Handicap RCGA vs USGA

[golfmajic]

Here is a Florida golf finding.
The USGA Handicap system differs from the RCGA system. When I started playing in Florida I was getting skinned by what I thought were the same handicap golfers as me. I attributed this to the change in grass, winds and altitude.
I discovered that the USGA Handicap system id substantially different from the RCGA system, here is how:
RCGA
Handicap Strokes Allowed over par
0 or plus 1 over par
1 to 18 2 over par
19 to 32 3 over par
33 over 4 over par

USGA
9 or less 2 over par
10 to 19 max 7 even on a par 3
20 to 29 max 8 even on a par 3
30 to 39 max 9 even on a par 3
40 or more max 10 even on a par 3

Be careful all handicaps are not created equal, I plan to write a note to the RCGA asking for an explanation!

[Colby]

That is correct, the calculation for Equitable Stroke Contol (ESC) is different. That being said, I'm not sure I follow your logic because they would be inputting higher numbers on holes resulting in higher handicaps.

[jvincent]

I think the US system does generally increase handicaps which means you give your opponent more strokes.

The best example is a par 3 with water. Two balls in the water (happens sometimes) and I am maxed out in Canada for a "5". In the US I can end up carding a 7.

If this happens on a regular basis my US index would be 2 higher, completely attributable to the fact I am a spaz on par 3s over water.

FWIW, I'm not usually that spastic unless the wind is really up on Stonebridge #2W.

[Colby]

But golfmajic was talking about golfers with the same handicap, not giving anyone strokes...

[jvincent]

The same logic applies.

If indexes are the same, the US guys should, in theory, be giving the Canadian guy strokes instead of playing even because his handicap will, in general, be higher than the Canadian equivalent.

[Colby]

The logic doesn't apply. A 10 is still a 10. You are using a par 3 which is most blatant. On a Par 5, it's double, so they are equal, if I'm a 19, then under the RCGA, I can make a triple while the USGA player can only take a double on the par 5.

All in all, if a player is going to make enough scores that cause ESC to come into play, then their handicap will go up. If I consistantly take 7's on par 3s and 4s, it won't be very long before I am well above a 10.

[jvincent]

But all 10's are not created equally.

If the US10 tends to score badly on par 3s compared to other holes whereas the CDN10 is more consistent then the US golfer will have an advantage because if his handicap was calculated the same way as the CDN golfer his index would be lower.

[Colby]

That's a pretty sweeping statement for 4-5 holes out of 18, and is totally dependent on a golfer screwing up par 3s. And logically, if the golfer is screwing up par 3s bad enough to be consistantly taking 6s and 7s on par 3s, he would have to be scoring a lot of birdies on the other holes to compensate. For example, getting 5 6s on par 3s would leave approximately 52 shots available on the remaining 13 holes, which say he makes par on all par 5s which brings the total to 55, on the eight par 4s, he would have to shoot 5under for the par 4s, and anyone who shots 4 under on the par 5s and 4s, would certainly do better than triples on all the par 3s on a course.

I'm a 10, and I have maybe 1 or 2 holes a round on avereage where I may have to apply ESC. And the other 10s I play with are generally about the same. The big change in ESC may make a difference on 1 hole in a round.

[jvincent]

The US golfer may also record higher scores on par 4s as well so there are 14 holes where the US golfer can record at least one more stroke than the Canadian.

I think it's pretty easy to see how the US golfer can have an advantage.

[Colby]

But if the golfer records higher scores on the par 3s and par 4s, he won't be a 10 for very long. Is that fact so difficult to see? In my example above, to maintain being a 10, the person has to shoot under par on the par 4s to remaina 10, not shoot higher as shooting more than par on par 4s will increase his handicap over time until it levels out at the handicap for shooting those kinds of scores.

[jvincent]

My counter example.

Let's say the US golfer has 3 bad holes every round. On those three bad holes he records a triple on each one. He pars the others. He records a +9 for handicap purposes.

The CDN golfer 4 bad holes per round and is only allowed to record doubles for each one, even though he actually scored triples. He is now +8 for handicap purposes.

Which golfer has the advantage playing a handicapped match?

[Colby]

In that case, over time, the US golfer would end up with a higher handicap. Now here is the real question. How many golfers do you know that can shoot 15 pars in a round to shoot 3 triples consistantly in the same round. It's fine to create examples, but they should be able to remain true over a long period of time. To take an isolated case is skewing the statistical measurement.

[ironmaster15213]

There is definitly an advantage for the U.S. handicap. I was a scratch golfer 0.0 handicap almost all of 2005, I went back just now and started counting the double bogies that I was allowed to keep with a U.S. handicap and stopped counting at 13 so I know that I probably would have been +.4 to +.6 instead of 0.0 if I had lived in Canada.

[jvincent]

In that case, over time, the US golfer would end up with a higher handicap. Now here is the real question. How many golfers do you know that can shoot 15 pars in a round to shoot 3 triples consistantly in the same round.

No he wouldn't. He would end up with exactly a 9 (not factoring in for slope/rating differences of course).

Of course I exaggerated the example since that's the only way to make the point but the fact is that the US handicaps end up being higher for two golfers with exactly the same scoring record.

EDIT: Also worth pointing out is that when I have my occaisional mental seizure on the course I stop at double and not triple. I'm a 7.8 right now and I know for a fact if I had to count triples I would be a little bit higher.

[Kilroy]

Seems to me that allowing more strokes on the blow up holes can only lead to a higher handicap giving the USGA players higher caps for the same ability, not much, but possibly enough to turn a match by changing the outcome on some key holes.

[BC MIST]

My counter example.

Let's say the US golfer has 3 bad holes every round. On those three bad holes he records a triple on each one. He pars the others. He records a +9 for handicap purposes.

The CDN golfer 4 bad holes per round and is only allowed to record doubles for each one, even though he actually scored triples. He is now +8 for handicap purposes.

Which golfer has the advantage playing a handicapped match?

If 10 of these rounds were his lowest of the last 20, then the total of all his differentials of the US played games would be 10 higher than if played in Canada and would mean a maximum difference in handicap factors of approximately 1.

What does the R&A do?

[Kilroy]

Isn't the R&A the same as RCGA in all areas concerning rules?

[brassie00]

My turn US golfer ( 20-29 hdcp) 14 -par 4's . 4 over par on each 14x 8=112

Canadaian golfer (19-32 hdcp) 14 par 4's . 3 over par on each
14x7=98
The way I see it, is if playing RCGA or USGA rules Canadian golfer wins hands down

[Kilroy]

Actually the CDN hcp (posts 98) is lower that the US player (posts 112) for the same ability,

Therefore when they play a match both as 20 hcp the CDN gives the US player strokes and ends up losing the match.

[Moose Head]

I plan to write a note to the RCGA asking for an explanation!

You should write a letter to the USGA instead, our rules are fine!

[langille5]

The R&A is similar to the RCGA in the way they do the equitable strokes but the main difference is they one count round for handicap purposes that are competitive rounds. It has to be a sanction tournament. Rounds of golf dont that arent tournaments dont count towards their handicap index. They also dont use the best 10 of the last 20 scores to calculate indexes. They can be using score for a number of years to calculate indexes. Even with a bad stretch of golf, the index does vary much. It takes a considerable amount of time for indexes to change. I got this talking to a guy from England in Myrtle Beach in November.

[Kilroy]

That doesn't seem right. If a player improves over the course of a few months, which does happen, then the handicap should go down to refletct that otherwise he has an unfair advantage in a match.

[Colby]

No he wouldn't. He would end up with exactly a 9 (not factoring in for slope/rating differences of course).

Of course I exaggerated the example since that's the only way to make the point but the fact is that the US handicaps end up being higher for two golfers with exactly the same scoring record.

EDIT: Also worth pointing out is that when I have my occaisional mental seizure on the course I stop at double and not triple. I'm a 7.8 right now and I know for a fact if I had to count triples I would be a little bit higher.

The key word here is occaisional. Anyone who is a 10 or less, like yourself, will have a blow up hole or two in a round. If you had more, your handicap will climb as the rounds you play with a lot of blow up holes increases. As BC Mist posts, the difference in the long run is very slim.

[Golfbum]

Now I will post the "HONEST HANDICAP METHOD"

Shoot 75

Post 85

Enter stroke play event as a 13

Shoot 74, Win Low Gross by a mile and walk away with big prize.

It happens all the time.

[Colby]

Exactly GB, Handicaps are only as good as the honesty of the person entering the scores.

[jvincent]

Anyone who is a 10 or less, like yourself, will have a blow up hole or two in a round.

But my point is that with the difference in the USGA and RCGA methods a single blow-up in a round can add a full stroke.

[Colby]

Yes, that is correct, but in the long run of ten games, if the USGA golfer continues to have that extra stroke on his score, he will ultimately have his handicap increase, and then if they do it consistently, they will do it when you play them. Blaming the loss of a match or skins on the difference in ESC is a cop out. The difference over the 10 games used in the handicap calculation, the slope and ratings of the courses played etc, is minimal for golfers of the same handicap index.

[jvincent]

Colby, I think you are missing my point.

What I am talking about the same golfer, posting the same scores, ending up with different handicaps based on the calculation method with the RCGA one being lower.

Given that scenario, I don't see how you can say the two systems are equivalent in that scenario.

EDIT: I should have said SHOOTING the same scores, because the USGA system results in higher scores being POSTED.

[ironmaster15213]

Canadian system makes a whole lot more sense, u.s.g.a. should change. Just my thoughts as an american.

[jvincent]

Careful Ironmaster, they send you to Cuba for that kind of talk.