WHS and club competitions

[Dunesman]

Notice from who??

Golf Ireland. Its the document on their site referred to in the NCG article.

 

[YandaB]

Notice to all Clubs
From 1st April 2025, Golf Ireland will be implementing a change in the application of the WHSTM Rules of Handicapping in Ireland in respect of the guidance for the calculation of the Playing Handicaps.
This will mean that effective 1st April 2025, the Committee in charge of
Competitions in a Club will have the option to change the Playing HandicapTM allowance which applies in competitions.
In Singles competitions which count for handicap purposes, this effectively means
clubs will have three broad choices going forward:
1. They can retain the current allowance of 95%, as recommended in Appendix
C of the Rules of Handicapping.
2. They can reduce the allowance to either 90% or 85%.
3. They can increase the allowance to 100% of the Course HandicapTM, thereby removing the concept of a Playing Handicap as a separate value completely in singles competitions.
Likewise, in Four-Ball stroke play, stableford or V-Par competitions which are played in counting conditions and for which scores in certain specified
circumstances may count on a player’s Handicap Record, the same choices apply and equate as follows:
1. Retain the current allowance of 85%.
2. Reduce the allowance to either 80% or 75%.
3. Increase the allowance to 90%.

Why might a club consider opting for a lower Playing Handicap allowance?
If circumstances have been observed in a club where lower handicappers are
struggling to compete, the Committee in charge of a competition may wish to
consider a lower Playing Handicap allowance as a means of enhancing the equity of a competition. The feedback which Golf Ireland has received through tracking surveys in the past year suggests that this is an acutely felt issue in a number of clubs.
The general guidance provided in Appendix C of the Rules of Handicapping is that a lower Playing Handicap allowance is more likely to provide equity larger fields (i.e., in excess of 100 golfers) where the difference in shots between the lowest and highest Handicap Index in the field is significant.

Why might a club considering opting for a higher Playing Handicap allowance?
Essentially, this might be considered in circumstances which are the opposite of the above – i.e., where there are smaller fields (e.g. fewer than 30 players) and the difference in shots between the lowest and highest Handicap Index in the field is
negligible.

Why is Golf Ireland doing this?
Consistent feedback indicates that many clubs feel the need for more options to
address specific issues they are encountering with handicapping in their
competitions. Moreover, a similar trendline in the feedback has indicated that lower handicappers in a number of clubs feel less competitive as a result of the changeover to the WHS, and in some cases are even less inclined to play in club competitions. In these circumstances, the option to lower the Playing Handicap allowance is one that club committees may wish to consider.
Similarly, however, a number of clubs also find that their members are struggling with the complexity of the WHS, and that in scenarios where there are comparatively few golfers playing in competitions, there is a question as to
whether there is a need for such complexity. In such clubs, having a Playing Handicap that is directly equal to the player’s Course Handicap (ie, 100%) goes some way to simplifying the handicap calculation that is made for competitions.
The purpose of the changes, therefore, is to give clubs a degree of flexibility in
responding to their own specific challenges with regard to handicapping in their own competitions.

When do clubs have to implement this change?
The options will be available from 1 April 2025, but clubs can proceed at their own pace, and there is no requirement for a club to introduce this change if the
judgement of the club committee is that the current Playing Handicap allowances remain appropriate.

If a club wishes to implement this change, how do they go about it?
The setting for the Playing Handicap allowance will be available on the club’s own competition software. No change to any settings will need to be made on the Clubhouse.

Will changing the Playing Handicap allowance have any repercussions for the PCC?

No. However, it will be even more important to ensure players are aware that their score for the purposes of their handicap record is always based on their Course Handicap rather than their Playing Handicap. As a result, players should be encouraged to finish out on holes where they may not have a stroke in the competition, but do if applying their Course Handicap.

Does the Club have to introduce this rule for a minimum period of time, or apply it
to all competitions?
A committee in charge of competitions can apply a new Playing Handicap
allowance to all of its competitions – and in many cases this is probably desirable in most cases to give players’ clarity. However, this is also at the committee’s discretion and a club could also choose to apply different allowances to different
competitions. Likewise, a different approach could be applied to Men’s and Women’s competitions within a club. Whatever approach is taken, the decision should be made following consideration of the size of fields and the spread of Handicap Indexes in order to rationalize their decision.
Note:
At this time, no change is being made to the Other formats of play listed in
Appendix C, i.e., Matchplay, scrambles etc..

How do 4 very specific options somehow morph into 3 broad choices? Very strange choice of words from the land of Yeats, Joyce etc.

I do wonder why this is driven by feedback and not specific data that Golf Ireland must have. There should be enough competition data to be analysed that would enable a recommendation to be made on sizes of fields, or makeup of fields, CR/SR values, a combination of all, or something else to use for specific competition types. I don't have a problem with the relaxation of the rules back to the standard WHS ruling, but some more specific guidance (not mandate) would be nice. Else it is just a case of he who shouts loudest (or has the most friends on the committee) wins.

 

[Dunesman]

Certainly makes a nonsense of the claims that nobody is talking about WHS, that there is no issue, that there is no need for change, and that there will be no change, if they have been pushed to rush this rabbit out of a hat with April only a few weeks away.
On the positive, at least they arent playing dumb to the issue, and are taking action. Have EG even acknowledged this yet, and set out their own timeline for implementation ? Or are they still singing the no-change song on repeat ?

 

[Orikoru]

So a course that's rated at 67 is more difficult than a course rated at 75 if it's slope is higher by a value of 1? Makes sense to some no doubt.

Is there a real example of that or did you just make it up? In real life it seems that 99% of the time the longer, harder courses have a higher slope rating, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that slope = difficulty to the average golfer.

 

[wjemather]

How do 4 very specific options somehow morph into 3 broad choices? Very strange choice of words from the land of Yeats, Joyce etc.

I do wonder why this is driven by feedback and not specific data that Golf Ireland must have. There should be enough competition data to be analysed that would enable a recommendation to be made on sizes of fields, or makeup of fields, CR/SR values, a combination of all, or something else to use for specific competition types. I don't have a problem with the relaxation of the rules back to the standard WHS ruling, but some more specific guidance (not mandate) would be nice. Else it is just a case of he who shouts loudest (or has the most friends on the committee) wins.

Not just nice - necessary. How GI can put this out with less than a month's notice without any proper documentation, education or guidance is almost beyond belief. At the very least, clubs need guidance as to what % is equitable for certain field sizes with typical and top/bottom-heavy distribution of handicaps.

Seems like fairly tacit admission in there that they're most concerned about pacifying the 5% at the top of the handicap list who've been shouting the loudest, but they're not going to do that by explaining allowances better than they have up until now and providing detailed data analysis to support them. Instead, they're almost saying to clubs that if they want to significantly favour low handicappers in their comps, go ahead. It will be interesting to see how the (until now) silent majority react to being disadvantaged (which seems like the inevitable result).

 

[wjemather]

Is there a real example of that or did you just make it up? In real life it seems that 99% of the time the longer, harder courses have a higher slope rating, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that slope = difficulty to the average golfer.

A couple of examples from Somerset to illustrate the point...
Burnham's gold tees are 73.7/127 and Wells white tees are 69.1/127. Burnham is significantly more difficult than Wells (4.6 strokes per the course ratings) but there is no difference in Slope.
Clevedon's yellow tees are 71.8/132. Burnham's golds are certainly more difficult (1.9 strokes per the course ratings), but Clevedon's slope is 5 higher.

 

[Slab]

Cant help wondering if from the off, GB&I would've been better just taking whs 'as is' or out the box so to speak

With being 'late' to adopt Course Rating minus Par and now taking the (always been available) option to amend the % figure, with hindsight it seems like its gone through a fair amount of pain for little gain

 

[Dunesman]

Cant help wondering if from the off, GB&I would've been better just taking whs 'as is' or out the box so to speak

With being 'late' to adopt Course Rating minus Par and now taking the (always been available) option to amend the % figure, with hindsight it seems like its gone through a fair amount of pain for little gain

True. And even with this, the reticense and mistrust of WHS comes through from their side. They still arent embracing. Just a toe in the water, by making it a trial, and just for a sub region.
Its like the Congu countries actually dont want WHS at all...

 

[Dunesman]

And more from the Irish site, here is the bit for Golf Ireland interclub competitions mentioned previously by someone, where they are applying from this year, a modification on top of actual handicap index, to determine eligibility to play in them.

https://static.clubhouse.golfireland.ie/clubs/1000/uploads/championships/inter-club%20eligibility%20handicap%20index.pdf

Ireland doing more of its own thing. Lots of WHS fixes popping up now.

Oh, but sorry, yes, its a World system, the same everywhere, all handicaps are comparable, and different countries or zones no longer do their own thing.
Quite.

 

[Slab]

Something needed to be done but this seems a wee bit slapstick. From being mandated nationally at xx%... Now, assuming he can persuade a couple of mates, committee member joe blogs can set his preferred allowance for a comp on a Saturday … that he’s playing in!

I hear (not really) that a software update will be out soon so that comp results/placings will have a slide bar for % allowance used.
Simply enter gross scores from the comp then slide the bar back & forth between 100% to 85% allowance and the placings for each player will change for who would finish 1st, 2nd etc… When it shows the person deemed ‘most acceptable, practices the mostest & not over 10 h/cap’ is in 1st place, then that’s the % allowance to be used for that week and prize-giving can get underway

If the above doesn’t fudge produce the correct winner, an alternative Plan B is that handicap categories are reintroduced
Cat 1 golfers play off 100% allowance
Cat 2 golfers play off 95%
Cat 3 golfers play off 90%
Cat 4 golfers play off 85%
This’ll incentivise higher handicap players to practice and improve to a lower Index in order to get the advantage in comp handicap allowance

Plan C is: They might as well just let the organiser of the midweek roll-up/swindle set allowances & deductions, these guys know what’s fair

Like the old BA slogan said "We'll get you there"

 

[Dunesman]

And the R&A modifications are imminent as well, to resove the issue of Mauritius going rogue.

I wonder does EG follow these threads to keep themselves up to date with changes in the handicapping system ?

And, clubs in the other congu regions now have carte blanche to run with the other factors than 0.95 now as well. No clubs need worry about threats of disassociation when it will be EG, SG just catching up with them next year anyway. If anything, they are doing them a favour, being part of the 'trial'.

 

[rulefan]

Of course, the GI notice only relates to Playing Handicap (ie competition results). It does not make any difference to the calculation of the resultant Handicap Index.

 

[Swango1980]

And the R&A modifications are imminent as well, to resove the issue of Mauritius going rogue.

I wonder does EG follow these threads to keep themselves up to date with changes in the handicapping system ?

And, clubs in the other congu regions now have carte blanche to run with the other factors than 0.95 now as well. No clubs need worry about threats of disassociation when it will be EG, SG just catching up with them next year anyway. If anything, they are doing them a favour, being part of the 'trial'.

I'm guessing you'd be a golf enthusiast if you worked for England Golf. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them come on forums.

In fact, it may actually be part of the job. To eavesdrop on what local golfers are most talking about

 

[AussieKB]

Maybe one size doesn't fit all.

 

[wjemather]

Maybe one size doesn't fit all.

There was never any suggestion that it did. In fact the reverse is true, with differences in culture being recognised and accommodated with an array of options and opt-outs available to local handicap authorities.

 

[Backache]

They should go the whole hog and let the clubs decide what allowance to use.
At least it's a start.

 

[Dunesman]

Of course, the GI notice only relates to Playing Handicap (ie competition results). It does not make any difference to the calculation of the resultant Handicap Index.

True indeed. Buts thats a more technical, behind the scenes, mechanics of WHS as far as any golfer is concerned. For them, what matters is how many shots do they have, and that is determined by 'WHS' in its entirety, not local flavours.

Nobody is conscious (and it would puncture the illusion a bit too publicly for the authorities comfort if they were) of the fact that we play EG WHS, Irish WHS, Mauritius WHS, WHS Australian, or WHS Mulligania.

 

[Orikoru]

A couple of examples from Somerset to illustrate the point...
Burnham's gold tees are 73.7/127 and Wells white tees are 69.1/127. Burnham is significantly more difficult than Wells (4.6 strokes per the course ratings) but there is no difference in Slope.
Clevedon's yellow tees are 71.8/132. Burnham's golds are certainly more difficult (1.9 strokes per the course ratings), but Clevedon's slope is 5 higher.

I know I asked for examples, so thanks, but I now realise that when I don't know anything about the courses and how difficult they would actually play, the example doesn't mean much to me. I would say though that all those slopes are fairly high so in general terms I'd say they're just all tricky courses. They're not quite what rulefan was saying with slope and course ratings at opposite ends of the scale.

I just do not see a problem with every day golfers thinking of slope as a broad equivalent to difficulty, you won't be wrong most of the time.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm guessing you'd be a golf enthusiast if you worked for England Golf. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them come on forums.

In fact, it may actually be part of the job. To eavesdrop on what local golfers are most talking about

One of them SHOULD be on the forum so we can give them direct feedback! From half the things they come out with it seems like they're not getting any from actual golfers.

 

[Swango1980]

One of them SHOULD be on the forum so we can give them direct feedback! From half the things they come out with it seems like they're not getting any from actual golfers.

I don't think it would be wise for them to interact though. There are clearly people who will be unrelenting in their criticism and will be completely unobjective in any debate or discussion. There would be a risk of any representative being dragged into an immature debate that is going nowhere. You'd have an uneducated golfer trying to question the credibility of somebody whose profession is golf.

And, it is probably a stretch to think any of our individual opinions is actually worth anything. Can't even agree with each other most of the time. Easiest for EG to silently watch on, get an idea of the most controversial golf topics, how many golfers are contributing to the discussion, etc