Indeed because it worked well when we played under it in NZ for 6 years and works well at the club here where we're members . I do get the duboius cards folks put in to manipulate their handicaps by cheating is a problem that need addressing.
The previous system worked well here for many years.
Indeed and when we went to NZ we hated the new to us system, but then we got to understand how it works and is supposeed to work and could see it's merits and therefore embraced it .
Merits?
It worked well for a minority; not so much for everyone else (including most higher handicappers); and for many (e.g. declining golfers and those not playing in competitions frequently) it really didn't work at all.
It did. Those groups you identified were managed through a competent M&H committee. Now M&H is swamped with just about every group.
If the aim was to help higher handicappers and declining golfers to go up without needing M&H to intervene then they could have just increased the 0.1 upwards adjustment for those higher categories.
And, I presume, the players with a handicap of 36.
There are tweaks to things like reductions, increases and buffer zones that could have been made to the old system (along with adopting Slope) to improve it and make it fairer, but there would still have been issues and it still wouldn't have produced handicaps comparable to other systems around the world.
Evaluating any feature of a sport on the basis of the number of opinion pieces written about it is absurd.
Surely the slope part, and therefore course handicap calculation, of WHS is all that's required to make handicap indexes work across the world.
That's your opinion.
Similar chatter (including calls to scrap it) in magazines and newspapers persisted for decades after the initial introduction of the previous system. We're only 4 years into this one.
I was around for that previous change and I don't believe the level of annoyance, if there was any, was significant. 1980s, 1984?
No. The entire process is required, not just Slope (i.e. the rating system, Score Differential calculation, Handicap Index calculation, etc.).
1983. If anything the discontent was far greater then than now.
We are doing something…apparently GP cards entered using the MyEG app do not show on a players record in iG (the system my club uses) and so the club has issues monitoring number of competition rounds in current 20 (there being a criteria for entry around that for some comps). These rounds are included in a players WHS HI calc, they just don’t show on iG - apparently. We are requesting (nicely) that members do not use the MyEG app for recording GP rounds, instead use the iG app or if poss a home clubhouse terminal.No, that would mean I actually have to visit a golf course to enter a score!(if you see what I mean!)
Hey, this thread has meandered through all sorts of stuff.
Regardless of handicap system in place, there needs to be effective monitoring of scores submitted.
Some Clubs are on top if it, some are not. A massive increase in GP Cards makes it harder to police. That's just a fact of life, it's simple maths. More cards for clubs not able to review effectively will make it worse, not better.
Hence, don't be surprised when some Clubs start implementing measures to circumvent a problem (perceived or otherwise) The handicapping system in place, the % allowances used etc are separate issues.
They might not, but they are, and should be told so and told that it is unacceptable.
That might be what the book says but I'd argue that your index is a measure of form if you put regular cards in.
So why were divisions used/needed at many clubs under UHS?
