Official WHS Survey

[PaulMdj]

What about name on Board prizes......are they done by divisions at your club ?

All our Board Comps are either Max 18 or 24, anyone above these handicaps actually get 2 entries, 1 playing off the Max Handicap and the other in Divisions.

None of our Boards state the Comp Rules, simply the name of the winner.

 

[clubchamp98]

Hypothetical question but I'm interested in people's thoughts on this...

If all golf courses were made up of 18 holes each measuring less than 100 yards, would there still be a need for a handicap system?

Some people are very good from that distance
Some not so good especially if Tommys Tanks were a problem
Putting is where most high cappers waste shots imo ( the ones I play with anyway)
So yes would be my answer.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

The wishes of the current members of the club, which no doubt were different in the 19th Century, the 20th Century and this Century as well as in the many different eras during those Centuries.

You're not being specific enough.

Healthy and fair competition which results in solid friendships and respect for fellow members. That's why we join a golf club.

 

[clubchamp98]

With WHS, even a HI of 18 is too high.
But EG should have known this before WhS, and should certainly know it now. They should have protected the long history of club golf and the members who are the foundation of the game. While categories existed and had their place, they are not a solution for all cases. And when they are touted as a fix for clubs experiencing difficulties with comoetition fairness under WHS it is an acknowledgement that WHS doesnt work, and is a pathetic fig leaf solution. We deserve a better correction.

Has EG, or any other regional authority, spoken publicly or published real data on the success or not of WHS ? And I am not speaking about numbers of rwgistered handicaps. That is of no interest to those already in the game.

But on the goals of WHS : are handicaps comparable between regions (it would appear no, but what is their take on it), have we the same handicap system everywhere, and, are WHS handicaps a fair basis for amateurs competing against each other ?
Some association somewhere in the world must be evaluating how well or not WHS has met or not its stated goals set a decade ago.

Totally agree.

 

[clubchamp98]

You're not being specific enough.

Healthy and fair competition which results in solid friendships and respect for fellow members. That's why we join a golf club.

The main change for me is.
Years ago someone winning a comp was greeted with a “ well done”
Now his handicap is questioned first !

 

[D-S]

You're not being specific enough.

Healthy and fair competition which results in solid friendships and respect for fellow members. That's why we join a golf club.

So why did we have divisions and Handicap limits and handicap allowances prior to WHS?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Hypothetical question but I'm interested in people's thoughts on this...

If all golf courses were made up of 18 holes each measuring less than 100 yards, would there still be a need for a handicap system?

Me and my regular playing partner have one handicap difference, but if holes were under 100 I would never beat him, his mustard from under 100 yards

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Hypothetical question but I'm interested in people's thoughts on this...

If all golf courses were made up of 18 holes each measuring less than 100 yards, would there still be a need for a handicap system?

I started off saying no, but then maybe you need a small h/c system. Not much of one though, not for 100yds. Shouldn't really be necessary.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Hypothetical question but I'm interested in people's thoughts on this...

If all golf courses were made up of 18 holes each measuring less than 100 yards, would there still be a need for a handicap system?

"Need" would be up to those taking part.

There would still be a range of skill and abilities.
I think a handicapping system would be feasible.
It would be very interesting.

Thornes Park Wakefield pitch-and-putt was where I learned to play golf as a nipper.
18 holes varying from 40 to 100 yards.
Loved it.
Great test of skill.

 

[IanM]

Imagine if rugby had a handicap system. You can't tackle him, he's a novice player.... ooh, he just scored a great try!



If clubs start sticking names on the wall for people who haven't broken 80, (or similar) they need to have a think about the number of boards they have.

Ian M (12.4 HI) Weekly club comps quite different. Prizes in divisions. Move along.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I started off saying no, but then maybe you need a small h/c system. Not much of one though, not for 100yds. Shouldn't really be necessary.

By small you mean a limit on maximum I presume? I wonder what that limit should be.

My feeling is no. I tried to define a course that everyone is capable of getting onto every green in one shot. I don't know anyone who can't hit a putt far enough to get to a hole so everyone should be capable of 2 putts also. I'm not saying it's easy, it isn't. Nevertheless anyone who wants to get good at this form of golf can do so. That's why I would say no.

Modern thinking appears to centre around the view that those who don't want to create the time to get good at golf should still have a chance to compete against those who do. How do you design a system that works for a no, or hardly any, practice approach to golf? What would be the maximum in the par 3 course for these people so they still have a chance?

WHS doesn't appear to consider the essence of the game, i.e. application, to be as important as it was. That's progress and modern apparently. It certainly makes sense financially but that's the height of it.

 

[D-S]

“Modern thinking appears to centre around the view that those who don't want to create the time to get good at golf should still have a chance to compete against those who do. How do you design a system that works for a no, or hardly any, practice approach to golf?”

There have always been those “who don’t want to create the time to get good at golf”.

The previous system was not good at fairly allowing them to compete with those who were better at golf (with or without practice or experience) so clubs had handicap limits or divisions - they can do exactly this now, the only real difference is that it is considered to be good and inclusive also to award separate prizes for those who either have not got better through a lack of ability (physical or other), talent, time to practice or application.

 

[Dunesman]

So why did we have divisions and Handicap limits and handicap allowances prior to WHS?

We didnt.
Or some clubs did, some clubs didnt. Or some clubs did for some competitions, and didnt for others.
We had no divisions until 2024.
Until people had experienced the problem with WHS over the previous few years. And nobody was prejudiced against WHS. Nobody thought it would introduce a problem. It was a new system, better, and people played on. But experience showed there was a problem with suddenly widespread uncompetitiveness of a lower handicap section of the field.
EG cannot bury their head in the sand, and just say - "categories, we advised categories in the past anyway." We had a system that didnt need categories. So it was better ! Why have you introduced an inferioir handicap system ?

 

[Dunesman]

“Modern thinking appears to centre around the view that those who don't want to create the time to get good at golf should still have a chance to compete against those who do. How do you design a system that works for a no, or hardly any, practice approach to golf?”

There have always been those “who don’t want to create the time to get good at golf”.

The previous system was not good at fairly allowing them to compete with those who were better at golf (with or without practice or experience) so clubs had handicap limits or divisions - they can do exactly this now, the only real difference is that it is considered to be good and inclusive also to award separate prizes for those who either have not got better through a lack of ability (physical or other), talent, time to practice or application.

Handicap systems are nothing to do with being good. Its function is to have golfers good and bad compete with each other. It worked. It was a fundamental element of amateur club golf that made the sport a success. Ability, effort, practice, etc have nothing to do with a handicap system. A handicap system working perfectly quickly identifies any improvement and nullifies it. WHS broadly does that just as well I think. What spoils it is the handicap 'noise' of the higher ranges who need their handicap more closely pegged to what they might score, than what they are likely to score. The old syatem understood this and was based on it. WHS seems to me more based to Americans playing friendly matches. (Add in a mulligan or gimme and you have why their handicaps are 3 lower than ours)

 

[PaulMdj]

We didnt.
Or some clubs did, some clubs didnt. Or some clubs did for some competitions, and didnt for others.
We had no divisions until 2024.
Until people had experienced the problem with WHS over the previous few years. And nobody was prejudiced against WHS. Nobody thought it would introduce a problem. It was a new system, better, and people played on. But experience showed there was a problem with suddenly widespread uncompetitiveness of a lower handicap section of the field.
EG cannot bury their head in the sand, and just say - "categories, we advised categories in the past anyway." We had a system that didnt need categories. So it was better ! Why have you introduced an inferioir handicap system ?

Or, maybe they realised that expecting a 54 handicapper competeing against a scratch player was daft, but competeing against same standard of golfers was OK.

I’ve still not seen a reasonable answer why people thought a 28 handicapper could compete on a level playing field with a scratch golfer under UHS.

We had Max 18 in our comps under UHS and for those over 18 we’d simply shrug our shoulders and say, well that’s the comp rules, nobody is forced to enter.

 

[PaulMdj]

Handicap systems are nothing to do with being good. Its function is to have golfers good and bad compete with each other. It worked. It was a fundamental element of amateur club golf that made the sport a success. Ability, effort, practice, etc have nothing to do with a handicap system. A handicap system working perfectly quickly identifies any improvement and nullifies it. WHS broadly does that just as well I think. What spoils it is the handicap 'noise' of the higher ranges who need their handicap more closely pegged to what they might score, than what they are likely to score. The old syatem understood this and was based on it. WHS seems to me more based to Americans playing friendly matches. (Add in a mulligan or gimme and you have why their handicaps are 3 lower than ours)

No it wasn’t! You put in 3 cards and were given a handicap, if you were 29 or above it was simply a case of “unlucky, that’s the max”

 

[D-S]

We didnt.
Or some clubs did, some clubs didnt. Or some clubs did for some competitions, and didnt for others.
We had no divisions until 2024.
Until people had experienced the problem with WHS over the previous few years. And nobody was prejudiced against WHS. Nobody thought it would introduce a problem. It was a new system, better, and people played on. But experience showed there was a problem with suddenly widespread uncompetitiveness of a lower handicap section of the field.
EG cannot bury their head in the sand, and just say - "categories, we advised categories in the past anyway." We had a system that didnt need categories. So it was better ! Why have you introduced an inferioir handicap system ?

Some clubs, as you say, did feel they needed categories and divisions under UHS.

Also under UHS for a long period it was felt, correctly or incorrectly that low handicappers could not compete against higher handicappers in singles matchplay, so they had to reduce the difference by a quarter (singles and doubles matchplay used 75%) - were people therefore saying that UHS was an unworkable system then because additional measures were needed (75% singles matchplay allowance or 7/8 Stableford allowance or max 18 handicap for most comps)?
Divisions is now, as it was before, just one way of making a system fairer.

 

[Whereditgo]

With WHS, even a HI of 18 is too high.
But EG should have known this before WhS, and should certainly know it now. They should have protected the long history of club golf and the members who are the foundation of the game. While categories existed and had their place, they are not a solution for all cases. And when they are touted as a fix for clubs experiencing difficulties with comoetition fairness under WHS it is an acknowledgement that WHS doesnt work, and is a pathetic fig leaf solution. We deserve a better correction.

Has EG, or any other regional authority, spoken publicly or published real data on the success or not of WHS ? And I am not speaking about numbers of rwgistered handicaps. That is of no interest to those already in the game.

But on the goals of WHS : are handicaps comparable between regions (it would appear no, but what is their take on it), have we the same handicap system everywhere, and, are WHS handicaps a fair basis for amateurs competing against each other ?
Some association somewhere in the world must be evaluating how well or not WHS has met or not its stated goals set a decade ago.

My brother, living in the US, has a handicap that ranges 3 to 4 strokes lower than mine. We play each other 10 or so times a year, we play off scratch........I usually win!

Generally I am ok with the new system, we don't have many competitions won by crazy high scores, there was 1 improving new starter at the beginning of the year who cleaned up for a while because the course was non qualifying (remember the weather last winter!), but generally there are few complaints around the club about WHS.

My personal view is now changing, I am beginning to think that the system needs a tweak (and no, I have no suggestion as to what form that tweak takes), to get the playing field a bit more even for the lower handicap players.

 

[Backache]

I think a reasonable compromise would be play off whatever you want in social golf but in club comps max handicap of 9 is reasonable.
A stroke every other hole should enable most to enjoy themselves.

 

[Dunesman]

I’ve still not seen a reasonable answer why people thought a 28 handicapper could compete on a level playing field with a scratch golfer under UHS.

The 28 did compete with the scratch o a level, or level enough, playing field.
What answer are you looking for otger than that UHS provided that. The lowering of low handicaps under WHS, and the ease and speed (through no malicious handicap maniplation or false gp cards) at which middle handicappers can find themselves with an extra 2 or 3 shots has tilted the field dramatically in their favour.
Anecdotal, so all the caveats that go with that, but in our club it is not a story of a 34 handicap scoring 49 points with a scrarch man shooting 3 under gross saying 'beaten by 10 shots, whats the point ?). But of an 18 handicapper scoring 42 points, and people saying - 18??? was he not off 15 last month. He was always a 14 or 15 !
And the man off scratch was a 1 or 2 for a decade, and really only kept a steady 0 since WHS. He liked it in a way. But 4 years down the line, the prestige/satisfaction is long gone, and the realisation that he will now never beat a field of 12-24 handicappers has sunk in.