions many clubs run in a season, some retirees could play in a singles 4 times in a week, in theory they could hit the wall by the end of April and become disinterested.

I know the idea is everyone strives to improve and get lower and all that, but for your average 70+ year old gent (or whoever) who just wants his game of golf, lets be honest, most of them aren't trying to get to cut all the time. They're not building either, they just play their golf and like to think they still have some chance of a win if they have a good day. If the system is supposed to represent a players current ability, I'd argue that a one shot limit is too stringent to do that. But hey, there ya go, it is what it is.

Letree

The new system and even the older system targets the ordinary genuine competition golfer. The real problem is the golfers who generally avoid comps during qualifying unless they need an extra couple of 0.1's. These golfers play in teams and match-play comps. Doubles match-play, singles match-play, classics etc. I know quite a few of those and they also feature a bit during non qualifying in the winter. Handicap secretaries need the power to go after these guys.

Classics and doubles match-play is a bit of a farce in my club. They are just so hard to win now as we are up against the best of the handicap builders/maintainers.

Kingswood Rover

Russman wrote: »

Honestly, I don't care enough. As you mentioned, no system will catch people who are determined to get around it in some way. I play my golf and whatever scores I have, I have, be they good, bad or indifferent. All my cards go in and my only objective is to get as low as I can. It just irks me sometimes to see the debate about so-called handicap builders as if they're ten a penny. IMHO they're not, the vast, vast majority of golfers are just fitting into the normal profile of your average club golfer. Every club has a few bad eggs, I could probably name 3 or 4 in my club who are certainly carrying a few shots, but that's about it. Funny thing is, they win f--k all, so I often wonder why they bother.

Says it all good post

golfer79

I took up golf last summer and joined a club this year. Was given what I would have regarded as a bit of a tight handicap relative to my ability and cards submitted (17). Have played in a good lash of competitions and my handicap had gone up by ten .1's a month or so back. I'm now at 18.0. I estimate it would be after rising to about 18.5 now if restriction did not apply. So I think I have only had two rounds out of 17 where I did not qualify for .1 under the old system.

For someone in my position it is tough. I'm new to the game and ultimately want a low handicap but I'm not really being competitive now in my early membership days. I can see my game and scores improving for sure and thus the light at the end of the tunnel, but I feel I would be getting more enjoyment from the competitions if I had a more accurate and competitive handicap in these early days.

Letree

golfer79 wrote: »

I took up golf last summer and joined a club this year. Was given what I would have regarded as a bit of a tight handicap relative to my ability and cards submitted (17). Have played in a good lash of competitions and my handicap had gone up by ten .1's a month or so back. I'm now at 18.0. I estimate it would be after rising to about 18.5 now if restriction did not apply. So I think I have only had two rounds out of 17 where I did not qualify for .1 under the old system.

For someone in my position it is tough. I'm new to the game and ultimately want a low handicap but I'm not really being competitive now in my early membership days. I can see my game and scores improving for sure and thus the light at the end of the tunnel, but I feel I would be getting more enjoyment from the competitions if I had a more accurate and competitive handicap in these early days.

I think its unfair to give new golfers too low a handicap. They should give people a fair handicap so they have a chance to win a prize in their first year to give them a bit of hope.

CalamariFritti

Letree wrote: »

I think its unfair to give new golfers too low a handicap. They should give people a fair handicap so they have a chance to win a prize in their first year to give them a bit of hope.

Golf is a difficult game and that's what makes golf that good a game to a large degree.
Unless you are having a real talent for it and/or you play and practice A LOT there is no way anyone who is genuinely in their first year of golf would be anywhere near prizes unless they were given a ridiculous handicap.

Golfgraffix

golfer79 wrote: »

I took up golf last summer and joined a club this year. Was given what I would have regarded as a bit of a tight handicap relative to my ability and cards submitted (17). Have played in a good lash of competitions and my handicap had gone up by ten .1's a month or so back. I'm now at 18.0. I estimate it would be after rising to about 18.5 now if restriction did not apply. So I think I have only had two rounds out of 17 where I did not qualify for .1 under the old system.

For someone in my position it is tough. I'm new to the game and ultimately want a low handicap but I'm not really being competitive now in my early membership days. I can see my game and scores improving for sure and thus the light at the end of the tunnel, but I feel I would be getting more enjoyment from the competitions if I had a more accurate and competitive handicap in these early days.

That is why the handicap committee is there, give them a shout and I can see no reason why they could not get you adjusted upwards

Letree

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Golf is a difficult game and that's what makes golf that good a game to a large degree.
Unless you are having a real talent for it and/or you play and practice A LOT there is no way anyone who is genuinely in their first year of golf would be anywhere near prizes unless they were given a ridiculous handicap.

Yeah you are right about the first year. However a friend of mine has been playing 18 months and just went for his handicap this year and was given 18. He hasn't a hope of playing to that handicap. I think 20 or 22 would have been a fairer handicap.

CalamariFritti

Letree wrote: »

Yeah you are right about the first year. However a friend of mine has been playing 18 months and just went for his handicap this year and was given 18. He hasn't a hope of playing to that handicap. I think 20 or 22 would have been a fairer handicap.

I agree, I was in the same boat as your friend. For an actual beginner 18 is tough and can be disheartening. It was for me, too. But when I looked at others who could play I knew I was bad and I accepted that it would take a while.

I was told at the time and I have heard this many times repeated that clubs are very careful with beginner handicaps as people might be handy society golfers or lapsed handicaps.

I guess on those grounds I could have asked for a review after the first year or so as I was a genuine beginner and it showed in the results. Character building stuff I suppose

First Up

Letree wrote:

Yeah you are right about the first year. However a friend of mine has been playing 18 months and just went for his handicap this year and was given 18. He hasn't a hope of playing to that handicap. I think 20 or 22 would have been a fairer handicap.

The difference between 18 and 22 is a few missed putts and is only 2 shots outside the buffer. The one shot back thing is no use to a beginner who has been given too low a handicap but someone with an 18 h/c who is playing to 20 or 22 has no conplaints - in fact they have a very achieveable target.

alxmorgan

I started on 18 and it took me about 18 months to play to my handicap which was then 19. I never thought about prizes. I loved the challenge. I don't know why anyone starting out is thinking of prizes. At that stage it should all be new and exciting and head wrecking and thought dominating....much as it is now all these years later

paulos53

The following motion to allow 20 0.1s back instead of 10 is on the agenda for some of the provincial delegate meetings tonight:

"That the GUI seeks the approval of CONGU to change the restriction in Clause 4.5c and 20.10 of the 2016-2018 CONGU
UHS to a maximum of 2.0 strokes in a calendar year, effective, if possible, for the 2017 season"

I wonder if Congu are allowed to make this change before 2019?

Hoof Hearted2

paulos53 wrote: »

The following motion to allow 20 0.1s back instead of 10 is on the agenda for some of the provincial delegate meetings tonight:

"That the GUI seeks the approval of CONGU to change the restriction in Clause 4.5c and 20.10 of the 2016-2018 CONGU
UHS to a maximum of 2.0 strokes in a calendar year, effective, if possible, for the 2017 season"

I wonder if Congu are allowed to make this change before 2019?

Very unlikely to get passed at the province level and even more unlikely to get passed at national congress, in the unlikely event that it does pass, it won't come in to effect until Jan 2018 at the earliest.

RGS

Motion defeated at the Leinster meeting this evening.

Kingswood Rover

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

Very unlikely to get passed at the province leveland even more unlikely to get passed at national congress, in the unlikely event that it does pass, it won't come in to effect until Jan 2018 at the earliest.

Yep Donabate had a proposal before tonight's Leinster annual delegates meeting that it should be increased back to the 2 shot max increase on your lowest mark for that year, it was voted down by a large majority.

CalamariFritti

I'm still on board with this although I'm supposedly one of the players suffering from it.

My form and most others I imagine goes in cycles. Sometimes I get to to around 36 points quite easily for a while. Then I'm not playing to my handicap at all, 28 points stuff. Right now I'm in the latter phase. Like a lot of others I hate mucky bare lies freezing' winter golf and find it hard to motivate myself.

My lowest this year was 12.2, atm I'm at 12.7 and 13.2 would be the max. Would playing off 14 make a noticeable difference to my game? No it would not. I'd have 29 points. And once I'm back in form it won't make much of a difference either.

I don't think people should be able to compete for comps when they're going through slumps just to keep them interested. When you're playing sh1t, you're playing sh1t, everything else would be just masquerade.

Looking at our habitual winners though, usually this time of the year they're back to 12 or worse. Now they're stuck at 9 or 10. I'd be all for going with this for another while.

Hoof Hearted2

RGS wrote: »

Motion defeated at the Leinster meeting this evening.

Glad to hear common sense prevailed, it was also defeated in Munster.

CalamariFritti wrote: »

I'm still on board with this although I'm supposedly one of the players suffering from it.

My form and most others I imagine goes in cycles. Sometimes I get to to around 36 points quite easily for a while. Then I'm not playing to my handicap at all, 28 points stuff. Right now I'm in the latter phase. Like a lot of others I hate mucky bare lies freezing' winter golf and find it hard to motivate myself.

My lowest this year was 12.2, atm I'm at 12.7 and 13.2 would be the max. Would playing off 14 make a noticeable difference to my game? No it would not. I'd have 29 points. And once I'm back in form it won't make much of a difference either.

I don't think people should be able to compete for comps when they're going through slumps just to keep them interested. When you're playing sh1t, you're playing sh1t, everything else would be just masquerade.

Looking at our habitual winners though, usually this time of the year they're back to 12 or worse. Now they're stuck at 9 or 10. I'd be all for going with this for another while.

It's important to note that the automatic handicap increase provided for in competition is only one component of the handicap review process, there is also a continual review throughout the year and an end of year HC review, if for example a player stops playing competitions after he maxes out his .1's then there is no other evidence to support a HC increase, if however that player continues to play and continues to miss the Buffer Zone, he maybe highlight in the review process for an increase.

Just an FYI and IMO, any player who is thinking about a .1 before he pegs it up in competition is doing it wrong and shouldn't really be playing the game at all.

lettuce97

Does anybody know what the guidelines are for hcap reviews? My auld fella had a couple of months of inspired golf when he retired a few years back, dropped to 9. Has been maxing out on .1s since (think he had one buffer this year, everything else outside it) and is pretty disheartened with the game, but the club said they've reviewed his handicap and don't deem him entitled to an increase. That seems wrong to me.

Russman

lettuce97 wrote: »

Does anybody know what the guidelines are for hcap reviews? My auld fella had a couple of months of inspired golf when he retired a few years back, dropped to 9. Has been maxing out on .1s since (think he had one buffer this year, everything else outside it) and is pretty disheartened with the game, but the club said they've reviewed his handicap and don't deem him entitled to an increase. That seems wrong to me.

Unfortunately that's the problem with subjectivity and having members judging fellow members' ability. Most of the time it comes down to a conversation along the lines of:
"......for Joe ? A handicap increase ? Sure I played with him a year or so ago and he had 8 pars. You know he used to be off 9 ? Nah, no way should he get an increase.....f--King chancer..... Will you have another pint ?"
People tend to judge players on how good they used to be 10 years ago.

The new system this year is supposed to flag you up for a potential upward review if you get seven 0.1s in a row. If he has done this a few times he could probably ask to see the logic or reasoning of his non-review. Ultimately it's at the h/cap sec's discretion so he'll likely be told that in the opinion of the sec his handicap doesn't warrant an upward revision.

lettuce97

Russman wrote: »

Unfortunately that's the problem with subjectivity and having members judging fellow members' ability. Most of the time it comes down to a conversation along the lines of:
"......for Joe ? A handicap increase ? Sure I played with him a year or so ago and he had 8 pars. You know he used to be off 9 ? Nah, no way should he get an increase.....f--King chancer..... Will you have another pint ?"
People tend to judge players on how good they used to be 10 years ago.

The new system this year is supposed to flag you up for a potential upward review if you get seven 0.1s in a row. If he has done this a few times he could probably ask to see the logic or reasoning of his non-review. Ultimately it's at the h/cap sec's discretion so he'll likely be told that in the opinion of the sec his handicap doesn't warrant an upward revision.

Yeah that's what I advised him, and what he did. The secretary said he didn't think he warranted an upward review. I was wondering if any of the people involved with handicaps knew if there were any kind of guidelines provided to secretaries? I would've thought that a full year of .1s (probably about 30-50 singles comps, no team prizes or anything like that) would be a pretty clear case for an increase.

Russman

lettuce97 wrote: »

Yeah that's what I advised him, and what he did. The secretary said he didn't think he warranted an upward review. I was wondering if any of the people involved with handicaps knew if there were any kind of guidelines provided to secretaries? I would've thought that a full year of .1s (probably about 30-50 singles comps, no team prizes or anything like that) would be a pretty clear case for an increase.

It should be, but when it comes to one guy's opinion on another's ability, it's easy to be lazy and remember how someone used to play years ago, or to be influenced by bar talk about the great shot someone hit or the 2 birdies they had, rather than be objective and see how they're just not the player they used to be.

I'd ask the sec why he didn't feel an upward review was appropriate (mostly it'd just be to put him on the spot, I wouldn't really expect a decent answer).

If it's really been a year with 30-50 0.1s, then I'd write to the provincial branch and see what they say for the craic, given seven in a row is supposed to trigger a review. They'll probably fob you off, but if the right person reads it, he might just think "hang on, this handicap sec isn't doing his job....."

Hoof Hearted2

lettuce97 wrote: »

Yeah that's what I advised him, and what he did. The secretary said he didn't think he warranted an upward review. I was wondering if any of the people involved with handicaps knew if there were any kind of guidelines provided to secretaries? I would've thought that a full year of .1s (probably about 30-50 singles comps, no team prizes or anything like that) would be a pretty clear case for an increase.

There is set criteria and it's all in the UHS (unified handicap system) manual, the dark days of when a Handicap adjustment is based solely on opinion only and are made in smoke filled bars like what Russman is talking about are long behind us, thank god.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

There is set criteria and it's all in the UHS (unified handicap system) manual, the dark days of when a Handicap adjustment is based solely on opinion only and are made in smoke filled bars like what Russman is talking about are long behind us, thank god.

Hopefully they are.....

kieran.

A link to the criteria or a brief synopsis would be good Hoof

clog

The CONGU annual review system which is run through the clubs handicapping software will automatically mark out players for adjustment upwards and downwards. It can only be run at the end of the year and will suggest actions based on performances throughout the year after analysing all players.

The report is sent to the GUI to approve changes (or disagree in some instances). Reasons have to be given if the actions suggested are not followed.

The closing day for sending it off was actually yesterday 30/11 and there is no way to avoid sending it in. Alterations in handicap will not be made until the GUI replies to the clubs.

All the info is in clause 23 of the CONGU book (pg48-54) and appendix M (pg86)
http://www.congu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-CONGU-Manual-Final-version.pdf

Hoof Hearted2

Russman wrote: »

Hopefully they are.....

No hopefully about it, the criteria is clear and unambiguous, and if a player is unhappy or disagrees with an action taken by the HC committee, he can appeal to the local GUI branch, this also applies to inaction as seems to be the case with lettuce97.

Russman

Hoof Hearted2 wrote: »

No hopefully about it, the criteria is clear and unambiguous, and if a player is unhappy or disagrees with an action taken by the HC committee, he can appeal to the local GUI branch, this also applies to inaction as seems to be the case with lettuce97.

As I said, hopefully they are. Don't get me wrong I'm not hankering for the bad old days, but my experience in seeing cases appealed to the club, provincial branch, home Union and ultimately R&A is that they simply don't want to get involved and will tell you it's a matter for the club. Although on one particularly nasty occasion they did tell the h/c sec if he didn't do his job properly they'd do it for him, and the cuts were reversed. Admittedly it's a good few years ago so hopefully the old "I'll get him under Rule 19" mentality is in the past.