Your New WHS Index

The prize in that was free drugs for the other members.

Jeez some of those scores are off the wall, but the scores that were in 2nd place are hardly extreme at 41 & 42 pts. That to me kinda points to extreme outliers tbh. Although for a small country we do seem to have a lot of outliers 😁

I guess golf as a whole needs to decide at what base level of ability does it allow someone to compete. I agree with a lot of Fix's points, and in fairness a lot of GreeBo's too, in that the day you take up golf you shouldn't expect to be competitive, there's always been a learning curve that went something like, get a handicap, probably 24, can't play anywhere close to it for ages, gain some experience, maybe a few lessons or just plenty of rounds, and over time you'd break 100 for the first time, then 95, then play to your handicap, then break 90 etc etc. You certainly wouldn't be shooting 110 and winning anything, you'd be mortified if you did. Once you were regularly in the 90s you could probably consider yourself competitive at that point.

Not sure what was wrong with that tbh.

I don't know exactly where you draw the line, but players with 2 or 3 shots on par 3's shouldn't be in the running for club competition wins. These guys win everything currently. Being realistic there should be a side event for "most improved golfer" on the day that supports high hc players and make them want to win that prize and applauds players new and old of all abilities and gives a platform for turning in 50+ points in a round without embarrassment or finger pointing. While also allowing good players to compete in the main competition through good golf.

The Le mans series of car racing has multiple different classes of car compete in the same race. Cars that are 1/5 of the power and 1/10th the budget compete on the same track at the same time. Their prize is different at the end, however the prestige of winning is the same. Golf should be like that too.

No. 2 is much too strict. My index is 6.7, I've shot a 1.2 - I'm not a 4.2 handicap player. Maybe you can't be more than 3 higher than your lowest index?

No real issue with 1, but don't agree with 2. I think that's way too severe and defeats the purpose of your H/C reflecting form rather than potential. For instance I've 7 shots between my best and "worst" counting rounds in my top 8, and my index is currently 4 higher than my best. I'd already be in breach, so to speak, and I'm no bandit, off low-ish single figures. I'd guess most people's handicap would fall somewhere in or around the mid point of their 8 counting rounds and that could easily be more than 3 higher than the best one. I'd say almost no one is consistent enough to have that close a spread in their top 8. You'd be redefining completely what handicap is IMHO.

Like most, I think 50pts is madness and that WHS could certainly be tweaked, but if we're using WHS we have to move away from handicap being potential or close to "best", or its then a kind of hybrid with CONGU at that point IMO.

Personally I don’t think scores from 3 years ago are relevant to anyone who plays regular golf, whether they are professionals, high end amateurs, serious club golfers, the erratic middle of the road bulge, or old timers enjoying their days.

High scores from way back aren’t relevant. Low scores from way back aren’t relevant. Being able to freeze your mental and physical approach to sport for 3 full years would put you in a minority of minorities.

——-

Re a hard cap being applied to differentials or averages, this is probably the area most difficult to reconcile. Aligning it to your lowest average does seem fairer to me as it’s closer aligned to the day to day reality of your golf.

But aligning it to your best score should mean that on any given day, every player should have to work harder for a win, whereas clearly atm, on some days some players don’t have to work too hard at all (especially those on 28+ handicaps).

Yep it would @Russman - except with a more generous cap and a much shorter retention period.

I know there’s a hundred potential angles on this. But this scenario is wrong. A man is a 28 index because he’s averaged 28 in his best 8/20 rounds maybe has a few in the low 20s among that lot. Everything is fair enough in the world. Next week he shoots 15 over for 49 points. But even with an additional one-stroke exceptional cut applied, for the following week’s comp he’s still off 25 index. This is much too high.

The proposal I made above would see him off a maximum of 18 for 20 cards and 19 for 40 cards. This is perhaps a little punitive (maybe 4 and 5 might be better caps), but it’s a much fairer reflection on his golf game. You need more than a hot putter and a bit of luck to beat your handicap by 13.

I suppose in my scenario above, the onus should be on the man to prove he is actually a 28 handicapper who had an outrageous day, rather than a 20 handicapper who doesn’t need the safety net of a big bastard handicap.

We, the rest of the field, can’t force him out of his safety net under current WHS. But were is handicap decimated, If he has in any way a competitive soul he will never rise to 28 again, because somewhere along those 40 rounds he surely has to develop the will/concentration to play closer to low 20s.

—-

by the way, I’d quite happily win a members comp every 2 years for the rest of my life, so long as I put in enough decent rounds a year to know that I can still go close Does anyone really think they should win more often than that?

I’ll give my scenario.

Joined club 6 years ago, handed in 3 cards and got a handicap of 18, my average score was around the 110(+). Slogged away at it with average I’d say 20points and handicap slowly went up to 20 over about 3 years. TBH got pissed off with it and pretty much ignored comps.

Then WHS came in and after my 20 cards were counted up had a HC index of mid to high 20s. Still not take it too seriously bar some fun/social golf which I did enjoy a lot.

Decided to give it a go last year with a few lessons and played with and got advice from decent players (big one was course management and swinging vs over controlling). Anyway, as would expect not huge progress year 1 but saw a slight dip in HC index to 23 (did win the annual cup that I do with couple friends which was highlight). Never broke 90

This year few more lessons. Start of season…meah. Too inconsistent, par/burdie/scratch/scratch/bogie/scratch kind of stuff. Decided to overhaul the clubs with a decent fitting and something just clicked, especially with driver and putter.

Over 3 months have gone from 23.6 to 20.3 index. Broke 90 and shot 40 strokes over 9 holes once. In between there were low 90s but no 100s or anything near. Hope to get sub 20 before end of season.

But my story is…in one comp I scored 46 points (same day hit 40 on front 9). BEST DAY EVER (golf wise). Could do no wrong. Yes, it was a complete outlier. BTW I was second to a 48 pointer (from an 12 HC index player). In same timeframe have won 3 of 6 comps with local society. 18 cards handed in this year alone.

I am sure I’m being called a bandit and worse except for the lads I’ve been playing with last few years. But it is timing…in a great place golf wise (it’s all relative), playing better then HC which is dropping (and could go back up).

I also see the opposite scenario. Players with low HC vs there’re ability…but not handing in cards. Want to hang onto the <18 number. And then giving out when not in the races…I have zero pity there (especially when I take money off them).

It is a strength of the WHS, as much as it was a huge failing of Congu... That failing should have been easily fixed by HC Secs though.

Could it really though ? These are mostly volunteer club members (half of whom haven't the first clue about golf😁) and to ask them to look closely at all the playing records on a, say, monthly or bi monthly basis is expecting a bit much IMO.

That's apart from how subjective it all would/could be from club to club:

"Joe's playing rubbish for the last few months, he hasn't done any scores even in his buffer, should we give him a shot or two back ?"

".....go on out of that, I played 9 with him on Thursday night and he had two birdies and three pars, he doesn't need any shots back...."

That conversation actually happened a good few years ago in my place believe it or not. Mind you the H/C Sec hated "Joe" anyway.

Hey Mr Sec, I need John for the XXXX inter-club next year, could you have a look at his handicap ?

Fair enough. I guess my point was that I think across the board its better to take as much subjectivity out of it as possible. H/C Secs would vary enormously from club to club, even from year to year within a club. I just think a member isn't the right person to pass judgement on the playing ability of another member, purely because personalities can come into it. Thankfully WHS alleviates a lot of this I think.

I don't think it was a rule, just guidance. I agree that it was an issue with some clubs just handing out 18 as a standard initial HC for anyone with cards 100 or above.

I got 18 myself starting out when iirc I would have been higher going by that double bogey guidance. But thankfully after a year of 0.1s and the odd buffer of hope, I had gotten to the stage where I was able to play to it and cuts followed. But 18 was somewhat within reason for me, and I didn't mind that at all.

I think clubs were trying to protect the majority of members by allowing for (what can be sometimes) quick improvement with players new to the game. I can see the reasoning behind that when done within reason tbh.

Highsters case was different and 18 wasn't reasonable to start with but that mistake was compounded by the lack of an annual review, that was the biggest mistake imo. There was enough data after a year to adjust his HC and be safe enough in the knowledge that the field was protected.

WHS is quite different and HC Secs are almost redundant, people may like that, but we had an influx of new members during covid and the competitions were being won left right and centre by them. 3 bad cards, another month or so of golf and then all of a sudden there were playing much better than their high 20's or 30's handicaps. These were all young, fit, good sporting guys who turned to golf during covid. Fast improvement in scores was fairly inevitable tbh.

No system is perfect but when done right I was more in favour of the Congu one in terms of initial handicaps. I liked the idea of new players having something to work towards. I think most clubs had a sensible approach to it but Highsters was part of the minority that didn't.

Edit: To sum the initial HC situation up for me.

Congu generally gave new players something to aim for in terms of their initial HC.

WHS generally gives new players something they can capitalise on in terms of improving.

I just think it has added to the general disillusionment towards club competitions. The odds are stacked in favour of a new golfer who puts a bit of work into their game. And there are new golfers every year so the/my "problem" will remain.

One of the things I most like about the new system is it takes the discretion out of the hands of the handicap secretary and people can get higher handicaps initially, or move out to them if they can't play to whatever they're off. The story described of the beginner who was drifting away from the game because they couldn't play to the handicap has been replicated in every club in the country many times I'm sure.

Under CONGU by the way - under what circumstances would you get an exceptional scoring reduction? I got two, for 41 and 42 points and I'm wondering if they were based on the fact that I could hit the ball further than an average mid teen handicapper, as opposed to my scores. For context, I'd been between 15 and 17 handicap for about a decade, playing in 10 or 12 comps per year. I had never reached 40 points with a senior handicap. I think I'd won a winter comp in Tramore that year (with 37 points or so) which was non-counting. The first of my two good rounds was the 41 points and in Captains for 4th place, the other was a normal Sunday comp and I finished second. And for each on top of the 1.5 handicap reduction or so from beating standard scratch I was cut a further 2 shots. Was that in line with CONGU or the handicap secretary just deciding that someone shooting 5 shots better than standard scratch for the first time in about a hundred comps should be cut a further two shots?

Hmm. That sounds like what I suspected. I never had a score of 40 points, not sure if I ever even reached 39 to be honest. Then the first time I broke 40 I was cut 1.5 from beating it by 5 shots and a further 2 shots from an esr.

I was delighted to get the cut, but it does sound like the sort of handicap nonsense that was the norm.