‘One shot per hole’. ’18 is enough for comps’. ’18 handicap should be maximum for men and women’. ‘Winning with anything above 18 handicap is a participation prize.’
These are not my words. They are some of yours – filling the comments on another article on the World Handicap System.
If you thought nearly seven years of the post-CONGU order would be enough to quell some of the ongoing criticisms think again.
But in among the comments in our most recent correspondence was a recurring theme: that club competitions should have a maximum handicap of 18 shots.
Is there any merit in the calls, and what could happen if it was brought in? Let’s take a brief look at the case for and against and how things might look…
Would golfers support an 18-handicap limit?
18-handicap limit: The case for…
You might think this is Mission Impossible, but your club could actually impose a blanket 18 handicap limit for competitions right now.
I’ll bet some of your events – like the big board ones – already have requirements for entry, such as a certain number of acceptable scores returned within a timeframe. Others may already have a handicap limit.
I reckon your matches and competitions committee will be bombarded if they ever brought in an 18 limit (for reasons I’ll get into later), and I’d hate to think what membership renewals would look like. But, in theory, a club can set any terms of competition they wish.
There doesn’t need to be any changes to WHS to enforce it. So why would they even consider it? Would scoring within competitions be more consistent?
We know the odds of shooting a good round narrow considerably the more shots a player receives – a 35 to 39.9 index has a 1 in 23.1 chance of recording a net score differential of -5 compared to a 1 in 140.1 chance of a 5 to 9.9 handicapper achieving the same result.
Advertisement
It’s not impossible for an mid-handicapper to record a Stableford score in the mid 40s, but it is much more unusual. The odds of a 10 to 14.9 player recording a net score differential of -9 is 1 in 1,362.7. It’s 1 in 94 for the 35 to 39.9 player. So would an 18-limit mean more competitive events?
Should 18 shots be a standard that is aspirational? The theory goes that players would have an incentive to improve because of the opportunities that would open up if they met that standard.
Depending on your psychology, there might be something in that. Certainly, as I was an improving player, I wanted to play in outside events that had a handicap limit and to do that I knew I would have to improve. The desire to compete in those competitions pushed me to practice, to pay for lessons, and to see how far I could go.
But is 18 the right limit?
NOW LISTEN TO THE NCG GOLF PODCAST
ALSO AVAILABLE ON:
Apple Podcasts: Listen Now
Spotify: Listen Now
Amazon Music: Listen Now
18-handicap limit: The case against…
It would very likely free up some times on the tee sheet and I suspect that wouldn’t please club chiefs. The last time I checked, the average male handicap WHS index in England was 17.38. For female players, it was 28.09.
I once attended a WHS workshop where the numbers were broken down even further. More than 25 per cent of males had a handicap index of 21 to 28.
40 per cent were between 13 and 20, with many of those in the 16 to 20 range. On our NCG Golf Podcast, Tom Irwin said a quarter of all people who played golf had this kind of handicap.
Nearly 65 per cent of female players were between 21 and 36. Nearly 10 per cent were between 37 and 54.
Impose a limit of 18 on competitions and the size of the field would be substantially reduced.
A whole load of players would be excluded from club competitions. It would all but end the competitive exploits of those who, for whatever reason, cannot improve. Perhaps they have an injury or are older players whose handicap is rising but still love to tee it up when a score is on the line.
What would it do for the culture of the club? I’d wager the AGM would be a bit spicy.
Then there’s the ‘getting better’ argument. WHS comment boards are full of people saying general play scores encourage manipulation.
Well, if one of the ways you get better is by putting scores in during competitions, how are they going to do that if they can’t enter in the first place?
Is a limit ultimately borne out of snobbery? My colleague Tom Irwin thinks so. He said on our podcast: “It’s misguided snobbery at that.
“It’s like they’re saying that in the old system practice areas were just full of people grinding away trying to get better and having lessons all the time – and now they’re all wastelands because people think there’s no point anymore. It’s total rubbish.”
Tom also argued that the handicap system is softer. While you might feel that’s a paradox in the context of this side of the debate, he explained: “It’s never been easier to get a low handicap. The handicap system throws away your worst 12 rounds and it only considers your eight best ones.
“Just on a purely mathematical basis, it is considering you in the 40th percentile and above. It is not considering you on your below average days.
“So to say we must limit the handicap in competitions to 18 is just rubbish, because it’s the opposite that’s true, isn’t it?”
Advertisement
And what are handicaps really about? What is the point of a system? It’s a means of allowing golfers of different abilities to compete together on as fair a basis as possible.
If we’re imposing strict limits to keep large numbers of golfers out, and making them less inclusive, what does that say about the nature of handicapping?
Now have your say on the 18-handicap limit
What do you think? Are you for or against an 18-handicap limit? Which side of the debate do you fall on? Let us know in the comments, or get in touch with us on X.
Advertisement
