Why should men and women have different rating standards?

[larrybud]

I've done deep dives into the USGA rating system, and the only reason I can see for having a different standard is pure vanity for *women*, not for men. All it does is gives you two different rating scales, where a scratch women is really like a 5 or 6 men's handicap.

 

Any _mathematical_ reason to have two scales?

 

[North Butte]

What means "...is really like a 5 or 6..."?

 

A woman who calculates her course handicap using her index and using the women's slope rating will have a fair (50/50) chance of winning against a man who calculates his course handicap using his index and the men's slope rating. That's all the handicap system is meant to do.

 

Are you saying it does not work? That for a woman and a man playing tees of the same course rating and having the same course handicaps the man has a 5-6 shot advantage? I have not observed anything like that among men and women I've played with.

 

I think the key point you may be missing is the course rating for a given set of tees is higher for women.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @"North Butte" said:

> What means "...is really like a 5 or 6..."?

>

> A woman who calculates her course handicap using her index and using the women's slope rating will have a fair (50/50) chance of winning against a man who calculates his course handicap using his index and the men's slope rating. That's all the handicap system is meant to do.

>

> Are you saying it does not work? That for a woman and a man playing tees of the same course rating and having the same course handicaps the man has a 5-6 shot advantage? I have not observed anything like that among men and women I've played with.

>

> I think the key point you may be missing is the course rating for a given set of tees is higher for women.

 

No, your last sentence is his point! I agree with larrybuds assessment- a man and woman who shoot identical scores from the same tees will have different indexes. The argument for this is that the "standard" (scratch golfer, rating, etc.) is not the same for men and women. In theory, you could also have different standards for juniors, seniors, etc. That would further complicate things when groups compete against each other.

[Newby]

It may be a difference of 6 strokes at the scratch level but have you thought about what would be at the bogey level or for a 36 capper?

[QEight]

Some courses even have different par...

 

"Mathematical" reason could be the different shot length in the formula.

[larrybud]

I mean that a woman and man who shoot the same scores from the same tee boxes calculate to a different differential, but when they play against each other in a match, that difference is negated due to the course rating difference of the tees.

 

For example, let's say two players, a man and a woman, play Pebble Beach from the white tees, each time shooting 90 for their best 10 out of 20 scores.

 

Pebble's rating is:

White (M) 72 / 135

White (W) 76.2 / 139

 

The man would have a handicap index 14.4

The woman would have a handicap index 10.7

 

So now the two players play a match against each other. Each course handicap would be:

Men: 14.4 * 135/113 = 17

Woman: 10.7 * 139 / 113 = 13

 

However, you also have to account for the rating difference in the two tee boxes. The women's rating is 4 shots higher, so we have to add 4 to the woman's course handicap, so they both end up playing to a 17, or even up in their match.

 

This is a completely unnecessary step in the entire handicap calculation, unless your goal is to make it look like a woman is a "better" player for the same scores.

 

The root issue is that there are two different standards which defines a scratch and bogey golfer for men and woman, and this, mathematically, is completely unnecessary.

 

 

 

[North Butte]

If you're going to have the handicap system be of any use to men and women competing against each other, there has to be a difference in course ratings for men and women from a given tee.

 

The scale of handicap is totally arbitrary. As it is set up now, roughly equal percentiles of men and women will be in a given handicap range. IMO it's a much more useful system when a woman telling me she is a 17 hcp means that compared to other women she's about like my 17 hcp compared to other men. If you're going to pick arbitrary scales, why not pick the same arbitrary scale for both sexes?

 

P.S. This thread reminds me of the perennial "Could a 3 hcp man beat Lexi Thompson from the back tees" nonsense.

[Stuart_G]

Sorry - no real insight but FWIW, I've asked the same question to myself a few times as well.

[SkiSchoolPro]

In terms of a mathematical explanation, the course ratings and bogey ratings are computed differently for men and women. This may help to make the slope ratings more accurate for each group (using the assumption that a typical man and woman with similar scoring averages from the same tees play courses differently than each other).

[larrybud]

> @QEight said:

> Some courses even have different par...

>

> "Mathematical" reason could be the different shot length in the formula.

 

Par is irrelevant when computing course rating and slope.

 

Yes, the *reason* the indexes are different is because the scratch and bogey standard is different between genders. My argument is that there shouldn't be a difference.

[larrybud]

> @"North Butte" said:

> If you're going to have the handicap system be of any use to men and women competing against each other, there has to be a difference in course ratings for men and women from a given tee.

 

Not at all. Take a look at my example. All it does is add an extra step to computing matches of men vs woman, all for the only reason to make it look like a woman is "better" even though she has the same scores as a man from the same tee boxes.

 

This would also give a side benefit of rating all tee boxes, and I would suggest that it would get more men (especially older guys) to play the forward tees more often. I would also suggest to courses to get rid of "red" tee boxes altogether (or make the red the back tee boxes).

[North Butte]

Hmmm, my course does have men's ratings all the way up. But then again we probably have at nearly two dozen male members aged 80 years or older who still play golf.

[larrybud]

Most don't. Take my pebble example:

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=20934

 

Men don't get a red rating, and women don't get a blue rating.

It would also reduce the cost to courses in course ratings since only 1 rating would have to be done for each tee box, rather than doubling up on some of them.

[QEight]

> @larrybud said:

> > @QEight said:

> > Some courses even have different par...

> >

> > "Mathematical" reason could be the different shot length in the formula.

>

> Par is irrelevant when computing course rating and slope.

>

> Yes, the *reason* the indexes are different is because the scratch and bogey standard is different between genders. My argument is that there shouldn't be a difference.

 

But in Europe/EGA it is relevant when calculating the playing handicap.

[SNIPERBBB]

Length is a big factor in course rating. Male scratch tee scratch is 250, women's is 210. Male bogey is 210.

[larrybud]

> @QEight said:

> > @larrybud said:

> > > @QEight said:

> > > Some courses even have different par...

> > >

> > > "Mathematical" reason could be the different shot length in the formula.

> >

> > Par is irrelevant when computing course rating and slope.

> >

> > Yes, the *reason* the indexes are different is because the scratch and bogey standard is different between genders. My argument is that there shouldn't be a difference.

>

> But in Europe/EGA it is relevant when calculating the playing handicap.

 

That's why I'm citing the USGA rating procedure. I don't know enough about Congu to know how it works.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @larrybud said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > If you're going to have the handicap system be of any use to men and women competing against each other, there has to be a difference in course ratings for men and women from a given tee.

>

> Not at all. Take a look at my example. All it does is add an extra step to computing matches of men vs woman, all for the only reason to make it look like a woman is "better" even though she has the same scores as a man from the same tee boxes.

>

> This would also give a side benefit of rating all tee boxes, and I would suggest that it would get more men (especially older guys) to play the forward tees more often. I would also suggest to courses to get rid of "red" tee boxes altogether (or make the red the back tee boxes).

 

I generally agree with your points, but, playing devil's advocate, if we go with a single CR + slope, whose should we use?(assuming the male system is best for typical male golfers and the female system is best for typical female golfers).

[larrybud]

> @SNIPERBBB said:

> Length is a big factor in course rating. Male scratch tee scratch is 250, women's is 210. Male bogey is 210.

 

That's my point, there shouldn't be a difference in those standards you have quoted. What's the difference between a woman who can hit it 180 off the tee vs a man who can hit it 180 off the tee?

[davep043]

When I first read this thread, I thought it was absurd, but now I'm starting to agree. Of course women are generally shorter hitters than men, even at the scratch level. For a given set of tees, a woman is reasonably expected to score higher than a man of similar "ability." How to handle that expected difference in scoring requires some kind of value judgement, i.e. do we find a way to award the top level of women the same "handicap" as the top level of men, or do we simply look at the vast golfing population as a whole? Is the best woman player in the planet really just a scratch, while the best male player is +8 or something?Somewhere along the line, each of the various handicapping bodies has decided to group women in one set of players, and men in another. and rank courses seperately for each set. Is it vanity on the women's side, or chauvinism from the men who started the ratings? If its chauvinism, why haven't women rebelled against it? Either way, the current system makes it all work out moderately equitably, and I don't really think it will be changing anytime soon.

[dpb5031]

> @larrybud said:

> I mean that a woman and man who shoot the same scores from the same tee boxes calculate to a different differential, but when they play against each other in a match, that difference is negated due to the course rating difference of the tees.

>

> For example, let's say two players, a man and a woman, play Pebble Beach from the white tees, each time shooting 90 for their best 10 out of 20 scores.

>

> Pebble's rating is:

> White (M) 72 / 135

> White (W) 76.2 / 139

>

> The man would have a handicap index 14.4

> The woman would have a handicap index 10.7

>

> So now the two players play a match against each other. Each course handicap would be:

> Men: 14.4 * 135/113 = 17

> Woman: 10.7 * 139 / 113 = 13

>

> However, you also have to account for the rating difference in the two tee boxes. The women's rating is 4 shots higher, so we have to add 4 to the woman's course handicap, so they both end up playing to a 17, or even up in their match.

>

> This is a completely unnecessary step in the entire handicap calculation, unless your goal is to make it look like a woman is a "better" player for the same scores.

>

> The root issue is that there are two different standards which defines a scratch and bogey golfer for men and woman, and this, mathematically, is completely unnecessary.

>

>

>

...and as evidenced in some of the comments here, most have no idea this even exists or how to calculate for a woman competing against men from the same exact tees.

 

[Deceptively Short]

Interesting idea.

At the moment there are 4 different calculation bases, i.e. Scratch men, scratch women, bogey men, bogey women. Would just going to two bases i.e. scratch and bogey would this work for the very high handicap indexes that for example a current 36 woman’s handicap indexer would have to be increased to?

Without any calculations I would guess that you might have to have a 3rd calculation basis and certainly slope ratings in excess of 155.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @larrybud said:

> > @SNIPERBBB said:

> > Length is a big factor in course rating. Male scratch tee scratch is 250, women's is 210. Male bogey is 210.

>

> That's my point, there shouldn't be a difference in those standards you have quoted. What's the difference between a woman who can hit it 180 off the tee vs a man who can hit it 180 off the tee?

 

You are asking the wrong question. The better question is how does the typical man and woman in your PB 90 example play the course and how will this translate to different courses. My experience tells me the woman would beat the man on a shorter/narrower course, but the man would beat the woman on a longer, more wide open course. (Of course, the same likely applies when you compare a 75 year old to 25 year old)

[SNIPERBBB]

> @davep043 said:

> When I first read this thread, I thought it was absurd, but now I'm starting to agree. Of course women are generally shorter hitters than men, even at the scratch level. For a given set of tees, a woman is reasonably expected to score higher than a man of similar "ability." How to handle that expected difference in scoring requires some kind of value judgement, i.e. do we find a way to award the top level of women the same "handicap" as the top level of men, or do we simply look at the vast golfing population as a whole? Is the best woman player in the planet really just a scratch, while the best male player is +8 or something?Somewhere along the line, each of the various handicapping bodies has decided to group women in one set of players, and men in another. and rank courses seperately for each set. Is it vanity on the women's side, or chauvinism from the men who started the ratings? If its chauvinism, why haven't women rebelled against it? Either way, the current system makes it all work out moderately equitably, and I don't really think it will be changing anytime soon.

 

Because that would spell the end of Title IX in the USA and it's equivalents in the rest of the world. Though that is functionally dead now due to the transgender issue allowing biological men to compete in women's sports and biological women on testosterone to compete against men.

[QEight]

> @larrybud said:

> > @QEight said:

> > > @larrybud said:

> > > > @QEight said:

> > > > Some courses even have different par...

> > > >

> > > > "Mathematical" reason could be the different shot length in the formula.

> > >

> > > Par is irrelevant when computing course rating and slope.

> > >

> > > Yes, the *reason* the indexes are different is because the scratch and bogey standard is different between genders. My argument is that there shouldn't be a difference.

> >

> > But in Europe/EGA it is relevant when calculating the playing handicap.

>

> That's why I'm citing the USGA rating procedure. I don't know enough about Congu to know how it works.

 

By now, I think you should understand that about all the courses in the world are rated with the same USGA guide, even in CONGU. But I was talking about calculating the playing HC, not rating.

[davep043]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> Interesting idea.

> At the moment there are 4 different calculation bases, i.e. Scratch men, scratch women, bogey men, bogey women. Would just going to two bases i.e. scratch and bogey would this work for the very high handicap indexes that for example a current 36 woman’s handicap indexer would have to be increased to?

> Without any calculations I would guess that you might have to have a 3rd calculation basis and certainly slope ratings in excess of 155.

 

I wonder the same thing, this is where statisticians armed with mountains of data might need to become involved. I doubt that there's a clear-cut answer, there would still have to be some "value judgments" made as how to restructure the system. I'm not sure what would be gained by going to a single set of ratings, other than to decrease slightly the effort involved in rating each course. Perhaps someone with specific knowledge could tell us how much of the on-site rating process would change with only two "standardized players", and how much is simply computer manipulation of data collected.

[Newby]

You can't compare the ratings. A male scratch player is expected to hit a drive 250 yards. male bogey 200, female scratch 210, female bogey 150. To get an equal start point the tees would have to be rated for appropriately located obstacles using the male factors (eg bunker depth). On the face of it a female scratch rating would end up (on length alone) around a male bogey rating. The female bogey slope would be off the scale.

But of course a female bogey would not be 20ish if the male scale is used.

[Fade]

> Any _mathematical_ reason to have two scales?

 

Yes, they have different slopes.

 

 

[North Butte]

In some Platonic ideal of handicapping, you could have as many course and slope ratings as there are golfers and thereby compute the best possible estimate of each golfer's potential. That way you wouldn't have any situations where a certain golfer does better or worse on certain types of courses than his handicap indicates, etc. Totally unworkable so we make some compromises.

 

The system that was decided on was to boil down "every golfer is a unique individual with unique capabilities" to something generic for all golfers. They stopped just short of going all the way to one set of ratings and decided that the single largest heterogeneity among golfers would be accounted for by separate ratings. That would be men's ratings and women's ratings.

 

There's no theoretical reason men and women can't share one set of ratings but such a system would do a poorer job of handicapping (for all the reasons friend Newby mentions in #26). I suppose there's no theoretical reason old men versus young men versus big hitters vs. short hitters can't all have their separate ratings but it's impractical.

[chippa13]

What exactly is the point of the original question? Did the OP feel embarrassed when a woman had a lower index?

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @"North Butte" said:

> In some Platonic ideal of handicapping, you could have as many course and slope ratings as there are golfers and thereby compute the best possible estimate of each golfer's potential. That way you wouldn't have any situations where a certain golfer does better or worse on certain types of courses than his handicap indicates, etc. Totally unworkable so we make some compromises.

>

> The system that was decided on was to boil down "every golfer is a unique individual with unique capabilities" to something generic for all golfers. They stopped just short of going all the way to one set of ratings and decided that the single largest heterogeneity among golfers would be accounted for by separate ratings. That would be men's ratings and women's ratings.

>

> There's no theoretical reason men and women can't share one set of ratings but such a system would do a poorer job of handicapping (for all the reasons friend Newby mentions in #26). I suppose there's no theoretical reason old men versus young men versus big hitters vs. short hitters can't all have their separate ratings but it's impractical.

 

Good post. If you only wanted to look at 1 additional factor beyond score, my guess is that swing speed would produce a more accurate HC slope system than gender. Of course, gender is usually more obvious to determine.