As clubs move towards requiring more and more cards to enter competitions, is it time golfers just started posting a number every time they played? We look at some of the pros and cons…
This article is part of GCMA Insights – topical content for golf industry professionals, discussing the things that matter to those who work in golf clubs.
Where did the time go? It’s been four years since the World Handicap System was launched in Great Britain and Ireland and it’s been a lively source of clubhouse debate ever since.
For its supporters, it has granted them freedom – to play as and how they wish without having to fall within the constraints of a club competition system.
For its detractors, these have been four long years mired by accusations of manipulation.
The WHS has not stood still. There has been a major revision to the Rules of Handicapping, which was pushed through in April, and the way handicap committees at clubs deal with the system is continually evolving.
There is now a definite trend of clubs demanding increasing numbers of acceptable scores and, particularly competitive scores, to be eligible to win prizes and – in some cases – enter the events at all.
Some clubs require from a dozen up to a full record 20 scores in a timeframe to enter some prestige competitions.
With such demands, should golfers just get used to putting in a score every time they play – regardless of whether they’d planned to be competitive or not?
In the United States, it’s common practice to enter a card in such circumstances. Should GB&I follow suit? Let’s look at a couple of the major pros and cons.
Get involved in the debate.
To join the GCMA, click here, or to organise a call with a call with a member of the GCMA team, just complete the form below.
Should we submit every card for handicap?
The pros
WHS needs the data
The more numbers pumped into WHS, the better it performs. That’s because it’s an averaging, rather than the aggregate system that existed through CONGU before 2020.
The entire system is based around reflecting current form. WHS does not show your potential, it reveals your demonstrated ability. It’s what you’re capable of scoring.
It is almost impossible to accurately portray that without regular inputs. The WHS index of someone who submits 50 cards in a 12-month period is bound to be closer to the mark than the index of a player who only puts in three in the same time frame.
If both had the same WHS index, for example, how could you accurately measure their relative ability? They could actually be several shots apart. This leads to inconsistencies.
It can be an effective way of combatting ‘sandbaggers’
It’s one of the reasons many clubs now demand a certain number of scores each year to be eligible to enter events or win prizes.
If used properly, it can deter the sleeping player who sits on an inflated handicap and waits to swoop down on a big prize. If they haven’t submitted the required scores, they can’t enter.
This is in sharp contrast to the old CONGU system, which only demanded three scores a year for a handicap to be deemed active for competitions.
WHY JOIN THE GCMA?
Membership of the GCMA unlocks a network of like-minded professionals, provides you with support in your professional and personal development, and provides you with a multitude of benefits. Whether that’s the tools that will help you to excel in your profession, or a wide range of services to support your wellbeing, signing up to the GCMA is joining a community.
Could it stop the 50-point Stableford scores?
Would removing the ability to score selectively flatten out handicaps across a club? And could that remove some of the massive numbers in Stableford often cited by critics as showing the system favours higher handicappers and isn’t working?
While those determined to manipulate may feel they can use WHS to quick rack up ‘false’ scores to raise, or lower, their handicaps, there are measures within the system’s reports portfolio that can quickly identify potential offenders if committees know how to effectively utilise them.
The cons
It is alien to our golfing culture
Some clubs focus entirely around the summer competition season when it comes to handicaps. There are lots of golfers who do not want to play to an ‘every round counts’ mindset.
Removing the ability to just go out for a casual ‘knock’ would undoubtedly be limiting the joy of the game and there would be huge resistance to any such measures being imposed in GB&I.
Other countries have different golfing cultures, but ours is largely fixed around a defined calendar. Though handicap chiefs have continually stressed the WHS doesn’t have an off-season, there are clubs who turn off the ability to post scores for handicap during the winter months – fearing that conditions, even on a rated winter course, won’t provide accurate numbers.
Such actions run the risk of some players being out of the grip of the handicapper when competitions resume but this appears to be a price lots of clubs feel is worth paying.
It is also true that not everyone in the club wants to play competitively, or to do anything with a handicap aside from it giving them a measure of their ability. Forcing them to play in a more formal way, by making it mandatory to score every time they turned out, could have a detrimental effect on player numbers.
Would all rounds be played with the same focus?
We’re supposed to play every round to the Rules of Golf and the Rules of Handicapping. That means giving our full focus to every shot.
But casual rounds are often treated every differently. We might not trudge back to the tee every time we lose a ball or spend the full three minutes hacking around a bush to try and find our ball. We might just drop, add a penalty shot, and carry on in a game that has no implications for our handicaps.
Competition rounds are invariably slower when we do that and, in a situation where every score counted, would every player compete with the same focus or effort?
On a very busy day, with groups waiting, would you go back to the tee for a stroke-and-distance penalty, or would you just carry on regardless and type ‘pick up’ into the app?
If you wanted to work on specific shots on the course, when would you do so if every 9 or 18 hole round had to be submitted?
Would it mean added work for handicap committees?
Even if we trust players to submit their scorecard via the various apps or computer, more scores means more checking and more following up for those who don’t act as they should.
Penalty scores can alleviate some of the burden on committees for players who don’t conform, but that still requires investigation, correspondence, and follow up.
With most committee members being volunteers, making score submission mandatory for every round would undoubtedly up the administration for diligent handicap teams.
This article is part of GCMA Insights – topical content for golf industry professionals, discussing the things that matter to those who work in golf clubs.
Get involved in the debate. To join the GCMA, click here, or to organise a call with a member of the GCMA team, just complete this form and we’ll be in touch!
Enquiries
"*" indicates required fields
