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" 🙄