The World Handicap System (WHS) has been in place now for nearly four years in this country, a little longer in others. I think it’s had a fair chance to bed in and for people to make their own assessments on whether it’s superior to, and whether they enjoy it more than, the old CONGU system of competition standard scratches and 0.1s.
I can only speak on what I have experienced, and my personal assessment is – I haven’t enjoyed golf as much over the last four years because of the World Handicap System. I don’t get nearly as much out of the competitive rounds I play, and those are the rounds I enjoy most.
I used to be excited at the prospect of the Saturday (or Wednesday or any other day) medal. It was the chance for a handicap cut, it was the prospect of a gritty battle to make the “buffer zone” and avoid going up by 0.1, it was the opportunity to win something. Now the Saturday medal is just another round, a good score may or may not affect my handicap, there’s no incentive if my play turns mediocre and there’s absolutely zero chance of my winning anything.
Last Saturday I shot a reasonable score, one that would have seen me in the buffer zone under the old system. The following day I woke to an email saying my handicap had gone up by 0.6. Clearly, I had knocked a very good score out of my last 20 – I understand how the system works. But it felt like a kick in the privates and further solidified my disaffection with WHS. How is it “more representative of my current playing ability” to go up by 0.6 after shooting a score in which I basically played to handicap?
Anyway, that’s my personal feelings and I know there are counter arguments for why WHS has been implemented and why it is better for a broader range of golfers. I have written about that, and I accept it. I also know that the system is constantly being monitored and adapted as more data becomes available and more feedback is given. God knows, I have given enough feedback on this website!
I don’t think we should look backwards and scrap an initiative that has been designed to unify handicapping systems around the world and to be more useable for new entrants to the game. But I don’t think it’s currently working well enough to satisfy the millions of established golfers in this country for whom maintaining and improving their handicap, and entering competitions to try and win, is key to their golfing enjoyment. With that in mind, here are 4 things I’d change about the World Handicap System to save the culture of competitive golf in this country.
Best 8 to best 5
Golfers walking – Are they on one of their “best 8?”
(Image credit: Tom Miles)
WHS gives you a Handicap Index that is an average of the best 8 score differentials from your last 20 rounds. That gives a competitive advantage to less consistent golfers. If you’re a steady player, your best 8 score differentials of the last 20 will be relatively similar. Your handicap will not fluctuate too wildly. You have no chance in competition against the section of the field who plays inconsistent golf.
If you are the type of player who shoots one or two belting rounds a year, with the rest cricket scores, your average will remain high. But you’re potentially able to rock up and shoot a low one. Someone, or a few people each week will have that one-off round, and they now scoop all the prizes through a competitive season at most clubs across this country.
If the system took an average of fewer counting rounds, it would produce Handicap Indexes that were more reflective of all players’ potential best performances.
The consistent golfer’s handicap would not be much changed but the inconsistent golfer would find they were playing off a lower number – one that was more representative of what they can produce at their best. That would give a more equitable chance of victory to all players – those who perform consistently and those prone to spells of poor golf interspersed with rogue “wunder” rounds.
General Play Either Way
Fergus plays a bunker shot
(Image credit: Kenny Smith)
In the UK, we’ve gone for a halfway house on the General Play element of WHS. We’ve said that you can put in a General Play score if you want to, but there’s no obligation to do so. That allows far too much scope for manipulation. If you want your handicap to come down, if the conditions are spot on and you feel you’re playing well, then you might choose to put a score in. If you have a knockout match coming up later in the week and you’re enduring a tough playing spell, you can choose to put in a General Play or two, return poor numbers and get a much-needed handicap boost. That’s no good.
We need some sort of regulation on General Play. Either, that every time you go out, (save for match play,) you must put your score in – that would be reflective and less easily manipulated. Or that only a set number of General Play scores can be counted at any given time for players who enter competitions.
Currently, if all 8 of a player’s counting scores come from General Play, their handicap is not representative of their ability in competition golf.
If you only play bounce golf and only want your handicap for informal games, then General Play away. But if you want to enter competitions, then a certain number of your competition scores should count to your Handicap Index.
More than 10 holes to count
“Well, we’ve played 10… Is that enough?”
(Image credit: Kenny Smith)
It’s crazy that you can post 18-hole scores that count for handicap when you have only completed 10 holes according to the Rules of Golf. How can a round in which you’ve only finished just over half the holes be reflective of your levels of play over a full 18? For competition purposes, your handicap should be representative of your ability to maintain a level the whole way round.
When it comes to General Play, there’s nothing to stop someone entering for an 18-hole counting round, finishing 10 with a great score and then walking off, knowing they have a good (counting) score in the bank. For those, less scrupulous golfers looking to maintain a low handicap, it’s a “gimme” to allow them to say – “Oh, I was only able to play 10 holes in the end as I realised I was short of time, so I missed out a few of the tougher holes in the mid-section of the round…” Would they have made nett pars at those holes? Who knows?
PCC needs to be stronger
Fergus on a tough day at Kingsbarns
(Image credit: Kenny Smith)
The playing conditions calculation (PCC) has been altered to kick in more readily, but it’s not robust enough for golf in this country. It’s supposed to make an adjustment of -1 to +3, to reflect playing conditions on the day. But it’s not as reflective as the old CSS system, under which, if conditions were extreme, you knew for sure you would have a few extra shots to play with.
If you’re playing in 30mph winds on one of our tough links courses, it should be a given that your score differential will reflect that sufficiently. In my experience, even after the alterations, PCC doesn’t do that.
In addition, for PCC to kick in, 8 acceptable scores must be submitted on that day. If you go for a General Play at Carnoustie on a tough day and nobody else (or fewer than eight people) decide to do the same, then PCC will not be triggered. You might battle to what ought to be a great score and see no adjustment to your score differential. That’s also not right. Again – If we all had to enter a score each time we went out, that wouldn’t be a problem.
WHS can work but I do think more changes are required to make it effective within the established culture of competitive golf we have in this country. We need stronger guidelines around General Play and tweaks to prevent manipulation and to remove the obvious competitive advantage to inconsistent players that currently exists.
