Official WHS Survey

[PaulMdj]

You're very difficult to debate with because you don't appear to read stuff. I really can't be bothered to repeat it but...

Please try and read to the end.

You stood very little chance under the UHS and mid-high handicappers still had their day in the sun.

 

[Slab]

Just like speed limits, in and if itself, WHS isn't broken, it's just some ppl are breaking it

Catching the 'speeders' is a tad more involved than it used to be

 

[Deleted member 36483]

You stood very little chance under the UHS and mid-high handicappers still had their day in the sun.

Simply not true.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

A couple of years ago a friend of mine shot the course record in a competition. His index was +1.8 at the time. He had 7 birdies and 2 eagles in a once in a lifetime round of golf. I still think many can't quite believe what he did. The card is on display in the clubhouse.

The good news is that he won. The bad news is that he won on a better back nine!

 

[Dunesman]

It would seem then that the matter is really one of lack of communication from England Golf, and that from all their documents and notes circulated to golfers and clubs, they did not explain that a lower chance of winning for single figure golfers was in WHS by design, and low golfers should not feel agrieved when they experience not winning, but being frequently just a stroke or two off a higher handicap winner. They could have at least done this, with their judgement that this is a price worth paying for the ability to port their index to other jurisdictions (though how equal the portability is to or from the USA with handicaps averaginh three shots lower than here is still a valid question I think). We will see how our move to 0.90 or whatever goes next year, but I will point out to our club that Australia is working 0.93, so there might be a more prudent action in just going with that smaller jump as a first step.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

It would seem then that the matter is really one of lack of communication from England Golf, and that from all their documents and notes circulated to golfers and clubs, they did not explain that a lower chance of winning for single figure golfers was in WHS by design, and low golfers should not feel agrieved when they experience not winning, but being frequently just a stroke or two off a higher handicap winner. They could have at least done this, with their judgement that this is a price worth paying for the ability to port their index to other jurisdictions (though how equal the portability is to or from the USA with handicaps averaginh three shots lower than here is still a valid question I think). We will see how our move to 0.90 or whatever goes next year, but I will point out to our club that Australia is working 0.93, so there might be a more prudent action in just going with that smaller jump as a first step.

I very much doubt that's the issue.

 

[wjemather]

It would seem then that the matter is really one of lack of communication from England Golf, and that from all their documents and notes circulated to golfers and clubs, they did not explain that a lower chance of winning for single figure golfers was in WHS by design, and low golfers should not feel agrieved when they experience not winning, but being frequently just a stroke or two off a higher handicap winner. They could have at least done this, with their judgement that this is a price worth paying for the ability to port their index to other jurisdictions (though how equal the portability is to or from the USA with handicaps averaginh three shots lower than here is still a valid question I think). We will see how our move to 0.90 or whatever goes next year, but I will point out to our club that Australia is working 0.93, so there might be a more prudent action in just going with that smaller jump as a first step.

In GB&I, allowances are mandated by the national unions (a policy that pre-dates WHS) and individual clubs do not have the option to diverge.

 

[PaulMdj]

Simply not true.

It was one of the biggest moans about UHS and max 28!

I totally agree WHS has made it worse for some Golfers, but Cat 1’s (single figures or + golfers) will always be wasting their time entering handicap comps as purely on numbers entering those comps at club level they will always be on a hiding to nothing.

The best golfers are better off sticking to scratch comps.

Were WHS has ruined it is the amount of vanity handicaps now at the top level and the best, grnuine golfers are missing out.

 

[PaulMdj]

A couple of years ago a friend of mine shot the course record in a competition. His index was +1.8 at the time. He had 7 birdies and 2 eagles in a once in a lifetime round of golf. I still think many can't quite believe what he did. The card is on display in the clubhouse.

The good news is that he won. The bad news is that he won on a better back nine!

Our course record was broken last year by a mate playing off +3, his card hangs proudly in the Clubhouse.

He finished 4th in the Comp and got nothing!

 

[Slab]

It was one of the biggest moans about UHS and max 28!

I totally agree WHS has made it worse for some Golfers, but Cat 1’s (single figures or + golfers) will always be wasting their time entering handicap comps as purely on numbers entering those comps at club level they will always be on a hiding to nothing.

The best golfers are better off sticking to scratch comps.

Were WHS has ruined it is the amount of vanity handicaps now at the top level and the best, grnuine golfers are missing out.

And don't forget the cat 4 and 5 players who are more 'time wasting' when they're capped at 24/28

 

[Dunesman]

In GB&I, allowances are mandated by the national unions (a policy that pre-dates WHS) and individual clubs do not have the option to diverge.

Is that not a local competition rule ? Scores submitted would be unchanged, only the results of the competition. The calculation of handicaps wouldnt be affected as I understand it, so compliance is still with WHS. No drastic changes like the ones discussed that Australia made on number of scores to average, or caps etc. The AGM is in about 6 weeks, so expect to here more then.

I didnt play, but I think we already had a couple of scramble competitions this year with different allowances to the standard ones due to complaints over the last few years. WHS has recommended ones but they changed back to different allowances that were used before WHS.

 

[PaulMdj]

And don't forget the cat 4 and 5 players who are more 'time wasting' when they're capped at 24/28

Yep, “mate, you’re learning and your 3 cards tell us you should be off 45, but down worry, your official handicap is now 28 and you can enter comps, don’t worry about the 17 shots you’re giving up before you’ve tee’d off”

 

[wjemather]

Is that not a local competition rule ? Scores submitted would be unchanged, only the results of the competition. The calculation of handicaps wouldnt be affected as I understand it, so compliance is still with WHS. No drastic changes like the ones discussed that Australia made on number of scores to average, or caps etc. The AGM is in about 6 weeks, so expect to here more then.

I didnt play, but I think we already had a couple of scramble competitions this year with different allowances to the standard ones due to complaints over the last few years. WHS has recommended ones but they changed back to different allowances that were used before WHS.

Affiliated clubs cannot do their own thing when it comes to any of the allowances in Appendix C.
From GB&I Guidance:

 

[Dunesman]

Affiliated clubs cannot do their own thing when it comes to any of the allowances in Appendix C.
From GB&I Guidance:
View attachment 55503

Am not close enough to know what the details are of how they propose to do it. I guess prizes can be distributed in any manner they wish, as they did with the categories, where they effectively modifies tge results so that the true 1st,2nd,3rd,4th werent given prizes, but reallocated them. So this year, the person who was really second didnt actually get a prize as the person who was 1st was in the same group. Thats a modification of the true overall results anyway, just by one recalculation method. Recalculating with different factor than the .95 to determine who gets prizes is just the same thing as this year but with a different recalculation method.

 

[2blue]

Our course record was broken last year by a mate playing off +3, his card hangs proudly in the Clubhouse.

He finished 4th in the Comp and got nothing!

Best gross, surely? over 90% of the field could have got no where near that.

 

[Voyager EMH]

First 8 places in a board comp at my club this year 8th June. Fairly normal and usual result for the year. (Look at handicaps)



Compare with first 8 places in a board comp on 13th June 2020.
Handicap column is what handicap was adjusted to after this score was taken in to account.



Everything fair and equitable in both cases, because their were no handicap cheats in either event, I'm sure.

Another interesting point is that in 2020 with 173 entrants just over 50% of the field played to with 5 shots of playing-to-handicap.
In 2024 just under 25% of a field of 123 played to within 5 shots of playing-to-handicap.

This would suggest to me that pre-WHS handicaps were more true to ability/form than they are now.
And/Or in 2024 players don't try very hard when they know it-won't-count-for-handicap, it-will-be-one-of-my-bad-twelve, doesn't-matter, don't care.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I have never encountered it as a topic of conversation at the many clubs I have visited in my County. When I have raised it out of interest, the comments have been primarily re GP and very occasionally (CR-par) and PCC.

So the R&A and USGA take the unprecedented step of consulting players from around the world....what do you think prompted that? All the happy golfers?

Clearly they, unlike you, have had their ear to the ground. They know it's unpopular, they're now trying to find out how badly they've done

 

[Banchory Buddha]

What is the biggest gripe for the disaffected group, because they were also the disaffected group under the UHS.

This is nonsense.

Your further comment on divisions has been done to death, there is only one winner on any given day, sweeper sections while necessary are not a solution to this

 

[Banchory Buddha]

They complsined the loudest, how they weren’t going to enter comps, stop playing for the team, etc etc.

Clubs had to address the perceived issues. Some went to Divisions, some started best gross prize.

See this thread from earlier in the year:

GM Article - Handicap System Ruining Comps for Low Handicaps

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-handicap-system-in-golf-has-ruined-club-competitions-its-the-only-sport-that-rewards-mediocrity?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHffKu4vMZPJeuMesVgxWPSeky1zAOjVfd3YBRTkKY4FtAJwISDhJhQPKDw_aem_AcKpmg...

forums.golfmonthly.com

That's hysterical. Fergus is a member, past club champion, and former captain at my club

He hasn't caused the issue, he's reporting on it

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Stop playing for prizes/money. If I play in a Medal, I just assume I'm not going to win and would have to have a heck of round to even get in the money. My goal is just to play as well as possible and then look later to see how I did against all the other players. I don't like playing for money at any time, but it's just what you have to do here. Get rid of the prizes/money....would there still be as much of an issue with people worrying about other players?

I'd be more than happy just to have a number of different league tables for things like Medals.

You're talking about general play, just go do that

The rest of us are talking about competition