Your New WHS Index

I think i heard that said before about hazards. The way it was explained to me (and i've no idea if this is true) is that they use an average distance of 200-220ish yards off the tee. If there are hazards in that area (left or right of fairway) on holes it increases the slope which apparently is why some courses which don't have water hazards for example seem to be very 'easy' according to the slope rating but in reality could be very difficult even if you are in play whereas water hazards of any description (and OB) bring up the slope rating quickly. Again i don't know if this is true, just heard it from a member who seemed to know a bit about it. Would love an explanation of how slope in particular is calculated.

That's the biggest problem, its so subjective, someone pulling up is impossible to prove. You can't go around calling someone out for having a few bad holes, its golf, it happens to the best players in the world. How can any of us decide whether someone has got nervous (or even just unlucky) on the last few holes or whether the handbrake went on ? We might think we know and convince ourselves we know, but is that enough to effectively call someone a handicap cheat ? OK, no score on the last 3 looks a bit dodge but its still not proof. I'd tend towards thinking that if someone was that way inclined they wouldn't be leaving it til the last few holes and they'd get their work done earlier in the round. Unless they badly miscalculated 😀

For example, I was lucky enough to have 40pts two weekends ago and win my class. I had no score on the first hole and only 1 point on the second. If that had been the other way round and I had 1 point on 17th and no score on the last, does that give people ammo to say I was pulling ?

Meh, I dunno, we've an imperfect system, dealing with human nature in a very difficult sport, throw in a bit of begrudgery and, for lots of clubs, effectively an 8 month season of real golf in Ireland, maybe WHS is doomed to fail here regardless. You really need to be playing lots of golf for WHS to work properly I think.

The question of should a lad who's not putting in the effort be able to compete in a comp is an important one. To me, it's one of the great things about the game that it's one you can play without putting in the effort of a normal sport. If I had the time to train once a week, I'd still be playing hurling. One of the appealing things about golf is that you can not play for a month and just drop back into it.

And a lot of people will have similar time constraints, and will have finished paying other sports and taken up golf because of the convenience of it. If we're now saying that you have no right to compete unless you're putting in a minimum amount of effort, we're effectively taking away the competitive side of the game from them. They might have weekends free for golf, but Sunday morning would be ruled out because they'd be forced to play in the comp that they effectively can't compete in.

Even the idea of a minimum amount of effort to justify competing is a funny one. Most people would say that you probably need to be playing and practicing once a week to improve. I'd so most people aren't playing this often. And even if they are, should they be able to compete with people playing twice as much as that? And of course, some people will improve very slowly and some very quickly with the same effort.

The inclusiveness of the game is one of it's biggest strengths. I think we have to fully accept people not playing very much to maintain that.

No system is going to be able to cater for the natural, non-banditry related dispersion of higher handicaps. The higher the handicap we allow, the more natural deviation there will be, basically because of the room from improvement.

A shot is a shot, but its infinitely harder to drop from 3 shots a hole to 2 shots a hole compared to going from 7 to 6.

The stated goal of WHS is to "enable golfers of different abilities to play and compete on a fair and equal basis, in any format, on any course, anywhere around the world"

Frankly I dont think thats possible and as such I dont think they have achieved it.

Removing the overall winner is a terrible idea. You'd no longer have a winner of the captains prize. And while having a handicap system you no longer have everyone competing against each other. Might as well just have a ladder system like in tennis.

Isnt that what class prizes essentially already is? With the handicap used to determine your class?

Absolutely, as you say, its probably not 100% possible. Have they achieved it ? Obviously no, if we think its not possible, so we have to muddle on with what we have. Is WHS the best we have ? I'm on the fence tbh, leaning slightly towards it probably is. I'd equally have been perfectly happy for CONGU to continue as it was.

As you mention, its so much easier to go from a 7 to a 6 on a hole than from 3 to 2. A higher handicapper just has much more scope for improvement, either on a good day or over time. Maybe best 6 out of last 20 would be better than best 8 ? I doubt any, lets say 10 handicapper, has eight differentials of 10, he'll have maybe a few of 4 or 5 and some of 12, 13 etc. So even in the calculation of his index he has a few shots more than his proven ability on a given day. Whereas CONGU was in theory your best.

I honestly think its mostly, but obviously not 100%, the normal variations in human performance that give rise to big scores in competitions.

…. Is correct Russman. They’ll also still simultaneously look on in awe at a +2 guy shooting 42 point, and in disgust at a 24 handicapper doing the same.

We've no idea what the weighting is with the new system. Pretty much everyone is under the impression that it favours the higher handicaps, but I haven't seen proper data on it. I'm not talking about one person putting together a few figures from his club. I'm talking about a years data from how did I do, looking at average scores, liklihood of getting a top 3 or winning, does the fact that it's a bigger comp effect this? All looked at by handicap.

There's definitely a strong element of this is different to how it was before so wrong. The guys with low 20s handicaps under the old system probably featured far less than they should have in the old system. Now they've extra shots and are winning occasionally. Is this right or not? We'd need to see few stats to actually know.

Whilst not definitive I'd imagine that the fact that a large number of clubs have now moved to class prizes in all their competitions (mine included) is indicative of the skew.

Presumably it's being changed due to data at club level.

Up until this year we had a top 3 and gross in the weekly comps, and only class prizes in the majors.

Possibly its due to data, but I know in my club, its based on the number of entries - in a normal run of the mill weekend singles anyway. I don't know the actual numbers but its like if between 100-125 enter, you give 1st overall and 1st in each class, if between 125 & 150 enter you give 1st and 2nd overall and 1st in each class, etc. etc. If its below a certain number there might be no overall, just the class winners. Like I say, I don't know the actual numbers, but its along those lines afaik.

@blue note not sure you could use a congu report from a few years ago though.

It's a new system with significant changes in movement and limits.

A congu report based on a system with people moving 1-2 shots in a year and an upper cap of 28 shots isn't really a fair comparison to a system allowing 5 strokes in a year and an upper limit of 54 (for men)

It would make sense in the old system for low guys to perform well overall. But when you're competing against a guy that would have been off 28 and is now off 43, it changes the picture completely.

Plenty of clubs where I've played opens in this year seem to also be capping the upper handicap they're allowing in for away players.

I do like the system. I've an uncle off a 32 index and on a really good day he might shoot 36 points, so I know that there are plenty of genuine cases where it's justifiable, but I still think the idea of someone new to golf walking in and shooting 49 points shouldn't be indicative of the new reality of golf (this is a genuine example from my club where a guy won in his 5th round after joining the club who went from shooting around 120 with his first 3 rounds to shooting around 105 with his fifth)

It's great to see someone improve quick but that doesn't mean they should be able to romp home in competitions by 7-8 strokes after a couple of games of golf.

I do like the idea of a separate comp for new members with their own prize and not eligible for the main prize till they've 20 scores on their record

There's also the question of what is the handicap for that is causing a problem. Because to different people the reason for it is different. To some it's a realistic target to play to every week. Some will want an accurate one for their weekly fourball and others for the matchplay they play. All three of those are different handicaps. Or is it for the weekly comp so that on average whatever your handicap your expected score is the same or is it that everyone should have an equal chance of winning. Again two different handicaps.

And then the point that a few people made which is true at some point - a higher handicap shooting a huge points really isn't as impressive as a lower handicap doing it. A guy playing off 30 coming in with 54 points is incredible. Very few will do that in their lifetimes. There's probably one or two cases of it in he country each year. A guy off scratch doing it I would bet has never been done. As you pare those scoress and handicaps back, the principle is probably the same, but effect reduced. So if a 10 and 20 handicapper both shoot 46 points, I suspect he 10 handicappers is less likely than the 20. But then that's balanced out to some degree with those comps won with sub 40 points - the lower handicap guys are now likely to win those comps. Especially in bad conditions I would bet.

And then if course match play is a different animal again - it very much favours the lower handicap guy. To even it up could you give the higher handicap guy 110% of his handicap or something?

As I write all that I think it's best to just whack your ball. And then find it and whack it again. And at the end of the day plug your card into the computer and not worry about what way the system is unfair or not.

Agreed - Very bored of seeing 42-44 points (or -7, -8 nett) winning stroke comps in particular for the Overall Prizes

I remember back before if you were beaten by 42 points when you had 41, you were disgusted. Now these days you’d be thinking unless you had an unreal back 9, 42 points isn’t enough

The point of a handicap is everyone putting in the same effort should have a level playing field. If I put in no effort for a year and my handicap bloats 5 shots I’ll come very close to winning any major in my club. If I put in no effort over 2 years and my handicap bloats by 10 shots I’m as near to certain of winning the major.

allowing a handicap of 54 is ridiculous. If you can’t play to 24 then your choices are the practice, get tuition or accept the game isn’t for you