Since its implementation in 2021 The World Handicap System (WHS) has divided opinion in the UK and Ireland. Many long-time golfers regret the passing of the old system of Standard Scratch and Competition Standard Scratch scores. But others like the more fluid nature of WHS and believe it delivers handicap indexes that are more reflective of playing ability. Here we consider the arguments for and against scrapping the WHS.
Why WHS Should Be Scrapped
To put it mildly, the World Handicap System (WHS) has not proven universally popular in the UK and Ireland. In clubhouses up and down the country, you’ll hear daily discussions lamenting its implementation and reminiscing about the good old buffer zone days. And there are various arguments people put forward for scrapping WHS.
The most vocal opposition to WHS comes from within the cohorts of the better and more established players. The consensus seems to be – better and more consistent amateurs no longer have a chance of winning nett competitions. Low/mid handicap players who maintain a reasonably consistent Handicap Index and regularly play roughly to it, no longer (or far more rarely) feature at the top of the leaderboard in the Saturday medal.
For competitive golf, the system does seem to favour those who are less consistent. Under the old system, a single brilliant round would knock a hefty chunk off a higher handicap. It would then take that individual quite some time to push it back up: + 0.1 at a time. Now, someone who has one rogue, “medal-winning,” score, but has seven further counters in their “top eight” that look more like cricket totals, will find their handicap stays somewhere in that potential “medal-winning” zone. At each club, there are plenty of inconsistent players and one or more of them will have their rogue super-round every week. The consistent golfer can’t compete – they don’t have a nett 60 in the locker!
You might say, why does that matter? Surely, it’s nice for the higher handicappers to enjoy some glory. Yes, definitely. But there should be equal opportunity, and many feel this isn't the case with WHS. Golfers who have invested decades of effort and money to become consistent at the sport, at whatever level, players who have been the backbone of the sport, are facing the prospect of never winning a club competition ever again. That is demoralising and surely unfair for established amateur golfers.
Another argument established amateur golfers make is that WHS has taken away a compelling component of competitive club golf in this country – the battle for the buffer. Under the old system, even if you weren’t going to win the event, you still had the buffer zone to fight for – to try and prevent your handicap going up 0.1. Now, with WHS, if you’re not going to win, and the round will clearly not be one of your eight counting scores, all the incentives have gone. Yes, you should keep playing for pride but that’s easier said than done on occasion!
The elephant in the room when it comes to WHS is handicap manipulation. General Play allows golfers to put in cards whenever they play, and they only need to complete 10 holes for an 18-hole score to count. If less honest players would prefer to play off a slightly higher handicap, all they need to do is play poorly (accidentally on purpose) in some bounce rounds, knock a few good counters out and get an extra couple of shots. One would like to think people wouldn’t do this, but the more cynical stalwarts of the British golfing community are pretty sure they do!
Why WHS Shouldn’t Be Scrapped
The most obvious argument against WHS being scrapped is that it has unified handicapping around the world. It was an important step towards every amateur, globally using the same calculation methods when it comes to deciding handicap. Someone in Australia should now have a handicap that would be comparable to someone in the US or to someone in the UK. It would be a backwards move to scrap WHS at this stage.
Another strong argument for keeping WHS is that handicaps are more fluid and should be more representative of players’ current ability. If a young golfer or a beginner is improving rapidly, WHS can reflect that more quickly. Likewise, if a player is struggling, or growing older – their WHS index should move north faster than it would have done under the old system. That should mean they can remain competitive.
The R&A and USGA worked extremely hard for an extended period to find sufficient common ground to establish the WHS and it would be bad for the game to announce it a failure and give up on it. When change comes, in whatever element of life, it doesn’t always work perfectly at first. People have to get used to the new dynamic and teething issues have to be ironed out.
There have already been changes in WHS to alter how course handicaps are calculated and there have been alterations to the Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC) to make it come into effect more readily. There will, no doubt, be further changes to WHS as more time passes. The system deserves to be given a fair chance to properly establish itself.
Less consistent players will argue against those “better” players who feel their competitive chances have been diminished. Why shouldn’t an inconsistent golfer who has a once in a blue moon, belting round benefit by winning a comp or two? Under the old system, they were the ones who struggled to get their name on a trophy or honour’s board. Are they less important to golf than a single figure player? Surely not.
There are undoubtedly issues with WHS and changes need to be made to ensure all handicap golfers have equal chances every time they tee it up. It will continue to evolve and, as the seasons pass, an equilibrium will be reached… Hopefully.
