Adjusting Course Handicap - For Woman playing mens tees not rated for Women

[HatsForBats]

Playing a course tomorrow where we will have a female playing the men's tees which are not rated (USGA Course Listing Database) for women. Trying to calculate a correct course handicap for her when playing against men.

 

Females Index = 13.4

Longest Women's tee ratings = 68.1 Rating and 113 Slope

Difference in Length between Mens Tees and longest Women's tees above = 638 yards

Adjustment per USGA recommendation = 3.5 Rating and 7 to slope

After Adjustment = 71.6 Rating / Slope 120

 

For Men the tee's = 68.2 Rating / Slope 124

 

I understand that when she posts the score she can simply use the adjusted rating/slope of 71.6/120 but how do you calculate her course handicap when playing against men since the tees are unrated for women.

 

If I use her index for a slope of 120 that gives her a 13 Course handicap and then she gets an extra 3 strokes for the difference (3.4) in men's to women's rating for those tees. That would result in a course handicap of only 16 which doesn't seem (can't be) right. She would get lost strokes than one of our guys who plays our course a few strokes lower than her from the men's tees.

 

Or do I use the following?

 

Her Course Handicap if playing against Women from the unrated (for Women) Men's tees would be 18 (13.4 + 3.5) X (120 / 113)? She then gets 3 strokes extra for the Course Rating difference for Men and Women (71.6 versus 68.2) which brings her to 21? This seems right as compared to our regular course which does have men's tees rated for women but I am not 100% confident in it having never made this type of adjustment manually.

[Guia]

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

[dpb5031]

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

 

Not true. Courses are rated entirely differently for women than men. Typically it's about a 6 shot dofference.

 

You need to check to see if the course you're playing has been rated for women (as if she were to post for HC). That will tell you the difference.

 

For example: a set of tees rated 72/130 for men could likely be rated in the area of 77/142 for a female player.

 

My daughter plays D1 college golf and high level Am golf. Most of the tournaments are played from mens tees from 6000-6400 yards and I've seen ratings of over 79/148

[SNIPERBBB]

Posting a Score From an Unrated Set of Tees

Q. How do I post a score from an unrated set of tees on a rated golf course?

A. Example: A woman plays from the middle tees, which are not rated for women. The USGA Course Rating™ from the forward tees is 71.6 with a Slope Rating® of 119. The middle tees are 396 yards longer than the forward tees. Using the chart in Section 5-2g of "The USGA Handicap System," she will post her score with a USGA Course Rating of 73.8 (71.6 + 2.2) and a Slope Rating of 124 (119 + 5). Note: The resulting values are subtracted if the unrated tees are shorter than the rated tees.

Section 5-2g may also be used if a player plays a combination of tees. First determine the total yardage of the combination tees, then apply the above procedure.

[Guia]

Interesting, always learning something. I don't believe our military course has ever been rated for women's golf. I think I will ask why.

 

I played with a couple of women players on the UNM team and from mid tees (2nd longest, 6400 yds approx) they waxed us easily.

[HatsForBats]

dpb5031 - As stated in the original post the tees are not rated for women according to the USGA database.

SNIPERBBB - Also as stated I am not worried about how she has to post the score. That is already figured out and posted in the original post.

 

What I need to figure out is the math behind adjusting her Course Handicap for this single round to play against men from an unrated set of tees for Women.

 

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

 

There needs to be an adjustment in Course Handicap for both the extra distance and for playing against men. The course rating is much higher for women from the same distance. At my home course the back tees there is a difference of 5.3 when women play form the back tees versus men on the same tees (67.7 for men and 73.0 for women).

 

We have 2 total sets of tees which are both rated for men and women. According to the GHIN App:

- If this woman plays only against a woman from the forward tees her Course Handicap is 13.

- If she plays against only a woman from the back tees her Course Handicap is 15

- If she plays against a man from the back tees her course handicap is 20

 

The reason her handicap has to adjust for playing against men is that when she posts it is against a course rating of 73.0 versus only 67.7 for men.

If she is playing against a man and they both shoot 85 she would have a difference of 12 strokes versus the course rating (85 - 73.0) and the man would be at 17.3 (85 - 67.7) even though they played the same exact tees.

[Newby]

What is the length from those tees?

[SNIPERBBB]

My USGA course calculator shows at a 13.4 with 120 slop she would be a 14 CH +3 strokes for playing the higher rated tees.

[HatsForBats]

My USGA course calculator shows at a 13.4 with 120 slop she would be a 14 CH +3 strokes for playing the higher rated tees.

 

I assume that can't be the right way to do it. My reasoning behind it is at our home course one of the guys we play with is a 17 course handicap and she gets 20 from the back tees. When we go to this course tomorrow he will get 18 and she will only get 17 using what you posted. That has to be wrong. Another adjustment has to be made. Just not sure of the math.

[dpb5031]

dpb5031 - As stated in the original post the tees are not rated for women according to the USGA database.

SNIPERBBB - Also as stated I am not worried about how she has to post the score. That is already figured out and posted in the original post.

 

What I need to figure out is the math behind adjusting her Course Handicap for this single round to play against men from an unrated set of tees for Women.

 

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

 

There needs to be an adjustment in Course Handicap for both the extra distance and for playing against men. The course rating is much higher for women from the same distance. At my home course the back tees there is a difference of 5.3 when women play form the back tees versus men on the same tees (67.7 for men and 73.0 for women).

 

We have 2 total sets of tees which are both rated for men and women. According to the GHIN App:

- If this woman plays only against a woman from the forward tees her Course Handicap is 13.

- If she plays against only a woman from the back tees her Course Handicap is 15

- If she plays against a man from the back tees her course handicap is 20

 

The reason her handicap has to adjust for playing against men is that when she posts it is against a course rating of 73.0 versus only 67.7 for men.

If she is playing against a man and they both shoot 85 she would have a difference of 12 strokes versus the course rating (85 - 73.0) and the man would be at 17.3 (85 - 67.7) even though they played the same exact tees.

 

Looks like a differential of 5.3 would be a fair bet.

[SNIPERBBB]

If you want to be generous you could offer the adjustments to the mens tee ratings instead of the longest tees of the women's. Even then shes only getting 2 more strokes.

[HatsForBats]

dpb5031 - As stated in the original post the tees are not rated for women according to the USGA database.

SNIPERBBB - Also as stated I am not worried about how she has to post the score. That is already figured out and posted in the original post.

 

What I need to figure out is the math behind adjusting her Course Handicap for this single round to play against men from an unrated set of tees for Women.

 

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

 

There needs to be an adjustment in Course Handicap for both the extra distance and for playing against men. The course rating is much higher for women from the same distance. At my home course the back tees there is a difference of 5.3 when women play form the back tees versus men on the same tees (67.7 for men and 73.0 for women).

 

We have 2 total sets of tees which are both rated for men and women. According to the GHIN App:

- If this woman plays only against a woman from the forward tees her Course Handicap is 13.

- If she plays against only a woman from the back tees her Course Handicap is 15

- If she plays against a man from the back tees her course handicap is 20

 

The reason her handicap has to adjust for playing against men is that when she posts it is against a course rating of 73.0 versus only 67.7 for men.

If she is playing against a man and they both shoot 85 she would have a difference of 12 strokes versus the course rating (85 - 73.0) and the man would be at 17.3 (85 - 67.7) even though they played the same exact tees.

 

Looks like a differential of 5.3 would be a fair bet.

 

For our home course? Sure, she gets 5 extra when playing against men from the back tees versus 15 when playing against a woman only from the same tees. Question is what should she get on the course tomorrow when the tees are not rated for women? It's easy enough to plug our course into the GHIN App and have it calculate it. The course tomorrow we cannot change her (in the GHIN App) to the tees we are playing as they have not been rated for women.

 

It would be nice to know the actual math and get it right rather than guestimating (even though guestimating will be close enough for this one-off).

[dpb5031]

dpb5031 - As stated in the original post the tees are not rated for women according to the USGA database.

SNIPERBBB - Also as stated I am not worried about how she has to post the score. That is already figured out and posted in the original post.

 

What I need to figure out is the math behind adjusting her Course Handicap for this single round to play against men from an unrated set of tees for Women.

 

Okay, I will play the jerk. I assume she voluntarily chose to play from tees further back (there is no such thing as Men and Women tees, but I get the jargon). The only adjust warranted is if she established her HC from different tees that she get the difference between the tees. No allowance for being a female.

 

There needs to be an adjustment in Course Handicap for both the extra distance and for playing against men. The course rating is much higher for women from the same distance. At my home course the back tees there is a difference of 5.3 when women play form the back tees versus men on the same tees (67.7 for men and 73.0 for women).

 

We have 2 total sets of tees which are both rated for men and women. According to the GHIN App:

- If this woman plays only against a woman from the forward tees her Course Handicap is 13.

- If she plays against only a woman from the back tees her Course Handicap is 15

- If she plays against a man from the back tees her course handicap is 20

 

The reason her handicap has to adjust for playing against men is that when she posts it is against a course rating of 73.0 versus only 67.7 for men.

If she is playing against a man and they both shoot 85 she would have a difference of 12 strokes versus the course rating (85 - 73.0) and the man would be at 17.3 (85 - 67.7) even though they played the same exact tees.

 

Looks like a differential of 5.3 would be a fair bet.

 

For our home course? Sure, she gets 5 extra when playing against men from the back tees versus 15 when playing against a woman only from the same tees. Question is what should she get on the course tomorrow when the tees are not rated for women? It's easy enough to plug our course into the GHIN App and have it calculate it. The course tomorrow we cannot change her (in the GHIN App) to the tees we are playing as they have not been rated for women.

 

It would be nice to know the actual math and get it right rather than guestimating (even though guestimating will be close enough for this one-off).

 

I'm on the golf course myself right now, so can't figure the math. Even so, on almost every course my daughter plays it's a 4 to 8 shot difference in course rating from women's to men's when officially rated.

[ThinkingPlus]

Please see Section 9-3c of the USGA handicap manual. An explicit example is provided. You have already accounted for the unrated tees aspect. Just follow the prescription provided in the manual for the women's rating you determined for the unrated tees. Use that higher slope for the course handicap determination.

[Augster]

From the manual:

 

Example: If women playing from the middle tees, from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3, compete against men playing from the same tees, from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 or 6) to Course Handicap.

 

So, she’d be (13.4@120slope=14) a 14 cap from those tees. Since she’s competing against men we subtract the women’s CR from the men’s CR on the same tee box. (71.6-68.1=3.4). 3.4 rounds down to 3.

 

She gets 17 shots playing the same tee with the men.

[ThinkingPlus]

I have been playing from unrated tees for years and doing the rating adjustment kabuki dance so I could properly post scores. The only thing odd here is the small differential between men's and women's rating/slope. As pointed out by dpb5031, the typical difference in course rating should be closer to 6. I have compiled some data on this in my golf travels. Typically you see variation from 5 - 7 strokes. Occasionally I have seen down to mid 4 strokes. I have never seen less than 4.5 strokes difference.

 

Of the CA courses I have compiled data on the average difference was 6.1/10.4 . In NM it was 5.8/11.6 . My TX list is too small to note and I wasn't keeping the list when I played in FL.

 

Edit: I found some updated data that showed a 3.7 and 4.1 difference on a course/tees in NM. Still rare to see such low differences.

[HatsForBats]

From the manual:

 

Example: If women playing from the middle tees, from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3, compete against men playing from the same tees, from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 or 6) to Course Handicap.

 

So, she'd be (13.4@120slope=14) a 14 cap from those tees. Since she's competing against men we subtract the women's CR from the men's CR on the same tee box. (71.6-68.1=3.4). 3.4 rounds down to 3.

 

She gets 17 shots playing the same tee with the men.

 

I hear what you are saying and what the manual is saying but it doesn't compute properly. If the one guy gets 17 strokes at our home course while she gets 20 from the same tees then there is no way she should only get 17 strokes tomorrow while the same guy gets 18.... from the exact same tees. I am confident in both of their course handicaps at our home course as I have a large enough number of rounds recorded for each of them and their home course only handicaps workout out almost exactly to what they are getting. I could also not tell her (with a straight face) that the guy is playing at a 124 slope from these tees but for you it is only 120. That doesn't make sense and neither do the handicaps using the details provided.

 

I am going to go back and try to re-rate based off of the other tees rated for Women and see if that provides more usable results.

[HatsForBats]

Other Tees rated for women:

Rating for Women: 67.0 rating /111 slope

Yardage difference = 1171 yards which is a 6.5 rating adjustment and 14 slope adjustment

New rating / slope = 73.5 rating / 125 slope

 

Course handicap if paying a woman = (13.4 * 125) / 113 or 15 (14.8)

Difference in Womens rating versus Mens rating = 73.5 - 67.7 or 6 (5.8)

 

15 + 6 = Course handicap of 21 when playing against men. That seems more correct. Not sure where I got the 68.2 rating for men in my first example when it should have been 67.7 but it still wouldn't have made enough of a difference.

[Augster]

Once you start using the chart, there just isn’t going to be a perfect solution. It’s good enough and equitable for score posting, but as you pointed out, not perfect for comps. A male playing the same tee as a female and the slope is 124 for him and 120 for her is not correct. At all.

 

In the grand scheme of score posting, it’ll make little difference at all. But for a comp, and betting purposes, it seems like quite a raw deal.

 

Maybe, if you have time, you can go through the scorecard and hole by hole figure out what the rating should be for a female from those tees using Section 13 of the handicap manual on course ratings.

 

For example, for the tee she’s playing, a start for the scratch rating (course rating) would be ((playing length of the tee she is playing/180) + 40.1). Then add in obstacle factors to make it fair.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

From the manual:

 

Example: If women playing from the middle tees, from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3, compete against men playing from the same tees, from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 or 6) to Course Handicap.

 

So, she'd be (13.4@120slope=14) a 14 cap from those tees. Since she's competing against men we subtract the women's CR from the men's CR on the same tee box. (71.6-68.1=3.4). 3.4 rounds down to 3.

 

She gets 17 shots playing the same tee with the men.

 

I hear what you are saying and what the manual is saying but it doesn't compute properly. If the one guy gets 17 strokes at our home course while she gets 20 from the same tees then there is no way she should only get 17 strokes tomorrow while the same guy gets 18.... from the exact same tees. I am confident in both of their course handicaps at our home course as I have a large enough number of rounds recorded for each of them and their home course only handicaps workout out almost exactly to what they are getting. I could also not tell her (with a straight face) that the guy is playing at a 124 slope from these tees but for you it is only 120. That doesn't make sense and neither do the handicaps using the details provided.

 

I am going to go back and try to re-rate based off of the other tees rated for Women and see if that provides more usable results.

Different courses have different rating differentials between men and women as I mentioned before. Therefore on some courses the women will get more strokes relative to the men than on others. In this case your home course seems to have a larger difference than the course where you are playing the tournament. Rub of the green so to speak.

[HatsForBats]

It all worked out much better using the other tees rated for women. Not sure what the issue was with the other tees but there is no way she should get less strokes than the other guy when playing the same exact tees. They are close in ability but he is definitely a few strokes better. I think I have it all sorted for tomorrow now. Of course with tomorrow being the 15th I had to refigure everything since indexes will adjust but I am confident I now have it all sorted out.

[Newby]

Let me have the length and I can give an indicative difference between the men's and ladies' rating

[HatsForBats]

I just used the USGA's chart for Womens Ratings Adjustments for Unrated Tee's. With 1171 yards difference the rating gets adjusted 6.5 strokes and the slope 14.

 

I figured out why I had 2 different ratings for the 'mens' white tees. The USGA National Course Rating Databse has the tees rated as 67.7 but the scorecard from the courses website (and reconfirmed at the course) has the rating at 68.2. In that case which rating should take precedence? I stuck with the rating from the USGA database.

[puttnfool]

On 9/15/2018 at 3:46 PM, HatsForBats said:

I just used the USGA's chart for Womens Ratings Adjustments for Unrated Tee's. With 1171 yards difference the rating gets adjusted 6.5 strokes and the slope 14.

 

I figured out why I had 2 different ratings for the 'mens' white tees. The USGA National Course Rating Databse has the tees rated as 67.7 but the scorecard from the courses website (and reconfirmed at the course) has the rating at 68.2. In that case which rating should take precedence? I stuck with the rating from the USGA database.

 

I realize I brought his back from the dead.  I was researching how to convert a ladies rating/slope to men's rating/slope and vice versa.

 

@HatsForBats, to answer your question, almost 4 years later, that's the guidance I was given by the USGA re: discrepancies between their database and printed scorecards at the course.

 

As far as I'm concerned the different rating/slope based on gender is stupid.  The ball doesn't know if it's being hit by a man, woman, boy, or girl.  There should be no differentiation.  As it stands, if a man and woman build a handicap from the same set of tees and shoot the same score, the woman's handicap would be lower because she's use higher rating/slope figures.

Edited May 23, 2022 by puttnfool

[Newby]

59 minutes ago, puttnfool said:

 

 

As far as I'm concerned the different rating/slope based on gender is stupid.  The ball doesn't know if it's being hit by a man, woman, boy, or girl.  There should be no differentiation.  As it stands, if a man and woman build a handicap from the same set of tees and shoot the same score, the woman's handicap would be lower because she's use higher rating/slope figures.

If a scratch man is rated to hit his drive 250 yards and a scratch woman 210 yards and second shots 200 and 190 respectively, doesn't that give you a clue? 

[Colin L]

8 hours ago, puttnfool said:

As far as I'm concerned the different rating/slope based on gender is stupid.  The ball doesn't know if it's being hit by a man, woman, boy, or girl.  There should be no differentiation.  As it stands, if a man and woman build a handicap from the same set of tees and shoot the same score, the woman's handicap would be lower because she's use higher rating/slope figures.

 

That has to be about the weirdest thinking I've come across in this forum - and the bar's set pretty high. 🙂

 

 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Colin L

[larrybud]

 

On 5/24/2022 at 12:57 AM, Colin L said:

 

That has to be about the weirdest thinking I've come across in this forum - and the bar's set pretty high. 🙂

 

 

 

It's absolutely true that a man and a woman, playing from the same set of tees (which would result in a different for a man and a woman) who shoots the same set of scores, the man will have a higher index than the woman.

 

Do you think that's equitable?

[ThinkingPlus]

30 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

 

It's absolutely true that a man and a woman, playing from the same set of tees (which would result in a different for a man and a woman) who shoots the same set of scores, the man will have a higher index than the woman.

 

Do you think that's equitable?

It depends on what you mean by the word "equitable".  If you mean that they are each equally good players, but the women's index makes it appear she is far better, then in that sense "not equitable".  However, if the two played each other in a match or stroke play (playing from those same tees) each would receive the same number of strokes thus playing even.  In that sense their handicap indices are "equitable".

[Colin L]

Wouldn't it save you all a great deal of bother and arithmetic if you just got your different tees rated for both men and women?

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Wouldn't it save you all a great deal of bother and arithmetic if you just got your different tees rated for both men and women?

Well depending on who you ask, it costs more or doesn't.  If it costs more, then rating everything for everyone isn't cost effective.

 

If it doesn't cost more, then there are really no excuses.