Official WHS Survey

[2blue]

*Having a handicap is pretty low on reasons for being a club member

*England &Scottish golf....."I know, let's create a club whose only purpose is having a handicap with no other benefits"

Brilliant

At a fraction of the cost.... a big, big factor.

 

[D-S]

In England you cannot join igolf until at least 6 months after giving up membership. Hardly making fast sums of dosh given the mere £40 charge and not insignificant costs involved.

£40 x 46,000+ iGolfers = over £1.8 million.

Not sure what the costs are, but from experience having a rigorous committee oversight over their members is certainly not one of them.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

£40 x 46,000+ iGolfers = over £1.8 million.

Not sure what the costs are, but from experience having a rigorous committee oversight over their members is certainly not one of them.

I'd guess in the grand scheme of things nothing, as the App is there anyway, and there's little chance anyone has been tasked to be the "handicap sec", so simply clawing back some of their costs at a significant rate

 

[wjemather]

£40 x 46,000+ iGolfers = over £1.8 million.

Not sure what the costs are, but from experience having a rigorous committee oversight over their members is certainly not one of them.

I'm not sure what you are expecting any handicap committee to be doing that would be visible to anyone other than the player concerned.
Anyway, I've only had cause to contact EG's iGolf support team on a few occasions, and each time they have responded and resolved the queries quickly and accurately.

 

[IanMac]

Can we get back on the subject please?

This morning I was talking to the pro at our club. He pointed out that Ireland has the most competitive amateur golf scene in probably the world. Maybe Scotland is similar.

His view is that the WHS is fine for golf in countries where they just don't have anywhere near the level of competition we have here. You'll struggle to find anyone in Ireland who is pro-WHS.

Just to add that we don't have the same level of pay and play participation. Most courses are private clubs and it's fairly easy to become a member of one nearby. There are a few exceptions of course but there's usually an alternative club not far away.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Can we get back on the subject please?

This morning I was talking to the pro at our club. He pointed out that Ireland has the most competitive amateur golf scene in probably the world. Maybe Scotland is similar.

His view is that the WHS is fine for golf in countries where they just don't have anywhere near the level of competition we have here. You'll struggle to find anyone in Ireland who is pro-WHS.

Just to add that we don't have the same level of pay and play participation. Most courses are private clubs and it's fairly easy to become a member of one nearby. There are a few exceptions of course but there's usually an alternative club not far away.

Exactly what I've been saying for some time, they've designed a system for countries where casual golf dominates (kinda making the whole "you can take your handicap anywhere and compete" justification redundant) and have hacked off those countries where competitive amateur golf dominates

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Thread locked for a spell to tidy up the nonsense and let people sort their heads out. Name calling, belittling other posters, all unnecessary.

When it reopens, we will move to warnings very quickly if the tone continues in this fashion.

 

[IanMac]

I realise that the poll that RichA created is only a small sample. Nevertheless it does indicate that there isn't a unanimous acceptance of WHS. There wasn't, as far as I was aware, any problem with the previous system. So the two questions that arise, for me, would be...

Why did the R&A feel the need to change our handicapping system?

What percentage of golfers need to be behind WHS for it to succeed?

 

[Golfloveruk]

I realise that the poll that RichA created is only a small sample. Nevertheless it does indicate that there isn't a unanimous acceptance of WHS. There wasn't, as far as I was aware, any problem with the previous system. So the two questions that arise, for me, would be...

Why did the R&A feel the need to change our handicapping system?

What percentage of golfers need to be behind WHS for it to succeed?

Interesting interpretation of the polling!!

Accepting the small sample size and the results could change.
Only 1 in 4 have expressed negatively towards it, and the majority of people who were negative about it were not really bothered.

Only 6 out of the 90 respondents were completely against it. That constitutes fairly successful in my book!

It categorically shows there isn’t the widespread overwhelming negativity towards it that some of you are suggesting exists.

 

[C7usk]

Interesting interpretation of the polling!!

Accepting the small sample size and the results could change.
Only 1 in 4 have expressed negatively towards it, and the majority of people who were negative about it were not really bothered.

Only 6 out of the 90 respondents were completely against it. That constitutes fairly successful in my book!

It categorically shows there isn’t the widespread overwhelming negativity towards it that some of you are suggesting exists.

... I was thinking the same about the interpretation...
When you read the WHS thread you would think that it is almost universally hated bar a few sticking up for it..
It appears that isn't the case at all, from what I am taking out of the poll so far anyway.
Let's face it, it's only a snap shot of opinions and I dare say if some stato was to delve into details, like what hcp the people were that were voting for what option it may tie into the lower hcps disliking it..... And conversely higher hcps liking it..
No system is ever going to make everyone happy..
Still hopeful they will make some changes to appease the lower hcps though..
IMO No one should jump up anymore than 3 shots max in a year unless they have a medical exemption...

 

[IanMac]

... I was thinking the same about the interpretation...
When you read the WHS thread you would think that it is almost universally hated bar a few sticking up for it..
It appears that isn't the case at all, from what I am taking out of the poll so far anyway.
Let's face it, it's only a snap shot of opinions and I dare say if some stato was to delve into details, like what hcp the people were that were voting for what option it may tie into the lower hcps disliking it..... And conversely higher hcps liking it..
No system is ever going to make everyone happy..
Still hopeful they will make some changes to appease the lower hcps though..
IMO No one should jump up anymore than 3 shots max in a year unless they have a medical exemption...

It's not really about making the majority happy. 60% of people is a majority but not enough to stop the game from fracturing. The previous system didn't result in a significant section of golfers not bothering in competition anymore. That's a serious issue. Whether individuals are happy or not is irrelevant.

It wasn't broken and now it is.

If a poll had been done prior to WHS asking if we needed a new handicap system then I don't think it would have shown any appetite. There wasn't a problem.

 

[clubchamp98]

... I was thinking the same about the interpretation...
When you read the WHS thread you would think that it is almost universally hated bar a few sticking up for it..
It appears that isn't the case at all, from what I am taking out of the poll so far anyway.
Let's face it, it's only a snap shot of opinions and I dare say if some stato was to delve into details, like what hcp the people were that were voting for what option it may tie into the lower hcps disliking it..... And conversely higher hcps liking it..
No system is ever going to make everyone happy..
Still hopeful they will make some changes to appease the lower hcps though..
IMO No one should jump up anymore than 3 shots max in a year unless they have a medical exemption...

I was thinking the same.
I wonder what handicaps love WHS
And what Don’t!.

 

[IanMac]

Interesting interpretation of the polling!!

Accepting the small sample size and the results could change.
Only 1 in 4 have expressed negatively towards it, and the majority of people who were negative about it were not really bothered.

Only 6 out of the 90 respondents were completely against it. That constitutes fairly successful in my book!

It categorically shows there isn’t the widespread overwhelming negativity towards it that some of you are suggesting exists.

Stating that there isn't a unanimous acceptance?

That's what I said, and I stand by it.

 

[rulie]

It's not really about making the majority happy. 60% of people is a majority but not enough to stop the game from fracturing. The previous system didn't result in a significant section of golfers not bothering in competition anymore. That's a serious issue. Whether individuals are happy or not is irrelevant..

What about the players that were stuck at 24 with only 0.1 increases, if they even played?

 

[C7usk]

Just because something ain't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
I totally get it that a lot of low hcps are not engaged with the WHS and as I've said I can see the reasons why..
It's not going to go back to the way it was, let's just hope it improves to suit all golfers and make it a bit fairer.
I agree if they had done a poll before WHS folk wouldn't have been fussed about change.. But now it has a lot of players like it.

 

[IanMac]

What about the players that were stuck at 24 with only 0.1 increases, if they even played?

If someone should have gone up, I guess because they were getting old and hitting it shorter, the match and handicap guy would accommodate that by putting them up. That's what happened. If it didn't then the club's m&H wasn't doing it's job.

 

[clubchamp98]

Just because something ain't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
I totally get it that a lot of low hcps are not engaged with the WHS and as I've said I can see the reasons why..
It's not going to go back to the way it was, let's just hope it improves to suit all golfers and make it a bit fairer.
I agree if they had done a poll before WHS folk wouldn't have been fussed about change.. But now it has a lot of players like it.

The majority of golfers are middle handicappers and I can see why they like it .
Their good and bad scores are miles apart and has resulted in higher handicaps.

Low cappers have a much tighter range and most have actually lost a shot or stayed the same
It can’t suit both sets of players.

I think the big mistrust issue is the manipulation of the system with GP cards that really needs sorting at both ends of the scale.

 

[IanMac]

Just because something ain't broken doesn't mean it can't be improved.
I totally get it that a lot of low hcps are not engaged with the WHS and as I've said I can see the reasons why..
It's not going to go back to the way it was, let's just hope it improves to suit all golfers and make it a bit fairer.
I agree if they had done a poll before WHS folk wouldn't have been fussed about change.. But now it has a lot of players like it.

Why would anyone like a handicap system that isn't acceptable to a significant section of golfers? Surely everyone wants a fair system?

 

[clubchamp98]

If someone should have gone up, I guess because they were getting old and hitting it shorter, the match and handicap guy would accommodate that by putting them up. That's what happened. If it didn't then the club's m&H wasn't doing its job.

Not all 24 cappers are old !
Some just can’t hit a barn door with a wedge.!

 

[rulie]

If someone should have gone up, I guess because they were getting old and hitting it shorter, the match and handicap guy would accommodate that by putting them up. That's what happened. If it didn't then the club's m&H wasn't doing its job.

Just like now with the "bandits" that are being talked about?