Annual handicap reducations

[One Planer]

I know these take place at seasons end, but was wondering was factors are taken into consideration when determining increase and decrease. Cuts? Buffer made? Missed buffer?

Using myself as an example.

I've 5 played qualifiers this season so far:

Buffer
Buffer
+0.1
Buffer
-0.9

If my season were to finish now (.... It's not but hypothetically) how would this reflect in an annual review.

Just something that's been bugging me for a while.

Any help appreciated :thup:

 

[AmandaJR]

I've been wondering the same actually as my season is much the same:

On CSS
On CSS
Buffer
Buffer
On CSS
Buffer
-0.4

Hoping to get more of the 0.4 variety between now and Oct, but if not then hoping the annual review might recommend a cut. As it's a new course and I feel 2-3 shots more difficult then I'm not too disappointed if I don't go down a shot or two this year but it would be nice

 

[duncan mackie]

I've been wondering the same actually as my season is much the same:

On CSS
On CSS
Buffer
Buffer
On CSS
Buffer
-0.4

Hoping to get more of the 0.4 variety between now and Oct, but if not then hoping the annual review might recommend a cut. As it's a new course and I feel 2-3 shots more difficult then I'm not too disappointed if I don't go down a shot or two this year but it would be nice

that's not the same for a number of reasons!

1. you haven't failed to make buffer yet, even once
2. you have only been reduced 0.4 exact
3. your playing handicap is unchanged

completely off the top of my head, I would see you getting a recomendation of -1, whilst Gareth would remain unchanged unless there was significant evidence to support a view to the contrary.

factors -

% to buffer or better
relationship between handicap played to in the above and current handicap (ie if your playing handicap had already been cut after the above performances it might shift things from a cut to a hold

need 4 Q scores to even get reviewed

failure to make buffer once with 4 or more Q scores might see the recomendation of an increase.

hope this is what you are both looking for (and that Rosecott agrees )

 

[rulefan]

Well I would agree.

 

[AmandaJR]

Cheers guys. All conjecture (but interesting) for sure as a lot of qualifiers still to be played before then

 

[rulefan]

Amanda

Duncan's conjecture may well depend on your current handicap category. Your results are those expected of Cat 1 or low Cat 2 and would probably not result in any recommendation to change.

 

[One Planer]

Thanks for the replies.

Again, hypothetically, if I were to continue in a similar fashion an keep hitting buffer in every qualifier would that have a bearing or is it only rounds under handicap, resulting in reductions, that are considered?

 

[Foxholer]

Gareth.

Here's a wordy and confusing description of the calc! http://www.congu.com/faqs/old_site/Review of Handicaps.pdf

Basically, it's expected that you will average 0.237* End-of-Year Handicap + 1.57 over your End of year Handicap (FH). That's 20 over (31 points) in your case.

If your average is more than 3 better than that, then a cut could be due. Buffer doesn't really come into it - except to Id what your FH would be.

 

[Deleted member 17920]

I know these take place at seasons end, but was wondering was factors are taken into consideration when determining increase and decrease. Cuts? Buffer made? Missed buffer?

Using myself as an example.

I've 5 played qualifiers this season so far:

Buffer
Buffer
+0.1
Buffer
-0.9

If my season were to finish now (.... It's not but hypothetically) how would this reflect in an annual review.

Just something that's been bugging me for a while.

Any help appreciated :thup:

As my handicap committee are complete mercenaries you would be cut 4 shots! You should only play to your handicap 3 times a year! That's what they tell everyone when they do the annual cull.

 

[rulefan]

You should only play to your handicap 3 times a year! That's what they tell everyone when they do the annual cull.

They shouldn't. That statement is nonsense.
A scratch player plays in 25 comps. If he only played to scratch 3 times he wouldn't be scratch very long.
A 25 handicapper plays 3 times. Will he really play to his handicap each time?

But see Foxholer's link which is what your handicap committee needs to take note of. Or more specifically, the report of recommendations that results from running the program.

 

[mcbroon]

What if you're wildly inconsistent?

THis year I've had:

+ 0.1
- 1.8
+0.1
Buffer
- 0.6
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
- 0.8

What will happen if I keep going like that? And does it matter that I'm north of the border?

 

[Foxholer]

What if you're wildly inconsistent?

THis year I've had:

+ 0.1
- 1.8
+0.1
Buffer
- 0.6
+ 0.1
+ 0.1
- 0.8

What will happen if I keep going like that? And does it matter that I'm north of the border?

As per that link, it' about average scores, so +0.1 doesn't help in that calculation.

If you didn't play any more though, your average should be around around 13. If below about 10, which I doubt, you would be flagged for a possible (further) reduction on the AR Report.

Same calculation/report applies North of the border. While EGU recommend that the recommendations are applied, SGU would normally be more likely to compel clubs to do so - as happens with ESCs. I can't find anywhere that that is documented though, so not certain.

 

[duncan mackie]

As my handicap committee are complete mercenaries you would be cut 4 shots! You should only play to your handicap 3 times a year! That's what they tell everyone when they do the annual cull.

complete rubbish

 

[Foxholer]

complete rubbish

Maybe not! Though I would strongly suspect you are correct. To resolve such opposing views, evidence is required!

Though when I once asked about the best way to reduce my handicap, the guys in the Pro Shop immediately retorted 'Give <handicap convener's name> a bung!'

Congu introduced the ESR and the AR Report in an attempt to standardise the approach and the effect is that Handicap Committees don't 'slash' handicaps as has been the perception in the past. They certainly now have metrics for both when and by how much any cut should be made.

There may still be some committees who are continuing with the old style - though I doubt it. If this is the case, then I believe they should be 'outed' and brought into line as it corrupts the integrity of the system - which relies on a 'standard' approach. It did take quite a while to get the message across to one old club that stating that applying a 'formula' for cuts to winners/runners up of Matchplay comps was against Congu guidelines! Though, from a cynical approach, it was very convenient to a particular team event when they stopped doing so!

 

[rulefan]

SGU would normally be more likely to compel clubs to do so - as happens with ESCs. I can't find anywhere that that is documented though, so not certain.

These words appear in the FAQs on the SGU website

It cannot be over-stressed that the Annual Review Report should not be used to make automatic adjustments solely based on the print-out.