At the tail-end of last year, one of my Golf Monthly colleagues, Carly Frost, penned an article showcasing why the new World Handicap System has ruined golf for lower handicappers and, for 99% of the piece, I found myself agreeing with what was said.
Holding a handicap of 3.0, my golf game has been back on the rise in 2024 but, when I look at the scores that are winning our club medals, Stablefords and boarded competitions, I do wonder what is the point? Unless I'm shooting under-par gross, I stand no chance, as nett 65s and 40+ points continue to tumble in and make a mockery of the scoring.
At my home club of Witney Lakes, it appears that enough is enough and, for our most recent medal, a new format was trialled whereby the usual divisions one and two were replaced with a gross and nett concept. Other clubs have introduced and tried this method and, on paper, it is appealing to the low handicappers like myself but, does it work? Well now that the tournament is over, and I've spoken to various members about it, I've pencilled my thoughts, specifically around the positives and negatives.
Positives
To begin with, aside from our Club Championship, all of our competitions are based off nett scores so, by implementing a gross section into the monthly medal, it does make perfect sense. Unlike a Stableford, which is already tailored to a higher handicapper, every shot counts in a medal and, ultimately, it is the best and toughest test of golf as you can't pick up if anything goes wrong.
Doing some digging, if I were to list the winning handicaps from the previous medals, Stablefords and boarded competitions, it would be 25, 16, 18, 27, 28, 15, 21 and 16. Within the top 10 of those eight events, or 80 spots, single figure handicappers featured just nine times, with six of those being under a 5 handicap.
Taking this into account, many low handicappers were obviously very happy to hear the trial of this new format, primarily because now, instead of playing in one gross competition a year, there could be more events available. What's more, it's a system that actually rewards you for playing good golf and a competitive format that will actually make the best players at the club want to turn up and play.
It's not just low handicappers who think this. In a survey sent out to the membership, one player who sits in the 16-20 handicap range wrote: "Prizes for scratch golf need to be given. This is the whole point of golf - getting the ball round in the least number of shots. There should be prizes for handicaps obviously, but more recognition needs to be given to gross scores. It might then encourage golfers to (try and) reduce their handicaps."
Now, before I speak about the numbers who entered the medal, I must add that it took place on the final weekend of the summer holidays and also the same weekend as an annual golf tour, whereby 16 players were away. Therefore, the full numbers will be, expectedly, down compared to other medals.
However, one notable aspect is that the percentage of single figure handicappers making up the field seemed to be higher than usual. In total, 25% of those playing had a handicap of 7 or under and, given the amount of players away, I would say that number would likely remain constant as the number of entries increases.
So, what are the thoughts of those in the single figure handicap range? Well, in the survey, all players in the 0-5 handicap category agreed on the concept of a gross/nett format and all but one of those recipients would prefer it to a divisional style system.
However, some did acknowledge that a divisional system would be fairer, with one player claiming: "A divisional system is fine, but division 1 currently spans handicaps from +3 to 14 which I believe is too great a spread. Keep the divisions but add a gross division prize as well."
That point above I will get on to later, but where the gross and nett system, arguably, works is in the fact that it makes it realistic for everyone to have a chance to win. As the numbers show above, single figure handicaps have no opportunity to win a handicap event and, by introducing a gross element, it's something for them to aim for.
Now, you can look at it and think, if you're a 7-13 handicapper, there's no chance that you'll get close to the gross or nett, due to the fact an 18+ handicapper and a scratch can shoot low. Obviously I do accept that but, if you look at the other side of the coin, you could shoot the round of your life and potentially have a chance of securing both the gross and nett, picking up two lots of prize money in the process.
I will end this section by asking 'isn't the point of golf to get your handicap as low as possible, not abuse it so you're off the maximum amount of shots?' I mean, if I was in that handicap range I would get a lot more satisfaction getting my handicap down and vying for the gross, rather than putting a shedload of cards in to try and get my handicap up and win the nett...
Negatives
Like any new format, there are a lot of positives but, as you can guess, there are also negatives. To begin with, there was a near 50/50 split in terms of people agreeing with a gross/nett format, but less than 40% would prefer it to a divisional system.
On top of that, and one of the key areas, a near 50% claimed they would be less likely to play in a medal if it were a gross/nett format, with 26% saying they'd be more likely to play, and a further 26% saying it would make no difference. Given that medals aren't always the most well supported events anyway, is it a good idea to implement something that many don't seem to agree on?
What the majority of responses seemed to flag was the fact that those with 7-15 handicaps would be in the middle of both the gross and nett sections. Realistically, they won't beat a 2 handicapper for the gross and they won't beat a 19 handicapper for the nett.
In one response, a user wrote: "Personally the low-mid handicaps of between 7-12 have now been put into a position of no benefit to entering the medal. (In terms of) Medals in the previous format, the nett winner has always been a higher handicap, and 7-12 handicappers have no chance of shooting the best gross score, so it feels like there is no point in entering."
Although I don't have a full list of handicaps at our golf club, it's worth noting that, in December 2023, England iGolf reported in an article that a male golfer's average WHS index is 16. Realistically, and from my experience, I would say that my club does have a large amount of players in that category so, if you're limiting what they can win, the numbers will likely fall further.
Another factor is that, by introducing a gross element, the likelihood is that you will have the same contingent of players winning every month. Again, doing some digging, in the last five medals the lowest gross has been achieved by the same player four times.
Using the argument above, you can say 'well it's an incentive to win and beat his score'. However, if the same player wins the gross every time, will it deter people from playing, knowing that the same individual will turn up and probably win? In addition, a higher handicapper will likely win the nett with a low score, so will that also play a part in dissuading people from entering?
What's The Solution?
Having wittered on about the format, many of you reading this will have your own thoughts and opinions on how a medal could, and should, be run. It's a similar story in regards to the survey as, amongst the answers, were plenty of suggestions on ways that a medal should be conducted.
Before I get into them, let me stress you can't please everybody and these ideas may be different to what you think is the correct way. Certainly, within the responses I received, there was one particular suggestion that stood out, which was to introduce a third division and tighten up the handicap gapping that is currently present.
As mentioned, a number of players agreed that gross should be recognized, but that perhaps the layout could be better. "I can see multiple options," one user wrote. "Either two divisions and a gross, or 3 divisions to better split handicaps and give every player a chance to win their division."
Obviously, the divisions will be the difficult part to sort but, if enforced, I feel it will make the medals more competitive and fairer. If you're playing against people of similar handicaps and abilities, there is going to be less controversy as, if anyone shoots a great round sharing the same handicap, you know they've deserved the victory.
Final Thoughts
Overall, I do respect our committee for trialing this format as something desperately needs to be done within the World Handicap System. The fact that my club has had to trial these changes also shows how broken the system is.
Being a low handicapper, you would think that a gross/nett format would be perfect but, if you're wanting to get more people playing a medal format, I think it makes sense to use a divisional system whereby those playing in it are playing against players of the same ability. Obviously, one of these divisions can be gross for the lower handicapper but, looking at the bigger picture, there needs to be a solution to make things fairer for all who play...
