What Would You Change About the WHS?

[nickjdavis]

Ok...so we've got lots of threads moaning and displaying lots of angst about what is wrong with WHS...but in amongst the moaning there is very little being suggested as to how to improve things.

So what suggestions would you make to improve what we've got and resolve the issues that you perceive exist? (Scrap the entire thing and go back to the old system is not a valid response....even the most ardent WHS haters should concede that this wont happen)

Here's a few of my thoughts of things that might be possible and might ameliorate the issues that some seem to be experiencing. I'm not necessarily in favour of any/all of these (except perhaps the frequency of GP scores)...I'm just putting ideas out for discussion...

1. Limit GP cards to 1 per week. This would reduce the ability of manipulators to quickly "clear" their recent handicap record.
2. Change the handicap index calculation to be the average of the best 6 from 20....looking at records of players at my club this would mean that mid single figure guys might lose around 0.3 off their index, whereas players off around 28 might lose 1.3 shots or so. Its not much...but its a little bit.
3. Strengthening of the soft cap from 3 to 2 and the hard cap from 5 to 4....would restrict the rate at which indexes could rise. (Incidentally, at my club we have 37 players with soft caps in effect and 2 players with hard caps in effect...8.5% of the total membership)
4. Base the low index on the low point in the last 18 months, not 12... this action would put further curbs on the ability of an index to rise quickly.
5. Maybe change the allowance for an individual strokeplay comp from 95% to...90%....I think going lower than 90% would possibly be excessive....85% would mean a 28 handicapper would only get 24 shots...couple this with any of the above actions that are already limiting the ability of an index to rise, and I suspect higher handicappers might rise up and march on Woodhall Spa (or wherever your National Union might be based)....after all, there are far more of them than there are low guys who are currently feeling inconvenienced.

So folks....here is your chance to take a deep breath and be constructive...how do the authorities improve things (if indeed they need improving)?

 

[HampshireHog]

Best 8 scores from the last 12 months. Current form handicaps suck.

Takes handicaps back to being ability based. Makes GP cards an ineffective tool to manipulate upwards.

Slows rises, get’s rid of a reason for hard & soft caps. Less maths, less often.

 

[Backache]

I'd have a social handicap and a competition handicap.
For entry to recognised competitions at least 90% of cards should be from competitions.
Don't disagree with the other suggestions.

 

[IanM]

If you are worse than a buffer score, you go up 0.1.

If you beat your handicap you drop a % for each shot.

Oh, hang on!

 

[Steve Wilkes]

I'd have a social handicap and a competition handicap.
For entry to recognised competitions at least 90% of cards should be from competitions.
Don't disagree with the other suggestions.

This is a great idea and shouldn't be to difficult implement, I have already wrote a program that gives me 5 different handicap indexes

1) All scores Comp & GP (3.2)
2) Comp Only (5.3)
3) All Home Courses Scores (4.5)
4) All Non-Home Course Scores (3.0)
5) Our Regular 4-Ball Sunday Only (3.5)

These go up and down by a couple of shots quite a bit, as I play 130+ rounds a year (112 so for this year)

MyEG Index is 5.0, because most people I play with don't have a Handicap so can't put in GP Scores as often I would like

 

[Hank]

My few thoughts are

Get rid of the self managed handicap system.

General Play cards dont automatically count for handicap purpose but are acknowledged at any future Handicap review.

Only competition scores to count.

Minimum of 6 competition scores every 12months to be added before handicap becomes inactive.

Revert back to 0.1 increases

Iplay should not be official handicaps.

 

[HPIMG]

I would just do away with handicaps altogether. I mean what is the point really to make bad golfers feel competitive. I just don’t get it.
If I was to play a pro golfer off the tv and he gave me 15 shots and I end up winning I’ve not actually beat him. So why make up this fantasy handicap system.

 

[RichA]

I would just do away with handicaps altogether. I mean what is the point really to make bad golfers feel competitive. I just don’t get it.
If I was to play a pro golfer off the tv and he gave me 15 shots and I end up winning I’ve not actually beat him. So why make up this fantasy handicap system.

Because it's a mechanism for recreational golfers to be able to play against each other.
Nobody is being forced to enter competitions with big prizes. It's the prizes that breeds the cheats, not the system itself.
I would do away with prizes greater than a sleeve of golf balls or make prizes in amateur golf be a donation to the winner's chosen charity.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Score Differentials to two decimal places. Better accuracy. I would currently be 4.5 (4.5475) rather than 4.6 (4.5625) if this were the case. SD to 4 dp and I am 4.5 (4.5471).

Abandon the concept of Course Handicap. Simplify.

Remove CR-Par from handicap calculation. Simplify.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Best 8 scores from the last 12 months.

I agree with this. I have scores on from 2022 still, that doesn't show current form. There needs to be a time limit on scores in your 20.

 

[Orikoru]

Oh cool, another WHS topic.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to fix it on my own. But I think there should be some sort of algorithm to limit how quickly people's handicaps can go up. I know there is the soft/hard cap limits (not 100% sure what they are) but they aren't doing enough. This whole thing where you can lose a couple of good cards off the bottom of your record and go up 2 shots in a weekend has to be killed off somehow.

 

[Slab]

I agree with this. I have scores on from 2022 still, that doesn't show current form. There needs to be a time limit on scores in your 20.

Taking this further. What if any score over XX months dropped off and they used the same formula & rational that’s used for setting the initial WHS handicap… but in reverse
So once a preset age is reached (tbd) you gradually go down from having 20 cards to 19, 18, 17 etc and the formula average used for Index also drops (see table below)
Once a player has no cards in current date range then their handicap goes inactive or the player can add to their total by putting in cards again and start rising from 12-13-14 etc etc

 

[Orikoru]

I quite like the idea of using a 12 month period instead of simply the last 20 rounds. That should see less fluctuation than we currently see.

 

[AussieKB]

I put 20 scores in a 6 week period tops, sometimes in 4 weeks, but how can a score two years ago be relevant ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Best 8 from last 20 scores gives me 4.6

Best 8 from last 12 months (24 scores) gives me 4.3

I started this year with 4.3, went as high as 5.4, got back to 4.3, then up to 4.6 when that one score from the early 4 dropped off.
Something very similar would have occurred, I imagine, with a best 8 from previous 12 months throughout.
Others may be quite different, I accept.

 

[IanM]

A step in the HI-CH-PH chain could be removed.

 

[Bdill93]

Max 2 GP scores go on to your handicap record.

6 comp
2 gp max

Remove the need for 3 handicaps, Index, Course and Playing and go back to a system of 2.

Find a way to rate course difficulty better.

 

[Voyager EMH]

EG Index - do calculation - handicap.

Then, the word "handicap" is used only once.

Nett double bogey limit according to individual strokeplay handicap as it would then be consistent with stableford scores.

 

[Swango1980]

1. Get rid of the Scramble Allowances, unless they can do something that is fair (which is unlikely, as there are so many variants of Scramble). Just let clubs sort out the Team Handicap as they see fit, give the Committees the responsibility
2. Once 3 scores are submitted for initial handicap, add bigger reductions the higher the final Score Diff is. Reduce those reductions the more cards the player submits, up until they have 20 on their record. That way, you won't have people submitting 3 cards, playing off about 30 or 40 because their first 3 rounds were rubbish, including their best one, and then winning comps because they improve quickly and we find out they are really a 15-20 handicapper. I find the current system creates bigger issues where you get a lot of beginner golfers, like my last club which is cheap. Winning scores were often ridiculous, as one of the newbies would often go out and shoot high 40's in Stabo. If a player is going to get a big juicy handicap because they are poor, fine. But let them submit 20 scores to fully prove they are that bad.
3. Embed the 95% playing allowance into the final Playing Handicap. So, all you need to do is check handicap against Index, and then that is it. Like the Australians do. If there are any other formats that require further reductions, like 4BBB, then players can do the whole 90% thing like they used to. Means it is less confusing for many golfers in singles play, no longer having to apply 95%, or wondering why 95% is applied, yet they don't apply it when they play socially.
4. From an Admin point of view, not sure as I'm no longer a handicap sec. So, they may already have some good tools at their disposal. But, stats like comparing handicaps if GP scores were just used compared to handicaps if Comp scores were just used would be useful. This might help highlight golfers who are using GP scores to increase handicap, or low handicappers who are doing the opposite?

 

[rosecott]

My few thoughts are

Get rid of the self managed handicap system.

General Play cards dont automatically count for handicap purpose but are acknowledged at any future Handicap review.

Only competition scores to count.

Minimum of 6 competition scores every 12months to be added before handicap becomes inactive.

Revert back to 0.1 increases

Iplay should not be official handicaps.

iplay handicaps are not official handicaps.