Handicap Reduction - Annual Review

[One Planer]

Question for the folk on here familiar with handicaps, and the ins and outs of reduction.

Went for my weekly round with my dad today. Checked the club notice board to find my name in the annual review and my handicap docked from 16.7 down to 15.7 :whoo:

From the notice board:

What's confusing me is the number of rounds. I've played more qualifiers than 5 this season. Is that figure the number of rounds under handicap or total for the year (We've had a lot of medals and stablefords this season become non-qualifying because of shortend course or pick and place)?

Also.

The performance against target section shows -4.00, what ever this is

Can anybody help clear this up for me? What is performance against target?

Any help appreciated :thup:

 

[Foxholer]

This might help, but I douby it.

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?28099-Handicaps-annual-review

Clubs are encouraged to accept the recommendations and there are a couple of 'no change' entries that I would thimk should have been.

BTW. 'Pick and Place' alone doesn't mean a comp is non-qualifying.

 

[duncan mackie]

well the report is certainly indicating that it has reviewed between 3 and 6 qualifying scores - it should be easy enough for you to check this against your own results records, whatever system yours are produced on.

basically the system does an underlying evaluation of your scores relative to your handicap category - the most normal pick up is the percentage of scores returned in the buffer zone and better; for example a cat 3 player playing 6 competitions and scoring within his buffer zone everytime will (1) have received no adjustment during the year (2) be considered 'stronger' than his handicap.

the person to ask for any queries is the H'cap sec - they are used to it and will have your records out currently 'in case you call'

 

[duncan mackie]

if you want to read the long reply I posted you will have to mod release it!!!

 

[One Planer]

This might help, but I douby it.

http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?28099-Handicaps-annual-review

Clubs are encouraged to accept the recommendations and there are a couple of 'no change' entries that I would thimk should have been.

BTW. 'Pick and Place' alone doesn't mean a comp is non-qualifying.

Sorry Fox', my OP should have said "No qualifying because of a shortened course AND pick and place.

 

[G1BB0]

Gareth, you were cut for being a bandit and the fact they know that s&t is the way forward and your handicap is due to plummet like a stone along with a plethora of comp wins... they are scared of your golfing potential

 

[rosecott]

What's confusing me is the number of rounds. I've played more qualifiers than 5 this season. Is that figure the number of rounds under handicap or total for the year (We've had a lot of medals and stablefords this season become non-qualifying because of shortend course or pick and place)?
The performance against target section shows -4.00, what ever this is

Can anybody help clear this up for me? What is performance against target?

5 is the number of qualifiers you have played since the last annual review.

To put it simply, performance against target is based on the proportion of buffers you have achieved in those qualifiers - you've buffered too often for your handicap level.

 

[patricks148]

I don't think our club bothers to do a review unless you have shot the lights out at every comp you have entered. or the right people complain about you being a bandit.

A mate of mine at another clubs said he thought i should get cut in a review for.

15 comps.
4 cuts down by 2.3 and 8 buffers.

I would rather be cut in Competition play and win something so not bothered, but is my mate right?

 

[BTatHome]

Gareth, do you know why the other 2 guys listed did not get adjustments ?

 

[rosecott]

I would say your mate is 100% correct. If, as you say, you have played only 15 qualifiers and been outside buffer on only 3 occasions, I would expect the computer analysis for the Annual Review to be recommending a significant decrease.

 

[One Planer]

Gareth, do you know why the other 2 guys listed did not get adjustments ?

No idea BT???

I notice they have a lower/higher ( ) performance against target figure than me (4.19 and 4.47 respectivley as opposed to 4.00)

Maybe they are just really good friends with the handicap sec'

 

[rosecott]

No idea BT???

I notice they have a lower/higher ( ) performance against target figure than me (4.19 and 4.47 respectivley as opposed to 4.00)

Maybe they are just really good friends with the handicap sec'

The recommendations are just that, recommendations, and, particularly with a small number of qualifiers, each case should/would be looked at individually. Your handicap committee should/would also have looked at other factors such as knockout, 4BBB etc. performance.

 

[One Planer]

The recommendations are just that, recommendations, and, particularly with a small number of qualifiers, each case should/would be looked at individually. Your handicap committee should/would also have looked at other factors such as knockout, 4BBB etc. performance.

Would medals/stableford cards deemed as non-qualifying (Due to shortened course and pick & place), but still handed in be considered as "Other factors" in the review or is is qualifying rounds only?

 

[rosecott]

Would medals/stableford cards deemed as non-qualifying (Due to shortened course and pick & place), but still handed in be considered as "Other factors" in the review or is is qualifying rounds only?

They can certainly be taken into account but shouldn't be "stand alone" evidence.

I was quite surprised that your handicap committee posted the computer analysis produced for the Annual Review. Although the deliberations of the Handicap Committee shouldn't be seen as closely guarded secrets, I would have thought it unwise to publish the analysis since any other considerations were not published.

 

[One Planer]

They can certainly be taken into account but shouldn't be "stand alone" evidence.

I was quite surprised that your handicap committee posted the computer analysis produced for the Annual Review. Although the deliberations of the Handicap Committee shouldn't be seen as closely guarded secrets, I would have thought it unwise to publish the analysis since any other considerations were not published.

Being honest Rose, It's always been like that as long as I've been a member at my current club.

Every year when the review has been completed the results are posted (As above). I would suggest, maybe to keep the procedure transparent?

 

[rosecott]

Being honest Rose, It's always been like that as long as I've been a member at my current club.

Every year when the review has been completed the results are posted (As above). I would suggest, maybe to keep the procedure transparent?

My point was that it wasn't transparent - there was no reason given for your reduction when the figures for the other 2 players who weren't reduced gave a stronger case for reduction. In the absence of the reasons for you being the only one of the three to be reduced, I think it would have been more sensible to post reductions/increases without displaying only half the evidence. The computer analysis should really be for the Handicap Committee to use to do their job and not something to be published.

 

[One Planer]

My point was that it wasn't transparent - there was no reason given for your reduction when the figures for the other 2 players who weren't reduced gave a stronger case for reduction. In the absence of the reasons for you being the only one of the three to be reduced, I think it would have been more sensible to post reductions/increases without displaying only half the evidence. The computer analysis should really be for the Handicap Committee to use to do their job and not something to be published.

Ah, I see your point now. Very true.