Your New WHS Index

david2002

Is it fair to fellow competitors to allow a player a handicap based on 3 scores when all other competitors handicaps are based on 20 scores.

I'm saying if the handicap committee use all evidence to hand and make a judgement of what the players handicap would be if he too was to submit 20 scores.

In out club the last 2 BIG competitions have both been won by players playing their first competitions after being awarded their initial handicaps.
(A 27 handicap and a 40 handicap)

To me this would indicate a flaw in the WHS methodology.

Any thoughts.

PabloAndRoy wrote: »

Maybe I am missing something, but you seem to be saying "This player will improve, give him a lower handicap".

I don't think HI should indicate potential, but rather should reflect recent form. The 32 seems right to me. He has 3 scores, so the HI is lowest score -2 (34 -2) The more he plays the closer the HI comes to his form. As he improves, his HI will reflect that.

Mantis Toboggan

david2002 wrote: »

Is it fair to fellow competitors to allow a player a handicap based on 3 scores when all other competitors handicaps are based on 20 scores.

I'm saying if the handicap committee use all evidence to hand and make a judgement of what the players handicap would be if he too was to submit 20 scores.

In out club the last 2 BIG competitions have both been won by players playing their first competitions after being awarded their initial handicaps.
(A 27 handicap and a 40 handicap)

To me this would indicate a flaw in the WHS methodology.

Any thoughts.

What evidence do you have? He's a good hurler?

Pitch and putt is a different game and most clubs don't allow new members to win any major tournaments in their first year.

david2002

U21 county player evidence enough?

Wasn't aware clubs had that rule. We don't have it.
One was a major. The other was a sponsored event with a 1st prize valued at over 400e.

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

What evidence do you have? He's a good hurler?

Pitch and putt is a different game and most clubs don't allow new members to win any major tournaments in their first year.

prawnsambo

Ivefoundgod wrote: »

Yeah I knew about the -2 allright thanks to the knowledgable people in this thread but wasn't sure where the 10.6 came from though as prawnsambo points out its not the average of the 3 which I though it was but lowest score -2 though in my case the -2 didn't seem to be applied initially, just gave me 10.6 which was my lowest score differential out of my first 3 scores. If it was to follow WHS rules correctly it should have been 8.6, is that right?

It's possible that the handicap committee gave you an adjustment to bring you back to 10.6 for your initial handicap. When such an adjustment is made, it applies to past scores, but not to future ones, so it would have dropped off when you put in your fourth card.

Miley Byrne

david2002 wrote: »

Is it fair to fellow competitors to allow a player a handicap based on 3 scores when all other competitors handicaps are based on 20 scores.

I'm saying if the handicap committee use all evidence to hand and make a judgement of what the players handicap would be if he too was to submit 20 scores.

In out club the last 2 BIG competitions have both been won by players playing their first competitions after being awarded their initial handicaps.
(A 27 handicap and a 40 handicap)

To me this would indicate a flaw in the WHS methodology.

Any thoughts.

I agree it's flawed until everyone has an index based off of 20 cards. I would have a rule that nobody with less than 20 counting scores in their record can win a prize in any competition. (If that seems harsh then at least prevent them from collecting prizes at the majors) . Some of the scores I've seen in different clubs are scandalous. And these scores are coming from new members with indexes on the high 20s and low 30s.

40 points should be an exceptional score yet you now have the scenario where people that are new to golf get an inflated handicap and score 40 points in one of their first competitions. I know they will find their level eventually (while hoovering up all around them in the process) but I think a system whereby new players are given a lower handicap that will rise over time is fairer to everyone than players given extraordinarily high handicaps which come down due to extraordinary scores

PabloAndRoy

david2002 wrote: »

Is it fair to fellow competitors to allow a player a handicap based on 3 scores when all other competitors handicaps are based on 20 scores.

I'm saying if the handicap committee use all evidence to hand and make a judgement of what the players handicap would be if he too was to submit 20 scores.

In out club the last 2 BIG competitions have both been won by players playing their first competitions after being awarded their initial handicaps.
(A 27 handicap and a 40 handicap)

To me this would indicate a flaw in the WHS methodology.

Any thoughts.

I hear you. I suspect some clubs will put in some rules about the bigger competitions such as "only players that have 20 cards submitted can win this competition. Others can enter but cannot win". My own club has a similar rule for the bigger club competitions.

I don't see it as a flaw in WHS, but I suspect competition rules might need to be adjusted for this type of scenario.

At the same time, just being a decent hurler doesn't really mean a decent golfer. Possibly, he will be a decent golfer once he gets to grip with the longer irons and driver, but its a bit subjetive to say "he will be better than this, lower his handicap".

prawnsambo

david2002 wrote: »

Is it fair to fellow competitors to allow a player a handicap based on 3 scores when all other competitors handicaps are based on 20 scores.

I'm saying if the handicap committee use all evidence to hand and make a judgement of what the players handicap would be if he too was to submit 20 scores.

In out club the last 2 BIG competitions have both been won by players playing their first competitions after being awarded their initial handicaps.
(A 27 handicap and a 40 handicap)

To me this would indicate a flaw in the WHS methodology.

Any thoughts.

There's not enough information there to make a judgment. Like what score they had to win the competitions? was it an exceptional score under WHS and/or did their handicap index drop significantly due to that score?

The point about 20 scores being a better indication of form is true. That's how the system works. It front loads your index by always taking your best scores at the early stages and only really starts to average them out when you get to ten or more scores. So early improvements are caught early and reflected in your index.

prawnsambo

PabloAndRoy wrote: »

I hear you. I suspect some clubs will put in some rules about the bigger competitions such as "only players that have 20 cards submitted can win this competition. Others can enter but cannot win". My own club has a similar rule for the bigger club competitions.

I don't see it as a flaw in WHS, but I suspect competition rules might need to be adjusted for this type of scenario.

At the same time, just being a decent hurler doesn't really mean a decent golfer. Possibly, he will be a decent golfer once he gets to grip with the longer irons and driver, but its a bit subjetive to say "he will be better than this, lower his handicap".

Most hurlers I know who play golf usually have a tremendous hook in their swing at first. One guy I played with used to have to face 45 degrees right of his point of aim in order to get it on the fairway. Extraordinary to watch. :eek:

Ivefoundgod

prawnsambo wrote: »

Most hurlers I know who play golf usually have a tremendous hook in their swing at first. One guy I played with used to have to face 45 degrees right of his point of aim in order to get it on the fairway. Extraordinary to watch. :eek:

For every 'good hurler' who takes up golf and excels there's another 15-20 who never adapt to it at all I'd say. Regardless of how good a hurler you are it will still take a fair amount of time to get the hang of a golf swing and the short game side of things. Its a fair assumption that a good athlete will eventually become a good golfer but its not a given and certainly not something that happens over night.

PabloAndRoy

As a higher handicapper, playing for a couple of years, I can be very inconsistent in my scores. Last week for example I scratched 8 holes and scored 20 points. In the same comp this week, I scratched 2, got a birdie and 4 pars, scored 40 points, played 7 shots better than my handicap on the back nine. Same conditions, same tees. I feel I am getting to a point where this inconsistency is reducing and that poor score was actually the exception. It is possible that I will score 45 or 46 in the next few weks and I am sure some low handicappers will be complaining about my high handicap. I am just trying to play the best golf I can and if can get a good score, then good luck to me. I have well over 20 cards in.

Brusna

Ivefoundgod wrote: »

For every 'good hurler' who takes up golf and excels there's another 15-20 who never adapt to it at all I'd say. Regardless of how good a hurler you are it will still take a fair amount of time to get the hang of a golf swing and the short game side of things. Its a fair assumption that a good athlete will eventually become a good golfer but its not a given and certainly not something that happens over night.

Well Golf Ireland’s advice to handicap committee’s is to establish the persons sporting history e.g. pitch and putt, hurling, camogie, tennis etc. prior to assigning an initial handicap index.

Ivefoundgod

Brusna wrote: »

Well Golf Ireland’s advice to handicap committee’s is to establish the persons sporting history e.g. pitch and putt, hurling, camogie, tennis etc. prior to assigning an initial handicap index.

I was talking generally rather than in terms of handicapping new players. I'm a new member and can't win any of the majors in my first year which is fair enough I think. I thought that was more or less a universal rule but sounds like some clubs aren't doing that. Asking for trouble and only likely to annoy people without that rule I think until new member handicaps settle down.

coillcam

prawnsambo wrote: »

Most hurlers I know who play golf usually have a tremendous hook in their swing at first. One guy I played with used to have to face 45 degrees right of his point of aim in order to get it on the fairway. Extraordinary to watch. :eek:

I've found the opposite is true. As a former hurler (not high level) I struggled with slices. The other two hurling lads that started at the same time as I have the exact same issue for their misses. In hurling, you generally start with the hurley in a high position over the shoulder and the body/shoulders predominately stay square to the intended target before turning through the strike. Much less rotation and you never take the hurl back around the body. This means that the out-to-in pattern feels completely alien to us and we naturally strike over the top with a lot of arms movement. There's also the fact that the hands in the grip are reversed which makes it awkward to pick up, not to mention trying to hold the club in a strong grip. One of the above lads has got A LOT of lessons over the last year and now hits a small draw naturally.

Ivefoundgod wrote: »

For every 'good hurler' who takes up golf and excels there's another 15-20 who never adapt to it at all I'd say. Regardless of how good a hurler you are it will still take a fair amount of time to get the hang of a golf swing and the short game side of things. It's a fair assumption that a good athlete will eventually become a good golfer but it's not a given and certainly not something that happens overnight.

I would have played a bit of senior for the club but mostly was at intermediate/junior level so never elite in any way. The hand-eye coordination certainly helps but the big thing to carry over regardless of hurling level was the constant drilling of the first touch and ball-striking over years. Every single session since underage, rinse-repeat of the fundamentals. This carries over to golf practice and if ex-hurlers have the time, they have no issue drilling their driver/irons/wedges to get better. Distance-wise my mates and I seem to be decent but I think that's athleticism carrying over rather than an ideal natural swing. I think the same can easily be said for other sports too, lots of reps of basic skills and physical training over the years.

prawnsambo

coillcam wrote: »

I've found the opposite is true. As a former hurler (not high level) I struggled with slices. The other two hurling lads that started at the same time as I have the exact same issue for their misses. In hurling, you generally start with the hurley in a high position over the shoulder and the body/shoulders predominately stay square to the intended target before turning through the strike. Much less rotation and you never take the hurl back around the body. This means that the out-to-in pattern feels completely alien to us and we naturally strike over the top with a lot of arms movement. There's also the fact that the hands in the grip are reversed which makes it awkward to pick up, not to mention trying to hold the club in a strong grip. One of the above lads has got A LOT of lessons over the last year and now hits a small draw naturally.

I wouldn't argue with that tbh, I was never a hurler. But it is true that the ones I've seen (and maybe this is a reaction to the slice you mention) have quite a short backswing but a big and very fast follow through which seems to promote a hook. The guy I mentioned above has since had lessons and is much straighter off the tee, but with a draw now instead of a hook. His handicap is down quite a bit as a result.

coillcam wrote: »

I would have played a bit of senior for the club but mostly was at intermediate/junior level so never elite in any way. The hand-eye coordination certainly helps but the big thing to carry over regardless of hurling level was the constant drilling of the first touch and ball-striking over years. Every single session since underage, rinse-repeat of the fundamentals. This carries over to golf practice and if ex-hurlers have the time, they have no issue drilling their driver/irons/wedges to get better. Distance-wise my mates and I seem to be decent but I think that's athleticism carrying over rather than an ideal natural swing. I think the same can easily be said for other sports too, lots of reps of basic skills and physical training over the years.

Yeah. And athletes generally, even with no similar skills (like hurlers) would still be big hitters and although wayward at first would tend to get better with time and lessons.

But I think that Pablo is correct and that the WHS has changed the emphasis from potential to form as a basis for your handicap. Under CONGU, poor form just penalised the golfer and good results were also penalising. because there was no smoothing involved.

Seve OB

Stands to reason I suppose that snooker players are going to be unstoppable at holing out on the green so give them a handicap of 5!!!

Sweet lord some sour grapes in here. He’s a good hurler so his handicap is to high. will you stop the lights and cop on.

prawnsambo

Seve OB wrote: »

Stands to reason I suppose that snooker players are going to be unstoppable at holing out on the green so give them a handicap of 5!!!

Sweet lord some sour grapes in here. He’s a good hurler so his handicap is to high. will you stop the lights and cop on.

The problem with snooker players is that they always try to hole your ball by hitting it with their own.

DuckSlice

Seve OB wrote: »

Stands to reason I suppose that snooker players are going to be unstoppable at holing out on the green so give them a handicap of 5!!!

Sweet lord some sour grapes in here. He’s a good hurler so his handicap is to high. will you stop the lights and cop on.

People need to stop getting so worked up about new golfers handicaps. they nearly always start high and if they are good they will come down.

Getting worked up about blatant handicap cheating I can understand.

pakman

prawnsambo wrote: »

Most hurlers I know who play golf usually have a tremendous hook in their swing at first. One guy I played with used to have to face 45 degrees right of his point of aim in order to get it on the fairway. Extraordinary to watch. :eek:

I played in Pierce Purcell against a lad like that over the weekend. He could murder a ball but would occasionally just leave one out right the way he was pointing. Killed him on the Par 3s.

Our open this week was won by a lad off 29 who scored 48 points. It was followed by a 47, and two 43's. I don't know how that can be seen as anything other than a problem with the system

PARlance

Nothing lower than 45 has won our weekend comps for the last month or so. 48 won it at the weekend.

spacecoyote

Isn't the issue really more tied to just using the system, as opposed to the handicap committee making adjustments.

We had a guy join our place, hadnt played in 3-4 years, but in his prior club was a 7 handicap under the old system.

Put in his initial cards and played terribly (due to a big layoff from golfing and just bad days at the office). System recommended a starting handicap of 23 to him. Gave all his details to them, but they just gave him the 23 stating, that's what the system popped out.

He actually went and complained himself and said it wasnt right, but they didn't do anything about it and left him as he was.

So, I suppose for me, I've no issue with the numbers that the system might generate, but some clubs just need more proactive handicap committees to adjust based on history. Yes, itll ultimately end up aligning once enough rounds get in there, but it could skew some people very favourably in the short term

prawnsambo

pakman wrote: »

I played in Pierce Purcell against a lad like that over the weekend. He could murder a ball but would occasionally just leave one out right the way he was pointing. Killed him on the Par 3s.

pakman wrote: »

Our open this week was won by a lad off 29 who scored 48 points. It was followed by a 47, and two 43's. I don't know how that can be seen as anything other than a problem with the system

It's hard to make any judgment with so little info tbh. On the face of it, it looks ridiculous that somebody could shoot that many points in a round, but what's actually the case is somebody who's on average capable of bogeying roughly half the holes on the course and doubling the rest, had a stellar round where he just bogeyed all the holes on the course. I know that's not what his score was made up of, but that's what we're talking about.

I don't know how many scores they have on their record, but I would suspect few enough for that to happen. In which case their new index will be considerably lower now.

pakman

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's hard to make any judgment with so little info tbh. On the face of it, it looks ridiculous that somebody could shoot that many points in a round, but what's actually the case is somebody who's on average capable of bogeying roughly half the holes on the course and doubling the rest, had a stellar round where he just bogeyed all the holes on the course. I know that's not what his score was made up of, but that's what we're talking about.

I don't know how many scores they have on their record, but I would suspect few enough for that to happen. In which case their new index will be considerably lower now.

This is true but anecdotally the numbers seem way up on previous years. Maybe its a result of lots of newbies taking it up, rather than the system, but I would love to get my hands on some of the numbers to actually find out.

The chances of a miracle blemish free round happening are pretty low but they seem to happen quite often compared to past years.

prawnsambo

spacecoyote wrote: »

Isn't the issue really more tied to just using the system, as opposed to the handicap committee making adjustments.

We had a guy join our place, hadnt played in 3-4 years, but in his prior club was a 7 handicap under the old system.

Put in his initial cards and played terribly (due to a big layoff from golfing and just bad days at the office). System recommended a starting handicap of 23 to him. Gave all his details to them, but they just gave him the 23 stating, that's what the system popped out.

He actually went and complained himself and said it wasnt right, but they didn't do anything about it and left him as he was.

So, I suppose for me, I've no issue with the numbers that the system might generate, but some clubs just need more proactive handicap committees to adjust based on history. Yes, itll ultimately end up aligning once enough rounds get in there, but it could skew some people very favourably in the short term

But under WHS, the short term is very short. That guy with 23 has a good round of (say) 17, that's his new index. He has another one of 14, that's his new index. If he has another of 13, his new index is the average of 13 and 14 and so on.

I've simplified this obviously, but it's broadly how it works.

joebloggs32

prawnsambo wrote: »

Most hurlers I know who play golf usually have a tremendous hook in their swing at first. One guy I played with used to have to face 45 degrees right of his point of aim in order to get it on the fairway. Extraordinary to watch. :eek:

I played hurling and golf all my life.

Was sent for coaching with leinster by the club when i was about 15.
The coach looked at me hitting 3 balls and said to me you play hurling dont you.

That repetitive striking action of hurling training a few times a week impacts your follow threw especially. The arms wrap around the body instead of following out after the ball. I always had a draw come hook.

Funny thing is, without even trying to do it, within six months of quitting hurling i started to fade the ball. No longer was i repeating a hurling seing hundreds of times a week and suddenly i was getting through the ball better.

prawnsambo

pakman wrote: »

This is true but anecdotally the numbers seem way up on previous years. Maybe its a result of lots of newbies taking it up, rather than the system, but I would love to get my hands on some of the numbers to actually find out.

The chances of a miracle blemish free round happening are pretty low but they seem to happen quite often compared to past years.

But they do happen. Our last comp was won by a long-standing member with a PH of 16. He had a net 65. Now that's an exceptional score and the chap was delighted with it. I was talking to him on the phone about something else and he couldn't wait to talk about his round. It wasn't a blemish free round, he had a triple in there. But it would have been 43 points and was his best gross score ever. That's the way golf works tbh. Somebody will always have a really good round and if the field is big enough, a good few will.

The difference between CONGU and WHS for me is that now, lads having a slump in form will have that reflected in their handicaps and when (as pretty much always happens) they get past the problems they will start to score well again. And the system will always have that short lag in it that will make the resurgence stand out more.

TL;DR Your turn will come.

pakman

prawnsambo wrote: »

But they do happen. Our last comp was won by a long-standing member with a PH of 16. He had a net 65. Now that's an exceptional score and the chap was delighted with it. I was talking to him on the phone about something else and he couldn't wait to talk about his round. It wasn't a blemish free round, he had a triple in there. But it would have been 43 points and was his best gross score ever. That's the way golf works tbh. Somebody will always have a really good round and if the field is big enough, a good few will.

The difference between CONGU and WHS for me is that now, lads having a slump in form will have that reflected in their handicaps and when (as pretty much always happens) they get past the problems they will start to score well again. And the system will always have that short lag in it that will make the resurgence stand out more.

TL;DR Your turn will come.

Ah yeah, hopefully it sorts itself out over time. I'm more concerned with my handicap than winning anything really. Looking for that Single Digit Energy

Seve OB

prawnsambo wrote: »

But they do happen. Our last comp was won by a long-standing member with a PH of 16. He had a net 65. Now that's an exceptional score and the chap was delighted with it. I was talking to him on the phone about something else and he couldn't wait to talk about his round. It wasn't a blemish free round, he had a triple in there. But it would have been 43 points and was his best gross score ever. That's the way golf works tbh. Somebody will always have a really good round and if the field is big enough, a good few will.

The difference between CONGU and WHS for me is that now, lads having a slump in form will have that reflected in their handicaps and when (as pretty much always happens) they get past the problems they will start to score well again. And the system will always have that short lag in it that will make the resurgence stand out more.

TL;DR Your turn will come.

This is a good point.
I’ve been having a bad run lately and my handicap has shot up.
I was always opposed to the new system allowing a large increase in the handicap index.
I got to a point recently where my next 4 rounds to drop were my best by far and within a couple of weeks and not shooting well enough to have a scoring round my handicap went up over 2 shots.

Before it would have taken 2 years of bad golf to have seen such an increase.

For someone who just can’t play to their handicap I think it’s fair to continually review and reassess their handicap but for someone who is just in a slump to be able to go out over 2 shots is just wrong.

I got to 9.5 last September. Now that was after 2 exceptional rounds and an ESR. I was always going to struggle to play to it and duly drifted to about 10.3 before the year was out. I’m 12.9 now which when you think of it is crazy as we are only playing golf for 2 months now. But it’s worse really because that 12.9 had me off 15 last week

What’s a bigger kick in the teeth for me is that its now gong to be very difficult to get my handicap back down. I’m a streaky player who can play quite well but just lack consistency.

To be honest I’m embarrassed with my handicap now.

I think the major flaw in the new system is that you should not be able to go out so much so quick.

Seve OB

WHS was supposed to take the best bits of all the different handicap governing bodies and stir them up to give us a super new system.

I don’t see anything to indicate that CONGU contributed anything to the new system.

All I can see in it is a tweaked version of the US system.

prawnsambo

Seve OB wrote: »

This is a good point.
I’ve been having a bad run lately and my handicap has shot up.
I was always opposed to the new system allowing a large increase in the handicap index.
I got to a point recently where my next 4 rounds to drop were my best by far and within a couple of weeks and not shooting well enough to have a scoring round my handicap went up over 2 shots.

Before it would have taken 2 years of bad golf to have seen such an increase.

For someone who just can’t play to their handicap I think it’s fair to continually review and reassess their handicap but for someone who is just in a slump to be able to go out over 2 shots is just wrong.

I got to 9.5 last September. Now that was after 2 exceptional rounds and an ESR. I was always going to struggle to play to it and duly drifted to about 10.3 before the year was out. I’m 12.9 now which when you think of it is crazy as we are only playing golf for 2 months now. But it’s worse really because that 12.9 had me off 15 last week

What’s a bigger kick in the teeth for me is that its now gong to be very difficult to get my handicap back down. I’m a streaky player who can play quite well but just lack consistency.

To be honest I’m embarrassed with my handicap now.

I think the major flaw in the new system is that you should not be able to go out so much so quick.

I take your point, but I feel that a lot of the criticism is based on comparison with CONGU which really is a different system. The bottom line is whether you're actually playing to your new handicap or not.

Miley Byrne

Seve OB wrote: »

This is a good point.
I’ve been having a bad run lately and my handicap has shot up.
I was always opposed to the new system allowing a large increase in the handicap index.
I got to a point recently where my next 4 rounds to drop were my best by far and within a couple of weeks and not shooting well enough to have a scoring round my handicap went up over 2 shots.

Before it would have taken 2 years of bad golf to have seen such an increase.

For someone who just can’t play to their handicap I think it’s fair to continually review and reassess their handicap but for someone who is just in a slump to be able to go out over 2 shots is just wrong.

I got to 9.5 last September. Now that was after 2 exceptional rounds and an ESR. I was always going to struggle to play to it and duly drifted to about 10.3 before the year was out. I’m 12.9 now which when you think of it is crazy as we are only playing golf for 2 months now. But it’s worse really because that 12.9 had me off 15 last week

What’s a bigger kick in the teeth for me is that its now gong to be very difficult to get my handicap back down. I’m a streaky player who can play quite well but just lack consistency.

To be honest I’m embarrassed with my handicap now.

I think the major flaw in the new system is that you should not be able to go out so much so quick.

Why will it be difficult to get your handicap back down? If you play better it will come down and if not you will find your level