Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Not since the early days when the criticism was "that it was different" and having to check their CH with the tee chart.
So you have heard people being critical of WhS then
Not since the early days when the criticism was "that it was different" and having to check their CH with the tee chart.
So you have heard people being critical of WhS then
As has been stated now by EG, it is only a one year trial by Golf Ireland - not a permanent rule change.Today is D day in Ireland I think for the new rule. I see mention also of a survey from Golf Ireland. Is that the R&A one referred to, or did Ireland Golf do their own as well ? Maybe that is where they felt the unhappiness as well as club submissions directly. Was that survey published ? Not that I can find. Maybe the feedback was too critical there too.
As has been stated now by EG, it is only a one year trial by Golf Ireland - not a permanent rule change.
The results will be assessed and then any rule change will or will not be implemented.
However EG have stated that it is extremely unlikely that any change will be implemented for competitions in England
This is exactly the statement that EG was responding to when they said that they had no plans (despite the quote in the article) implement a change.Weirdly last month NCG quoted a GB&I fella saying this :
David Kernohan, head of commercial and partnerships at Scottish Golf and a board member of Golf GB&I, explained why the rest of the home nations will bring in the changes in 2026.
He said: “Golf GB&I made the decision at a recent board meeting to move from mandatory playing allowances to recommended allowances.
“This was based on a recommendation from the GB&I Technical Handicap Advisory Group who based this on data research since the implementation of WHS and feedback from golf clubs and golfers.
“Golf Ireland will be piloting the change in 2025 with England, Scotland and Wales implementing the change in 2026.
OK, so there was data analysis by a technical group. Thats good. So at least they did find data that they made a mistake in not implementing WHS which seems better than the EG version. Even now though, they are implementing only a specific limitation of it, and, supposedly, following a trial. Like CR-Par : why, as designers of WHS, did they not just implement it lock dtock and barrel day one ?Weirdly last month NCG quoted a GB&I fella saying this :
David Kernohan, head of commercial and partnerships at Scottish Golf and a board member of Golf GB&I, explained why the rest of the home nations will bring in the changes in 2026.
He said: “Golf GB&I made the decision at a recent board meeting to move from mandatory playing allowances to recommended allowances.
“This was based on a recommendation from the GB&I Technical Handicap Advisory Group who based this on data research since the implementation of WHS and feedback from golf clubs and golfers.
“Golf Ireland will be piloting the change in 2025 with England, Scotland and Wales implementing the change in 2026.
Just to keep things factual: regional/national associations were given the choice as to whether to make allowances mandatory or recommended and so wasn't a matter of "not implementing WHS". Also the decision to make them mandatory here was a CONGU one, not an EG one on its own.OK, so there was data analysis by a technical group. Thats good. So at least they did find data that they made a mistake in not implementing WHS which seems better than the EG version. Even now though, they are implementing only a specific limitation of it, and, supposedly, following a trial. Like CR-Par : why, as designers of WHS, did they not just implement it lock dtock and barrel day one ?
Better late than never I guess, but whatever about the pros and cons of WHS pure, it is clear that EG have made, and still are making, a complete balls of implementing it. I m coming around to the view that WHS might be fine actually. If not tampered with by local regions. Which surely was the original goal of a single handicap system to rule them all....
That’s not great PR.I asked someone from EG about the results of the survey and was told that it was an R&A survey and they are refusing to release the results to geographies or individuals. The main themes are as has been previously stated - concerns about manipulation and complexity.
It is fair to say the EG were are frustrated about the situation as the rest of us.
They know what the minority of golfers who filled out the survey think.That’s not great PR.
“ We want to know what golfers think but we’re not telling you the findings”
Not a suprize though.
Why?Or maybe they are trying to work out how they can spin it, to show it is working the World over and low markers love it![]()
They've had rather a lot of time and opening up the answers to others allows analysis outside a group think environment.Perhaps they haven't finished the analysis and conclusions yet?
Very quick criticism and conspiracy thoughts on this topic!
Probably not so much solved as minimised, and vigilance by all golfers. Also, the education part first requires willingness to learn, which will not be an easy hurdle to overcome with some people.To quote directly from EG :-
Global Survey - Key Takeaways from English Golfers
- Mixed Sentiment - Flexibility & inclusiveness of WHS is recognised vs those who think its too complex relying heavily on honesty
- Complexity – Many find things too complex when compared to the previous system especially those of a certain demographic
- Manipulation – Most commonly mentioned issue This is not WHS but golfers not following rules and their responsibilities
I think you can see this that fundamentally, as expected, the results are a mixed bag but the overall view from EG of these opinions is
- some people like it, some don't
- older people don't like change
- manipulation isn't a system issue, it can be solved by education and vigilance bu volunteers.
What is the difference between me attesting your score for a competition round and a non competition round?I cannot for the life of me see why manipulation is not a WHS issue. encouraging a mass of scores played outwith the peer review of competition golf facilitates manipulation.
Arguing that the benefits outweigh the negatives is possible arguing that it doesn't facilitate manipulation is just burying your head in the sand and denying the obvious.
I would just like to see a commitment, and more importantly, action from EG to increase the help given to committees, particularly from better use of technology.Probably not so much solved as minimised, and vigilance by all golfers. Also, the education part first requires willingness to learn, which will not be an easy hurdle to overcome with some people.