Handicap - RCGA or scorecard?

[Grabster]

Hi,

I was tracking my own handicap on my home PC using computer software. I have always just entered the rating/slope off of my scorecard.
I was recently on the RCGA (and via the handicap option on this site) and I am finding some ratings/slopes are different.
An example would be the Canadian West 18.

So who is correct? Is the RCGA just not updated or is the Canadian scorecards either old or new?
How do people handle this type of stuff?
Also if the course isn't even on the RCGA site (example is Pine View Municpal), is there scorecard rating/slope valid for 'official' handicaps?

Thanks

[Kilroy]

Hard to be sure what is more current. Ask at the proshop. Usually only slight differences anyway, unless the course chaged dramatiucally through a re-design.

Courses not on the RCGA site such as Pineview just aren't current RCGA members. (they don't have any members so they don't pay dues to the RCGA) The slopes and ratings for them should be fine so yes go ahead and use them. You will find many of them are in our handicapping software here.

[jvincent]

In theory the RCGA network should be the correct one.

However, if a course let's it's RCGA membership slide then I believe it would drop off the list. Assuming they don't make any changes to the course, the rating/slope would still be valid. In practice it's hard to know if the course received it's rating when it was a member or if they just "created" one.

Take Loch March for example. The slopes they have listed are decimal numbers, which is not allowed so presumably they just made them up. And were you to ask the starter or girl in the pro-shop the likelihood of getting a correct answer would be very small so in this case what should we do?

IIRC you should not be entering scores from courses which don't have a valid slope/rating so that would suggest that any scores from LM would be invalid for calculating a handicap.

[justsomeguy]

In my experience the scorecards get updated before the RCGA database does. The course seems gets the slope/rating numbers right after it is rated/re-rated, while the RCGA seems to get this information and update their database a lot later. I always went with what was on the scorecard, and in almost every case the RCGA numbers would change to the same ones months later.

[kingco]

The RCGA Network is continually adding courses to its list. If your course isn't listed you can contact them and it will be listed from then on.

[Kilroy]

The RCGA Network is continually adding courses to its list. If your course isn't listed you can contact them and it will be listed from then on.

They only include courses that are RCGA members and they already have them all. Contacting them to ask for a non member course to be added will not be worth your time.

[jvincent]

Dan, do you know what the RCGA charges for a course to become a member so that it can be part of the RCGA network?

I remember reading in the RCGA magazine that I get with my membership that the new President was looking at ways to grow the game, etc.

IMHO they should make course membership free. Any course that opens just calls up the RCGA and tells them they are open and the course gets a visit from the rating team.

This would be different from a "club" joining since a course would not necessarily have members.

[Kilroy]

The RCGA is geared towards member clubs.

The fee is $25 per member with a minimum of 80 members. My home course Manderley had only 40 members this year, so we lost our RCGA membership.

So much for growing the game.

[jvincent]

Yeah, somewhat counter intuitive.

I think an email to the RCGA is in order.

[justsomeguy]

The RCGA is geared towards member clubs.

The fee is $25 per member with a minimum of 80 members. My home course Manderley had only 40 members this year, so we lost our RCGA membership.

So much for growing the game.

RCGA membership is almost totally controlled by the provincial golf associations. Clubs do not join the RCGA directly - they must go through their local associations, who add on their own fees and collect all the money. It is the regional and/or provincial association that is screwing you around - not the RCGA.

If you check out the membership page on the RCGA site, you will see that the minimum number of members as far as the RCGA is concerned is 15. RCGA dues are only $7 per member - the balance of the $25 goes to the regional and provincial golf association. RCGA dues for clubs without members is only $100.

However, provinces can set their own fees and minimums if they wish - and it seems that they have done so in this case.

[jvincent]

That's good info.

However, the RCGA can simply tell the provincial associations that they need to change their policies since they are the governing body.

[justsomeguy]

That's good info.

However, the RCGA can simply tell the provincial associations that they need to change their policies since they are the governing body.

They are separate organizations. What the RCGA can and cannot tell the provincial associations is likely spelled out in the RCGA Bylaws - and I highly doubt that the membership policies for the provincial association is something that the RCGA has control of.

This kind of organizational structure is very common in the non-profit field, and it usually ends up that the provincial associations have all the real power. Its not like what you see in the corporate world at all.

[Kilroy]

You are correct. It's the QGA that governs the memberships in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec

[Matt MacKay]

Good thread. Let me chip in.

Yes, club and course (clubs have members, courses do not) membership with the RCGA is done through the provincial golf associations. RCGA sets general policy but provinces each have their own specific policies and costs.

Kilroy, I had many chats with the Director at Manderley (Dan Kolar, if memory serves)...he is a really reasonable guy and I really hope your club can join again soon. As a whole, the RCGA needs to do a better job of articulating the value to clubs and individuals, and bolster the value proposition itself. I'm a golf nut and care very much about the health of the game in Canada...I do believe the RCGA plays a role and can play a larger role in the future.

With respect to the RCGA Network, if a course is not listed you ca be sure that it is not an RCGA member, which means they do not have valid ratings (even if they publish them on the scorecard)...no valid ratings = not eligible for handicap posting.

If anyone has suggestions/comments/criticisms, etc about RCGA, RCGA Network...whatever, I'd love to hear from you anytime.

mmackay@rcga.org
1 800 263 0009 x209

[Kilroy]

Thanks for contributing to the discussion Matt. Dan Kolar has moved to Mississippi GC this year. Greg Chambers is the current GM at Manderley.

There is nothing I'd like more than more reasonable minimums for smaller clubs. In my opinion the QGA imposing an 80 player minimum for course based clubs is too high.

Not to mention the way they assesed our Public Player Program appliction, but don't get me started on that.

[jvincent]

With respect to the RCGA Network, if a course is not listed you ca be sure that it is not an RCGA member, which means they do not have valid ratings (even if they publish them on the scorecard)...no valid ratings = not eligible for handicap posting.

Thanks for chiming in Matt. I'll probably send email later but for now, let's discuss here if that's OK.

Refreshing the question I had earlier, how about the situation where a course is a member, gets a valid rating, and then drops their membership. One course in the area, Stonebridge, had this situation. They have since renewed their membership and the ratings/slope were the same for the entire period.

It wouldn't make sense to me that scores posted from their non-member period wouldn't count since the rating was the same for the entire time period.

The same would hold for Manderley. Their ratings were valid last year and now even though they aren't a member those ratings should still be valid.

[Matt MacKay]

Under our current membership structure, with ratings being a member service, it's essential that only member clubs realize that value.

Also, member courses must be re-rated every time changes are made (new bunkers, pond, tees, etc). There is no accountability of the ratings of a non-member course...what if Stonebridge had made changes to the course but were still publishing the rating they recieved when they were a member?

Regardless, it's in everyone's interest to have every course in Canada have valid Course and Slope Rating...maybe under a future membership structure rating will be a pay-for-service proposition, rather than being strictly tied to our current membership structure.

[jvincent]

Regardless, it's in everyone's interest to have every course in Canada have valid Course and Slope Rating

I agree 100% with this statement and ultimately this is the message that I wanted to get across.

I'm a member of the RCGA through my GAO Public Player membership so how does that factor into the equation?

Strictly speaking if it's RCGA policy that only member club ratings can be used for handicaps then there should be no provision for manual entry of scores in the handicap S/W.

Take me for example. I have a bunch of scores posted at Loch March, which is not a member club, so all of those should disappear if I understand you correctly.

I'm sure that a great many other golfers are in the same situation.

[Matt MacKay]

A member of the GAO Public Player Club is a member of the RCGA in the same way a member of Hamilton, St. George's, etc. is a member of the RCGA, and with that comes the player responsibilities of maintaining a Handicap Factor under the guidelines of the RCGA Handicap Manual. The manual clearly states that scores played on courses with no valid ratings are not eligible for handicap purposes. The manual also states that only RCGA member courses have valid ratings.

The manual entry function on the RCGA Network is meant for international courses that we do not have a database for...and for the odd time that a course becomes a member and there is a lag between that and getting their info on the Network. If you don't see a course on the directory you can go to the member club directory on the RCGA main website to double-check whether it should be on the Network. I had to do that the other day for a round I played at Indian Wells...it was not a member club (even though they show ratings on the card) so I didn't use manual entry to post the score. That is the same position you find yourself in with Loch March.

[jvincent]

The manual clearly states that scores played on courses with no valid ratings are not eligible for handicap purposes. The manual also states that only RCGA member courses have valid ratings.

But how does one reconcile that with the following section of the handicap manual, specifically the "equivalent" part.

■ b. Scores on All Courses
Adjusted gross scores from all courses with a RCGA Course Rating and Slope Rating, or equivalent, made during an active season, both at home and away, must be posted by the player along with the appropriate RCGA Course Rating and Slope Rating and name of the course played.

Given that the handicap system is based on posting all scores then it seems counter intuitive to exclude courses that aren't members which may have valid slopes/ratings.

Matt, earlier in the thread you asked for suggestions about how to make the RCGA better. What I take away from most golfers is that they feel that the RCGA is simply not an inclusive organization. There is still a perception of it being an elitist, old boy's clubs with exclusionary policies.

The policy we are discussing now is a good example of this. If I were the RCGA I would make it policy that every course in Canada, whether they are members or not, should be capable of holding a valid course rating. All a course would need to do is call the RCGA and schedule a visit from the rating committee and they would get their rating.

I understand that there is a cost to this but if it's the mandate of the RCGA to grow and promote the game then it's something they should do.

And once again Matt, thanks for participating in the discussion.

[spackler]

The "equivalent" part I'm sure refers to courses rated by an "equivalent" body like the USGA or R&A.

[jvincent]

Yes, but those courses aren't RCGA members either.

So, according to what Matt has posted a course can be rated by the RCGA, let it's membership lapse and as such scores posted there are not eligible. Yet at the same time a course that has never been a member of the RCGA is acceptable for posting scores.

That just seems wrong to me.

[BC MIST]

If all courses, whether clubs or not, were rated according to the same criteria, then the accuracy of our handicap factors would likely go up. If the USGA and R&A used the same rating criteria, then we could use any score made on any course in the world. In the same way that some of us have achieved certain levels of rules qualifications and/or handicap certification, those who rate courses must be trained, achieve certain marks for becoming paper qualified and must spend time with other certified raters, rating courses. This costs money and so the RCGA says that IF you are a member of the RCGA we will rate your course and you can use the numbers for your members. Why should they rate a LOCH MARCH, for example, whose ownership does not want members, for nothing?

Another reality is that there are courses being rated by those who are not qualified and yet whose numbers golfers do use or want to use for handicapping purposes. Being a member of the RCGA/USGA/R&A ensures uniformity. The handicap manual touches on what criteria is use to rate courses, but is not specific on the plusses and minuses for each of the many things that are considered. Behind the scenes, there are concerns about the accuracy of the ratings or re-ratings of some of our local courses.

[Matt MacKay]

Indeed, the 'equivelant' refers to Course and Slope Ratings from courses outside of Canada (these would not be labelled 'RCGA' Course and Slope Rating, but are the same thing...the USGA licenses the rating system to approx. 50 countries).

As in Canada, courses that have a rating in another country are part of that countries organized golf system (USGA, Mexican Golf Assoc, etc)...there are no benevolant groups of rating teams that spend their time and money issuing ratings to courses. If these international courses ceased to be a member of their respective golf associations those ratings would not be valid either.

As BC MIST mentions, tying Course and Slope Rating to membership in the association does ensure uniformity and consistancy.

Ultimately, the best way to get every Canadian course rated is to make RCGA membership a 'no-brainer' value proposition for the club/course, and do a great job of communicating that proposition...considering only 75% of courses/clubs in Canada are members we're obviously not there yet. I'll add that some courses/clubs have a better handle on the overall picture (supporting the game) than others do...

[Kilroy]

Ultimately, the best way to get every Canadian course rated is to make RCGA membership a 'no-brainer' value proposition for the club/course,

That is obviously impossible until the RCGA stops requiring courses to have playing members to join. Currently courses without members are not able to join, and courses under the QGA with less than 80 members are unwelcome to join without paying for 80 players. That policy is at odds with the target of including all Canadian courses isn't it?

I for one know 40 other members at my home course who are definitely not happy about it. No intersectionals for us this year and no official handicaps either.

[Matt MacKay]

Actually, there are hundreds of public courses (no members) that are members of the RCGA. It is called a Type 3 (Facility) membership...it's a yearly set fee established by the provincial golf association. The primary motivations for a public facility to join are to:

a) Have an official Course and Slope Rating
b) Support the game/be part of organized golf in Canada

In many cases, there is a club(s) that forms around that Type 3 Facility. For example, XYZ might be the facility and there may be an XYZ Men's Club and XYZ Women's Club that plays their golf primarily at that facility. The club simply pays their per/member (generally around $25 per year) the same as any other RCGA club. I live near Lakeview Public Golf Course and am considering starting up a 'Lakeview Golf Club'...it would be more fun than driving over as a single looking for a game.

[Kilroy]

It is called a Type 3 (Facility) membership...it's a yearly set fee established by the provincial golf association.

I was not aware of that.

Why is it then that Manderley cannot join without paying a minimum of 80 members?

[justsomeguy]

I was not aware of that.

Why is it then that Manderley cannot join without paying a minimum of 80 members?

Dan, read my post #10 in this thread again. The RCGA site also explains the categories of membership fairly well.

To summarize, membership is ultimately controlled by the provincial associations and NOT by the RCGA. Unless RCGA membership policies have changed lately, clubs and courses CANNOT join the RCGA directly. They MUST go through their local association, who can and sometimes do make up their own rules regarding membership.

I think your beef is with the QGA, not the RCGA.

[Kilroy]

I think your beef is with the QGA, not the RCGA.

I am aware of that and I agree the problem is with the QGA.

It seems the policy set out by the QGA is at odds with the RCGA's policy. From what I am seeing here The RCGA says "Yes we want all courses to be RCGA members", but the QGA wants a minimum revenue from every club. That excludes the smaller clubs and public courses. What good does RCGA acceptance of public courses do if the QGA refuses them?

Perhaps the RCGA needs to step up and force the provincial associations to not put up barriers that the RCGA is trying to break down.

[jvincent]

As BC MIST mentions, tying Course and Slope Rating to membership in the association does ensure uniformity and consistancy.

Having the the ratings done by RCGA certified/trained raters ensures uniformity. Membership should have nothing to do with it.

I still go back to my statement that it still boils down to the exclusionary tendencies of the various golf associations.