Voluntary cut

[bobmac]

The CONGU manual is very clear that players should not he under handicapped due to potential impact on CSS

For example, it it is decided at Review that a player is to get a handicap increase, they cannot decline this increase, just like a player can't decline a reduction. They may appeal it, but not flat out refuse it.

I'm sorry but I fail to see what that has to do with the question.

But would you do it for every player who asked for a reduction?

If so, and 50% of the field had been pulled, it would certainly affect the CSS.

Is that likely to happen? I'd say one, maybe two might ask for a h/cap cut per season.

It would also affect the PCC under WHS.

I have no idea what that means

That is a pretty big field and one players score would probably not make that much difference but where I play we have plenty of comps with a field size of just around 20 players and one players score will have a much bigger impact.

How many people enter the monthly comp at an average size club?

 

[Swango1980]

In other words, if a player asks for a cut, you shouldn't just apply it. By all means review it if you think the cut is fair, but don't just cut it for the only reason that they asked.

 

[bobmac]

In other words, if a player asks for a cut, you shouldn't just apply it. By all means review it if you think the cut is fair, but don't just cut it for the only reason that they asked.

Why not?
I would imagine he would know his game better than I do

 

[rulefan]

Why not?
I would imagine he would know his game better than I do

As a handicap sec, it is your job to know his current general performance and potential and to use that knowledge as required by the handicap authority.

 

[Colin L]

Why not?
I would imagine he would know his game better than I do

Why not? Because handicaps are based on the qualifying scores returned, not on the player's idea of how good he or she is. Numbers not notions.
Because if you change handicaps around without basing them on the players' actual performances you'll end up with inconsistency.
Because if a club doesn't manage handicaps properly it is doing its members no service and not meeting its responsibilities.

 

[bobmac]

As a handicap sec, it is your job to know his current general performance and potential and to use that knowledge as required by the handicap authority.

Do you honestly expect a h/cap sec to know the games of every member of a club?

 

[bobmac]

Why not? Because handicaps are based on the qualifying scores returned, not on the player's idea of how good he or she is. Numbers not notions.
Because if you change handicaps around without basing them on the players' actual performances you'll end up with inconsistency.
Because if a club doesn't manage handicaps properly it is doing its members no service and not meeting its responsibilities.

So which would you prefer, a member who doesn't play in comps to keep his h/cap falsely high or someone who isn't able to play in many comps but knows he has improved and wants to do the right thing and asks for a chop?
The h/cap secs responsibility in my opinion is to try and keep a level playing field.

 

[chellie]

So which would you prefer, a member who doesn't play in comps to keep his h/cap falsely high or someone who isn't able to play in many comps but knows he has improved and wants to do the right thing and asks for a chop?
The h/cap secs responsibility in my opinion is to try and keep a level playing field.

He can put supplementary cards in then.

 

[rosecott]

Why not?
I would imagine he would know his game better than I do

And you would also agree to a request for a handicap increase as he knows his game better than you. Let the system work in the same way for every player.

 

[rulefan]

Do you honestly expect a h/cap sec to know the games of every member of a club?

But the required committee of three members will collectively know them. If players return scores their records will tell the h'cap committee a lot. Certainly more than a player's one off score an a request for a change.
Don't tell me that your club doesn't have three members as required by its licence.

 

[Colin L]

So which would you prefer, a member who doesn't play in comps to keep his h/cap falsely high or someone who isn't able to play in many comps but knows he has improved and wants to do the right thing and asks for a chop?
The h/cap secs responsibility in my opinion is to try and keep a level playing field.

The member who doesn't play in comps will have lost competition status and is not much of a concern. If the member who "knows he has improved" wants his handicap to go down he has to put in some scores to demonstrate his current ability. Altering a player's handicap on his or her say-so is not a way of maintaining a level playing field.

 

[Swango1980]

So which would you prefer, a member who doesn't play in comps to keep his h/cap falsely high or someone who isn't able to play in many comps but knows he has improved and wants to do the right thing and asks for a chop?
The h/cap secs responsibility in my opinion is to try and keep a level playing field.

I get where you were coming from. I used to think the same, until I realised the impact on CSS.

Yes, if you are only talking about one player in a field of 150, the chances of having an impact on CSS is remote, but there is still a chance. Reduce the field size, and the chances her higher. Then, if you apply the same policy to others, and multiple players play in the field in which have had that volunteered reduction, the chances this will impact CSS can go up significantly.

Several years ago, the Seniors at our club chopped player handicaps at will. A player wins a comp, cut him 1 or 2 shots above anything CONGU did. They win a knock out game, cut him. They win a swindle, definitely cut him. It became so ridiculous, that in their comps the scores were generally so far below buffer, that many many comps ended up being reductions only with CSS equal to SSS+3. So it became almost impossible for players handicaps to go up naturally to their proper level. I know it is an extreme example. But, the handicap secretary and his team should only make reductions on evidence. I always have a quiet word when members try and get others (often newer players) to volunteer shots off their handicap, or try and force them to hand in a good social score AFTER they finish the round.

 

[bobmac]

I get where you were coming from. I used to think the same, until I realised the impact on CSS.

Yes, if you are only talking about one player in a field of 150, the chances of having an impact on CSS is remote, but there is still a chance.

That's what I am talking about, one player in a field of 150.

I always have a quiet word when members try and get others (often newer players) to volunteer shots off their handicap, or try and force them to hand in a good social score AFTER they finish the round.

I don't see why you should do that.
If they're playing good golf, then why not, why not give them something to aim for.
Aspire to be as good as your handicap and you will improve.
I was regularly chopped in social games off the yellow tees down to 5 and I ended up off 2 because I worked hard, not because I sat back on a comfy handicap that I knew I could play to every week.

 

[Colin L]

Getting your handicap down is a fine aspirational target but it would be a corruption of the system artificially to reduce someone's handicap below what their performance justifies in order to give them the challenge of getting that performance down to match it. If the handicap committee doesn't act with integrity, you end up with a mess.

And justifying the unjustifiable on the basis that "it worked for you" is unsound.

 

[Swango1980]

That's what I am talking about, one player in a field of 150.



I don't see why you should do that.
If they're playing good golf, then why not, why not give them something to aim for.
Aspire to be as good as your handicap and you will improve.
I was regularly chopped in social games off the yellow tees down to 5 and I ended up off 2 because I worked hard, not because I sat back on a comfy handicap that I knew I could play to every week.

Years ago, we had a guy playing off 28 and never won a comp. Finally, he won a division 2 medal with something like a nett 5 over, there were only about 6 players in Division 2. For some strange reason, ar Review, it was decided to cut him to 27 because of this. The strange reason was, it will give him something to aim for. 10 comps later he was back at 28.0.

Reducing a handicap to give a player something to aim for wouldn't be a valid reason to reduce their handicap. The handicap secretary needs evidence, not the word of a player, to reduce the handicap beyond what CONGU would do naturally.

 

[bobmac]

Well it's been fun.
It's also been over 15 years since I've played club golf and I'm obviously out of touch with the present system but I haven't changed my mind and neither has anyone else.
So we'll have to agree to disagree.
And don't get me started on 54 handicaps

 

[rulefan]

So you are asking do I cut him or not, knowing he's my BB partner?
Absolutely cut him.
I'd rather cut him and loose than not cut him and win.

Even if you were not the hcap sec but were just drawn at random to play with him ?

 

[jim8flog]

As a handicap sec, it is your job to know his current general performance and potential and to use that knowledge as required by the handicap authority.

This is a very nice idea but totally impracticable in a club our size (800-900 members) so we go by the figures in the main.

 

[jim8flog]

How many people enter the monthly comp at an average size club?

Where I play about 100 and quite a few of those are not involved in the CSS calculation because of their handicaps but monthly medals are less than a quarter of all the comps played there.