Annual Review - Adjustments

[Beware-the-3putt]

Hi,

A friend of mine has just told me he got an email saying he has been cut 4 shots in the annual review. He started the season playing off 26 and he has been cut to 18. He played 10 qualifying comps, 4 x No Returns, 3 rounds of 100+ for 0.1 increase and 3 rounds with cuts. 2 x 0.8 cuts and a 3.6 cut so finished the season at 22. He didn't actually win any medals even with the cuts as the 2 x 0.8 cuts were due to 2 and 3 shot adjustments and the 3.6 cut was also aided by a 3 shot adjustment. He did win a doubles comp but it still seems fairly excessive to cut him a further 4 shots on top of the cuts he has already incurred.

He's desperate to lower his handicap but is already mentioning that he has no chance of playing to his handicap next season as he'd need to beat his best ever score just to play to his new handicap and I fear it may put him off playing if he is miles above his handicap every week. He's been playing a few years and has always been around the 26 - 28 mark but he had a real purple patch for a few weeks this summer which was the time he got the 3 cuts.

Would I be daft to suggest he queries the cut?

B3P

 

[fundy]

are you saying he shot -2,-2,-3 against CSS the 3 rounds he got cut and for that hes gone from 26 to 18?

 

[patricks148]

if he is desperate to get lower why is he Q it?

why not accept and be pleased hes lower

 

[louise_a]

to be cut 3.6, he must have been 9 shots better than CSS (with stableford adjustments), unless it included an ESR reduction. Maybe the handicap committee took that into account as he is obviously improving rapidly.

 

[fundy]

to be cut 3.6, he must have been 9 shots better than CSS (with stableford adjustments), unless it included an ESR reduction. Maybe the handicap committee took that into account as he is obviously improving rapidly.

why is he obviously improving rapidly? not the impression i got from the Op at all

 

[rulefan]

I would be very surprised if the Annual Review itself recommended such a cut. Particularly after the relatively large automatic cuts he has already had. I have never seen a 4 shot reduction in the review document before.
I would certainly ask for an explanation.

 

[rosecott]

to be cut 3.6, he must have been 9 shots better than CSS (with stableford adjustments), unless it included an ESR reduction. Maybe the handicap committee took that into account as he is obviously improving rapidly.

Couldn't be ESR as there was no initial trigger. My reading of the post was that CSS was SSS+3 and he was 9 shots better than CSS and 12 better than SSS. I wonder if the OP could confirm.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

He's not queried it, it's me that thinks he maybe should. I just think it's a bit harsh to cut him 4 shots on top of the cuts he's already received.

He shot 88 once and it is the only time he has ever shot under 90. Off 18, he'd need to shoot 87 to play to what is the normal CSS of 69 at our course. His other 2 cuts came from shooting 97 (off 27 at the time and with adjustment he had net 67 for a 0.8 cut) and 92 (off 23 at the time and with adjustment he had a net 67 for 0.8 cut). All other rounds were above 100 with a couple above 105.

We all want to be lower (or should want to be) but we also want to be competitive. He is now lower than a couple of our other mates who beat him probably 75% of the time, if not more, giving him shots never mind receiving them. I'll probs just leave even mentioning it and see how he goes next season but suggest he speaks to the M&H if he is really struggling the first couple of months of the season.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Couldn't be ESR as there was no initial trigger. My reading of the post was that CSS was SSS+3 and he was 9 shots better than CSS and 12 better than SSS. I wonder if the OP could confirm.

He shot 88 off 24, so net 64. He had a 3 shot adj which took it to a net 61 for handicap purposes. CSS was 70 that day.

 

[louise_a]

why is he obviously improving rapidly? not the impression i got from the Op at all

I misread the OP as started playing this year,

 

[rosecott]

He shot 88 off 24, so net 64. He had a 3 shot adj which took it to a net 61 for handicap purposes. CSS was 70 that day.

Ah, I see. I didn't realise you were talking Stableford Adjustment, I wrongly assumed you were talking variations to SSS. As Rulefan said above, I have never known an Annual Review recommendation of a 4 stroke reduction and am pretty certain that that did not happen. I imagine that your Handicap Committee has decided that he played to 18 on that day and that is what his handicap should be. That is not how the Annual Review - or any General Play adjustment - is intended to work. I would be inclined to encourage the player to seek an explanation/justification of the reduction from the Handicap Committee.

 

[Swango1980]

Ah, I see. I didn't realise you were talking Stableford Adjustment, I wrongly assumed you were talking variations to SSS. As Rulefan said above, I have never known an Annual Review recommendation of a 4 stroke reduction and am pretty certain that that did not happen. I imagine that your Handicap Committee has decided that he played to 18 on that day and that is what his handicap should be. That is not how the Annual Review - or any General Play adjustment - is intended to work. I would be inclined to encourage the player to seek an explanation/justification of the reduction from the Handicap Committee.

I agree with what was said above and that of rulefan. I have not seen the Annual Review ever recommend such a reduction, and I know players who have had even better scores than that. Therefore, it sounds like the Handicap Committee have decided to get a little more aggressive in how they apply their cuts. Unless there is sufficient evidence outside the qualifying comps that the player needs a bigger cut, I'd definitely question it if he felt hard done by.

 

[Swango1980]

if he is desperate to get lower why is he Q it?

why not accept and be pleased hes lower

There is bound to be a limit on that logic though, surely. If they changed his handicap to 6 at Annual Review, should he be even happier than the 18 they have cut him to? Besides, playing your handicap down is far more satisfying than somebody just moving it for you, especially if the you feel the Committee are being overly harsh. Of course, we don't know if the player himself is happy or not with the outcome.

 

[patricks148]

There is bound to be a limit on that logic though, surely. If they changed his handicap to 6 at Annual Review, should he be even happier than the 18 they have cut him to? Besides, playing your handicap down is far more satisfying than somebody just moving it for you, especially if the you feel the Committee are being overly harsh. Of course, we don't know if the player himself is happy or not with the outcome.

4 shots is nothing at that handicap you could get cut that in one go no problem, the example you are giving is 12 shots hardly the same thing.

Its no different to ESR, we don't have them in scotland so every cut has to be earned, down there you can easily get cut an extra couple of shots which i doubt most would be unhappy about

 

[jim8flog]

4 shots is nothing at that handicap you could get cut that in one go no problem, the example you are giving is 12 shots hardly the same thing.

Its no different to ESR, we don't have them in scotland so every cut has to be earned, down there you can easily get cut an extra couple of shots which i doubt most would be unhappy about

Additional cuts only happen after 2 ESRs not 1.

 

[patricks148]

Additional cuts only happen after 2 ESRs not 1.

never mentione one or any other number... but thanks anyway

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

Annual prizegiving tonight at the club and the M&H confirmed the cut was due to him winning the doubles comp and having a few good rounds. He said he was cutting others for the same reason. I'm not convinced it's valid but its a battle for someone else to fight as I'm not really involved and I'd be the scapegoat di©k if I was to challenge it.
It will be interesting to see if they actually post the report and the adjustments they have applied on the notice board. Is this something that should happen or can they keep this hidden from the wider membership?
Thanks for replies folks, esp rosecott and Swango1980. Much appreciated.

 

[Beware-the-3putt]

never mentione one or any other number... but thanks anyway

Funny that. I didn't mention that the guy getting the cut was querying it but you jumped in asking why and saying he should accept it and be happy....thanks anyway

 

[rulefan]

Annual prizegiving tonight at the club and the M&H confirmed the cut was due to him winning the doubles comp and having a few good rounds. He said he was cutting others for the same reason. I'm not convinced it's valid

When carrying out the Annual Review and in giving consideration to possible handicap adjustments arising from the computer generated listing, the Handicap Committee must:
• not use General Play Adjustments as a ‘punishment’ (or ‘reward’) for success in either match or stroke play competitions (unless other evidence exists to support an adjustment); and
• not apply a formula to make adjustments e.g. the winners of club match play events being the subject of a handicap reduction of two strokes.

It will be interesting to see if they actually post the report and the adjustments they have applied on the notice board. Is this something that should happen or can they keep this hidden from the wider membership?

The Handicap Committee must
7.5 Display in a prominent position at the club all alterations to Members’ Playing Handicaps immediately they are made.
7.6 Ensure that a record of Members’ current Exact Handicaps and Playing Handicaps is available in a prominent position at the club.

Unlike changes to handicap resulting from participation in Qualifying Competitions, adjustments of handicap under this Clause (Annual review) are not of a routine nature and often cannot be anticipated by the players affected. Consequently, it is not considered to be sufficient for a Handicap Committee merely to post a list of changes on the club notice board. Individual Members should be notified in writing or by some other agreed method of communication adopted by the club.

 

[patricks148]

Funny that. I didn't mention that the guy getting the cut was querying it but you jumped in asking why and saying he should accept it and be happy....thanks anyway

because you said that in the last line, ie would i be daft to suggest he quiry it

as for jumping in you came on a forum and asked a question, is no one allowed an opinion?