Your New WHS Index

Scratch that. I think it’s fine actually. I hadn’t factored in the low score index. I think it’s .1 out but that’s probably just rounding

The people make the system. My story was more from the angle (in reply to Fix) that even superb scores aren't enough. It wasn't really an argument against the new system directly. It happened with the old as well, to a lesser degree imo. It was more from the sense that it's a shame to see exceptional golf getting swallowed up in a sea of 100 grosses.

The new system allows for much greater cute hoorism and we've a lot of cute whores knocking around. There are even levels of it... People get called out when they are "really taking the piss" in our place, that's when you're approaching approximately 8-10 shots higher from what I gather. A kind of cute whore self-policing. Bring me back to the days when the "ordinary decent" cute whore only had 2-3 shots up the sleeve.

In fairness to the club, they hit people with reductions early on, but there's only so much they can do. It has snowballed at this stage.

if I’m reading this right, the bone of your contention here would seem to be that a scratch golfer shooting his lights out, is more virtuous and deserving of a prize than a higher-handicap golfer shooting his lights out.

if that’s right, then WHS isn’t your issue… it’s handicapping in general.

the game of golf wouldn’t exist without handicaps

I think some of it does go back to the point @FixdePitchmark made about people expecting to be competitive/winning as soon as they start playing golf.

I was awarded a handicap of 22 when I first joined a club, and I remember some people being surprised that I'd gotten something that high. In my first year at the club (half year really as I joined midyear) the best I managed was a couple of buffers. Under GI I probably would have been awarded a handicap close to 30 with my initial cards ( think they were something like 104, 106, 99 on a par 72)

I've no issue with getting the 22 to start, and I kicked on from it in my second year, but never really expected to be in with a shout of winning comps. I went for lessons and tried hard to improve. My first handicap cut felt like an achievement and genuine progress. If I'd been given 30, and then shot a buffer score off my allocated handicap, I'd suddenly go from shooting say, 34 points to shooting 42 points and be in the mix for a prize.

I like the new system, I'm a maths person, so I like the theory behind it, I like that it makes me push for the best score I can manage, even on my off days, because I could be dropping a round, or trying to minimise the increase in my handicap.

I just don't think it's built for Irish club golf.

1 out of the top 5 in our Captains played off 10, rest were 20+ and the top 3 were about 4-5 stroked higher than 4th. I don't think that should generally be the case over 2 weekends of stroke play off the blues. The gross winner was 15 stokes worse than the overall winner over 2 rounds. The 5 stroke increase is probably the biggest factor. We've guys off 22 that were off 17 a year ago, when under the the old system, they'd be off 18. Using our Captains format, of 2 weekends of strokes, that would be 8 extra strokes in their pocket compared to the old model. I'm not saying or implying these guys are cheating by the way, just that the system itself allows for these swings to happen

"if its working exactly as expected and "working as expected" is so at odds with what I've been used to and expected over the years."

I think its this 100%.

I think its doing exactly what they want it to do, which might make sense if the bulk of your golfers are casual golfers who play randomly.

But when your golfers are typical Irish/English/Scottish golfers who play competitions weekly, then it doesnt work. It favours the random/social type of player too much as it basically keeps feeding you more shots until you can be competitive. But why should you be competitive if you dont play frequently?

Should I be able to win a 100M race if I dont ever train? How much a head start makes a mockery of the whole event?

Interesting to see some of the winning scores reported above. In contrast, the scoring in my own club has been nothing out of the ordinary in the major competitions. If anything it is the higher handicaps who are missing out on the big prizes.

The President's and Captain's prizes were both won with 39 points by players with playing handicaps of 7 & 12.

The 6 monthly medals have seen winning scores in the range of 67 to 71 (par is 72). The winning handicaps were 1, 4, 10, 16, 17 & 18.

has anyone seen any course get their slope re-assessed?

Castleknock was done recently and slope is now slightly lower, but only small changes. IMO it's still to high (as in i don't think it's that difficult a course), but it was good to see it being done.

But that’s not a WHS issue imho. It’s a competition format issue.

In the majority of sports we have graded systems, whereby tiered leagues are used to keep serious competitors with talent, apart from serious competitors with limited talent, apart from limited competitors.

i for one would absolutely respect any desire/right to have competitions for heavy-practicing-golfers only. Or for having a “grade” within member competitions whereby you can only qualify for that grade if say a) you have at least 20 cards each year for 3 years, and b) your handicap is not more than 2 strokes higher than it was 3 years ago.

But I suspect that most of those who qualify are the same people who play teams, and scratch cups already. That’s why they exist. To challenge golfers who are committed. The weekly stableford just isn’t that horse.

But why shouldn't he ? He pays his subs just the same as the more dedicated member. Isn't that what any handicapping system is trying to theoretically level out ? I mean, I fully get where you're coming from, but presumably in most cases the dedicated guy will get his rewards by being a lower handicap or qualifying for a competition he wanted to play in or something like that - I'd bet most dedicated practisers aren't doing it for prizes, there's something else driving them.

Even under CONGU I don't really ever remember any of our low guys thinking they had a realistic chance in the Captains. It was always about winning the gross and the pride in having the lowest score on the day.

I do think that tiering the competitions is the fairest way of eliminating much of the issues that exist at present. If there was no ‘overall’ winner rather graded winners then the argument over extended handicaps hoovering up prizes is gone.

for example, captains Cat 1 prize winner the same as captains cat 3 winner in terms of prizes received

I have heard that they are all been reassessed at the end of the year. I was told that by Golf Ireland employee on handicap committee.

Corballis is a joke

@slingerz like your idea. Lots of frustration out there with current system. Don't see a problem with category only prizes. Another thing I'd add is a 'probation period' for new golfers. I'd say, no prizes until the 20 rounds are established.

Played with a lovely gentleman for the last 2 weekends. He was playing off 32. He was well able to play. Shot 39 and 42 points. Delighted for him as he won his category on Sunday. But still uneasy that someone with sound fundamentals can get a handicap that high.

Higher handicaps, over 24, should be for juniors only.

Yeah, fair point. It's not easy is it!

Ballybunion off the blues is 131 IIRC. It should be about 170, especially with a wind blowing. I believe the rating is done by visual inspection, subject to certain criteria. Links courses generally have no trees and limited water => low slope. Is that true? If so, it's crazy.

I'm a member of Arklow and any other course I play I get more shots back, very rarely get a reduction. I find it hard to believe at times as I find Arklow a very difficult course compared to other (Non Links) course I have played.