That does not make sense

[jim8flog]

I was chatting to the some one yesterday that is reasonably 'high up' in the Dorset Union. We were discussing our recent Handicap Review of the 28/26 handicappers. He then informed me that the local union had decided that upward adjustments should be limited to 2 shots, not that we had been informed of this decision.

When our handicap committee discussed how to approach the reviews one of the options we quickly rejected was to just give all 28/36 players, who warranted an increase, a 1or 2 shot increase because this was just delaying the inevitable ie it would probably go;- +2 shots at annual review, + 2 shots at continuous review maybe twice in a year and maybe + 2 shots at the next review and so on until the player was at the handicap commensurate with their ability.

This would also leave players limited to such a handicap limit disadvantaged against new players allotted a an initial handicap commensurate with the same ability.

Has anybody else heard of a similar decision?

PS the biggest increase we agreed was to 39.

 

[Colin L]

It doesn't make sense, but neither does Section 1.5 of CONGU's FAQs which suggests a maximum increase of 3. It was 4 last week but no explanation of why the change.

At the extreme, I am looking at a lady whose playing handicap should now be 50 and a gent whose playing handicap shoud now be 39. What use would 3 strokes be to either of them? The lady's best nett differential last year was 18. How delighted she would be to be told that she can now set a new target for 2018 and look forward to achieving a best score only 15 strokes above handicap. As for the gent, whom I know well, he would no doubt feel he owed me a pint or two for enabling him to play to a mere 13 over handicap.

I'm in the thick of a major review of under-handicapping at my club, not just the 28/36 players and will pm you if you want to know a bit more (there are some difficulties which are not for a public forum!)

 

[rulefan]

The vibes I am getting from the centre are that 'recommended' is used intentionally.

FAQ
1.4
It is recommend (sic) that all players currently at the maximum handicap are reviewed with a view to increasing their handicap to a level that reflects their playing ability.

1.5
Note: these are the recommended increases – the Committeeare best placed to review their players and should ensure anyadjustments are appropriate

 

[Colin L]

Yes, that is always the case with CONGU recommendations but it is not helpful to suggest a figure which takes no cognisance of the actual situation. There are players who have been stuck on 28/36 for a long time, who did not take up the Club Handicap and whose game has steadily declined hugely beyond 3 strokes above their handicaps. Specific mention of the likelihood that some will need substantial changed would have been more helpful. Is there a reluctance to grasp nettles?

 

[rulefan]

The CONGU Manual does include a MUST statement

the Handicap Committee must:
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;

It also contains:

However, there are occasionally players who may be improving somewhat faster than the handicap changes performed by the handicapping process, or who are declining in ability at a rate that the application of the 0.1 increase per round is insufficient to reflect the deterioration in scoring potential. It is this latter group in particular that the AR process can identify and allow Handicap Committees to apply increases to rectify the imbalance that has developed between the player’s handicap and playing ability.

I'm not really of the opinion that it is primarily CONGU's or the national bodies' fault. IMO they given clubs all the discretion and power necessary to use their personal local knowledge and make good decisions. It is up to clubs to act responsibly.

Incidentally, IMO Captains shouldn't get involved in handicapping, they almost certainly will have no experience. Their job is to make sure glasses are topped up not to tout for their pals to get a couple of shots back or be 'promoted' into Cat 1.

By convention, my club allows the Captain(s) to sit on any sub committee they wish. Except the Competitions & Handicapping s/c.

 

[duncan mackie]

Incidentally, IMO Captains shouldn't get involved in handicapping, they almost certainly will have no experience. Their job is to make sure glasses are topped up not to tout for their pals to get a couple of shots back or be 'promoted' into Cat 1.

IMO it's important for any handicap committee to have a revolving element; and the Captain represents just about the perfect person to fulfil this role.

They can question without fear of ridicule

They probably play with more members than any member of the handicap committee.

If they are half decent they will know what they don't know!

 

[rulefan]

IMO it's important for any handicap committee to have a revolving element; and the Captain represents just about the perfect person to fulfil this role.

They can question without fear of ridicule

They probably play with more members than any member of the handicap committee.

If they are half decent they will know what they don't know!

In my official activities I meet a lot of Captains. Too many do not meet those criteria. Perhaps Past Captains might suit the bill.

It is quite an eye opener to see so many different 'job descriptions' around the clubs. Varying from purely social through expert on everything to dictator.

 

[jim8flog]

IMO it's important for any handicap committee to have a revolving element; and the Captain represents just about the perfect person to fulfil this role.

They can question without fear of ridicule

They probably play with more members than any member of the handicap committee.

We do have a revolving element in that the head of the committee is appointed from the Captain's committee and that person changes every 3 years or less if the person resigns from committee.

I personally know an awful lot of the payers having been a member for over 30 years and I play in various groups on different days of the week plus lots of club matches.

We are a very big club (over 800) members so very often we will have to simply go by a players scores.