What should the future look like for the World Handicap System? Is it about educating golfers? Is it simply about showing integrity?
In his pre-Open media press conference, R&A chief executive Mark Darbon said the governing body believed the World Handicap System was “really positive” for golf globally.
And while he acknowledged there was “definitely some noise around it within the UK”, he stressed that “education at the moment is the right method” and that “people need to understand the system”.
That got plenty of you tapping into your keyboards and, once again, you’ve been filling our NCG postbag with your comments. Here are some of the things you’ve said…
“The CONGU region needs to leave WHS and go its own way”
Mashie wrote: “The situation is clear: WHS is ill suited and inferior to the old system for the GB&I culture of weekly to-the-rules and holed-out club competition golf culture and tradition.
“WHS has brought nothing to golfers here other than frustration at the incompetence of introducing an inferior system to its predecessor. WHS is not going to change worldwide to accommodate a small part of the golfing world.”
He later added: “There is only one solution – the CONGU region needs to leave WHS and go its own way. What will we lose in that? Nothing! We are stupid to continue putting up with it.”
John added: “With respect, Mark Darbon, together with the regulatory bodies, are not listening to the people who pay their hard-earned money to be members of clubs together with competition entry fees.
“There are so many flaws with this system many of which have been highlighted here and previously on this site. Why will they not listen? Golf was always recognised as a truly honourable sport with integrity. The aim was to reduce your handicap by improving your ability. Not everyone wants to do this now it seems.
Advertisement
“[There are] Too many individuals who believe that winning competitions is what golf is about rather than working towards reducing their handicap.”
“Stop whingeing and whining about WHS”
But there were other commenters who don’t understand the ongoing fuss about WHS.
Dorothy wrote: “As an ex-ladies’ handicap secretary my feelings about the new handicap system are almost entirely positive.
“It addresses the major problem with the old system of coming down quickly but going up slowly. It ensures that at any time your handicap reflects your current playing ability.
“I don’t understand the worry about handicap manipulation as one could always submit general play scores. My one slight criticism is how long it takes a rapidly improving new lady to get down from an initial high handicap.”
James added: “WHS reflects your current ability far better than CONGU. I remember two consecutive stellar rounds under CONGU which brought my handicap down from 19.3 to 16.5. I went up .1 for each of the next 16 rounds … (and carried on going up to about 18.7 where I hovered until WHS).”
Jonathan, meanwhile, was more forthright in his support of the World Handicap System.
“Stop whingeing and whining about WHS,” he said. “The system is a far, far better one than CONGU ever was. It moves with how you’re currently playing.
“Whereas CONGU held you ransom to one good round, making life a misery for mid-high handicapper, who were forced to play for several seasons to handicaps that reflected an unattainable level of performance.”
“The best way to refine the system would… be to analyse actual scoring data”
Does the WHS favour higher handicappers? It’s a view that comes up repeatedly and it was prevalent in our latest mailbag.
Fiona wrote: “I like the principle of a WORLD HI. I like the app and I like slope ratings. However, I do think it favours higher handicappers and our interclub team matches are affected detrimentally. Not sure what the ‘solution’ is, I think it would be a shame to revert back to the old system.”
Richard added: “As a newbie to this system in May, I spent most of that month and some of June getting 20 cards in.
“Once that’s done, I see general play as something that should only be used to cut people’s handicap and leave the increases to competition scores.
“I also feel that there needs to be some compensation for Stableford vs medal. The current system allows for high handicappers to score well on Stableford but protect their index with two or three blobs.”
Mike had plenty to say on how perceived weaknesses within the WHS could be addressed. He wrote: “Provided club handicap committees carry out their responsibilities properly, the WHS generally works well in producing fair relative handicaps between players at the same club, particularly where most of their qualifying scores are recorded at their home course.
“Where the system can fall down, sometimes significantly, is in achieving equity between handicaps established at different clubs. Course and slope ratings rely on trained assessors measuring numerous factors, but it is virtually impossible to determine the precise difference in playing difficulty between two courses.
“However detailed the rating guidance may be, it cannot fully account for every condition affecting a course’s playability. There will also inevitably be some variation between assessors, however well trained they are.
“The best way to refine the system would therefore be to analyse actual scoring data from players competing across different courses. From my own experience and evaluation, disparities of up to three shots between courses are not unusual, usually caused by a combination of one course being underrated and another overrated.
“Many golfers will have noticed the consequences, particularly in inter-club matches. My conclusion is that the current WHS has a weakness in achieving truly equitable handicaps between clubs and countries. Greater use of actual playing and scoring data would help identify and correct these imbalances.”
Advertisement
Now have your say
What do you make our WHS postbag? Do you agree with our commenters, or is there another path? Let us know by leaving your own comment, or by getting in touch with us on X.
Advertisement
