Handicap Reductions during change over to WHS

[buster60]

Several members at my golf club got telephone calls from the Handicap Secretary to inform them that they were not being allocated the full handicap that the WHS had allocated them.
In my case I was informed that he was reducing me from 22 to 20 on the WHS as he "believed that I was capable of scoring better than I do" He had previously told me that my WHS was to be 22.
Bear in mind, I'm 77 and not anywhere capable of playing to the handicap that I previously had on the old system. Last season in 14 competition rounds, I never once equaled my handicap. I got into the buffer zone a couple of times and over the season my handicap went up from 21 to 22.1
Having spoken to the Club Captain I have discovered that that the Handicap Secretary had decided to cut me and others without consulting with any other committee members. There is no handicap committee that I am aware of.
So far the club haven't responded to my letter of complaint.
Any suggestions as to what I and the others in a similar situation should do?

 

[rulie]

Keep following up with the Captain and Handicap "Committee". Remind them that your scoring record represents your playing ability - keep playing and adding to that scoring record.
Imo, the HS needs more evidence to make a cut than a "belief of your capability". The scoring record is a demonstration of ability.
Maybe he's feeling a loss of stature with the new handicap system?

 

[IanM]

..did you beat him in the Knockout???

 

[jim8flog]

Did you have a full record of 20 scores. If not handicap secretaries have been instructed not to alter handicaps of any players (unless there is a serious error) until they have a full record of 20 scores.

The club should have a handicap committee of at least 3 people and you have the right to appeal any change and they should have a published appeals procedure.

 

[Swango1980]

Several members at my golf club got telephone calls from the Handicap Secretary to inform them that they were not being allocated the full handicap that the WHS had allocated them.
In my case I was informed that he was reducing me from 22 to 20 on the WHS as he "believed that I was capable of scoring better than I do" He had previously told me that my WHS was to be 22.
Bear in mind, I'm 77 and not anywhere capable of playing to the handicap that I previously had on the old system. Last season in 14 competition rounds, I never once equaled my handicap. I got into the buffer zone a couple of times and over the season my handicap went up from 21 to 22.1
Having spoken to the Club Captain I have discovered that that the Handicap Secretary had decided to cut me and others without consulting with any other committee members. There is no handicap committee that I am aware of.
So far the club haven't responded to my letter of complaint.
Any suggestions as to what I and the others in a similar situation should do?

From what you says, that seems harsh and very unfair. Firstly, as mentioned, there should be a handicap committee. I'm handicap secretary at my club, but I'd never make adjustments to handicaps without consulting others on the handicap committee (and wider committee when appropriate). With WHS, I had to make adjustments, but only where there were lost scores in the transition, mainly with new members. And, all I did there, was re-enter the missing scores so they'd have a more reflective handicap.

It would always concern me if the logic was simply "believe you can score better than you do". That is completely irrelevant, and a subjective call. The whole point of the handicap system is that it is based on the scores you have submitted, not the ones you COULD have submitted if you had played better. Perhaps if he said "you had very limited scores in your scoring history, and based on your scores outside qualifiers / acceptable rounds, and a discussion with the handicap committee, we felt a lower handicap would be more reflective of your ability". You could still appeal it, but at least they'd have given it a considered approach.

 

[wjemather]

Several members at my golf club got telephone calls from the Handicap Secretary to inform them that they were not being allocated the full handicap that the WHS had allocated them.
In my case I was informed that he was reducing me from 22 to 20 on the WHS as he "believed that I was capable of scoring better than I do" He had previously told me that my WHS was to be 22.
Bear in mind, I'm 77 and not anywhere capable of playing to the handicap that I previously had on the old system. Last season in 14 competition rounds, I never once equaled my handicap. I got into the buffer zone a couple of times and over the season my handicap went up from 21 to 22.1
Having spoken to the Club Captain I have discovered that that the Handicap Secretary had decided to cut me and others without consulting with any other committee members. There is no handicap committee that I am aware of.
So far the club haven't responded to my letter of complaint.
Any suggestions as to what I and the others in a similar situation should do?

Certainly doesn't seem like they are following the rules of handicapping. If you get an unsatisfactory response, I would suggest escalating with your club committee/secretary and/or contacting your county handicap advisor (or equivalent).

 

[jim8flog]

Certainly doesn't seem like they are following the rules of handicapping. If you get an unsatisfactory response, I would suggest escalating with your club committee/secretary and/or contacting your county handicap advisor (or equivalent).

The trouble is that appeals to County have to be paid for by the player (at least that is what happens in Dorset).

 

[wjemather]

The trouble is that appeals to County have to be paid for by the player (at least that is what happens in Dorset).

I was thinking more in relation to how the "handicap committee" is operating/not meeting its responsibilities, than directly appealing the reductions themselves.

 

[rulie]

The trouble is that appeals to County have to be paid for by the player (at least that is what happens in Dorset).

What is it that needs to be "paid for" and what is the justification for any such fee? I thought any request by a member was to a volunteer or someone, maybe staff, who were serving members (aka customers)?

 

[rulefan]

The trouble is that appeals to County have to be paid for by the player (at least that is what happens in Dorset).

'Appeals' are when a case has been raised and already adjudicated on and one of the parties is still unhappy and 'appeals' the decision. Which then may or may not go to EG.
The County should not be charging foe an initial query or investigation. That is what the annual subs members pay are for.

In this case the club is completely out of line and should be corrected by the county.

 

[jim8flog]

What is it that needs to be "paid for" and what is the justification for any such fee? I thought any request by a member was to a volunteer or someone, maybe staff, who were serving members (aka customers)?

See Rulefan's comments #10 Do not ask me why there is a fee I just know there is or used to in Dorset. We have had a couple of players that were going to take it to county after we had gone through all our review and appeals procedure until they found out about the fee.

'Appeals' are when a case has been raised and already adjudicated on and one of the parties is still unhappy and 'appeals' the decision. Which then may or may not go to EG.
The County should not be charging foe an initial query or investigation. That is what the annual subs members pay are for.

In this case the club is completely out of line and should be corrected by the county.

Understood. As we have a very well defined procedure for reviews and appeals I was just jumping to the next stage as a very quick comment.

 

[Old Skier]

'Appeals' are when a case has been raised and already adjudicated on and one of the parties is still unhappy and 'appeals' the decision. Which then may or may not go to EG.
The County should not be charging foe an initial query or investigation. That is what the annual subs members pay are for.

In this case the club is completely out of line and should be corrected by the county.

This, the county shouldn’t be charging they should also be sanctioning the club for not having a HC committee in place. @buster60 you need to recontact the club and inform them that you will be contacting county if they do not provide the necessary EVIDENCE that was used for the reduction by the HC COMMITTEE.

 

[Colin L]

@buster60
Your CONGU handicap was intended to enable you to score in or better than your buffer zone in one out of 3 rounds. On that reckoning, with two scores in the buffer zone out of 14 scores returned, you were under-handicapped. The weakness in the CONGU system of a 0.1 increase every time we exceeded the buffer zone was that it took no cognisance of by how much it was exceeded and did not keep up with the pace of decline many players (including me) experience as they age. If you wish to PM me with a note of your 14 gross scores and the SSS of the course(s) played, I can give you an idea of what these scores indicate your CONGU handicap should have been. My guess, expectation even, is that your WHS Handicap Index, as originally given, is a more accurate measure of your current playing ability and will give you the number of strokes on the course you usually play that you need .

 

[rulefan]

My impression of the CONGU system was that it was primarily about tracking and anticipating the performance of improving players (ie potential). Nor did it really demonstrate current performance except at the cat1 level. It was not intended to recognise that ultimately players would get worse the longer they played.
I wonder if there are any stats showing gross score vs net score performance over a player's life.

 

[Swango1980]

My impression of the CONGU system was that it was primarily about tracking and anticipating the performance of improving players (ie potential). Nor did it really demonstrate current performance except at the cat1 level. It was not intended to recognise that ultimately players would get worse the longer they played.
I wonder if there are any stats showing gross score vs net score performance over a player's life.

Not aimed at rulefan, just an observation generally. Before WHS was even thought of, it would not be unusual for the authorities responsible for the CONGU system to defend it to the hilt. Any criticism would have well rehearsed responses.

Then WHS comes along, and WHS is defended to the hilt by the same authorities, who are only too happy to highlight all the flaws of the CONGU system.

I wonder if there will be a time in quite a few years, where all the flaws of WHS will be highlighted by the same authorities, the very flaws they are quick to defend now.

 

[rulefan]

Then WHS comes along, and WHS is defended to the hilt by the same authorities, who are only too happy to highlight all the flaws of the CONGU system.

I'm not suggesting there weren't flaws in CONGU and there aren't now in WHS (except for the actual transition process).
But I'm not aware that 'the same' authorities are highlighting flaws in the CONGU system. What flaws are being highlighted and by whom?
And what WHS flaws are they defending now?

 

[Old Skier]

I'm not suggesting there weren't flaws in CONGU and there aren't now in WHS (except for the actual transition process).
But I'm not aware that 'the same' authorities are highlighting flaws in the CONGU system. What flaws are being highlighted and by whom?
And what WHS flaws are they defending now?

I get what @Swango1980 is getting at. I think he is just suggesting that in the future, those that implement it will point out “flaws” like they now do with CONGU when someone comes up with a “better” method.

 

[rulefan]

I get what @Swango1980 is getting at. I think he is just suggesting that in the future, those that implement it will point out “flaws” like they now do with CONGU when someone comes up with a “better” method.

I see his point but see no actual examples of historic (CONGU) or new (WHS) flaws criticized by the 'authorities' .

 

[Old Skier]

I see his point but see no actual examples of historic (CONGU) or new (WHS) flaws criticized by the 'authorities' .

We can start with their point that CONGU system of the slow .1 increase for those that couldn't play to handicap, they could of changed that years ago. We won't go into HC recommendation for various formats.

 

[Colin L]

We can start with their point that CONGU system of the slow .1 increase for those that couldn't play to handicap, they could of changed that years ago. We won't go into HC recommendation for various formats.

I can't say I've heard that from any authority.