Your New WHS Index

I think you are speaking for a lot of players nationally but in most clubs probably a small enough number compared to the overall membership and as a result not likely to be listened to. I'm off 7.6, in my club according to GI that puts me in the top 8% and top 7% nationally. I had a quick look and there are 130 members (male and female) who are in the single digits category <9.4. Theres 922 members currently so you can probably see there why the complaints of that cohort aren't acted upon. I'd imagine the picture is similar nationally so unfortunately there probably is about 80% of the player base who are happy enough with things. I would personally love it if we had categories where I play, i'd be much more interested in the actual comp then, as it is I only play to try get the handicap down and wouldn't even check results most weeks unless I happen to come across a facebook post. I do agree there is a problem if the people who most likely play the most often, spend money on opens/scratch cups, equipment, lessons etc. feel disenchanted with competition golf in their local club. I only need to glance at the casual Saturday morning slots in my club to see that groups of very high level players are playing together casually rather than in that weeks competition, in the long run that isn't good. I think categories would go some way to helping but WHS being poorly administered is a bigger issue IMO. H'cap secretaries are also terrified of legal cases as we've seen already, i'd much prefer a national approach to it. I've said this before but the governing bodies in Ireland and UK need to start releasing data on this stuff if they want to fend off the complaints about WHS. My solution to some issues i've seen locally; The requirements for exceptional score reduction are way too high, Currently you can beat your handicap by 7 shots and only get a 1 shot exceptional score reduction, thats laughable. beating your handicap by 5 shots is an extraordinary result and should be a minimum of 3 shot reduction in h'cap IMO. If it was up to me i would say 5 shots = 3 shot reduction for a minimum of 8 rounds, 7 shots would be 5 shot reduction for a minimum of 20 rounds.

We could probably talk about this stuff in circles forever but ultimately WHS isn't going anywhere and I can't see Golf Ireland or the volunteers running local clubs being able to resolve this problem any time soon. Golf is booming at the moment so its probably not a big deal but when times become a bit leaner and those same players i mentioned aren't around any longer and the new joiners with 30+ hcaps move on to something else we could see some chickens coming home to roost.

I'm relatively new to golf. Only joined a club this time last year having first picked up the game a few months prior.

So to give a bit of perspective from a new golfer; I think the whole handicap system as an idea is a bit strange. I'm struggling to think of any other sport that gives an advantage to "worse" players and allows them to compete with the best. As mentioned previously, it's akin to giving a sprinter a head start, or making one boxer fight with one hand tied behind his back. It just doesn't happen as it doesn't make much sense.

I regularly play with another poster on here and he's a substantially better golfer than I am. If we were to go out and play against each other and I happened to win because of my handicap, then it's a case of.....Did I win? Technically, yes.

But did I REALLY win?.... No, absolutely not. He played proper golf and got around the course in 20 less strokes than I did. I hacked the place to pieces and managed to win on a technicality. The whole system just feels like a little pat on the head and a "Good job little buddy" 👍

It just seems weird to me.

Having said all that, I don't think there are major issues with WHS at all. I think, on paper, the system works as intended and if used correctly, it gives an accurate representation of playing ability. The problem most people seem to have isn't with the system itself but more about how competitions are ran. That's down to clubs and not the WHS.

Should high handicap golfers be allowed to compete? Absolutely. But only against golfers of similar ability. Placing them in competitions against good golfers and giving them a massive leg-up is an insult to the guys who have worked hard to improve their game and become good at the sport.

All comps should be ran in categories with the prizes improving the lower you go. This creates an incentive to improve and to lower the handicap. And anyone with a fake "vanity" handicap will be quickly found out. It removes the incentive to sandbag and win higher handicap categories. If you want to play in the top tier and compete against those guys then you're more than welcome, but you can't play off 30. Your handicap will be adjusted to whatever the average handicap is of that particular category. You think you can and should win? Fine. Prove it.

I don't buy the argument of "What about the poor guy who's in his late 60's or early 70's and just can't compete anymore? He needs the high handicap." I'm sorry, but to be blunt about it....... tough. That's life. You can compete against people in your own category. Life, and sport, shouldn't be about participation trophies and rewarding mediocrity while punishing excellence, all in the name of equality. 

That score is definitely possible if the guy has done a bit of practice in the interim before entering a competition. The same if they got lessons.

But the funny part of this is that the chap in question will get a much bigger cut under WHS having put in that score than he ever would have under CONGU. Under CONGU he would be cut 6 strokes, but wouldn't get an ESR because it's only his first exceptional score. Under WHS he'll be playing off the score differential that is calculated from that 33 over round and his original 3 cards will be discarded. He'll also likely get an ESR of 2 because the difference between his HI and his SD would most likely be greater than 10.

The process of allocating initial handicap indexes has not changed radically from how it was under CONGU. So he may well have got the same initial handicap under CONGU as he did under WHS.

So his new handicap index will be 29.8 minus 2 = 27.8 a cut of 14 shots to 29. If this is actually his fourth counting round, there's a further deduction of 1 from his HI.

Under CONGU it would be 10 x 0.6 assuming CSS = par.

I'd say that WHS works a lot better than CONGU in this situation.

I just explained that he would have got the same handicap under CONGU. The 54 handicap came in under CONGU. There was no calculation built into CONGU that would have chopped cards back like that. And I should know, I've been hcap sec under both systems.

And there's as much leeway to handicap secretaries under WHS as there was under CONGU. Me, I wouldn't have given him a 40 index based on his sporting background and age. So if you want to blame someone, blame your handicap secretary or your applications system that either doesn't give him the information he requires or he ignored it.

But the problem here isn't WHS. WHS is MUCH better at dealing with outliers like this, CONGU was useless and had to be overridden by vigilant hcap secs all the time.

I know the limits weren't set to 54 under WHS, I just don't know of anyone, outside of a junior say, who was ever issued a handicap that high under CONGU.

Maybe handicap secretaries in general worked to a different standard in the congu days. Was always the talk of say "you got a starting handicap of 22, they normally don't let people start from anything higher than 18 in here".

Whereas now they're maybe just more commonly taking the approach of...the handicap will find its level once they get enough rounds in and the system will handle the correction.

I do 100% agree that it corrects way quicker, but it's a bit of a 2 way street in that way as it'll correct up a lot quicker too.

I love it for myself, I'm a maths man, so the calcution makes sense to me and I enjoy that it makes me think about rounds a bit more. I just think that it's inherently flawed for the Irish style of competition golf

Are you going to say that peer review is flawed too? Because it's not flawed, people want to bitch and moan, but will never, ever, on pain of death, report another member for breaches of the rules or handicap manipulation.

And yes, handicap secretaries are REQUIRED to review handicaps and adjust where necessary. A system that depends on honour is always going to be honoured in the breach.

ESRs are generated automatically. I explained the calculation above. Other additional adjustments can be made by handicap committees. I've seen committees chop five off a HI in addition to an ESR.

I'm assuming the point to focus on in this instance is

"has knowledge of the player's demonstrated ability and can reasonably verify or challenge the HI issued to the player"

Does the poster really satisfy that?

The poster said this guy doesn't play much competitive golf, instead plays casually with his buddies for the most part. The poster thinks this guy isn't a 31HC but I don't think he can reasonably verify or challenge it.

As a HC Sec, what would be your response if he came in with this complaint?

Edit: I don't think this has anything to do with WHS other than the fact that the guy's HC went up significantly upon the introduction of WHS.

He said it was a society match. So the conclusion is that he's playing society golf with him in the same society and so knows how he's scoring in NQ. The bump I assume was because he doesn't play much counting golf, so there weren't enough records to produce a new WHS index. So his CONGU handicap was converted directly to a HI. That would give a bit of a bump when the PH is calculated.

If he came with the complaint to me, I'd ask to see the society results and other evidence of better scores, such as the 47 points in the matchplay event. I'd actually have no problem cutting him once I had that evidence. I made a fair few cuts last year and only one challenged it. I replied with all the data I'd used and never heard another word.

I think you're an outlier when it comes to HC Secs Prawn, and your club is lucky to have you. I'm not sure the majority of HC Secs would request to see society cards in that instance.

And to jump on Space's point re initial HI's. I'd think you're probably in a minority of HC Secs who still use judgement there. Since the introduction of WHS, I think the majority just let WHS "do its thing".

You do need the backup from our governing body, sadly it will be found wanting.

I have seen the almost futile attempts to bring people to book under congu.

Cut . Appealed to branch. Upheld.

Whs is a wild west. Well it did emanate from there.

My club has endured at least one notorious Captains prize incident. He is now higher than when that score was returned.

Cut. Frozen. Build. 20 scores can be recorded quickly now.

It's no secret . It appears that nothing is been done. That's not the case. H secs have tried over a number of years. Club has received numerous legal correspondence from this individual. Club have been left to deal with this themselves.

To call cheat, which is what it is and is required ,brings serious individual peril without governing body support.

I wish you well in your voluntary role. Just don't get isolated.

Absolutely this. As a committee we've heard complaints about a perceived bias in competition wins towards high handicaps. And it has always been wrong when the data is analysed. Not almost always, always. Low handicaps in the range 0-10 disproportionally win. All the time. And if you think about it, this makes sense. This cohort play consistent golf whereas the high guys do not.

There aren't many cases taken to court for handicap cuts, but the latest one I could find (ten years ago) was lost by the complainant and cost him lotto money.

That's fair, and I'd like to think most h/c secs are reasonable about it and tbh I've no real issue if there's some sort of "evidence". I admit I'm very biased against peer review / observation / anything subjective about one player judging another etc as I witnessed, back in the late 90s, a situation where a h/c sec was using the old Rule 19 to settle personal grievances. A number of cases went to the provincial branch and then the union. I remember one case where the justification for a cut was that, despite having a bad score, the player had parred something like index 1 and index 3 and if he hadn't had bogeys on easier holes x, y & z, he could have had 40 pts. The guy was off around 10/12. Indeed, said h/c sec had a list of players he wouldn't allow play for the club - the irony was the players on the list had no idea he had an issue with them or that there was even a list ! Thankfully he's long since joined another club (and they're welcome to him, actually they're well matched 😁).

I doubt it

As far as I know, it comes with basic gps as standard with a paid option to give more detailed gps.

As standard you can also track stats like FIR, GIR, number of putts etc.