Your New WHS Index

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555202#Comment_119555202

I think its far easier!

You only have to play to your handicap 40% of the time to maintain it, you can be 100 over the other 60% of the time and it has no impact.

Under CONGU your bad rounds had to be within your buffer to have no impact and your good rounds didnt cut you anything near as much as under WHS.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555286#Comment_119555286

As above, I would see it as the opposite. Far better off to go for everything (as most higher handicaps do) since your handicap will ultimately be based on the average of the times it does work out, and it only has to work out 40% of the time. It simply doesnt matter how bad your bad rounds are under WHS, they probably wont be counting, so keep shooting at pins and gaps in trees, the odds are on your side. (and in the unlikely event it doesnt work out, sure WHS will shower you with shots until you win!)

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119555989#Comment_119555989

I guess it depends on someone’s underlying ability (whatever the heck that means !). If you’re a run of the mill 4 handicapper it wouldn’t take an awful lot to get to scratch, just 8 good rounds in 20 - not suggesting it’s “easy” per se, but, as you say, you wouldn’t have maybe eight or ten 0.1s bumping you back up as in CONGU. To me, it’s then far harder to hold scratch as the good rounds start dropping off. Someone who is more of a legit scratch in terms of ability might find it easier to hold I suppose, but he still has to perform to hold it. Probably depends on your perspective.

I do like that WHS is more reflective of form and if you’re playing regular golf you can’t really dine out on a few real good scores from last season or whenever. It was always a pet gripe of mine when I was involved in competitions many moons ago to see the real low guys, once they get there, not returning cards or not entering on the computer til after the round and then only if they had a good score, and holding a handicap purely to get into a championship. They’d then go off the the West or the East and shoot 88, 85 and say they just couldn’t handle the greens or some sh1t like that 🤣😂

I can be convinced CONGU was better and five minutes later I’ll think WHS is better. Neither is perfect so maybe they’re just different.

Rikand

WHS is great for people who want to be the best they can be as they have more control of their handicap and they can set better progression goals based on knowing what scores are counting for their record and putting pressure on themselves to perform to manage score drop offs.

WHS is also great for people who want to cheat. And that sadly is ****. And the few cheats who are out there will probably ruin what I think is a great handicap system for everyone else.

thewobbler

I’m perplexed about one of the comments in the past day. Apologies, can’t recall who from.

it was along the lines of “you would battle really hard to ensure you stayed in the buffer zone on congu, to keep the 0.1 at bay”.

why this perplexes me? Well if you’ve got half a head for maths, you’ll always know what’s needed to keep your handicap intact. let’s say you’re playing off 5, and you really care about playing off 5, and it’s around the max of your ability to play off 5. As you’re not likely to play close to 5 every week, then every single competitive round you play matters. And if that mark really matters to you, then you have to be ready and willing to battle for it. You have to able to scrap for 5 after a bad start.

Am I missing something here in saying that maintaining a handicap at the upper end of what you’re capable off, is the same principle using either Congu or WHS?

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557424#Comment_119557424

You are already facing a .1 back so take the risky shots on. Best case, you don’t get the .1 back. Worst case you loose the plot altogether and score gets worse but you still only get .1 back.

under whs though…… that worse case can very likey end up being a counting round.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557424#Comment_119557424

On CONGU, every bad round has to be undone by a good round, for the lower guys this is a 1:1 ratio, get cut 0.1, get 0.1 back, for the higher guys the balance is in favour of your good days since you can only ever get 0.1 back, no matter how bad you are.

A scratch golfer who has 10 bad rounds will get 1 full shot back under CONGU, under WHS their handicap could easily not change at all.

If you are close to the buffer under CONGU you fight to get inside it, under WHS you dont need to care, go for everything and you will either shoot a good score and get a cut, or shoot a huge number and not have to worry about it. Sure there are complexities around that huge number dropping a good score off, but the good score doesnt get replaced by your huge number, simply your next best "good" score.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557305#Comment_119557305

I cant see how you can say WHS gives you more control over your handicap and can set better goals than CONGU did?

OEP

It's easier to get to a low handicap under WHS, harder to stay there.

Rikand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119557424#Comment_119557424

To me, you're not wrong. But other people feel differently about it.

Under congu I found that if I had a rubbish round going, I wouldn't care what I shot. I'd just let it happen. Under whs, I find that I battle harder to shoot the best possible round I can no matter how bad my day is going. I've had a personal target to make sure I have no rounds in the 90s on my record. Since whs came in I have had 3 89s but no 90s. I find that I fight harder under whs than I ever did under congu because to me it matters more that I keep the lowest handicap I can keep. Even if its likely that those 89s will never count for my handicap. They still exist as part of my record.

I fight harder for my handicap under whs than congu because with congu you were only getting 0.1 back. With whs, you could end up getting a lot more

blue note

I find I'm more interested in my average rounds under whs too. My handicap was completely getting away from me. I was going towards 20. I think I got up to 18.4, but was going to lose some of my better counting rounds. So I was glad of a round coming in with a sub 20 score differential. I was getting towards the 5 shot cap, whereas under congu it would probably have just been a shot.

But that said, I definitely struggle to keep concentration when a round slips away from me. I do try but once I don't have a chance of a decent score, the odds of me chunking a chip, slicing a drive or three putting go up massively.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119558911#Comment_119558911

Yeah I tend to agree with this. While I'd rarely throw in the towel completely under CONGU, there'd sometimes come a point in a bad round where the last few holes really made no difference. Its not that I'd take on mad shots or stuff like that, I just sometimes wouldn't care. I find it totally different now under WHS because previously there was no difference in handicap terms between shooting 26pts and 32pts, the system didn't care how many outside the buffer you were, it was still just 0.1, whereas now you never know when this round might actually become a counting one so its better to have a round maybe gross 4 shots worse than your handicap rather than 10 shots worse.

monkeybutter

it sounds as though a few vanity low handicappers are finding the WHS challenging

How anyone has ever taken any pleasure out of beating someone who is better than them at a sport is beyond me, but it is the way it is and how the comps in golf are.

A tiered system is skewed towards the better players, but at least you have to beat the person straight up

On the banditry, this has always been there and has been about lads playing a few shots below their best, not about trying to score 50 points

if anyone thinks someone is putting in big scores like that all year while paying a decent wedge for golf membership then either you or they are mad or the person is

The biggest problem with the WHS is the course ratings are shite, its built in banditry at a club level

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560787#Comment_119560787

Is that vanity comment another dig at me?

Surely a tiered systems is the fairest way as everyone is playing people closer to their own level?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119560446#Comment_119560446

I can see that opinion, but I think the realistic likelihood is that your crazy bad rounds will never be counting, so there is no real need to worry about bringing a +10 back to a +4. The only reason the +10 would be counting is if you really have lost significant form (i.e. +10 is one of your 9 best rounds) in which case you should be a higher handicap!

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561036#Comment_119561036

Think the difference is though that the really good golfers will have a lot less crazy bad rounds so yep, they won’t count.

for the poorer golfers there is much more chance they will have a lot more crazy bad rounds and even just bad rounds. The more of them on their record, the more good ones get knocked out….. thus pushing up the handicap

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561036#Comment_119561036

Well, it depends on the make up of your 20. I actually had a situation earlier in the year for a few weeks where my good 8 were significantly better than my 9th best. Just down to funny timing & some good rounds from last year still counting etc. But you’re right, the crazy bad ones probably won’t count, +10 & +4 are probably extreme, but let’s say someone off 10 is heading for 17/18 over par or worse if they lose the head on the back nine, there’s more of an incentive to try get that back to maybe 13/14 over. Let’s pretend both would have gotten a 0.1 in the past (obviously depending on CSS), but I’d say there’s a fair chance that a round within a few shots of your handicap could now become counting eventually. I find there’s more incentive to try get back into the realm of respectability rather than just sign for 20pts after picking up on half the holes on the back nine through not caring.

I know consistency is less important in WHS but I think someone wanting to hold a handicap really needs a few safe rounds in, say positions 9-12, to limit any jumps if they can.

thewobbler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561445#Comment_119561445

I’m not sure.

if a 24 handicapper breaks 100 even just 4 times in his next 20 rounds, he won’t drift much up past 26, and if he pushes in a good one close to 90, he won’t change much at all.

it’s the exact same scenario for a 4 handicapper except the targets are close to 70 and as few as possible above 80.

The man playing off 4 is less likely to chuck in a 22 point round than the counterpart. But the 24 handicapper is more likely to chuck in a 40 pointer. So it balances up.

——

i do continually think, when reading this thread, that the WHS begrudgers seem to suffer a clear form of anxiety regarding their handicap going up..

And this anxiety manifests itself in derision and suspicion for golfers who prior to WHS used to have a handicap of 20 and couldn’t play to it in a blue fit, but nowadays can be found meandering in the mid twenties.

trust me fellas. The “other half” aren’t gaming any system. They aren’t building up handicap for an assault on a major. They’re just nowadays much more likely to hit 36 points than once they were, because not so long ago it was never. And that’s just a happier place for most golfers, I promise you.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561445#Comment_119561445

Well the really good guys wont, but under WHS a lot of the "can be good, but also wild" are lower now than under CONGU, we have loads of young lads who hit it miles but are all duck or no dinner (great craic during inter-club...not)

They can maintain an index of 1 or 2 (or sometimes +1 or +2) but their deviation is much higher than the same handicap under CONGU.

You just wouldnt see a scratch golfer shoot +10 on their own course under CONGU, whereas I see it all the time under WHS.

So in some ways, WHS is more geared towards the lower guys potential, but for the higher guys its their average...or something!

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561502#Comment_119561502

anyone who only breaks 100 4 times in theirs last 20 rounds would probably actually want to be breaking 90 with those 4 rounds if they want to keep their handicap anywhere under the 30 mark

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119561502#Comment_119561502

I really don't see where you are getting this opinion from, certainly based on reading this thread.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion on the most significant change to handicapping since most of us started playing the game, that doesnt make someone a begrudger or want a fake vanity handicap.

Its frankly pretty disrespectful when people keep trotting out that line just to try to undermine another's, perfectly valid, opinion.

Seve OB

@thewobbler have to say @GreeBo has a point there. I think it’s quite obvious you are in the minority who thinks whs is near perfect but that doesn’t give you the right to call anyone who questions it a begrudger.

all we are saying is that it probably needs to be reviewed and tweaked. How is that begrudgery?

FixdePitchmark

No

I do get what a vanity handicap is - but at the same measure, do golfers, in the majority, claim that they play the game to get as best they can and lower their handicap - it is what the vast majority claim to me anyway. Perhaps that is not true ? people want a competitive form based handicap now.

The issue I have with this (Whilst I'm coming around to the concept) - I know a few guys who play off say 5 and are a good 5 and have been for years. If they have a bad run of form they will hit 8 and then even 10. That is the concept I guess - it is still is hard to get your head around that. There is no way a bad run of form, means a guy who has been off 5 for say 5 years - could be off 10 in about 6 weeks ? As these guys would play 2/3 times a week - WHS is going to do unreal things in this bad run. Say they are even getting lessons - and want to play golf - they are going to end up at mad stuff.

I guess it is a big change of thinking - to be honest, I'd be more concerned about the higher handicaps - the system is broken if 50 pts is coming in - in comps. I'd prefer an upper max of 27 - I'm being generous there. And as previously mentioned - end all overall comps.

I'd also make one last point - if people are wanting what effectively are stupid handicaps (IMO) - can we end all these senior open comps in some of the best clubs - let the great WHS and upper handicaps run as people are wanting. Golfers shouldn't be excluded based on age (<50). WHS sorts all that is the claim.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119562035#Comment_119562035

But Fix, how often did your “good five” actually play to five ? CONGU was based around being able to play to your handicap once every seven rounds, that’s seemingly what all their research showed in term of how often handicap golfers played to their handicap. They’re probably not much different as golfers now but WHS reflects your play completely differently now. If your guys are playing 2/3 times per week, their handicaps will be totally regenerated in less than two months anyway. I’m not for a second saying WHS has it right, just completely different. It’s a whole new way of thinking about what a golf handicap actually is. It’s done it’s job but whether that job is/was appropriate for our particular mentality, history, way of playing etc I guess is debatable.

Mantis Toboggan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119562770#Comment_119562770

That's it really, completely different system but people are still set in the mind frame of the old system. People don't like change, rose tinted glasses and all that.

Rikand

When my kids were born, I started playing golf less and my handicap naturally started to go up. This was during Congu. I went from 5 out to 7 and it took me 2 full years to get there with no cuts at all and then one day, Boom +1 gross and i was cut straight back to 5 all over again. While I was delighted with the score, I got quite depressed as I realised that it was going to take me another 2 years to get back out to where I started from all over again. I simply wasnt able to play to 5 anymore because I wasnt playing golf anymore. My handicap just naturally started to go up again to 7 over 2 more years and then WHS came in.

If we had WHS from the time my kids arrived, I would have been off 8 in the first year and probably 10 by the second year. I would have been raging, but it would have been accurate to how I was playing. Congu was very penal to someone like me who wasnt able to play to the handicap I worked so hard for, for the best part of the 20 years before that. Yes, I had that ONE banner round, in 4 years of golf. But it was just one round of golf amid 4 years of utter dross. But that one round of golf crucified me under Congu and I basically lost out on 4 years of competitive enjoyment from golf.

WHS definitely gives a more realistic impression of where your game is compared to how congu did. All you needed under Congu was to hit 1 good round a year and your handicap would stay at its lowest. That one time your game comes together and you become the handicap you want to be. Only getting 0.1 back at a time and being capped to a shot meant you stayed at your great handicap, despite the fact that you might have only hit that score or anywhere near to it a handful of times a year. Most of the time, you were a long way off it. WHS fixes this and gives you your real handicap. Not the handicap you played to once in a blue moon when the stars aligned.

Disclaimer :: (post not aimed at anyone in this thread before anyone gets all worked up about it)

blue note

Excellent post rikand and a perfect example of a positive reason for the change to WHS.... in some people's eyes! Yours is the most obvious example of why someone would be stuck with a handicap they wouldn't be able to play to potentially for years. But there are other circumstance changes where someone would have been playing to a certain handicap and no longer be able to - a change of job, or taking up another hobby or sport that takes time from golf, moving location, etc. Loads of examples really.

But it comes down to the question of what we want the handicap to do. I'd like people to have a handicap where playing in a competition isn't pointless for them for years. But a lot of people seem to feel that if you're not putting in the effort you don't have any right to be competitive. So if you want to take up a slot on a Sunday morning, you should pay to enter the comp, but not expect to be in the top half of scores.

redzerdrog

played with a fella off the 13 the other day. He won the gold medal off 6 3 years ago but his putting is gone to the dogs.

Under the old system he would be struggling off 9 and ready to give up the game. Whereas the new system at least gives him some chance to compete

redzerdrog

The guy is mid 60s btw

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119565933#Comment_119565933

So that's all fine, apart from the day you would have been 9 under par nett and walked in with 45 points.

If you think a measly 2 shots kept you from being competitive then how is shooting 9 better fair? You didnt suddenly lose all ability when your kids arrived, you just got rusty, over the course of 2 years. Not that rusty of course as you shot 1 over gross.

CONGU wouldnt keep you at an artifically low handicap unless you were playing at or near it (within your buffer). Being outside your buffer 7 consecutive times triggered a handicap review, so you cant have been playing "utter dross". Also the 1 shot limit was GUI, not CONGU.

WHS will keep you at a lower handicap if you just play to it a couple of times a year as you wont get anything back for the other bad rounds.

Nothing personal, but I think phrases like "it took me 2 full years to get to 7" and "I got quite depressed as I realised it was going to take me another 2 years to get back" seem to contradict "I would have been raging being off 10"....which is it?

MOD highlight of Trolling comment

"Keep going with the digs btw, really adds weight to your argument" 🙄

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119566603#Comment_119566603

Its nothing to do with not putting in the effort, its that 99% of golfers shouldnt be able to shoot 9 under nett, because only higher handicaps can do this.

If you can, your handicap is too high and its unfair on the rest of the field. If your handicap was uncompetitive for years, then thats a conversation you should be having with your handicap sec as the system would be flagging you after 7 rounds outside your buffer. If you are not shooting 7 consecutive rounds outside your buffer, then by definition you are competitive and your handicap is correct.

The "problem" with CONGU was peoples perception was that 36 points should be easy and playing well should be 46 points. This was a failure in communication, not the system itself.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119566973#Comment_119566973

Personally I'd argue that if your putting (or something else) goes off the boil, you shouldn't be competitive...certainly not 6 to 13 in 3 years, its this sort of stuff that results in 50 points, all this guy has to do is go back to putting as normal and he already has 43 points in the bag, god help the rest of them if he actually happens to play well on top of it!

redzerdrog

looking at his scores there it must be one of the soft or hard cap keeping him at 13 as he hasnt broke 90 in his last 20 rounds.

Off his last 20 rounds his hcap should be 16.1.

Rikand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567006#Comment_119567006

No digs from me. I'm beyond that now.

My lowest ever handicap was 4.2* which I reached July 2012 . From your argument that is basically the handicap I should have been left with for the last 10 years just to cover that 1 time every decade when I would play well enough to beat it

(* not counting that time I hit a scratch handicap in the boards.ie society, lol )

blue note

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567023#Comment_119567023

The problem I quoted was the guy who's circumstances change and he's no longer able to put in the effort to play to the standard he was. Say he goes from playing 75 rounds a year and practicing 50 times to playing 20 times a year and practicing less than half a dozen times. What I'm saying is that his old handicap plus one is not a suitable handicap for him. If it's a 5 handicapper, he might go from averaging 33 points a round to averaging 27 under congu. If he sneaks in one buffer round does that mean he's competitive under congu? If it does, it's a fault of the system.

Whereas under whs he'll probably drift out 3 or 4 shots over the year. By the end of the year he'll be averaging over 30 points per round and feeling better about playing in comps. To me that's a better system for people like that.

Now there are cases where congu is better. Someone who plays 3 or 4 times a week and decides to change their swing - they could put in 15 cards in a month and get 3 or 4 shots back and possibly even be a better golfer at the end of it. But no system will be the best for every scenario.

What makes this a difficult debate is that different people think a handicap system should have different objectives. Loads of people here seem to think it should be appropriate for when you're playing to your potential. And that's a perfectly valid philosophy on what it should be for. I wouldn't agree and the best example of why is the guy who starts a family and won't be able to put in the effort to maintain the handicap he's at before the first kid arrives. He'll have years of struggling to break 30 points under congu. And one of the big realities golf is struggling to face is people not being able to dedicate the time to golf that the previous generation did. Whs does address this by catering for these people to be competitive when they can play.

To me whs is basically more inclusive. Whereas congu is possibly better for the lads who are getting out every weekend.

finglashoop

Reading the last few comments.

It seems the old way was good for regular playing golfers and whs suits the more casual players who play less.

Someone is always going to have a good or great round and win with a good score. A good score should be 40-41 imo.

The average points seems to be higher ( anecdotally) as the handicap is closer to players form.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567023#Comment_119567023

"If you can, your handicap is too high and its unfair on the rest of the field." - says who though ? What's fair on the rest of the field ? Someone who has been a good golfer previously and loses form for whatever reason(s), is always going to have the potential to shoot a low one out of the blue, it doesn't mean their H/C is too high, in my mind anyway. The stars can align, you hole a few putts, chip in a couple of times, the ball heading OOB but gets deflected back etc etc. Luck is an essential part of any sport to one degree or another.

I don't know about most clubs/courses, but I always felt the review after 7 rounds under CONGU was pure lip service and rarely if ever happened in reality. Yeah, I know, that's a club issue rather than a CONGU one. Til now I would have always thought the consensus would be that CONGU was too penal, regardless of one's thoughts on WHS, maybe not.

There's always going to be a lag in the system reflecting your form though. None of us know when we're going to play well or better than we have been. Its the same in every sport, you improve and get moved up a league or division, or, get a handicap cut in golf. It doesn't really matter that you picked up a few wins on the way. its just the nature of things.

I know this link has been posted before,

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

but, looking at the graph, if WHS has in fact brought the average score up (presumably because guys have a few more shots on their H/C), there's bound to be more potential for a big score when the base that its coming from is effectively the whole field. IMO under CONGU you could rule out probably 50% of the field before they even teed off most Saturdays.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567037#Comment_119567037

But that's just it Greebo, you're thinking of it almost in terms of professional, serious sport (which is fine too), and in that case there shouldn't be a crutch for putting poorly or driving poorly, but for club golfers, doing it as their leisure activity, maybe paying a hefty sub for the privilege, its a different beast altogether. Pros have retired because of a bad aspect of their game, but we can't say to Joe the club guy off 10 who gets the yips, "tough sh1t buddy, until you sort yourself out you're not going to be competitive". Or even someone who gets married and can't practice anymore. The whole idea of handicapping is that they can be competitive.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119567153#Comment_119567153

Well no, I didnt say you are left with that for 10 years. I said if you miss your buffer 7 times in a row then that triggers a review to determine if you are miles off or just missing out. Someone who keeps missing it by 1 or 2 doesnt need anything done, the 0.1s will get them another shot within 5 rounds. Any response faster than that is knee-jerk and likely to result in 40+ points.

If you are hitting your buffer well then you dont need a higher handicap, by definition! Shooting 34-36 points is being competitive, the problem has always been the scores of 46 leading some to believe that their handicap must be too low as they are only having 36 points.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568399#Comment_119568399

+1 was the soft limit, he would have been reviewed if he missed his buffer 7 consecutive times. If he is not missing it all the time, then as above, his handicap is fine!

If he is "sneaking" into his bugger once every 7 rounds then yes, his handicap is correct. How could it not be? It shows that he is playing to at worst 6 every couple of months, and , using your example, he would be off 6 after 5 missed buffers anyway, so once every 7 rounds he is shooting 36 points, which is exactly what we are all expected to do under CONGU.

Under WHS he will drift out to 8 or 9 and those "sneaked buffers" will have him shooting 39 and 40 points.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568849#Comment_119568849

Its not fair on the rest of the field because only a small percentage of the field has any possibility of shooting 9 under, no matter how well they play.

Again, you cant blame the CONGU system if your handicap sec was doing nothing and you werent't bothering them about it!

At least 50% of the field should be ruled out as the vast, vast majority of people dont play well all the time, your handicap shouldnt be bringing you back to 36 points on the days when you play badly.

WHS has meant that everyone shoots around 36 points all the time (on average), thats not sport, thats "everyone gets a medal" stuff imo.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568872#Comment_119568872

Yep, but thats why you need to segregate based on ability and not just lump everyone in together. The lads playing off +4 are semi-pro, it's unfair to have them compete with Old Joe who is 82 and shooting 9 under on a good day.

Btw, we already say tough sh1t to golfers, what about the 90 year old of 54 who gets a dose of the yips? Do we not give him any shots back now? What makes 54 special? Why not 60? 80?

To me that just shows that its recognized that you cant just keep giving shots as it gets ridiculous. 18 is enough for anyone, if they are playing from the correct tees.

billy3sheets

@GreeBo WHS has meant that everyone shoots around 36 points all the time (on average), thats not sport, thats "everyone gets a medal" stuff imo.

Where are you getting the data on this from? From what I see in my club, maybe 15-20% will shoot 36 points or higher in most competitions.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569450#Comment_119569450

But your handicap is not bringing you back to 36pts on the day you play badly. Its the average of the best 8 so you're going to have some of your better scores worse than handicap and some of them better. If someone is averaging say 8 over par, they're very unlikely to be 8 over all the time, its probably going to be a selection of rounds between maybe 3 over and 12 over or something like that. Your bad day won't be 36pts, well its highly unlikely to be anywhere even close to that I'd guess. Even the 8th worst score you have in your record (and thus counting towards your index), is likely to be a few shots worse than your index. Your bad day will be God knows how many shots worse than that again.

Why should 50% of the field be ruled out though ? I don't get that argument. You're correct, most people don't play well all the time, but if your handicap is an average of your current form, surely everyone is starting off the same, no ? If everyone's index is basically made up of rounds both above and below that mark, on any given day some of the field will be shooting their "good" rounds and some of them will be on their "worse" ones, and more will be on a non counting round, but everyone started out the same. You'll have the fictional 8 handicapper above shooting his maybe 3 over round, and another legit 8 handicapper shooting his "11 over but still counting" round, and another shooting a million, all are correctly off 8.

The Howdidido data has shown that the average score is now around 28/29 pts across all the categories, whereas previously it was around 31/32pts in Cat 1 and 25/26pts in Cat 4.

I dunno, that's not to say I'm sold on WHS being perfect, but I do think its fairer for most club golfers. We need to stop thinking of handicap as potential, or what someone shot once upon a time, that's the biggest issue I see tbh.

Russman

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569481#Comment_119569481

But just because the +4 guys have very little room left for improvement, doesn't mean the system is wrong. They're outliers anyway, but I'm not convinced it's not a numbers game too, as in if you put forty +4 guys out against forty old Joes you wouldn't get some of them doing 40pts. You'll never get a system that's perfect.

You can give the 90 year old off 54 with the yips as many shots as you want IMHO. Why do we pick 54 ? I've no idea, a line has to be drawn somewhere and they've picked 54. I think its too high myself, but I also think 18 is definitely not enough for anyone, no matter what tees they play off. Very hard and expensive for clubs to maintain and have that many sets of tees in play. An essential component of club golf is guys feeling that they can play the same tees as anyone and the handicap system allows them to compete. In fairness, if we went to graded tees, you'd have people moaning about Joe winning because he was playing off the Reds, or you'd have John saying he needs a bad round because he'll be able to play off the forward tees then.

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119568872#Comment_119568872

“Or even someone who gets married and can't practice anymore”

🤣😂 jaysus I have to say I hate the bullshit some lads go on about she won’t let me do this that or the other, but FFS, grow a pair

lettuce97

What would the impact of changing from average of best 8 to average of (for example) best 5 be? It'd give a bigger impact on these crazy high scores

FixdePitchmark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119569671#Comment_119569671

I think what he Is getting at is your handicap is adjusting to mean [excuse the pun], 36pts is your average..Obviously won't happen all the time , but if it doesn't, the system will further correct you till you get to 36 pts.

But thinking about it more- the system is adjusting you so that 8 out of 20 of your rounds will be 36 pts (on average) ?

I think ..it .goes to show how big a change this is...as has been mentioned, it is basically turning your preconceptions upside down.

You probably have to let go of them and start afresh...the thread has actually been a great education and affirmation of reality.

A few cranks on a small forum are hardly going to change anything ?

thewobbler

that’s a really nice summary @FixdePitchmark

——

I ran a few societies over the years. The difference in perception between what 36 points meant to a regular club golfer, and an occasional society golfer, was extraordinary. Society golfers just couldn’t get their head around having to play to their potential for a good score.

——

WHS is immediately more satisfying and comprehendible to the latter.

How things works in weekly club competitions (in my own club) seems to be closer to a society outing’s scoring.

ie most weeks, the better, more consistent golfers tend to dominate the leaderboard as they always know how to score. Especially on a tougher course/conditions. But then every few weeks, one of the “great unwashed” shoots his lights out. Everyone else sort of hates him for it, but most people know that they’re capable of doing something similar of a “fairer” mark. So the feeling is a mix of hatred / admiration / aspiration.

I don’t know if this is actually a good thing for club golf. I really don’t. But I do get a sense that most club players now tee up (until the 3rd at least) with a genuine aspiration for winning. This wasn’t the case a few years ago. And the ones that don’t get this feeling are those whose aspirations are to retain the mark they set themselves under a Congu handicap…. even though it’s like marking yourself out of 100, for answering only 80 questions.

redzerdrog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119571583#Comment_119571583

You would have even more lads playing the the top amateur events that struggle to break 80 on a good day.