Handicap 0.1 increases insufficient (help pls)

[oltimer]

We have a few 70-80 year olds whose handicap prevents them being competitive, over the last 12 months two (for eg) have each played in 12 comps always over their buffer zone and increased by 0.6 shots (incls doubles).
no increases in annual review, playing off 13, no longer able to reach par 4`s in two shots trying to compete against much younger Seniors who not only can reach holes in regulation but usually with a mid to short iron approach shot and on 4+ holes receiving two shots, often with a gross par being scored, their reductions averaging 2-3 shots in 12 months.

With the new hcap system intent on keeping players competitive is there any way we can increase the first mentioned handicaps by say 5 shots in one go, at least to give them half a chance, with a newish hcap ctee they think they can only adjust by the amount the comp results produce until the next annual review or such reductions would not be a legal hcap.

Can anyone point me to the regulation that allows common sense to apply, currently playing just for the company and we will end up losing such Members from the comps as they are giving better scorers 10 shots start.

 

[rulefan]

Something odd somewhere.

Was nothing highlighted in the Annual Review report? What are their average net differentials?

Has there been no notification from the Continuous Handicap Review? There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying an immediate handicap increase.

See CONGU Clause 23/6D and Appendix M for more information.

Appendix M makes the points

The AR report ‘flags up’ those players whose playing performance over the year is outside the expected scoring pattern for their Handicap Category and who should be the subject of further consideration for an increase or decrease in handicap, as appropriate. It must be emphasised, however, that the list produced must not be taken as an automatic authority to adjust the handicaps of the listed players, or as indicative of the only players requiring review.

• recognise that it is as important to identify players of declining ability who have handicaps that are too low, as it is to identify players who have a handicap that is too high;


Ultimately, the committee should adjust their handicaps to match reality. This may be done in stages during the season

 

[oltimer]

Thanks for that, was hoping that "you" would reply, I can now point the new hcap secs in the right direction, fraid my knowledge of hcap monitoring was in the last century. much appreciated !.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The confusing bit is you said they have each played 12 comps over buffer but have only gone up .6 ? That’s not right it should be 1.2 which is 12 .1’s and then both players would have been flagged during Continuous review and then Annual review

But if they have only gone up .6 in 12 comps then they have 6 buffers which would indicate the HC won’t be adjusted

 

[oltimer]

just checked one of their records - 10 comps from Aug last year to date = total of 98 over par, = + 9.8 average, suggests a 23 hcap more appropriate, best results in comps = 11th, 17th, 24th the rest in 30`s & 40 places. tnks for your interest.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

just checked one of their records - 10 comps from Aug last year to date = total of 98 over par, = + 9.8 average, suggests a 23 hcap more appropriate, best results in comps = 11th, 17th, 24th the rest in 30`s & 40 places. tnks for your interest.

You can’t just change their HC based on 10 comps , and certainly not using the theory you are

Can you explain how they have only gone up .6 in 12 comps ?

 

[oltimer]

records show - 7 x +0.1 + last 3 no increases to anyone presumably because of conditions and very high scores overall.

Ten Comps could for some be a full seasons participation in Comps - have played with this person who can no longer reach any hole in regulation due to age/ loss of strength, if playing for first hcap would be given 20 something on cards returned, surely a hcap should be such that one feels that they have a chance of competing not such that they consider playing in comps at all.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

records show - 7 x +0.1 + last 3 no increases to anyone presumably because of conditions and very high scores overall.

Ten Comps could for some be a full seasons participation in Comps - have played with this person who can no longer reach any hole in regulation due to age/ loss of strength, if playing for first hcap would be given 20 something on cards returned, surely a hcap should be such that one feels that they have a chance of competing not such that they consider playing in comps at all.

They need to let the system do it’s job , if they didn’t get any increase in three comps then that means they made buffer. The Handicap sorts itself out - if they have 7 in a row then they get flagged if they are only play one Comp a month then it’s going to take a little longer but then they should have also been flagged at AR but looking at their scores it’s hard to see how anyone could give more than 1 maybe 2 shots at a push

The last thing that needs to happen is they get their HC falsely increased by a considerable margin and then they win a Comp - it should work like that

What you can suggest to them is putting in supplementary cards which will also help them increase their HC if it’s required

 

[oltimer]

They need to let the system do it’s job , if they didn’t get any increase in three comps then that means they made buffer. The Handicap sorts itself out - if they have 7 in a row then they get flagged if they are only play one Comp a month then it’s going to take a little longer but then they should have also been flagged at AR but looking at their scores it’s hard to see how anyone could give more than 1 maybe 2 shots at a push

The last thing that needs to happen is they get their HC falsely increased by a considerable margin and then they win a Comp - it should work like that

What you can suggest to them is putting in supplementary cards which will also help them increase their HC if it’s required

Not within his buffer zone in 12 months - 3 comps were no increases applied to anyone, at 0.1 increase per comp if he plays 20 a year it will take him 2-3 years to get a noticeable increase - lets hope he`s still with us never mind still playing,

thanks for your input -

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Not within his buffer zone in 12 months - 3 comps were no increases applied to anyone, at 0.1 increase per comp if he plays 20 a year it will take him 2-3 years to get a noticeable increase - lets hope he`s still with us never mind still playing,

thanks for your input -

So the Comp was reductions only - ok that helps , then they both should have been flagged for Continious Handicap Review and also at the AR so you need to ask the committee why they weren’t looked at - it won’t take them 20 comps , they can put in supplementary cards and the HC committee can review them and make adjustments- not the 5 shots etc you suggest but certainly start off with 2 shots and then go from there. But then they maybe like plenty of guys I see who don’t really care what their comps scores are and just enjoy playing the game without any stress about HC’s etc

 

[Old Skier]

Common sense required especially if apart from 3 no increases they have been going up. They really should have been picked up in the annual review.

 

[rulie]

Common sense required especially if apart from 3 no increases they have been going up. They really should have been picked up in the annual review.

Do a semi-annual review; ie, do it now.

 

[rulefan]

Can anyone point me to the regulation that allows common sense to apply, currently playing just for the company and we will end up losing such Members from the comps as they are giving better scorers 10 shots start.

It would seem that it isn't a regulation that is needed but a handicap committee that will do its job diligently.

 

[jim8flog]

The 7x 0.1 increases in a row does not necessarily the committee are required to do a full review.

There is a flow chart we have to follow and it may mean that a player can only be given a full review if they meet all the requirements of the flow chart.

I would add that it has taken me a lot of effort to get the longer term members of the handicap committee to accept the fact that we now have do continuous reviews and not just an annual review so maybe it's the same where you play.

 

[rosecott]

We have a few 70-80 year olds whose handicap prevents them being competitive, over the last 12 months two (for eg) have each played in 12 comps always over their buffer zone and increased by 0.6 shots (incls doubles).
no increases in annual review, playing off 13, no longer able to reach par 4`s in two shots trying to compete against much younger Seniors who not only can reach holes in regulation but usually with a mid to short iron approach shot and on 4+ holes receiving two shots, often with a gross par being scored, their reductions averaging 2-3 shots in 12 months.

With the new hcap system intent on keeping players competitive is there any way we can increase the first mentioned handicaps by say 5 shots in one go, at least to give them half a chance, with a newish hcap ctee they think they can only adjust by the amount the comp results produce until the next annual review or such reductions would not be a legal hcap.

Can anyone point me to the regulation that allows common sense to apply, currently playing just for the company and we will end up losing such Members from the comps as they are giving better scorers 10 shots start.

If he has the general game for a 13-handicapper, he should still be able to compete despite losing length. He gets a shot on all but 5 holes - 4 of which are probably par 3s - and should still be able to reach the green in 3 on par 4s and 4 on par 5s. Maybe he is remembering the good old days and is trying too hard to keep up with the younger seniors. Many older players have to rely on a good short game when the long game diminishes.

 

[oltimer]

Do a semi-annual review; ie, do it now.

Thank you all for your advice - know which direction to take now - never thought I`d be concerned about someones handicap being too low.

 

[Colin L]

Thank you all for your advice - know which direction to take now - never thought I`d be concerned about someones handicap being too low.

Sorry to be brief, but I'm away at the moment with limited internet access. We have completed a major exercise at my club in re-assessing a good number of handicaps and implementing increases exceptionally above the usual 1 or 2 strokes because of the kind of under-handicapping you mention. The main factor is an ageing population of golfers whose game has been declining much faster than their handicaps go up. You won't manage to rectify the situation by limiting increases to those who are listed on the annual review report and to the one or occasionally 2 strokes recommended. A 1 stroke increase to a player who hasn't buffered in over two years and whose net differentials are in double figure is absurdly indequate and yet that can be what the annual review report suggests.

If you wish, drop me a PM with your email address and I can let you know in more detail what we encoutered and what we have done.

CONGU handicaps are calculated such that a player should be likely to buffer in one third of his scores. The principles to work to, stated by CONGU, are that it is the Handicap Committee's responsibility to ensure that a player's handicap reflects his playing ability and that it is as important to put a player's handicap up as it is to put it down.


.

 

[rosecott]

Our Handicap Committee Chairman is an extremely go-ahead person and has got EG approval for an analytical system based on the AR principles. We have meetings every 2 months using this data and I am confident that any increase or decrease action is taken as early as possible.

 

[rulie]

Thank you all for your advice - know which direction to take now - never thought I`d be concerned about someones handicap being too low.

Imo handicap authorities should not "punish" people and should be able to respond quickly to changes in the player's capability. For example, I started the year as a 5 (mid-March) but my poor play has me now at an 8. Recognize that I'm under the USGA system, which definitely adjusts more quickly and reflects the player's current potential. The proposed WHS will also do this.

 

[duncan mackie]

Imo handicap authorities should not "punish" people and should be able to respond quickly to changes in the player's capability. For example, I started the year as a 5 (mid-March) but my poor play has me now at an 8. Recognize that I'm under the USGA system, which definitely adjusts more quickly and reflects the player's current potential. The proposed WHS will also do this.

I thought the new system has additional factors (over current USGA) that would prevent an increase of 3 shots over that period?