Reduction only competitions

[JonathanS]

We have a situation at my club where many of the ladies competitions are reduction only - the ageing membership cannot play to their handicaps, and as a result the CSS is above the SSS + 3 limit which we understand determines whether the competition is qualifying or reduction only.

The reduction only rule penalises the very people the handicap system should be helping, ie those who cannot play to their current handicaps, and need some extra help. Is there a solution to this problem - can handicaps be reset at a higher level through the annual review, or is there some other way to over-ride the reduction-only rule? If the ladies submit supplementary cards will the handicaps be adjusted up automatically or does this depend on the relationship between the scores and standard scratch?

 

[BTatHome]

If this has been happening for a while then annual reviews could have dealt with the situation, if adjustments were not made then that's a failing of your handicap committee. Supplementary cards could be used, they are adjusted based on SSS so you could get 0.1 back each time, but only a maximum of ten per year.

New ruling this year allowa a further review after 7 consecutive 0.1 but it's not automatic, so requires the committee to deal with it .... and if they haven't done it based on the normal review then what chance do you have now.

 

[Foxholer]

Supplementary Cards are likely to help!
Performance is against SSS. Only 1 Supp round per week allowed.

It's quite a common 'problem', especially with Ladies, where the field is likely to be smaller - so score distribution isn't 'normal'!

@BT@Home There won't be any 0.1s if comp is RO!

 

[Hosel Fade]

Is the SSS at an appropriate level? It can happen that a course is disproportionately more difficult for a higher handicap compared to a scratch player than another course.

Take as a example an imaginary course that has 100 yards of forced carry over gunch on every hole. I would have a look at the SSS and the last time you had the course rated, if there have been significant changes or it was a long time ago apply to have the rating re done by the county.

I don't know if they take actual comp results into consideration when doing it though.

 

[duncan mackie]

1. For small fields the alternative CSS calculation routine goes some way to dealing with it.
2. For large fields you have a problem, and it only gets worse as the few stronger players get handicapped to SSS +3 and quickly also become unable to play to SSS! I suspect that the problem lies in an extreme reticence to deal with the issue you set out at the ARE over time. Look at the records of AR increases over the years in the ladies section (if you can find any). If there haven't been many over the last few years, but the comp history shows continual RO status, do a complete exercise of what should be based on those results against SSS and formally request from the County union to make a one off adjustment now, or do the exercise over this year and do it all at next year's AR.
Good luck.

 

[delc]

This problem also affects senior male golfers About half our Seniors' Q comps this year have been R/O's, even in almost perfect conditions! Therefore handicaps don't even go up 0.1! 🙄

 

[duncan mackie]

This problem also affects senior male golfers

Not to the same extent. Generally male handicap committees deal with such issues appropriately.

Ladies simply don't implement the necessary increases at the AR - seems to be around not wanting to upset people but it's hugely damaging to CSS and everyone else.

 

[Foxholer]

Not to the same extent. Generally male handicap committees deal with such issues appropriately.

Ladies simply don't implement the necessary increases at the AR - seems to be around not wanting to upset people but it's hugely damaging to CSS and everyone else.

Certainly agree with the differences between the way Male & Female H/C committees deal with such issues!

However, for Senior Males, the main 'problem' is that the A/R is only once a year - and, in some cases, their handicap can deteriorate rapidly! In such cases, it can even mean that the player 'gives up' rather than trying to play to an unrealistic handicap - something that is certainly to be avoided!

 

[duncan mackie]

Certainly agree with the differences between the way Male & Female H/C committees deal with such issues!

However, for Senior Males, the main 'problem' is that the A/R is only once a year - and, in some cases, their handicap can deteriorate rapidly! In such cases, it can even mean that the player 'gives up' rather than trying to play to an unrealistic handicap - something that is certainly to be avoided!

Yes but - i think its significant that you see a lot more RO results for seniors in medal competitions than stablefords (in delc's case all RO were medals). A cynic might conclude that once a competition can't be won (a blob) the cards a NR or equivalent in medal events. This then has an impact on the CSS calculation. People noticeably try harder longer in stablefords.
I would also argue that people simply don't change their underlying capabilities that fast through a single season! The system is more than capable of keeping up. I see very very few supplementals from seniors - despite the fact that many play 3 or more times a week!

 

[rosecott]

Not to the same extent. Generally male handicap committees deal with such issues appropriately.

Ladies simply don't implement the necessary increases at the AR - seems to be around not wanting to upset people but it's hugely damaging to CSS and everyone else.

Certainly agree with the differences between the way Male & Female H/C committees deal with such issues!

However, for Senior Males, the main 'problem' is that the A/R is only once a year - and, in some cases, their handicap can deteriorate rapidly! In such cases, it can even mean that the player 'gives up' rather than trying to play to an unrealistic handicap - something that is certainly to be avoided!

And that is exactly why CONGU has been pushing clubs in the direction of joint Handicap Committees. We have had a joint committee for the last 4 years and at first there was a general attitude from the lady members that "oh, she wouldn't like her handicap going up". They now accept that the figures speak and decisions based on those figures need to be carried out.

 

[louise_a]

I attended my first annual review meeting this year, there were only a couple of recommended increases on the report that is produced although neither were acted on based on the "well she has already gone up during the season so lets leave it"

I will endeavour to be firmer next time as I will be running it.

 

[delc]

Yes but - i think its significant that you see a lot more RO results for seniors in medal competitions than stablefords (in delc's case all RO were medals). A cynic might conclude that once a competition can't be won (a blob) the cards a NR or equivalent in medal events. This then has an impact on the CSS calculation. People noticeably try harder longer in stablefords.
I would also argue that people simply don't change their underlying capabilities that fast through a single season! The system is more than capable of keeping up. I see very very few supplementals from seniors - despite the fact that many play 3 or more times a week!

In our last Seniors Medal, only 6 out of 33 players N/R'd! Doesn't a N/R count exactly the same as a missed buffer as far as the CSS calculation is concerned?

 

[duncan mackie]

In our last Seniors Medal, only 6 out of 33 players N/R'd! Doesn't a N/R count exactly the same as a missed buffer as far as the CSS calculation is concerned?

Nothing to do with pure NHs - look at the scores of every player in detail and you will see a trend in medals where a very bad hole leads to a decline in subsequent holes that isn't reflected in stableford blobs. Most is a reflection of general mental aspects, but in a stableford the player still understands he can win; in the medal he's playing for a handicap cut only (or to make buffer) and strangely this doesn't seem to have quiet the same motivation.

 

[duncan mackie]

I attended my first annual review meeting this year, there were only a couple of recommended increases on the report that is produced although neither were acted on based on the "well she has already gone up during the season so lets leave it"

I will endeavour to be firmer next time as I will be running it.

You also need to go beyond the standard report Louise. It's still focused on the statistically obvious and, probably it's biggest weakness, is only concerned with single handicap years and not longer trends eg a player who only returns 3 Q scores a year for 20 years but never gets within 20 shots of their handicap will stay under the report radar (when I last looked).

 

[delc]

Nothing to do with pure NHs - look at the scores of every player in detail and you will see a trend in medals where a very bad hole leads to a decline in subsequent holes that isn't reflected in stableford blobs. Most is a reflection of general mental aspects, but in a stableford the player still understands he can win; in the medal he's playing for a handicap cut only (or to make buffer) and strangely this doesn't seem to have quiet the same motivation.

Sorry but I don't understand your argument. The problem with R/O comps is not enough of the players who are playing relatively well by their own standards make the buffer zone. This could, and in the case of Seniors probably is, because their handicaps are too low and based on historical data. I don't think playing a medal or a Stableford makes that much difference to my mindset other than 'try not to run up any big scores'.