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

[larrybud]

8 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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".

They might NOT play even. Since Course Handicap = (index * slope / 113) + Course Rating - Par, a woman might actually get fewer strokes if the par is different. I can see some courses with a par 71 for men and 72 for women (or 72/73) etc.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

They might NOT play even. Since Course Handicap = (index * slope / 113) + Course Rating - Par, a woman might actually get fewer strokes if the par is different. I can see some courses with a par 71 for men and 72 for women (or 72/73) etc.

 

 

Yes it is possible in the situations where par is different.  Most courses don't do that, but it does occur more often than it ever should.

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Yes it is possible in the situations where par is different.  Most courses don't do that, but it does occur more often than it ever should.

Have I understood this correctly?  You are saying that the par of a course should be the same for men and women?

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, Colin L said:

Have I understood this correctly?  You are saying that the par of a course should be the same for men and women?

Yes. In general a design goal for an architect is to have all tees provide the same par for each hole.  The CR would obviously differ, but having par the same prevents these weird handicap problems with mixed gender play.  While not frequent in the past, I expect more mixed gender events in the future because of the increased participation of women in golf.

[vandyfan]

Also reviving this thread as I am trying to figure out what my index would be if I was a woman (don't ask me why, it's wednesday I guess?) and I am running into the issue of tees I play not being rated for women. In all cases the tees I play are 300+ yards longer so I can't use Appendix G but based on cursory research it looks like there is typically about a 6.0 difference in rating and 6.75 difference in slope between men and women at the same yardage. 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, vandyfan said:

Also reviving this thread as I am trying to figure out what my index would be if I was a woman (don't ask me why, it's wednesday I guess?) and I am running into the issue of tees I play not being rated for women. In all cases the tees I play are 300+ yards longer so I can't use Appendix G but based on cursory research it looks like there is typically about a 6.0 difference in rating and 6.75 difference in slope between men and women at the same yardage. 

If the yardage is greater than 300 yards from the next tees that are rated for women, you can play them all you want, but cannot post a score from those tees or derive a handicap.  The USGA recommends you contact the course or state association and request they have the tees rated for women.

[Mudguard]

On 9/15/2018 at 1:39 AM, dpb5031 said:

 

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

 

I've raised this with our national golf association before. What would the actual implications be of removing the gender component from the course rating formula? Take the four distances for men and women, scratch and bogey, and split the difference. Create one rating per tee and in one fell swoop you've removed any future gender related issues.

I can't see the downsides other than perhaps a lot men's handicaps may drop, and women's may go up? 

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

 

I've raised this with our national golf association before. What would the actual implications be of removing the gender component from the course rating formula? Take the four distances for men and women, scratch and bogey, and split the difference. Create one rating per tee and in one fell swoop you've removed any future gender related issues.

I can't see the downsides other than perhaps a lot men's handicaps may drop, and women's may go up? 

 

The ratings and resulting indices would become less representative of players' actual abilities (wider spread of actual abilities depicted by a single set of theoretical skills).

 

The game is also already struggling to attract women and holding onto them. I don't think them having even higher indices would in any way encourage those struggling with their game to continue playing.

[Mudguard]

42 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

The ratings and resulting indices would become less representative of players' actual abilities (wider spread of actual abilities depicted by a single set of theoretical skills).

 

The game is also already struggling to attract women and holding onto them. I don't think them having even higher indices would in any way encourage those struggling with their game to continue playing.

We have 54 handicaps for men and women already. Surely there is room for adjustment. I did ask for the policy on transgender players but was told clubs have the information so who knows.

As for attracting players to the game I don't think handicaps are the issue. 

I just can't see the difference between two players with 60mph swing speeds just because they are different genders.

 

One potential issue I've pondered is if women's handicaps all increased they may have to adjust the handicap limit for the serious amateur events.

[golfortennis]

21 hours ago, Mudguard said:

 

I've raised this with our national golf association before. What would the actual implications be of removing the gender component from the course rating formula? Take the four distances for men and women, scratch and bogey, and split the difference. Create one rating per tee and in one fell swoop you've removed any future gender related issues.

I can't see the downsides other than perhaps a lot men's handicaps may drop, and women's may go up? 

 

I don't think you really want to go down this road.

[Newby]

On 11/3/2022 at 8:34 PM, Mudguard said:

 

I've raised this with our national golf association before. What would the actual implications be of removing the gender component from the course rating formula? Take the four distances for men and women, scratch and bogey, and split the difference. Create one rating per tee and in one fell swoop you've removed any future gender related issues.

I can't see the downsides other than perhaps a lot men's handicaps may drop, and women's may go up? 

What about Slope? How would that be calculated?

[Halebopp]

On 11/4/2022 at 12:34 AM, Mudguard said:

We have 54 handicaps for men and women already. Surely there is room for adjustment. I did ask for the policy on transgender players but was told clubs have the information so who knows.

As for attracting players to the game I don't think handicaps are the issue. 

I just can't see the difference between two players with 60mph swing speeds just because they are different genders.

 

One potential issue I've pondered is if women's handicaps all increased they may have to adjust the handicap limit for the serious amateur events.

 

What exactly is the problem you're trying to solve?

[Pepperturbo]

On 9/14/2018 at 6:39 AM, dpb5031 said:

 

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

I was thinking along that same line.  Most good courses that we've played have rated the White tees for women.

 

My wife, even her BFF play men's White tees now and again; they are rated rather high.  I get a charge out of it, especially when an ole fuddy-duddy shows up on the first tee and says to her, the Red tees are up there.  That actually happened a month back when playing a PGA tournament course.  We both looked at each other and shook our heads. 

 

She teed off and hit it past him, down the middle, did that on most holes too.  About six holes in, he apologized for his comment.  My 16yr old niece when visiting plays the White tees as well.  Women's rating of White tees are typically much higher than men's ratings for same tees.  At a pvt club we frequent, women's white tees are rated 79.1/152, at 6500+ yds; same tees for men, 72.2/130.

[Mudguard]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

What about Slope? How would that be calculated?

 

Just split the difference for the multiplier. 

 

Tee times limited by gender IE no men Tuesday and Thursday mornings, no women Saturday mornings (not a rule at my current club) drive me nuts.

 

I understand the logic of having had two different rating systems, you could argue very few women will reach the swing speeds of men, but the range of swing speeds applies across gender and age. My parents are both in their late sixties, with my mother being a single figure player (just) and has a much longer and more fluid swing than my father's short arm jab, both hit it the same distance, play off the same tee yet play different rated courses.

70.5 127 vs 76.8 137 so they shoot the same number and have different handicaps, which ultimately is fine. But would you not achieve the same thing with having a single rating or would it chuck up some anomalies?

[Newby]

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

 

Just split the difference for the multiplier. 

 

Tee times limited by gender IE no men Tuesday and Thursday mornings, no women Saturday mornings (not a rule at my current club) drive me nuts.

 

I understand the logic of having had two different rating systems, you could argue very few women will reach the swing speeds of men, but the range of swing speeds applies across gender and age. My parents are both in their late sixties, with my mother being a single figure player (just) and has a much longer and more fluid swing than my father's short arm jab, both hit it the same distance, play off the same tee yet play different rated courses.

70.5 127 vs 76.8 137 so they shoot the same number and have different handicaps, which ultimately is fine. But would you not achieve the same thing with having a single rating or would it chuck up some anomalies?

I would suggest there would be all sorts of issues. Although length of drive is a significant factor, there are other things which will affect the rating.

eg Height of bunker face. Size of and distance of shot to green. Difficulty of rough.

[Mudguard]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

I would suggest there would be all sorts of issues. Although length of drive is a significant factor, there are other things which will affect the rating.

eg Height of bunker face. Size of and distance of shot to green. Difficulty of rough.

That's absolutely true. But surely that applies across all swing speeds? If you have a woman swinging driver at 90mph vs a man swinging it at 70mph, play off the same tees yet it is rated more difficult for one and not the other? 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Mudguard

[Newby]

6 hours ago, Mudguard said:

That's absolutely true. But surely that applies across all swing speeds? If you have a woman swinging driver at 90mph vs a man swinging it at 70mph, play off the same tees yet it is rated more difficult for one and not the other? 

Remember, not all players of either gender are the same. A scratch player may only have short drive but be brilliant round the green (or vice versa). The rating system is built around the USGA specification for a 'model' scratch and bogey golfer (of each gender). Swing speed is not the only criterion. Most female players do not have the physical strength to overcome many of the demands of a golf course in the same way as a male player. All the rating factors would have to be changed to allow for their ability to over come the problems. eg How would the "Recoverability and Rough Rating Table" be modified?

Edited November 6, 2022 by Newby