POLL: How do you feel about WHS?

[RichA]

Obviously it's not scientific, but it would be interesting to have some idea how a cross section of golfers feel about WHS rather than just making stuff up and speculating.
I've tried to word it neutrally.

 

[Backache]

I've gone for option two, though the bits I'm negative about, I'm very negative about, just don't disagree with everything about it.
I think the slope makes a lot of sense.

 

[C7usk]

Option 4...i am a lot more positive than negative but accept that some changes required..

 

[nickjdavis]

I'm largely a supporter, though there are tweaks that I believe could be made to alleviate (but not totally eliminate) some of the issues that many seem to encounter.

 

[ExRabbit]

I can't really vote on this with the current options.

My feeling is that I am quite/very negative about it on the whole as it is way too complicated, but I do see some aspects of it that have merit.

I would rather go back to the old system for reasons I have mentioned in the past on here.

 

[CliveW]

I like the way you can submit General Play scores for handicap as not all golfers like playing competition golf, however General Play scores can lead to "manipulation".

 

[Imurg]

Generally positive but there are flaws...
Using GP cards is a good thing...as long as people show integrity to the system and we know many don't.
Manipulation is too easy and, done "properly" can be hard to spot. To not even have to be "onsite" is mind blowing
A system that shows "current form" requires current cards to be presented. Using cards from 18 months ago shows nothing about current form. But this is at odds with much of club golf as we know it
A lot of golf, outside comps, is social 4bbb. Unreliable for handicapping. So cards from 2 years ago are influencing HI
The implementation was, generally, poor...the methods, generally, too complicated. Things like PCC..secret calculation that, certainly for me, rarely appears..twice in my 90 cards this year and 46 rounds since an appearance casts a question as to why it exists.
Too many people don't understand the changes because the implementation passed them by. They prefer the old system as a result.
I'm not convinced the change was necessary....the majority of people don't need a handicap that can travel to play comps in other countries - the majority that will play comps travel in a group and use their normal handicap rather than playing against a local one.
The idea that, in certain circumstances, you can be 5 feet from the hole, pick your ball up and add 1 shot to your score is completely wild.
Index increases are too quick....on a personal level, if I fail to put decent scores in, I could go up more than a shot in the next week. And that's at a lower Index
At higher numbers, with a larger spread of scores, a good card dropping off your 20 could result in a larger increase which, depending on slope, could result in an increase in shots of 2 or even 3.

 

[Captain_Black.]

I voted not that bothered but tending towards negative.
It's here to stay whatever we think, so we will have to live with it.
It may get tweeked again in the future as it's far from perfect, but no system ever will be.
I'm more aggrieved at the pre WHS handicap allowance hike tbh.

 

[RichA]

I can't really vote on this with the current options.

My feeling is that I am quite/very negative about it on the whole as it is way too complicated, but I do see some aspects of it that have merit.

I would rather go back to the old system for reasons I have mentioned in the past on here.

Sorry. It's just a graphic to get a general feeling so I went with the standard 5 option survey. I suspect most of us have mixed feelings to some degree.

 

[RichA]

Thank you @Billysboots for fixing the autocorrect mis-wording in the poll options.

 

[Slab]

I’m generally ok with it, not so much at first due to not understanding the formula as I did with old system, I still don’t understand but no longer care. GP card are in principle an obvious needed advancement.
To believe that a handicap system fundamentally unchanged for over a hundred years would still be fit for purpose in the modern age is perhaps naïve. Look how different the rules of golf are over the same period

So something needed to happen and no way it would get universal approval even under ideal circumstance, & while its implementation and communication gets a fair bit of flack re WHS it also needs to be remembered that while chunks of the world went live in Jan 2020. England went live in Nov that year & 3 days later you went into your 2nd covid lockdown. When it finished a month later it was run up to xmas and many (most?) uk courses not submitting scores for handicap for another 5-6 months. That’s gotta’ve hurt the rollout, tacit understanding and acceptance of the scheme at every tier but in particular and end user level

Its still a truism that its dam hard to recover from a poor first impression
I think it needs tweaked now they can see how it works for clubs and how players might misuse it but it doesn't need scraped

 

[NearHull]

I am a supporter of the system. I would have preferred an option ‘90% positive’, but voted ‘ Completely Positve’ as most closely fitted my views.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I was torn between neutral and positive.
I stuck with neutral, but I do care and would be bothered rather than not bothered whatever I had voted.

Plus.
The theory and arithmetic is better than before, in my opinion.
Taking into account differing severity of courses was a much needed aspect.
The very good player can get to scratch in one year, if playing to that standard. Took far too long before.

Neutral.
Implementation was very poor and continuing education and explanation is even poorer.
Too many people ignoring mandatory allowances or making up their own in social golf.
The above two are not a criticisms of the system itself.

Negative.
CR-Par was an unnecessary change and over complicated an already complicated system.
Score Differentials should be two decimal places.

Usage of the system.
Players still focussing on stableford points and not enough emphasis or focus on Score Differential that shows players exactly what they played to.
Score Differential is such an essential and good part of the system and yet players ignore it or pay it little attention.

What did you shoot? - Gross Score
What did you play to? - Score Differential.

There has been a little, but noticeable, shift in culture from trying to become the best golfer you can be to just whack it, have fun and win stuff by maintaining a high handicap.
Whether this was happening anyway and had nothing to do with WHS, I really can't say.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm largely positive about. Too many calculations to get to your playing handicap to give it 5 stars but otherwise I find it far easier to understand than the previous system. Also didn't like how sluggish the previous system was. WHS is far more responsive, I think that is much better.

I don't get involved in the minutia of the system, I think people are over thinking it at times. Turn up, play, have a cup of tea, go home. Enjoy.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Its all we have and so getting on with it.

 

[KenL]

I was torn between neutral and positive.
I stuck with neutral, but I do care and would be bothered rather than not bothered whatever I had voted.

Plus.
The theory and arithmetic is better than before, in my opinion.
Taking into account differing severity of courses was a much needed aspect.
The very good player can get to scratch in one year, if playing to that standard. Took far too long before.

Neutral.
Implementation was very poor and continuing education and explanation is even poorer.
Too many people ignoring mandatory allowances or making up their own in social golf.
The above two are not a criticisms of the system itself.

Negative.
CR-Par was an unnecessary change and over complicated an already complicated system.
Score Differentials should be two decimal places.

Usage of the system.
Players still focussing on stableford points and not enough emphasis or focus on Score Differential that shows players exactly what they played to.
Score Differential is such an essential and good part of the system and yet players ignore it or pay it little attention.

What did you shoot? - Gross Score
What did you play to? - Score Differential.

There has been a little, but noticeable, shift in culture from trying to become the best golfer you can be to just whack it, have fun and win stuff by maintaining a high handicap.
Whether this was happening anyway and had nothing to do with WHS, I really can't say.

I agree with all of the above.
I particularly didn’t like the CR-par thing and how variable your hcp can be at different courses.
I don't like how many “extra shots” higher handicappers get compared with their index.
PCC virtually never changes. Seen it once go up 1 at my club in a comp this year. I have never seen it go up with a general player score.
I voted leaning towards negative.

ps I do not like the 95% for playing handicap or that it is 100% difference in a singles tie.

 

[RichA]

Players still focussing on stableford points and not enough emphasis or focus on Score Differential that shows players exactly what they played to.

Yeah. Not relevant to WHS but was weird yesterday in a Greensomes comp. It was strokeplay against the whole field; not Stableford or matchplay. One of the pair playing with us kept saying to his partner, "We get a shot on this hole" and "We get a shot on the next hole."
Because of the format it wasn't relevant. Because their PH was 17 it just became a bit odd.

 

[Tashyboy]

Generally positive but there are flaws...
Using GP cards is a good thing...as long as people show integrity to the system and we know many don't.
Manipulation is too easy and, done "properly" can be hard to spot. To not even have to be "onsite" is mind blowing
A system that shows "current form" requires current cards to be presented. Using cards from 18 months ago shows nothing about current form. But this is at odds with much of club golf as we know it
A lot of golf, outside comps, is social 4bbb. Unreliable for handicapping. So cards from 2 years ago are influencing HI
The implementation was, generally, poor...the methods, generally, too complicated. Things like PCC..secret calculation that, certainly for me, rarely appears..twice in my 90 cards this year and 46 rounds since an appearance casts a question as to why it exists.
Too many people don't understand the changes because the implementation passed them by. They prefer the old system as a result.
I'm not convinced the change was necessary....the majority of people don't need a handicap that can travel to play comps in other countries - the majority that will play comps travel in a group and use their normal handicap rather than playing against a local one.
The idea that, in certain circumstances, you can be 5 feet from the hole, pick your ball up and add 1 shot to your score is completely wild.
Index increases are too quick....on a personal level, if I fail to put decent scores in, I could go up more than a shot in the next week. And that's at a lower Index
At higher numbers, with a larger spread of scores, a good card dropping off your 20 could result in a larger increase which, depending on slope, could result in an increase in shots of 2 or even 3.

Exactly

 

[Orikoru]

I'm still slightly on the negative side. I don't like how your handicap seems to fly up very quickly after a couple of bad rounds. And a lot of course ratings just don't make any sense to me (i.e. tight, tricky courses being rated easy just because they're not long).

 

[KenL]

I'm still slightly on the negative side. I don't like how your handicap seems to fly up very quickly after a couple of bad rounds. And a lot of course ratings just don't make any sense to me (i.e. tight, tricky courses being rated easy just because they're not long).

Agreed, even more annoying is when you put in a decent round and you get an increase because a better 20th score (from many months or even a year ago) drops off.