The First Year of WHS - Positives and Negatives

[sweaty sock]

...

Lower handicaps seem to have come down across the board, but particularly so for people that aren't playing a lot. This has meant me getting balloted out of Scratch Opens several times this year, when I'm 100% confident I would score lower than half the field that got in.

After a 'qualifying' winter, I think a lot of good players will be in this position...

 

[Lord Tyrion]

After a 'qualifying' winter, I think a lot of good players will be in this position...

This is an interesting one. My club never had qualifiers in winter but are doing so this year. All off the yellows but that is still 6,400yds. In the past they have moved the odd tee forward but this is not happening this year so far. With little run, cold weather generally reducing distance etc I reckon I will go up 3 shots by April. That might be optimistic as well. I'm off 18 incidentally. Clearly, this is not the same impact that you will be having, scratch comps etc but your point about starting the new season with distorted handicaps will be a real issue.

Maybe we just have to accept this with this system? It is a 12 month handicap that will be more eratic than we are used to. We have to change our mindset?

 

[Humpy]

I'm enjoying WHS.

I think my enjoyment has been enhanced by understanding how everything is calculated, reviewing my counting scores on the EG app so I know when one drops off. Knowing this means that I know what I need to score to improve my index. (Excluding the PCC adjustment.) This appeals to my nerdy ways!

One thing I don't think is right is the ability to sign in for a supplementary after you've played. This can be policed at courses which operate tee times but not so easily at courses that don't.

 

[rulefan]

Maybe we just have to accept this with this system? It is a 12 month handicap that will be more eratic than we are used to. We have to change our mindset?

Yes, as golf is played throughout the year, handicaps should follow suit. But as your better scores are more likely to be in the summer the winter will have relatively little effect.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Yes, as golf is played throughout the year, handicaps should follow suit. But as your better scores are more likely to be in the summer the winter will have relatively little effect.

This is true ... to an extent. It obviously depends on the number of rounds you're playing. The amount I play, I will do more than 20 rounds between November-December, so all of these will be my counting rounds come the Spring. I don't have any rounds from before September in my most recent 20.

I played on Saturday and shot the lowest round that is currently in my 20 (71) - but didn't end up in too many muddy patches, with the one-time I did seeing me make a double. My playing partners were slightly more wayward, and had a few more issues with mud / leaves and now do not want to put scores in until Spring.

Horses for courses. I'll always put a score in, because I think that's how it should be - and if EVERYBODY did the same thing, there wouldn't be an issue. But it's unrealistic to expect everyone to play 100+ qualifiers in the year, which is where these discrepancies / frustrations are going to happen.

 

[sweaty sock]

Yes, as golf is played throughout the year, handicaps should follow suit. But as your better scores are more likely to be in the summer the winter will have relatively little effect.

Why? The winter is 6 months, playing once a week the handicap record is entirely replaced (excepting your low point for soft/hard cap calculations) before the season begins?

 

[sweaty sock]

Hard to see any positives, TBH.

Right from the botched data migration it's been a fiasco.

Breaking the link between handicaps and ability in favour of short term form was a bad mistake IMO.

I couldn't even get a score from an R&A competition south of the border to come through automatically so it's failed the most basic requirement.

Many, maybe even most of the positives people raised so far in the thread were perfectly possible under the old system.

100% Agree

The hardest score to get loaded to my record was from an R and A run event! Took nearly a month!

 

[jimbob.someroo]

I couldn't even get a score from an R&A competition south of the border to come through automatically so it's failed the most basic requirement.

Many, maybe even most of the positives people raised so far in the thread were perfectly possible under the old system.

Share your frustration re: comps north/south of the border - although my pro submitted rounds that I played in Scotland from the scorecard (told him before I played that I wanted to register it).

Definitely wasn't possible for Cat 1 golfers to put scores in as supplementaries down here previously - which meant those who couldn't make the weekly medal/stableford couldn't keep score as regularly. Would disagree with you here - that part has been a HUGE advantage to my overall enjoyment of the game (which I get from keeping score, rather than the walking / social element of golf).

 

[Jimaroid]

I’ve not played enough this year due to time and injury so I still don’t feel like I’ve really experienced the WHS in a meaningfully positive way. Each experience of it so far has been negatively tainted by Scottish Golf App and implementation issues rather than the concept of WHS itself.

I like the concept. Hate the implementation.

 

[Rlburnside]

My club never liked working with supplementarys wrong I know, so to be able to put scores in via the app anytime is a real positive for me.

I think having a index, playing handicap and course handicap threw up a lot of confusion and could have been simplified, many players at my club don’t like when they add up their score/ points at the end of a round they find that is not the same score/ points when the results come in.

I fully understand the 95% but there’s still many that’s baffled by it.

I think overall it keeps a better track of your h/c and has been a positive step, but it could have been implemented so much better.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I’ve not played enough this year due to time and injury so I still don’t feel like I’ve really experienced the WHS in a meaningfully positive way. Each experience of it so far has been negatively tainted by Scottish Golf App and implementation issues rather than the concept of WHS itself.

I like the concept. Hate the implementation.

That & VMS have certainly tainted the whole thing for me, but I've tried to take that out of it with my comments above. It's interesting that by contrast the positives folks in England are seeing, many comment on the App, but the App has nothing to do with WHS, so are there really many positives once that is taken away, you'd still have the App with the old system.

 

[clubchamp98]

Been ok for me .
Cap has more or less stayed the same.

Negs have been the ridiculous scores that have been winning our comps.
I have often just not entered some and just had a knock on the Sunday instead.
Culminated last weekend my scratch cap mate shot a 62 gross and came forth in the comp.
It’s created so many bandits that the game has changed for the worse for me.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, as golf is played throughout the year, handicaps should follow suit. But as your better scores are more likely to be in the summer the winter will have relatively little effect.

That is a worrying assumption.

If you acknowledge scoring is better in one season over another, then do you also not need to accept the handicap system is not suitable all year round?

Otherwise, you could have a player who does not play in the winter, and starts with the same handicap the following season. You would also have another player who plays loads over the winter. If, as you say, they tend to shoot worse scores, then it would be expected they'd have a handicap increase for the next season, giving them an advantage over the guy that didn't play during the winter. Seem fair?

Of course, the PCC calculation should theoretically take such factors into account. If conditions were tougher over the winter compared to the normal ratings, the PCC just adjust for that. Of course, it seems that PCC rarely actually changes, so maybe is not doing that job effectively?

 

[Backsticks]

Positives -

Handicaps are more reflective of playing ability much quicker. It hurts your ego but it is the truth, if you put enough cards in.
I like the way your h/cap alters for tougher courses.

Having an index, a course handicap and a playing handicap is one to many. They should have found a way to simplify that.

I dont think I would agree that it is more refelctive quickly - I think it is for rising handicaps or loss of form, but for the step improver, it is slower than UHS was to cut down. The need for a 7 shot differential for a single exceptional cut for example is very lenient. Twenty something hcs who get it together were easily cut 2-3 shots each for a couple of good scores. The system alone, without hc committee intervention would cut them 5-7 shots in two rounds. WHS unlikely to do that, more like 1 or 2 shots for the first good score, and only another 1 for a subequent one. Further cuts coming only with further steady if not spectacular scores.
Overall good though, but ESR was better in the old.

Would agree with the 'three' handicaps muddle. They should have left the course handicap out of it, which is effectively like showing your working out of a maths problem to a teacher. HI -> Competition h/c would have been fine.

HCs changing according to course is the big gain I think, but still disappointed CR isnt taken into account.

I think overall, it has a benefit of levelling the playing field and being more equitable throughout the handicap ranges. Low hcs, have been cut, and so no longer have their relative competitive advantage. Higher handicaps have risen, which from what we have seen in my club, is more reflective of their play.

 

[sweaty sock]

That is a worrying assumption.

If you acknowledge scoring is better in one season over another, then do you also not need to accept the handicap system is not suitable all year round?

Otherwise, you could have a player who does not play in the winter, and starts with the same handicap the following season. You would also have another player who plays loads over the winter. If, as you say, they tend to shoot worse scores, then it would be expected they'd have a handicap increase for the next season, giving them an advantage over the guy that didn't play during the winter. Seem fair?

Of course, the PCC calculation should theoretically take such factors into account. If conditions were tougher over the winter compared to the normal ratings, the PCC just adjust for that. Of course, it seems that PCC rarely actually changes, so maybe is not doing that job effectively?

Its worse than that, due to the course rating system. As nearly all courses run as a shorter track during winter the ratings plummet, meaning that its already harder to score, before you factor in, poor ground conditions, weather, etc etc. Like i mentioned earlier my course is now a realtive par 67..!

 

[Backsticks]

Positives: The ease of entering a GP score compared with the old system

Negatives:
1. The frequency of ultra low net scoring
2. The imposition of mandatory allowances on formats of golf that have never been tracked before and have ruined the format
3. A "world" system that only works in your own country
4. A "world" system that is being implemented in many different ways in many different jurisdictions
5. A PCC that no-one understands, that almost never moves, and that the authorities can't explain
6. No winter period, all scores count regardless of playing conditions
7. Not having a "set" handicap, it changes course to course.

1. Havent noticed that. Is there clear evidence of it ?
2. I didnt think they were mandatory ? Maybe depends on the region ? What is the EG position officially ?
3. 4. Thats a pity alright. I think they called it the WHS because it is a different system in every country in the world.
5. It does seem gentler than the old CSS alright. Could it be that the slope rating already keeps things in a better window, than that did ?
6. What ?!?!? Surely shortened courses, temporary greens, dropping in the rough, are not counting ? (havent been out the last few weeks)
7. But thats the good thing !

 

[Deleted member 30522]

1. Havent noticed that. Is there clear evidence of it ?
2. I didnt think they were mandatory ? Maybe depends on the region ? What is the EG position officially ?
3. 4. Thats a pity alright. I think they called it the WHS because it is a different system in every country in the world.
5. It does seem gentler than the old CSS alright. Could it be that the slope rating already keeps things in a better window, than that did ?
6. What ?!?!? Surely shortened courses, temporary greens, dropping in the rough, are not counting ? (havent been out the last few weeks)
7. But thats the good thing !

1. I did the stats at our club, they're not as bad as people thought, but yes scores are lower week in week out amongst higher handicaps
2. Yes all mandatory now
3/4. It'd be funny if it wasn't true
5. Well no, slope doesn't change, conditions change, yet PCC almost never changes (my last 28 scores now have no PCC adjustments, think I only saw three all year, all in opens
6. If a course is measured, then it's going to count for handicap, there is now inter period
7. Not imo. Especially as folks have to work out their handicap on the day, not so bad in England where course handicap is runded, but in Scotland it's exact

 

[IanM]

Positives:
- Score entering via the App
- Transparency of records
- Course handicaps, more overt "allowance differences" at different courses.

Negatives:
- Communication and implementation was awful - this was a major cultural and behavioural shift in what a HI actually is, and how they want us to use it. (Virtually ignored in the initial briefings.) Materials not tailored for the key stakeholders. (i.e. yer-average-player!) This is evidenced by the amount of information I never saw in materials, but only found out from the discussion on here. Also evidenced by the huge variation in application of general play scores and some bonkers winning scores in comps.
- Home Unions have gone it "alone" - so certainly not a "World System" - heck not even a UK system. (a real issue for us folk who live near a border or who cross them to play regularly)
- Over engineered - too many steps to get to your shot allowance. I think the folk who did this must have shares in companies that make the charts that now proliferate golf clubs!

 

[clubchamp98]

1. Havent noticed that. Is there clear evidence of it ?
2. I didnt think they were mandatory ? Maybe depends on the region ? What is the EG position officially ?
3. 4. Thats a pity alright. I think they called it the WHS because it is a different system in every country in the world.
5. It does seem gentler than the old CSS alright. Could it be that the slope rating already keeps things in a better window, than that did ?
6. What ?!?!? Surely shortened courses, temporary greens, dropping in the rough, are not counting ? (havent been out the last few weeks)
7. But thats the good thing !

To number 1.
Our club is 135 yrs old nobody has ever shot sub 60 net .
We had 4 scores of 58 net this year. 60/61/62/63 were common

 

[Imurg]

I don't like the way that you can, in effect, give up on a round ( after 15 holes and your score is gone) and your index isn't affected, you know it won't be one of your 8
Similarly, if you post a half decent score and your index goes up...in a way it doesn't make sense....
I don't like that there's no requirement to put scores in to keep a handicap.