WHS working well for me

[Beedee]

From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%". This, in my view, is nonsense.

<lots of stuff about the Oz system>

If this information stimulates any further discussion, please do not address any criticism towards me over the merits or otherwise of the information that I have supplied.
If you don't like it, please move on to the next post with no further thought, thank you.

I disagree with your first point. To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number. It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap. I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system. If only we could.

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play? Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.

 

[rulefan]

I disagree with your first point. To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number. It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap. I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system. If only we could.

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play? Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.

Pre WHS, CONGU and the USGA suggested that to establish parity in match play the allowance for the high capper should be up to 120%.

 

[wjemather]

From observed difficulties at my club and what I've read on here, people are still struggling with what handicap to play off when playing casual golf with individual stableford format.
At my club and on here I've often heard something along the lines of, "...we don't have to (don't bother to) apply the 95%". This, in my view, is nonsense.

Your view is contrary to the advice given by CONGU and the national unions.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I disagree with your first point. To me in stableford, the course handicap is far more useful a number. It's the one that determines when to pick up. I know you mentioned casual play, but I'd rather be used to the pick up number when I'm playing (badly) on a hole, than blobbing in the comp, and then realising I still had a shot left for handicap. I'd rather lose the point after the round.

Re- the Oz system. If only we could.

If the daily handicap already includes the low handicap placater adjustment, do the Australians get 107% of the difference in match play? Would be fun to hear the howls from the low handicaps in this country at the thought of it.

Oh, I apologise. I failed to add the qualifier to "when playing casual golf" - when not submitting scores for handicap adjustment, merely playing individual stableford format in a group.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Your view is contrary to the advice given by CONGU and the national unions.

Nonsense

 

[wjemather]

Nonsense

Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events (Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score) and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​

"It (Playing Handicap) is only used for competition purposes"​

"Golfers do not need to calculate it (Playing Handicap) (it is generated before their round)"​

"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​

"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​

 

[Swango1980]

Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events (Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score) and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​

"It (Playing Handicap) is only used for competition purposes"​

"Golfers do not need to calculate it (Playing Handicap) (it is generated before their round)"​

"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​

"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​

Nothing wrong with the guidance, but how it works in practice is another matter.

Outside of this forum, and one or 2 well educated members I know (who were also on Committee) I do not know of a single golfer who thinks Course handicap when playing in a competition. Their Playing handicap is put on their card by the pro, and that is the handicap they focus on. And why wouldn't they? After all, they are competing in a comp and what to know how they are doing in that comp. They then come to their next round, and simply quote their Playing handicap to me when I ask what their handicap is, simply because that is what they played off last time. Often they need to run back to club, check board for course handicap, which is different to what they told me.

I am guessing this is not an issue in Austrailia. They obviously felt their way was best. We felt our way was best. Obviously, I'd imagine I am well aware of the details of WHS and it's implementation in the UK. Doesn't mean I like the direction some of it went in. Also doesn't mean I hate it all. For me, there is some good, some not so good, and I feel room for improvement.

 

[IanM]

And therein lies the difference in perspective and hence the previous posts

Golfers are playing the comp, so focus on the playing handicap, while they play.

The Other folk don't play. They sit and study manuals.

It might be in the "educational materials " but that doesn't make it logical.

 

[AussieKB]

In OZ with have an app on our phones, all you need to do is enter the Course and which Tee you are playing from and it tells you your Daiy Handicap, quite simple. Since the WHS was introduced here it has been changed at least 4-6 times and still it causes controversy, just last Wednesday our Club Captain openly stated at presentations that it is a joke system. (his handicap is 6, mine 4)

Anyone on a 15 and over handicap love the system, when first introduced a single handicap player did not win one event in the first year, this has now changed but when some scores come in with over 42-48 points it takes us out of any chance of winning.

Does not matter what system they come up with there will always be some people trying to manipulate it.

 

[Swango1980]

In OZ with have an app on our phones, all you need to do is enter the Course and which Tee you are playing from and it tells you your Daiy Handicap, quite simple. Since the WHS was introduced here it has been changed at least 4-6 times and still it causes controversy, just last Wednesday our Club Captain openly stated at presentations that it is a joke system. (his handicap is 6, mine 4)

Anyone on a 15 and over handicap love the system, when first introduced a single handicap player did not win one event in the first year, this has now changed but when some scores come in with over 42-48 points it takes us out of any chance of winning.

Does not matter what system they come up with there will always be some people trying to manipulate it.

At my previous club (I've recently switched), when WHS came in winning scores generally jumped significantly, and the winners of those comps also generally had much higher handicaps than before. This was partly inevitable, because higher handicappers (before WHS) were awarded several more shots compared to low handicappers once WHS kicked in. Furthermore, several comps were dominated by relatively new members, with winning scores close to 50 points. That club has very cheap membership, so it certainly attracts many novice golfers keen to get into the game, so it is perhaps effected more by players with new handicaps playing in comps.

Not sure about new club, since I arrived they ban anyone playing in comps using a handicap over 24.

 

[Backsticks]

But surely more high handicappers winning is a good thing, one of the improvements WHS was to bring, and if people are noticing it, then they should not be surprised? It shows the WHS is indeed an improvement on the UCS.

It is also better from an intuitive or understanding of what your expected score should be. With UCS, tge average score of a twenthy something handicapper should have been 31 or 32 points. Most never understood that, leaving them with a feeling that they couldnt play to their handicap - which they took to be 36pts - even though they were.

And related to that is another benefit in my view, of a faster up correction of handicap when scores disimprove. The UCS was too slow on this, despite the theoretical backup facility for manual correction by hc cttee and tge annual review. The better response of WHS will feel fairer and more satisfactory to more golfers as a result.

The only area where WHS is a clamourous failure is in it not being a single world hc system as was its headline purpose. Regional variations on a theme should not have been allowed if that were truly the goal. Either it is a single good system for all, or it isnt. Would I be right that there are actually more handicap systems in operation in different countries now, as many were prompted to tweak their own implementation of WHS rather than simply implememt it as drafted ?

 

[AussieKB]

I have no problem with high handicappers winning, but with scores in the mid 40's, it is not what was predicted or wanted, highest score I have seen here is 52 points.

Under the old system it took at least 10 bad rounds to go out 1 full shot and like I said earlier I have seen the winner on the day go out a full shot, you are being handicapped on a score you posted 20 rounds ago.

Here in OZ we play a lot more competitions then in the U.K. I myself would put in about 120-140 competition rounds a year for handicap purposes, not counting 4BBB that you can still be handicapped on.

Yes I agree that there should be one WHS but that is not the case, so why call it a World Handicap System when every country has tweaked it too there own needs.

 

[sweaty sock]

Ive got 6 scores coming off in the next 7 rounds, the winter rating on my course is so low I have little to no chance of getting near my good rounds, its quite likely I'll be off at least 4 shots higher than I am today. Those 4 shots will take me from my current handicap which is my lowest ever to my highest handicap in 15 years.

So it looks like my golfing ability has potentially improved, or regressed 15 years, is winter golf sandbagger heaven?

 

[Backsticks]

Under the old system it took at least 10 bad rounds to go out 1 full shot and like I said earlier I have seen the winner on the day go out a full shot, you are being handicapped on a score you posted 20 rounds ago.

Which is the great improvement of WHS over UCS. UCS handicapped you according to rounds 50 rounds ago - it NEVER discarded history. So yes, 20 rounds seems reasonable as that is probably somewhere in the upper average of numbers of counting cards people will put in in a year.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Having read through the Oz WHS manual a while ago, personally I'm a much bigger fan of it than what they decided to do in the UK. Cr-Par was included for a start, which pretty much eliminates the confusion of golfers not understanding why their handicap does not change like they'd expect when they play a much easier or harder course (in absolute terms). And, there is no confusion over the whole Playing Handicap nonsense, whether it be casual golf or competition. Of course, there will be others that say we in the UK have it right and it should not be questioned. Of course, for that argument to hold, we must say that Oz and the US (who include CR-Par at least) are inferior to us.

I played an event at the Dukes (ironically run by Scottish Golf) where whoever was doing the handicaps used the US system of CR-par, meaning everyone got an extra 1.9 "strokes". I was on 7.2 (or maybe 7.0, can't recall), I ended up playing off eleven and went net 7 under for the day.

I haven't played off 11 since the 80s, last year I was a 5, if that's an eg. of their system then no thank you.

What I do agree with is the 3 handicaps nonsense, no wonder folks are struggling to get their heads round it, your h'cap index should translate to a playing handicap and that's it.

 

[Backsticks]

I haven't played off 11 since the 80s, last year I was a 5, if that's an eg. of their system then no thank you.

Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.

But it wasn't more equitable, how is giving every player in the field another 1.9 shots equitable? It's a pointless addition to an already stupid system.

 

[AussieKB]

Which is the great improvement of WHS over UCS. UCS handicapped you according to rounds 50 rounds ago - it NEVER discarded history. So yes, 20 rounds seems reasonable as that is probably somewhere in the upper average of numbers of counting cards people will put in in a year.

Just checked my handicap record, last round was yesterday 30/9/21 and 20th was 15/8/21 that's just over 6 weeks, and on occasions it is less, normal for me is 5-6 weeks. Think the average golfer for 20 rounds here is 12 weeks.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Really? Ok, here's a few quotes from the guidance & educational materials that have been issued:

"players... should play with reference to their Course Handicaps in such events (Stableford, par/bogey, Max Score) and let the software deal with the competition outcome."​

"It (Playing Handicap) is only used for competition purposes"​

"Golfers do not need to calculate it (Playing Handicap) (it is generated before their round)"​

"Golfers should continue to play in the mindset of their Course Handicap in competition rounds"​

"The focus for golfers should not be on their Playing Handicap."​

Your bit in bold regarding competition purposes has subsequently been clarified with the words, "...ensures a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another" and this includes casual, social and informal golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and adjustment. There are not, as far as I know, differing rules of handicapping for golf where scores are not being submitted for handicap assessment and when the scores are being submitted for handicap assessment. I have seen only one such set of Rules of Handicapping adopted by England Golf and these rules apply to organised club competition golf and casual, social and informal golf, in the same way, regarding what Playing Handicap should be used according to the chosen format.

 

[Biggleswade Blue]

Your mistake is comparing apples and oranges. Surely you agree witg a more equitable system, whatever the nunber on the current scale. Thats would be like saying you dont want distances changed to km from miles as it would move your golf course further away from your home.

I agree with this. Any handicap system is arbitrary - and comparing a score from two different systems doesn't make sense. Maybe under the new system you have to give a shot or two more to someone than you would under the old sytem. It is just two different arbitrary systems - you can't say one is right and one is wrong. Though it is of course perfectly reasonable to say that under system 1 player A hs an advantage and under system 2 player B has an advantage. There is nothing inherently right or wrong about either.

I have a matchplay final coming though, and if I win, it would be unreasonable to not thank WHS along with greenkeeprs and opponents!