Is WHS fit for purpose

But doesn't that take it back almost to CONGU's premise, that h/c is an indicator of potential ? WHS is essentially a rolling measure of how someone is playing right now ("right now" being their last 20 games obviously), and is more an indicator of current form rather than underlying ability. With your index regenerating itself completely after 20 rounds, any historical ability is completely redundant I think. From what I understand about it, our handicap under WHS is just such a completely different "thing" to what it was under CONGU that they could possibly have even come up with a new name for it to highlight how different it is. I suppose they did in a way with the word index. Granted it was already called handicap all around the world so couldn't really be changed just to suit GB & I, or maybe just the "I" 😀

Not trying to sound flippant at all, but couldn't it be argued that the real issue is that we're all so cynical or innately suspicious about scores that our first thought, rightly or wrongly, is always to assume the bad case ?

I'd say its a given that people approach casual rounds differently, even subconsciously. They just are different, you can't replicate the mindset of competition Vs casual I don't think. I'd actually be very surprised if scoring in casual rounds aligned with competition rounds at all tbh. Although I'm not sure what that would actually mean. I'm sure we all know the guy or even have been that guy that shoots a handy level par on a Thursday evening with his mates but can't break 80 on Saturday morning with card and pencil, yet has no explanation for it. I know I've certainly been him ! Likewise I know there's guys who can't play at all if its not a competition, again, for no apparent reason.

All that said, I largely agree with your point above about analysing the scores to see trends etc, but would ask, "is it worth doing" ? and even if there are quirks, "how do you prove intent" ?

In fairness, that's the same as saying that I think most of the people who have decided that this new system does work have decided it. And it would be like trying to get a Trump supporter / Brexit voter to change their minds. They'd have to admit that they were wrong and people don't like doing that.

There's pros and cons to the new system. Those who believe it does or doesn't work are not necessarily wrong or right, they just hold different opinions on it. Whereas Trump supporters are definitely wrong.....

Agreed, I've mentioned it on here before so won't go into it in too much detail. But it's a disgrace really. There may have been some good intentions behind it, we had a few cases of guys absolutely taking the p1ss with casual rounds, many think it was brought in as a deterrent to that.

Many also think it was brought in as competition numbers were suffering. A regular playing partner of mine, very low, just started playing casual rounds as he was fed up of competitions and the scores. He shot his best score ever, under par, and didn't feature in the Top 20. That was the final straw for him.

I'm actually not sure what would happen if you played and didn't pay / sign the book. I'm sure there would be a warning after it was done a couple of times. People aren't happy with it, but no huge protests either.

Afaik, the charge is not applied if playing at an away course. Haven't actually played an away course this year myself.

So can you just go out and play a practice round or is all golf charged for in your club on top of the membership fee ?

IMO, as Seve says above, bang out of order.

I actually don't mind the charge and would like our own club to introduce it. If there using casual rounds to bump up their handicap then let them pay for the prizes they'll be winning on the weekend.

While I initially said no, it isn't working, I have come around to it and think it's fine now. My only issue with it that I feel it rewards inconsistency, but that's the way it is and I accept it. I like the way it works for me and my handicap though.

Things can get a bit polarised on the internet but even still, I think people on here have been fairly balanced in general and can see positives and negatives to both systems.

Overall I would much prefer Congu as a system because I think a handicap should be more a reflection of potential rather than recent(ish) form.... but Congu had its faults for sure. WHS has some excellent features but I think it is too fluid.

What I don't quite get is trying to find a definite answer on if a system is working from data. Data can help for sure, but it will never paint the full picture when it comes to some of the carry on with handicaps.

So if I’m reading that right, of the top 14, seven had a slightly higher stroke differential in casual rounds and seven had higher one in competitions ? And none of the variances were all that big ?

not sure what it means really, being a small sample, but I suspect the widespread messing that some people think is going on, probably isn’t as common as we think ?

Ahh yeah it’s a fairly sensible and balanced debate in fairness. Personally I much prefer WHS, for its currentness, but honestly don’t really care all that much. Kinda take the view that I play my golf and my handicap is what it is.

Yes @Russman that's how you read it. I've got a much larger sample but I just chose the most regular players for illustration. The pattern is consistent across the full cohort. I thought looking at the percentage difference vs handicap index might highlight some oddities but a 3 HI who has averaged 4 in casual rounds shows as a 33%. It's a bit hard to pull them on a 1 shot difference. You've also got to eliminate golfers who have only had a low number of rounds, either competition or casual, as they also produce lumpy results.

I hope that providing some stats will give an insight into how WHS is looking and provide some real evidence, whatever side of the WHS debate people take.

No, afraid not. Average shot differential (SD) is what is available in the report.