Why should men and women have different rating standards?

[North Butte]

> @chippa13 said:

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

 

Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

 

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > @"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 slope system than gender.

 

I would tend to agree.

 

The difficulty is, it's a lot harder to identify the "high" and "low" clubhead speed subscribers to GHIN than it is to know if each one is male or female.

[Stuart_G]

But those definitions are really arbitrary.

 

I'm beginning to think it's more a historical issue than a mathematical one. There was probably a time when men's tees were only rated for men and women's only for women. Now that the whole concept of tees being gender neutral is more common but the 'old' ways are too ingrained or would cause too much turmoil to merge the two together into a gender neutral handicap system. They'd almost have to throw out everything and start from scratch (no pun untended).

 

[North Butte]

> @Stuart_G said:

>They'd almost have to throw out everything and start from scratch (no pun untended).

 

Hey, that works two ways. Scratch is a pun for this thread and "no pun untended" is a pun for the leaving the flagstick in thread.

 

Good on ya'!

[cxx]

> @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?

 

Sounds like your making your case to compete in the Olympics as a woman?

[PappyVanWinkle53]

> @larrybud said:

> 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.

 

Am I missing something???? I clicked the link and it looks like men do have a Red rating.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @Fade said:

> > Any _mathematical_ reason to have two scales?

>

> Yes, they have different slopes.

>

>

 

Exactly and different course ratings also.

 

Using Larrybud's Pebble Beach example of a 10.7 woman and 14.4 man averaging 90 (10 best esc) and playing even, it should be noted that under the current system they do not play even at all courses from all tee boxes. For example, if playing the silver tees at Breckenridge's Beaver/Bear 18, the man would give the woman 5 shots under the current system.

Course Tee M CR W CR M Slope W Slope 14.4 10.7 Adjustment Difference

Breck Beaver/Bear Silver 67.9 73.9 119 148 15 14 6 5

 

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @chippa13 said:

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

>

> Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

>

 

It bothered me because I had to spend so much time and effort to convince the guys we were playing with that she deserved more strokes when playing against men versus playing only against women. She spent a lot more time and effort than I did but was never ever to convince them over a few years time.

 

[Newby]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

> Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

>

It's not just shot length. The rating system posits that women have more difficulty getting out of deeper bunkers and extreme rough (presumably strength not skill related), so the factors in the formula are greater.

 

 

[mark m]

Another instance where the GHIN app can be very helpful. Load in your playing partners and use the CH Calculator. I have no doubt some will still object - but it would greatly help to convince the open minded.

[North Butte]

> @Newby said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> > Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

> >

> It's not just shot length. The rating system posits that women have more difficulty getting out of deeper bunkers and extreme rough (presumably strength not skill related), so the factors in the formula are greater.

 

That's the key point. It's not that the handicap ratings treat a woman like a shorter-driving man. They are literally rating the course differently for the two sexes.

[dpb5031]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @chippa13 said:

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

>

> Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

>

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > @"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 slope system than gender.

>

> I would tend to agree.

>

> The difficulty is, it's a lot harder to identify the "high" and "low" clubhead speed subscribers to GHIN than it is to know if each one is male or female.

 

Except in cases when my daughter (D1 college player) plays in our men's group. It's tough explaining how a young girl who carries a plus 2 or 3 HC needs 5 or 6 strokes added to her HC, and then significantly out-drives all but the longest hitters in the group...lol! Seriously, most golfers do not know that the difference between the men's and women's course rating must be added to a female players cap when playing the same tees as the men.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

Really the only reason there are separate ratings and slopes for men and women is the concepts of scratch golfer and bogey golfer that the RBs created. If you wish to have more than a mere handful of scratch women amateurs in the world for any given year, you have to create separate ratings/slopes. Otherwise the only scratch women around would be known as LPGA pros (most of them).

[HatsForBats]

> @dpb5031 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @chippa13 said:

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

> >

> > Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

> >

> > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > @"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 slope system than gender.

> >

> > I would tend to agree.

> >

> > The difficulty is, it's a lot harder to identify the "high" and "low" clubhead speed subscribers to GHIN than it is to know if each one is male or female.

>

> Except in cases when my daughter (D1 college player) plays in our men's group. It's tough explaining how a young girl who carries a plus 2 or 3 HC needs 5 or 6 strokes added to her HC, and then significantly out-drives all but the longest hitters in the group...lol! Seriously, most golfers do not know that the difference between the men's and women's course rating must be added to a female players cap when playing the same tees as the men.

>

>

I offered to allow any male player to play from the 'up' tees, I refuse to call them womens tees, under an alter ego (ie. Bob Smith becomes Boberra Smith) as long as they agreed to wear a skirt. We would then keep a separate handicap for their alter ego. No takers so far.

 

[Mudguard]

> @Newby said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> > Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

> >

> It's not just shot length. The rating system posits that women have more difficulty getting out of deeper bunkers and extreme rough (presumably strength not skill related), so the factors in the formula are greater.

>

>

 

This is an interesting discussion. I've had the same debate with our national body about why they are rating courses based on gender. I got a detailed response which I appreciated. The issue is with the way they rate.

I'm aware of the calculations they use for distance for scratch and bogey golfer, however you could argue the same applies within gender. My parents both play, my mother is on a seven and father on fifteen. My mother on average hits it further than my father off the tee, yet my father is perhaps a club stronger with his irons and can probably muscle a ball out of rough. I don't think my mother has missed a fairway in ten years. The point is, she could easily play off the same tee as my father, yet she has a different course rating. There is a young woman at my club who hits her tee shots the same distance as me, and perhaps a club weaker in the irons. Yet there are older male members who can carry it 150m tops with a driver. I think they could simply reduce the scratch and bogey distance components and remove gender. Rate all tees. All that would happen is poorer golfers may have their handicaps increase. I think this is the real reason, perhaps 54 isn't high enough for some golfers (men max is 36 here).

[Mudguard]

> @HatsForBats said:

> > @dpb5031 said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > @chippa13 said:

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

> > >

> > > Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

> > >

> > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > @"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 slope system than gender.

> > >

> > > I would tend to agree.

> > >

> > > The difficulty is, it's a lot harder to identify the "high" and "low" clubhead speed subscribers to GHIN than it is to know if each one is male or female.

> >

> > Except in cases when my daughter (D1 college player) plays in our men's group. It's tough explaining how a young girl who carries a plus 2 or 3 HC needs 5 or 6 strokes added to her HC, and then significantly out-drives all but the longest hitters in the group...lol! Seriously, most golfers do not know that the difference between the men's and women's course rating must be added to a female players cap when playing the same tees as the men.

> >

> >

> I offered to allow any male player to play from the 'up' tees, I refuse to call them womens tees, under an alter ego (ie. Bob Smith becomes Boberra Smith) as long as they agreed to wear a skirt. We would then keep a separate handicap for their alter ego. No takers so far.

>

 

They don't need a separate handicap, they just have their handicap adjusted by the difference in the course rating.

[Llortamaisey]

> @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.

>

 

There is a local country country club near me that has a set of par 70 tournament tees. All of the other tees are par 72. There are two holes where the tournament tees are played from the blue tees. On both tee boxes, the blue tee plays as a par 5 and the tournament tee plays as a par 4, even though it’s the same tee/hole. When the local governing body came out for their playing evaluation, they rated both tournament tee par 4s higher than both of the blue tee par 5s, even though respectively they’re the same exact holes.

[larrybud]

> @chippa13 said:

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

 

I write golf software, so I've done deep dives into stats and reasoning behind the formulas. We're all about simplifying golf these days, and the current formula had unnecessary steps behind it. Most people don't even realize you have to adjust for the course rating when playing men vs women or from different tees.

 

I would love to play with low indexed women, and played with some decent women when I was member at a local university course.

[larrybud]

> @Fade said:

> > Any _mathematical_ reason to have two scales?

>

> Yes, they have different slopes.

 

You're missing the point. There's no reason they should have different slopes. They only have different slopes because they have different scratch/bogey standards for men and women.

 

 

[larrybud]

> > 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.

>

> Am I missing something???? I clicked the link and it looks like men do have a Red rating.

 

Ah you're right, I missed that! So you'd get rid of 3/8th of the required ratings in this case.

[larrybud]

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

> >

>

> There is a local country country club near me that has a set of par 70 tournament tees. All of the other tees are par 72. There are two holes where the tournament tees are played from the blue tees. On both tee boxes, the blue tee plays as a par 5 and the tournament tee plays as a par 4, even though it’s the same tee/hole. When the local governing body came out for their playing evaluation, they rated both tournament tee par 4s higher than both of the blue tee par 5s, even though respectively they’re the same exact holes.

 

What's your point? None of that has anything to do with the course rating and handicap calculation.

[Augster]

If both of them shoot 90 (10/20) from the same tees, they should be playing even up.

 

It seems the system works as designed.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @larrybud said:

> > @Fade said:

> > > Any _mathematical_ reason to have two scales?

> >

> > Yes, they have different slopes.

>

> You're missing the point. There's no reason they should have different slopes. They only have different slopes because they have different scratch/bogey standards for men and women.

>

>

@larrybud, I agree with many of your points. However, I do believe** there is a valid reason for different slopes**. If you take your typical/average/median man and woman who both shot 90 esc half the time from the whites at Pebble Beach, experience tells me that they play the game much differently than each other. The woman likely has better skills other than strength and club head speed. This means there are courses out there that she will do better than the man she tied with at Pebble and courses where he will likely do better than her. The current system attempts to account for this (by rating courses different for men and women, including a different slope line) while your simplified system would not. (see post #36 for one example, but there are many others- Just take that 10.7 Woman and 14.4 Man and see that they do not play even at all courses)

 

Of course, you could make the valid argument that there is no typical man/woman and that if the USGA is going to distinguish based on gender, they should also consider other factors like age, weight, height, club head speed, physical limitations, preferred shot shape, etc. You can also argue that while there might be a valid reason for different slopes based on gender, age, etc. that it is better to have a simpler HC system even if it is less accurate.

 

[raynorfan1]

The thing with the handicap system that many people don't fully internalize is that its **primary** purpose is allow equitable competition between two players of differing capabilities. The "slope" is a half-assed regression line that hopes to "fit" as many golfers as possible.

 

IF subsets of golfers could be identified that had different regression lines that better fit them (i.e. women or juniors) for whatever reason, and that group mostly competes with itself (rather than with the other group), handicaps will be less wrong if there are more versions of rating/slope.

[HatsForBats]

> @Mudguard said:

> > @HatsForBats said:

> > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > > @chippa13 said:

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

> > > >

> > > > Yes, it struck me that the only reason that might bother someone is they look at a women with the same handicap as themselves and say, "No way, I can outdrive her by 60 yards".

> > > >

> > > > > @SkiSchoolPro said:

> > > > > > @"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 slope system than gender.

> > > >

> > > > I would tend to agree.

> > > >

> > > > The difficulty is, it's a lot harder to identify the "high" and "low" clubhead speed subscribers to GHIN than it is to know if each one is male or female.

> > >

> > > Except in cases when my daughter (D1 college player) plays in our men's group. It's tough explaining how a young girl who carries a plus 2 or 3 HC needs 5 or 6 strokes added to her HC, and then significantly out-drives all but the longest hitters in the group...lol! Seriously, most golfers do not know that the difference between the men's and women's course rating must be added to a female players cap when playing the same tees as the men.

> > >

> > >

> > I offered to allow any male player to play from the 'up' tees, I refuse to call them womens tees, under an alter ego (ie. Bob Smith becomes Boberra Smith) as long as they agreed to wear a skirt. We would then keep a separate handicap for their alter ego. No takers so far.

> >

>

> They don't need a separate handicap, they just have their handicap adjusted by the difference in the course rating.

 

The point was if they didn't want to believe that a female player should get additional strokes when playing versus a man they could then post as their alter ego to see if they still felt that way after playing a few rounds posting against the higher rating. Trying to point out that their 16.3 differential for a particular round would be an 11.0 differential if they were to post as a female from the same tees got me a deer in headlights look. Sometimes you have to whack them over the head to get things done.

[Llortamaisey]

> @larrybud said:

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

> > >

> >

> > There is a local country country club near me that has a set of par 70 tournament tees. All of the other tees are par 72. There are two holes where the tournament tees are played from the blue tees. On both tee boxes, the blue tee plays as a par 5 and the tournament tee plays as a par 4, even though it’s the same tee/hole. When the local governing body came out for their playing evaluation, they rated both tournament tee par 4s higher than both of the blue tee par 5s, even though respectively they’re the same exact holes.

>

> What's your point? None of that has anything to do with the course rating and handicap calculation.

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that when the pro asked the association official why this was the case, because par shouldn’t matter, the official said that playing the hole as a two shot par 4 brings in to play more obstacles than playing it as a three shot par 5. They said there’s a greater chance to make a higher number, therefore it’s rated harder even though it’s the same hole. My point was, par shouldn’t matter, but according USGA protocols assessing obstacles when rating a course, par does matter due to the way the hole is intended to be played to achieve the best possible score for a golfer on that certain hole. I agree with you though, it shouldn’t matter, and it probably doesn’t the majority of the time. I make this comment solely on the subject of course rating and handicap calculation, and no other topic should be implied.

[Newby]

> @Llortamaisey said:

> > @larrybud said:

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

> > > >

> > >

> > > There is a local country country club near me that has a set of par 70 tournament tees. All of the other tees are par 72. There are two holes where the tournament tees are played from the blue tees. On both tee boxes, the blue tee plays as a par 5 and the tournament tee plays as a par 4, even though it’s the same tee/hole. When the local governing body came out for their playing evaluation, they rated both tournament tee par 4s higher than both of the blue tee par 5s, even though respectively they’re the same exact holes.

> >

> > What's your point? None of that has anything to do with the course rating and handicap calculation.

>

> Sorry, I should have mentioned that when the pro asked the association official why this was the case, because par shouldn’t matter, the official said that playing the hole as a two shot par 4 brings in to play more obstacles than playing it as a three shot par 5. They said there’s a greater chance to make a higher number, therefore it’s rated harder even though it’s the same hole. My point was, par shouldn’t matter, but according USGA protocols assessing obstacles when rating a course, par does matter due to the way the hole is intended to be played to achieve the best possible score for a golfer on that certain hole. I agree with you though, it shouldn’t matter, and it probably doesn’t the majority of the time. I make this comment solely on the subject of course rating and handicap calculation, and no other topic should be implied.

 

Goodness knows where they got that from. No such process appears in my copy of the rating manual and par has no part in determining what measurements are taken. The only time where shot distance is varied is for dogleg or forced lay-up holes.

But a hole will only one set of rating values regardless of how the par is defined.

[brew4eagle]

> @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?

 

The difference as I see it is that the woman who hits it 180 off the tee is an above average driver of the ball for her gender, while the man who hits it 180 is below average for his gender. With that mindset, the female is more advanced amongst her peer group than the male is amongst his.

 

 

[Stuart_G]

There is a difference between a side effect of the system's being different and a valid reason for the systems to be different.

 

I see a lot of the first being explained, but not a lot of the second.

 

[Mudguard]

> @brew4eagle said:

> > @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?

>

> The difference as I see it is that the woman who hits it 180 off the tee is an above average driver of the ball for her gender, while the man who hits it 180 is below average for his gender. With that mindset, the female is more advanced amongst her peer group than the male is amongst his.

>

>

 

And this is where it gets tricky. Shouldn't we apply these same averages for age? There is a group at my club where three of them are in their eighties. One of them might carry it 160m, the next 130m and the last probably not 100m. Breaking it down by gender is a bit old fashioned and chucks up anomalies in mixed competitions. I guess another way of looking at it is, what is the worst that would happen by having one rating?

Say the course rating is 70 on a par 72 for men, then if it was re-rated dropping the average distance of a scratch and bogey golfer (say from 250y and 200y, whatever the calculation is) to 200 and 150, what difference will it make? The handicaps would adjust themselves, a woman playing the white tee rated at 74 who shoots 90 on average, will have played off 16 or so, if the course gets re-rated to 70, will simply have an increased handicap. A bloke who plays the same tee off scratch will move into the pluses.

Surely nothing has actually changed in reality? The players aren't playing a different course.

[MadGolfer76]

Wait a minute - I didn't think the handicap system factored in gender? Isn't this simply a question of "Player A plays from one set of tees...Player B plays from a different set of tees," etc - now math?