Why I think R&A Handicaps are better ...

o .. represent a golfer's ability, rather than his potential (as USGA handicaps do).
o .. count only medal rounds, not every round one plays.
o .. all rounds posted affect one's handicap, rather than only the 10 best of the last 20.
o .. use a simple Standard Scratch Score to indicate a course's difficulty (on a particular day), rather than a complicated Course Rating and Slope Rating combination.

In fact, the Standard Scratch can change from day to day based upon what the field shoots on that day. For example, an increase of SSS may occur because the wind was particularly strong and most players shot well above their handicaps.

You play 3 tournament rounds, which are always played from the medal tees, and your handicap is the average by which your scores differed from Standard Scratch. Then, if in another medal round you shoot lower than your handicap by x shots, you subract .x from your handicap. However, if you shoot higher than your handicap, you add .1 to it (no matter how many shots above your handicap you shot). There is also a buffer zone of 1 shot on either side of your expected score in which you don't change your handicap. Decimal handicaps are rounded up or down in a typical manner: .1 - .4 are rounded down and .5 - .9 rounded up. The values for adding and subtracting from your handicap, as well as the buffer zone are applicable to "Category 1 players" (low handicappers); I think for category 2 one subtracts (2 * .x) from their handicap and the buffer zone is 2 shots on either side.

For example, suppose this is the situation:
o Handicap: 3.4
o Par: 71
o SSS: 73

The playing handicap is rounded down to 3, so the player "should" shoot 73 (SSS) + 3 (handicap) = 76. If the player shoots 75 or 77 then there are no changes (buffer zone). If the player shoots 74 then .2 is subtracted from their handicap, and it immedicatly becomes 3.2. However, if the player shoots anything greater than 77 the handicap becomes 3.5; since this now rounds up, the player's handicap becomes 4. From my discussions with other players, I am uncertain when these changes take affect if one is in the middle of a competition. My preference would be to update one's effective handicap every week or two, and to keep track of the changes (trend in USGA terminology) in between. This would provide more stability when one is playing in tournaments.

The main things I like about this system are that 1) only medal rounds count towards the handicap, and 2) every medal round counts toward the handicap. That may sound funny, but in the US medal rounds are only slightly favored over regular rounds and only half of one's last 20 rounds count. Unfortunately, golfers in the US don't play in nearly enough tournaments to have a handicap system that counts only medal scores. For me, the UK system makes much more sense. The only time that I play with the sole intention of shooting the lowest score possible is when I play in a tournament; the rest of the time I am usually practicing by working on my swing, trying to develop new shots, experimenting with different ways of playing holes, etc. Additionally, when I am trying to shoot as low a score as possible, I think that round is representative of how good a player I am, so every such round should affect my handicap. The USGA system of only counting one's better scores produces lower handicaps than the UK system -- in my opinion, unreasonably so. (One could literally shoot 10 72s and 10 150s and be a +2 or so depending on the course and slope ratings.) I think that handicaps in the UK really are better indicators of a player's ability.

Posted by Andrew Biggadike on October 04, 2004 at 11:20 PM CST #