Your New WHS Index

Its nothing to do with not putting in the effort, its that 99% of golfers shouldnt be able to shoot 9 under nett, because only higher handicaps can do this.

If you can, your handicap is too high and its unfair on the rest of the field. If your handicap was uncompetitive for years, then thats a conversation you should be having with your handicap sec as the system would be flagging you after 7 rounds outside your buffer. If you are not shooting 7 consecutive rounds outside your buffer, then by definition you are competitive and your handicap is correct.

The "problem" with CONGU was peoples perception was that 36 points should be easy and playing well should be 46 points. This was a failure in communication, not the system itself.

looking at his scores there it must be one of the soft or hard cap keeping him at 13 as he hasnt broke 90 in his last 20 rounds.

Off his last 20 rounds his hcap should be 16.1.

The problem I quoted was the guy who's circumstances change and he's no longer able to put in the effort to play to the standard he was. Say he goes from playing 75 rounds a year and practicing 50 times to playing 20 times a year and practicing less than half a dozen times. What I'm saying is that his old handicap plus one is not a suitable handicap for him. If it's a 5 handicapper, he might go from averaging 33 points a round to averaging 27 under congu. If he sneaks in one buffer round does that mean he's competitive under congu? If it does, it's a fault of the system.

Whereas under whs he'll probably drift out 3 or 4 shots over the year. By the end of the year he'll be averaging over 30 points per round and feeling better about playing in comps. To me that's a better system for people like that.

Now there are cases where congu is better. Someone who plays 3 or 4 times a week and decides to change their swing - they could put in 15 cards in a month and get 3 or 4 shots back and possibly even be a better golfer at the end of it. But no system will be the best for every scenario.

What makes this a difficult debate is that different people think a handicap system should have different objectives. Loads of people here seem to think it should be appropriate for when you're playing to your potential. And that's a perfectly valid philosophy on what it should be for. I wouldn't agree and the best example of why is the guy who starts a family and won't be able to put in the effort to maintain the handicap he's at before the first kid arrives. He'll have years of struggling to break 30 points under congu. And one of the big realities golf is struggling to face is people not being able to dedicate the time to golf that the previous generation did. Whs does address this by catering for these people to be competitive when they can play.

To me whs is basically more inclusive. Whereas congu is possibly better for the lads who are getting out every weekend.

"If you can, your handicap is too high and its unfair on the rest of the field." - says who though ? What's fair on the rest of the field ? Someone who has been a good golfer previously and loses form for whatever reason(s), is always going to have the potential to shoot a low one out of the blue, it doesn't mean their H/C is too high, in my mind anyway. The stars can align, you hole a few putts, chip in a couple of times, the ball heading OOB but gets deflected back etc etc. Luck is an essential part of any sport to one degree or another.

I don't know about most clubs/courses, but I always felt the review after 7 rounds under CONGU was pure lip service and rarely if ever happened in reality. Yeah, I know, that's a club issue rather than a CONGU one. Til now I would have always thought the consensus would be that CONGU was too penal, regardless of one's thoughts on WHS, maybe not.

There's always going to be a lag in the system reflecting your form though. None of us know when we're going to play well or better than we have been. Its the same in every sport, you improve and get moved up a league or division, or, get a handicap cut in golf. It doesn't really matter that you picked up a few wins on the way. its just the nature of things.

I know this link has been posted before,

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

but, looking at the graph, if WHS has in fact brought the average score up (presumably because guys have a few more shots on their H/C), there's bound to be more potential for a big score when the base that its coming from is effectively the whole field. IMO under CONGU you could rule out probably 50% of the field before they even teed off most Saturdays.

Well no, I didnt say you are left with that for 10 years. I said if you miss your buffer 7 times in a row then that triggers a review to determine if you are miles off or just missing out. Someone who keeps missing it by 1 or 2 doesnt need anything done, the 0.1s will get them another shot within 5 rounds. Any response faster than that is knee-jerk and likely to result in 40+ points.

If you are hitting your buffer well then you dont need a higher handicap, by definition! Shooting 34-36 points is being competitive, the problem has always been the scores of 46 leading some to believe that their handicap must be too low as they are only having 36 points.

Its not fair on the rest of the field because only a small percentage of the field has any possibility of shooting 9 under, no matter how well they play.

Again, you cant blame the CONGU system if your handicap sec was doing nothing and you werent't bothering them about it!

At least 50% of the field should be ruled out as the vast, vast majority of people dont play well all the time, your handicap shouldnt be bringing you back to 36 points on the days when you play badly.

WHS has meant that everyone shoots around 36 points all the time (on average), thats not sport, thats "everyone gets a medal" stuff imo.

@GreeBo WHS has meant that everyone shoots around 36 points all the time (on average), thats not sport, thats "everyone gets a medal" stuff imo.

Where are you getting the data on this from? From what I see in my club, maybe 15-20% will shoot 36 points or higher in most competitions.

But just because the +4 guys have very little room left for improvement, doesn't mean the system is wrong. They're outliers anyway, but I'm not convinced it's not a numbers game too, as in if you put forty +4 guys out against forty old Joes you wouldn't get some of them doing 40pts. You'll never get a system that's perfect.

You can give the 90 year old off 54 with the yips as many shots as you want IMHO. Why do we pick 54 ? I've no idea, a line has to be drawn somewhere and they've picked 54. I think its too high myself, but I also think 18 is definitely not enough for anyone, no matter what tees they play off. Very hard and expensive for clubs to maintain and have that many sets of tees in play. An essential component of club golf is guys feeling that they can play the same tees as anyone and the handicap system allows them to compete. In fairness, if we went to graded tees, you'd have people moaning about Joe winning because he was playing off the Reds, or you'd have John saying he needs a bad round because he'll be able to play off the forward tees then.

What would the impact of changing from average of best 8 to average of (for example) best 5 be? It'd give a bigger impact on these crazy high scores

that’s a really nice summary @FixdePitchmark

——

I ran a few societies over the years. The difference in perception between what 36 points meant to a regular club golfer, and an occasional society golfer, was extraordinary. Society golfers just couldn’t get their head around having to play to their potential for a good score.

——

WHS is immediately more satisfying and comprehendible to the latter.

How things works in weekly club competitions (in my own club) seems to be closer to a society outing’s scoring.

ie most weeks, the better, more consistent golfers tend to dominate the leaderboard as they always know how to score. Especially on a tougher course/conditions. But then every few weeks, one of the “great unwashed” shoots his lights out. Everyone else sort of hates him for it, but most people know that they’re capable of doing something similar of a “fairer” mark. So the feeling is a mix of hatred / admiration / aspiration.

I don’t know if this is actually a good thing for club golf. I really don’t. But I do get a sense that most club players now tee up (until the 3rd at least) with a genuine aspiration for winning. This wasn’t the case a few years ago. And the ones that don’t get this feeling are those whose aspirations are to retain the mark they set themselves under a Congu handicap…. even though it’s like marking yourself out of 100, for answering only 80 questions.

I think you're misunderstanding what the typical scores would be under congu Greebo. For a 5 handicap most of the scores would be in the buffer. He'll miss it a few times and drift out a couple of .1s. And he'll come in with 38 or so once or twice to get it back down to 5. Over 20 rounds if he's still the same standard, it'll go up and down slightly, but overall stay the same.

The situation I described was essentially a guy becoming a 10 handicapper overnight. He's no longer able to dedicate the time each week to stay at the same standard. A 10 handicapper will be similar to a 5, but with a bit more deviation from their average. Now if you take 5 points from their typical scores (so a ten handicap playing off 5) over 20 rounds, they'll probably have about half of them come in around 27 points, all missing the buffer. Maybe a third of them low 20s and they might have one or two good days in the low 30s. With their 10 handicap these would have brought their handicap back to 10 by counteracting the plus 1s. But with a 5 handicap these might put them in the buffer zone. And under congu, they could have prevented him getting any shots back.

Under congu, this guy will get a handicap to reflect his new ability over 5 years. Whereas under whs he might get there in 1-2. My preference is whs for this guy, but I appreciate others for a couple of reasons would prefer he take the 5 years to get to 10.

So if its more satisfying to the occasional golfer, its going to be automatically less so for the competitive golfer, right?

I'm not seeing the results you talk about there, the lower guys might have more people in the top 10, but its always a high guy at the top few spots.

Also, most low guys I know were cut under WHS, you seem to think that they had a lower handicap under CONGU than WHS?

This graph shows that, now all handicap levels are pretty much shooting 36 points on average.

Played an Open Champagne Scramble in Nenagh the weekend - Seemed a decent one (big crowds) for Irish Kidney Association

Played over Friday sat and sunday

Champagne Scramble, everyone has to have 3 tee shots

Par 3 you play your own ball

2 scores count every hole

Winning score = 114 (handicaps of 25, 36, 24 and 21 - all men) ☠️

Won by 5 points!

Averaged 6.33 points per hole. Insane scoring imo

I always have in my head in a Champagne Scramble, if you can average 5.5 per hole you’re doing brilliantly

But in any sport, the elite have less scope for improvement or better than average play, than others, that's just natural. You're almost making the opposite argument the high guys used to make about playing off 90% handicap in fourballs, and the low guys would tell them, "no its the same for everyone, we all lose 10%" and they'd come back with "no, I lose 3 shots, you only lose 1", and round and round we'd go.

You can't really base a system on the fact that some young fell who's practically semi pro and pretty much maxed out his ability, often can't compete on a nett basis with old Joe who used to be good, age has caught up, but he still has an innate sense for scoring and can occasionally bring in a score, or with young Tom who's showing great promise, started the year off 20 but with the summer off school is regularly shooting 5/6 over par during the week and its only a matter of time before he gets low. There are just so many variables, we'll never get a scientific, 100% fair system. Then again, put the +4 in a match with old Joe and I'd be backing the +4 all day long, even with all old Joe's shots.

Under CONGU, most "old Joes" above were still carrying legacy handicaps because you could only get one shot back a year, whereas now most golfers H/Cs are reflective of how they're actually playing. There's obviously a better chance that one of them from a now bigger pool will do a score. That's just a numbers game.

That's apart from most +4 guys having little to no interest in nett prizes at the weekend anyway.

Scratch Cups are gross, that's why there are categories, to see who shoots the best gross in that group on that day. As for age events, why not ? why is there a mid-AM category ? You could just as easily have under 25's or under 40s or left handers, it makes no odds either way.

I think you're being a bit extreme with someone taking 3 shots to reach the fairway tbh. Most of the elderly guys I see in my club wouldn't want to play off a special set of forward tees, when there's a handicap system that allows them to compete. As for their reasons for this, I'd guess anything from pride to wanting to be "equal" and anything in between.