Official WHS Survey

[IanMac]

In

Many clubs operate 18 and 24 limits for men's comps dating back to when the maximum handicap was increased above that under the old system(s).

Yes, but interested in this particular group. C7usk will know.

 

[C7usk]

Did they have to have special rules before WHS?

No it's just came in this year... Though this is the first year they have brought out a winter course card that applies to us all..
I am 14.1 and get 15 shots normally .. 11 on the new winter card..

 

[C7usk]

Just read it again..
It's actually for all our winter comps and not just the seniors..

 

[clubchamp98]

Just read it again..
It's actually for all our winter comps and not just the seniors..

So nobody is excluded!
You just have to play off 18 if your cap is higher.

 

[IanM]

Some organisations don't understand the difference between induction, and inclusion.

 

[C7usk]

So nobody is excluded!
You just have to play off 18 if your cap is higher.

Yeah... Basically we are playing 80% hcp from now until it's back on full course... Which will be April, so effectively half the year. We are still on full greens the now and they have moved 4 tees forward to the winter tee positions so we can't play for hcp as it's not a measured course..
Will be interesting to see if any new rules come in next year.. I like the.. Must play minimum 6 qualifying comps over 12 month period.. It used to be 3 I am sure..

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Winners conversation with wives when they get home goes something like this...

Him.
Me and Bert just won the competition today.

Her.
You and Bert?

Him.
Yep.

Her.
But you are rubbish and so is Bert.

Him.
Yep.

Based on a true story. An old fella came into my shop last year to ask me how come his twin sons won a 4BBB competition because they were, according to him, really bad at golf.

Human nature.. Golfers who have spent loads of money on equipment and lessons don't like rubbish players winning HANDICAP events

 

[Dunesman]

WHS, in Britain at least, is unquestionably a failure. The survey may or may not be as a result of that being realised by the authorities, and maybe it will be a prelude to a full revamp. We shall see.

WHS is a failure for a variety of component reasons, and it doesnt really matter even if technically, behind the scenes, it is not. Such a system relies not only on being technically correct, but equally importantly, on being seen to be, and widely accepted to be, correct and fair. And while the first element is debatable, the second is the unquestionable failure. It is not sufficient to dismiss concerns as, ludditism, clubhouse bar whingers, or a handful of internet contrarians.

Many elements have contributed to this state of affairs. None of them clearly singularly culpable. Some may be valid charges indeed. Some may not be. Part of the problem is that no open and convincing rebuttal of the concerns has been offered by England or Scottish Golf. Other than to tough it out, say everything is fine, and it will all settle down.

And so as a whole, WHS is percieved as a failure by more than a minority who can be dismissed as cranks. Thus it has failed.

Of the contributing factors to this perception of failure, and different people will have their own mix and weights for each, I can suggest the following. And there may be more.

- there was NO demand among ordinary golfers for a handicap system change. There may have always been grumbles about bandits. But no movement for a system revamp, or lack of confidence in the old system.
On this point, NO credible explanation has been provided. The waffle about portability to other countries is so weak, it has only harmed that argument and the credibility of those making it. And made laughable by the fact that there isnt a World HS anyway. There are still different systems in different parts of the world. Maybe more than there were before !

- we had for decades, if not a century, a very strong, from the Unions and Congu down, culture of handicap integrity, control, and them being based, almost without exception, on competitions run under the supervision of club committees. (supplementary cards an entirely disregardable extreme rarity despite them being technically allowed for). This has been thrown out, with a complete 180° turn, and a system, and urging, to submit all and every playing of golf as far as possible for handicap purposes. That the phrase "cheats charter" has probably been uttered more in the last four years than in the previous 40, shows how engrained and well regarded were the protections and controls on handicaps. Whether it is happening or not, the perception that the system is easily manipulated through the the app and phantom rounds goes totally against the confidence that supervised competitions, signed cards, and them being submitted within defined location and time windows provided. Again, no argument made, I guess as it would explicitly contradict the message of the last 40 years on the need for tight supervision of handicap adjustments, has convinced the normal golfer why what was anathema, is now doctrine. Most likely score, and fourball match results, for example, being rightly ludicrous to the credibility of a handicap. As above, maybe there is a mathematical justification for this. But without this justification being publicised, there is no longer credibility.

- the transition was poorly implemented. CR-Par being ommitted then added, severly damaged the authority and perception of competence in those responsible for the implemention. Hidden modification to the unpublishable PCC algorithm is just asking for scepticism and criticism. The 'corrective' by EG on the use of competition versus casual scores as a even tie breaker for entry into elite tournaments was an incredible shooting of themselves in their own collective foot. Even if justified in itself, for the harm done to the credibility of WHS, it was a terrible mistake.

- WHS moves handicaps faster, and to a greater degree, than the old system. This conflicts very strongly with our culture of a handicap being an outer limit for ones best days. Competitions here seemed to work, with that handicap philosophy. But rapid increases, followed by wins, has sunk the credibility of much handicap competition. This did not happen in the past. It is happening since WHS. Even if the increased handicap correctly, mathematically, represented a golfers form over 20 rounds, it is not what we were used to.

- The 95% factor for single competitions looks wrong. That low handicappers feel it impossible, and it even pointless, to try to compete, is a tragedy, and harmful to club golf. If it is not the case that they are disadvantaged, then it must be very convincingly communicated to them and golfers here in general, that there is indeed a level playing field. The general perception I think, was that things were equitable. But now, rightly or wrongly, the feeling of far too many is that WHS is not. This is very damaging, and no amount of claiming you can now use your handicap in Brazil can overcome that. Suggesting the use of categories seems an admission of defeat and that there is an inherent flaw in WHS. We did not need categories previously. They are a very clunky fix.

A major hands-up admission, that what was imperfect but quite sufficient to the needs of most golfers here, has been significantly damaged and needs significant fixing, urgently, is needed.
I doubt they needed a survey to tell them that (I dont think we were surveyed on what we thought of the old system and whether we should change it and how). But maybe its part of the process. And either a fix, or, true explanations of why the perception that it needs fixing is erroneous, will follow.

 

[Golfloveruk]

This is going to happen more and more imo.
Golfers who have put some work into their game are fed up with WHS .
If higher cappers want to organise their own comps so be it.

They must have had a vote and majority voted for this.??

Again. This is nonsense and just the opinion of a very vocal minority.

If you’ve worked on your game and still need to rely on a handicap to “compete” you need to go away and work a bit harder!!

Seems to me there are a few here in the high single figures who thought that being single figures made them a good player, maybe give them a higher standing in their social circles . Whereas the reality is they aren’t good enough to compete with the really low guys and the odds are stacked against them due to the higher number of mid teens and up players.

Maybe they need to go away and organise their own comps??

 

[Golfloveruk]

Human nature.. Golfers who have spent loads of money on equipment and lessons don't like rubbish players winning HANDICAP events

Define rubbish! Where does rubbish end and good start?

How do you account for improving players?

What if the rubbish player had spent the same amount of of money on equipment and lessons but had reached their potential??

Stop playing stablefords.

 

[IanMac]

WHS, in Britain at least, is unquestionably a failure. The survey may or may not be as a result of that being realised by the authorities, and maybe it will be a prelude to a full revamp. We shall see.

WHS is a failure for a variety of component reasons, and it doesnt really matter even if technically, behind the scenes, it is not. Such a system relies not only on being technically correct, but equally importantly, on being seen to be, and widely accepted to be, correct and fair. And while the first element is debatable, the second is the unquestionable failure. It is not sufficient to dismiss concerns as, ludditism, clubhouse bar whingers, or a handful of internet contrarians.

Many elements have contributed to this state of affairs. None of them clearly singularly culpable. Some may be valid charges indeed. Some may not be. Part of the problem is that no open and convincing rebuttal of the concerns has been offered by England or Scottish Golf. Other than to tough it out, say everything is fine, and it will all settle down.

And so as a whole, WHS is percieved as a failure by more than a minority who can be dismissed as cranks. Thus it has failed.

Of the contributing factors to this perception of failure, and different people will have their own mix and weights for each, I can suggest the following. And there may be more.

- there was NO demand among ordinary golfers for a handicap system change. There may have always been grumbles about bandits. But no movement for a system revamp, or lack of confidence in the old system.
On this point, NO credible explanation has been provided. The waffle about portability to other countries is so weak, it has only harmed that argument and the credibility of those making it. And made laughable by the fact that there isnt a World HS anyway. There are still different systems in different parts of the world. Maybe more than there were before !

- we had for decades, if not a century, a very strong, from the Unions and Congu down, culture of handicap integrity, control, and them being based, almost without exception, on competitions run under the supervision of club committees. (supplementary cards an entirely disregardable extreme rarity despite them being technically allowed for). This has been thrown out, with a complete 180° turn, and a system, and urging, to submit all and every playing of golf as far as possible for handicap purposes. That the phrase "cheats charter" has probably been uttered more in the last four years than in the previous 40, shows how engrained and well regarded were the protections and controls on handicaps. Whether it is happening or not, the perception that the system is easily manipulated through the the app and phantom rounds goes totally against the confidence that supervised competitions, signed cards, and them being submitted within defined location and time windows provided. Again, no argument made, I guess as it would explicitly contradict the message of the last 40 years on the need for tight supervision of handicap adjustments, has convinced the normal golfer why what was anathema, is now doctrine. Most likely score, and fourball match results, for example, being rightly ludicrous to the credibility of a handicap. As above, maybe there is a mathematical justification for this. But without this justification being publicised, there is no longer credibility.

- the transition was poorly implemented. CR-Par being ommitted then added, severly damaged the authority and perception of competence in those responsible for the implemention. Hidden modification to the unpublishable PCC algorithm is just asking for scepticism and criticism. The 'corrective' by EG on the use of competition versus casual scores as a even tie breaker for entry into elite tournaments was an incredible shooting of themselves in their own collective foot. Even if justified in itself, for the harm done to the credibility of WHS, it was a terrible mistake.

- WHS moves handicaps faster, and to a greater degree, than the old system. This conflicts very strongly with our culture of a handicap being an outer limit for ones best days. Competitions here seemed to work, with that handicap philosophy. But rapid increases, followed by wins, has sunk the credibility of much handicap competition. This did not happen in the past. It is happening since WHS. Even if the increased handicap correctly, mathematically, represented a golfers form over 20 rounds, it is not what we were used to.

- The 95% factor for single competitions looks wrong. That low handicappers feel it impossible, and it even pointless, to try to compete, is a tragedy, and harmful to club golf. If it is not the case that they are disadvantaged, then it must be very convincingly communicated to them and golfers here in general, that there is indeed a level playing field. The general perception I think, was that things were equitable. But now, rightly or wrongly, the feeling of far too many is that WHS is not. This is very damaging, and no amount of claiming you can now use your handicap in Brazil can overcome that. Suggesting the use of categories seems an admission of defeat and that there is an inherent flaw in WHS. We did not need categories previously. They are a very clunky fix.

A major hands-up admission, that what was imperfect but quite sufficient to the needs of most golfers here, has been significantly damaged and needs significant fixing, urgently, is needed.
I doubt they needed a survey to tell them that (I dont think we were surveyed on what we thought of the old system and whether we should change it and how). But maybe its part of the process. And either a fix, or, true explanations of why the perception that it needs fixing is erroneous, will follow.

You will of course be told that you are in the minority, by a minority.

Well put. Thanks for taking the time to post.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

@Dunesman that's a bloody great post, the usual suspects will not be along to pick at that because they can't. Notably @Golfloveruk has completely ignored it of course

 

[Golfloveruk]

@Dunesman that's a bloody great post, the usual suspects will not be along to pick at that because they can't. Notably @Golfloveruk has completely ignored it of course

Again, it’s another post repeating what has been said before. Someone doesn’t like WHS, preferring the old system and thinks the majority feel the same. Probably because their little group do to.
Again again, I don’t see these problems where I play, so they can’t be a universal problem.

So, what is the point in countering??

He also suggests that WHS lacks credibility because amendments have been made. But also wants changes made to it. You can’t have it both ways.

The poor implementation was mostly by individual clubs, but moreover by individuals not taking the time to understand the changes.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The poor implementation was mostly by individual clubs, but moreover by individuals not taking the time to understand the changes.

It was most certainly not. I can't speak for the rest of the UK countries but Scottish Golf did an awful job

But, Low handicappers for sure worked it out pretty quickly. We used to play a few scrambles in the shoulder seasons as my friends are spread across clubs so we'd get together for these, I warned them they would be unplayable and we'd not be able to compete anymore (all 4-6 hcap) and expect winning scores of 20 under or more.

We gave it a go at one that suited us and we'd had a good hit rate of vouchering maybe every other time, we were so far off the pace we've not played again anywhere since, but running into one of that club's officials this week, I asked him how the scramble went last weekend, "cancelled, we had one entry".

A club that used to host 3 scrambles a year, now can't get any entries.

What a roaring success WHS has been!

 

[Golfloveruk]

It was most certainly not. I can't speak for the rest of the UK countries but Scottish Golf did an awful job

But, Low handicappers for sure worked it out pretty quickly. We used to play a few scrambles in the shoulder seasons as my friends are spread across clubs so we'd get together for these, I warned them they would be unplayable and we'd not be able to compete anymore (all 4-6 hcap) and expect winning scores of 20 under or more.

We gave it a go at one that suited us and we'd had a good hit rate of vouchering maybe every other time, we were so far off the pace we've not played again anywhere since, but running into one of that club's officials this week, I asked him how the scramble went last weekend, "cancelled, we had one entry".

A club that used to host 3 scrambles a year, now can't get any entries.

What a roaring success WHS has been!

Come on. Scrambles are a bit of fun. You can’t really be using them as a serious example of the failure of WHS?

You expect to win a prize in 50% of events?? That is way too high a strike rate and would raise a red flag if I were organising events you played in.

Your post did confirm my suspicions as to why you and some of the others don’t like WHS!

 

[IanM]

The poor implementation was mostly by individual clubs, but moreover by individuals not taking the time to understand the changes.

Whs has some good bits and some bad bits. But the change management was awful. This is evidenced by the thousands of posts on fora like this, and the post implementation changes.

If Cultural and behavioural changes are managed purely as process, you get poor adoption and resistance.

If you implement something no one asked for, you get poor adoption and resistance!

That's where we are still.

Change is hard. Poorly managed Change is even (insert swear word) harder.

 

[clubchamp98]

Again. This is nonsense and just the opinion of a very vocal minority.

If you’ve worked on your game and still need to rely on a handicap to “compete” you need to go away and work a bit harder!!

Seems to me there are a few here in the high single figures who thought that being single figures made them a good player, maybe give them a higher standing in their social circles . Whereas the reality is they aren’t good enough to compete with the really low guys and the odds are stacked against them due to the higher number of mid teens and up players.

Maybe they need to go away and organise their own comps??

It’s not a minority you have your head stuck firmly in the sand ( or WHS manual)

So you don’t think single figures are good players

How patronising to tell players to go away and work harder when WHS can help mediocrity win the club comps.

Yes I’m not good enough to compete with the low guys any more, I am well aware of that
But can’t compete against vastly inflated carpetbagger handicaps either.

At 67 yrs old I am not going to start to improve ,if anything it’s going the other way.
But when a 24 handicapper who should be off 18 shoots 48 pts thanks to his WHS gift of a handicap I have every right to question it.

Maybe you need to listen a bit more instead of thinking your just always right!

 

[clubchamp98]

The poor implementation was mostly by individual clubs, but moreover by individuals not taking the time to understand the changes.

Yes especially by people like you who think it’s all hunky dory.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Come on. Scrambles are a bit of fun. You can’t really be using them as a serious example of the failure of WHS?

Ah so we should only consider some parts of WHS for criticism? Some on here (I'd imagine it was mjweather) tried to say that these allowances (all of them, but TS were used as perfect eg) were all due to thousands of rounds of data, despite the fact TS's wouldnt be recorded anywhere. They were the perfect eg of R&A sticking it's finger in the air and plucking a figure out of their imagination

 

[rulefan]

But when a 24 handicapper who should be off 18 shoots 48 pts thanks to his WHS gift of a handicap I have every right to question it.

How often does that happen? How do you determine the the player should be off 18? Do you ever question it with the committee? If you do, does the committee have a satisfactory explanation?