New handicap system

They could. But IMO that’s probably going to be a 9 hole stretch from about the 3rd or 4th after they have had a chance to warm up and scratch the first couple

once someone brought the graph into it, then its not longer just anecdotal, its plain to see

you dont need to other side of the argument, they did the research themselves

How does this work with regards to Fourball, team events? We have a fourball/Team event every Wed, around 80% of the weds one lad played in he featured in the top 3. Nearly every time he would the much higher scoring of the pair/team. When it came to qualifying singles comps on the saturday he actually went out during the year. Now non counting again surprise/surprise featuring again.

This guy has the straightest WHS you will ever see, he managed his score so well on the sat that is going well would end up between a range of 3/4 shots. Nearly all his rounds are between 4/5 shots no swings good or bad.

For the moment, fourball events aren't counting. There are obviously some formats that will never be suitable for handicap purposes, like scrambles and the like. But even for fourball to count, there can't be gimmies and other such relaxations of the rules of golf.

If I was h/cap sec and cards for those fourball events were being handed in, I'd be holding them back for the handicap review. If a chap is putting in mid eighties scores in counting comps and high seventies in fourball, then I'd be thinking about a cut of four or five.

It is strange the Ireland & Britain are allowed to treat 9 hole rounds differently to the rest of the world.

In every other country a 9 hole score doesn't count towards a handicap until a 2nd 9 hole score is submitted and they can be combined to make an 18 hole score. That makes more sense if there is a concern about a player having a freakishly good (or bad) 9 holes.

That kind of sounds like a distinction without a difference. If there's a tendency for scores to be better over nine holes than eighteen, adding another nine hole score does not make it an eighteen hole score played as eighteen. It just exacerbates the difference.

Yes that is true. But it was only on the introduction of WHS that our club enforced every 9 hole comp as counting by playing off the tees that were measured for course rating.

Prior to WHS, 9 hole comps Spring-Autumn, had a more casual/social feel off the forward tees midweek and were set up, by choice of the club, as non counting. And the membership preferred it that way.

So back then you still had the choice.

Then we decided to introduce counting, move to the rated course, and apply the 9 hole handicap CONGU calculation prior to the onslought of WHS. But it was only on select 9 hole comps, not every 9 hole comp like now in WHS times.

Have been reading this thread for quite a while so decided to do an analysis on our own clubs scores between 2020 and 2021.

Unfortunately didn't have the numbers for handicap ranges in 2020 so have to use the 2021 figures for comparison. The table below has the results for the top 5 in each comp in 2020 and 2021 compared with the amount of members in that range.

The interesting part for me was that even though the amount of times each range was represented in the top 5 was consistent, the scores required to do so has only slightly increased but the handicaps doing it have jumped a lot.

2020 vs 2021:

Top 5 scores has increased by an average of 0.93 and a median of 1. Not too bad really.

The handicap of those players in the top 5 has increased by an average of 2.25 and a median of 4.5.

And if you narrow it down to the top 3 the average has increased by 2.22 and the median has increased by 6.

This year we moved most comps to a category prize system which seemed popular as certainately in the early days some wild scores were coming in from big handicaps but has settled down over the summer.

Overall I'm glad I had a look at the figures as I was also feeling a bit agrieved by the new system but data is data and each handicap range is taking roughly it's fair share of the top 5 spots. If you're like me though and you're handicap remained relatively unchanged between the CONGU and WHS then I do feel I'm suddenly behind by about 4 to 6 shots which feels tough. It's like the same guys are still playing the same golf as always but they now just have more shots to work with, maybe fairly so if it means they could never compete on the old system. Reports in our club this year of long time members being delighted to win a prize after years of being non-competitive on the old system.

Anyway, that's my analysis done on it. WHS is here to stay and we each have to learn to accept it for what it is even if I would also like to see a few tweeks made hopefully in the next year. Would even like to see clubs have their own control over the competiton handicap allowances, reduce from 95% to 90% and that kind of thing. Especially in a scramble, the 25-20-15-10 allowance is nuts and had teams playing off 20+ in our last scramble which takes the fun out of it really as it's impossible to make up that many shots on a team.

Bit silly to be basing off assumptions though

Well it's pretty much the only basis you can use if you've not actually played the other nine holes. Your own post that started this conversation involves an assumption.

Assumption: That a good opening nine would be followed by a bad one.

Inherent in that assumption is that the opposite would also be true. A bad start would be followed by a good.

Well if you put two nine hole scores together and your assumption is that nine holes can be better than 18s on aveage, then you're just exacerbating the problem you've outlined. Also forces people to (a) play even numbers of nine hole comps and (b) not have their handicap adjusted until they play their second.

Some kind of averaging system has to be in place if the nine hole score must be projected unto a notional 18 hole score.

I'd actually question is this really necessary since nine hole courses (both real and notional) are actually rated under WHS. And those ratings actually reflect the difficulty of each separate nine.

well if you have forward tees i'd be asking the question, why wasn't that course rated?

It should have given you net bogey on hole 13 and net par on holes 14 to 18.

Did you have 24 points for the 12 holes played?

Nope, net par.

It was a medal, but I'd have had 23 points after 12. But the score differential for the round was 19.7. My handicap index is 18.3. It probably makes sense that they calculate your score based on wherever you were relative to your handicap at that point in the round.

There it is from the app. I think course handicap was 18, playing 17, but either way I've a shot on each of the holes I didn't play.