Why should men and women have different rating standards?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @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?

 

This question leads to the answer (IMHO). The set of male golfers who hit the ball between 180 (bogey golfer) and 250 (scratch golfer) is quite large (among males). The set of female golfers who hit the ball between those two distances is pretty small.

 

You could do it with one system, but you would need to really 'dumb down' the definition of a male bogey golfer so that your measuring standards 'cover' a reasonable range of both genders.

 

dave

 

[Mudguard]

> @MadGolfer76 said:

> 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?

 

Well the handicap system doesn't change, it's that each tee is rated differently for men and women. The rating team use a standard distance for scratch men, scratch women, bogey men and bogey women. That's why if you look at the rating at my course off say our middle tee (we have five),

our white tee is 5519m, slope 127, course rating 70 (par 72). For women it is,

the same tee, 5519m, slope 148, course rating 76.6.

This means that a woman playing in the same event off the same tee, will get 7 shots added to her handicap. My point is, if it was simply rated between the two, then the handicaps would adjust naturally. The other point, is like most clubs we have a lot of elderly members. Some older men are going to hit it exactly the same as some elderly women. Yet playing off the same tee will pump up a woman's handicap, surely this just means that the handicap could be higher to begin with and there would only need to be one rating?

[MadGolfer76]

> @Mudguard said:

> > @MadGolfer76 said:

> > 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?

>

> Well the handicap system doesn't change, it's that each tee is rated differently for men and women. The rating team use a standard distance for scratch men, scratch women, bogey men and bogey women. That's why if you look at the rating at my course off say our middle tee (we have five),

> our white tee is 5519m, slope 127, course rating 70 (par 72). For women it is,

> the same tee, 5519m, slope 148, course rating 76.6.

> This means that a woman playing in the same event off the same tee, will get 7 shots added to her handicap. My point is, if it was simply rated between the two, then the handicaps would adjust naturally. The other point, is like most clubs we have a lot of elderly members. Some older men are going to hit it exactly the same as some elderly women. Yet playing off the same tee will pump up a woman's handicap, surely this just means that the handicap could be higher to begin with and there would only need to be one rating?

 

Wow. How did I not know that? Not sure how I feel about it. Doesn't it kind of presume an inferior golfer based on gender, or is there some other mitigating variable?

 

 

[dlygrisse]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> 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).

 

So they are trying to meet some sort of quota?

 

I guess I have never played a handicapped game against a female so I have never thought about it. Seems the differences in the tees should compensate for the differences, much like the differences between the Championship tees and the senior tees.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @dlygrisse said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > 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).

>

> So they are trying to meet some sort of quota?

>

> I guess I have never played a handicapped game against a female so I have never thought about it. Seems the differences in the tees should compensate for the differences, much like the differences between the Championship tees and the senior tees.

>

>

 

I wouldn't call it a quota necessarily, but I suspect the RBs wanted to have populations of golfers (each gender in this case) that could meet the arbitrary, but reasonable standards of scratch and bogey from tees that differ in length by about 1200 yards or so (approximately correct based on comparisons I have casually made). They did not have to do it that way. They could have a single rating/slope. Other things would change like the max handicap. The RBs may have felt that having only a single linear regression apply to all golfers didn't fit the statistical distribution of scores well for the 2 genders. Don't know since the rating system has been like this for a very long time.

[cxx]

I'm a little surprised that the different handicap numbers are such a shock to so many. Even if you've never played a handicapped match against a woman, the evidence is there on any scorecard with tees rated for both men and women. Given the apparent rarity of cross gender matches, it's no wonder that handicaps and course ratings are kept separately. Now if your playing against a college player or someone of that skill level, then all bets are off. You'll have to negotiate on the first tee.

[golfortennis]

> @cxx said:

> I'm a little surprised that the different handicap numbers are such a shock to so many. Even if you've never played a handicapped match against a woman, the evidence is there on any scorecard with tees rated for both men and women. Given the apparent rarity of cross gender matches, it's no wonder that handicaps and course ratings are kept separately. **Now if your playing against a college player or someone of that skill level**, then all bets are off. You'll have to negotiate on the first tee.

 

Was going to mention this story. We have a 15 year old girl who basically has her choice of schools now. She is so much better than any other woman that they just don't sign up for club C. So I think she won't play the women's division. But there is talk of her playing against the men in the championship flight. I think she would hold her own frankly. So far it sounds like the guys are reasonably on board. I still think there will be some who would hate the idea of her score beating theirs on the same course, but...I'd like to see how well she does.

[DaveLeeNC]

I did a simple calculation where I started on Pinehurst No. 6, middle tees. Assume that, under the current system, a man and a woman each shoot nothing but scores of 90 and they only play that course from the middle tees. The guy ends up as a 16.7 and the lady a 10.6.

 

Now lets assume that they both move up to the 'senior tees'. The guy will need to start shooting 88's to maintain his handicap (actually 20 straight 88's would make him a 16.6). The lady would need to shoot 86's to maintain her 10.6 index.

 

Clearly the USGA sees men and women as being different beyond just shooting different scores on average. A single system would not accommodate that difference. That doesn't prove that the USGA is correct, but it does show how the current system is more different than simply giving lady golfers lower indexes than they would have using men's ratings.

 

dave

[SkiSchoolPro]

For those who feel that HCs would even themselves out with a single CR & Slope, I'd say you are half correct, but missing the whole point of slope rating. Yes, if you have a group of players who always plays the same course from the same tees, then you only need a single CR with no need for slope. OTOH, if you play different tees and different courses, then the gap between the players will change based on the tees/course which is where slope comes in. The point of bogey rating and the slope line is to attempt to make HCs more portable from course to course (and tee to tee).

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @dlygrisse said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > 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).

> >

> > So they are trying to meet some sort of quota?

> >

> > I guess I have never played a handicapped game against a female so I have never thought about it. Seems the differences in the tees should compensate for the differences, much like the differences between the Championship tees and the senior tees.

> >

> >

>

> I wouldn't call it a quota necessarily, but I suspect the RBs wanted to have populations of golfers (each gender in this case) that could meet the arbitrary, but reasonable standards of scratch and bogey from tees that differ in length by about 1200 yards or so (approximately correct based on comparisons I have casually made). They did not have to do it that way. They could have a single rating/slope. Other things would change like the max handicap. The RBs may have felt that having only a single linear regression apply to all golfers didn't fit the statistical distribution of scores well for the 2 genders. Don't know since the rating system has been like this for a very long time.

 

While RayorFan may or may not be correct about the accuracy of the slope lines, the USGA has decided that their steepness is different for the two genders. https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=24

"Slope Rating defines the USGA mark indicating the measurement of the relative difficulty of a course for non-scratch golfers compared to the Course Rating.

Slope Rating is computed by the following formula:

Bogey rating minus Course Rating multiplied by (5.381 men, 4.24 women) equals Slope Rating."

This is why a 14.4 index Male is suppose to play a 10.7 Female even from the whites at Pebble Beach, but give her 5 shots from the whites at Colonial CC. Assuming the 5.381 and 4.24 numbers are reasonable accurate for men and women as a whole, then using a number between the two will make the system less accurate for both males and females. As stated by several above, using more than just gender could make the slope system more accurate (but possibly less practical to implement).

 

And yes, when computing slope it makes sense to have categories that include a decent number of people. I'd posit that if you were only going to use two groups for each gender to determine slope that it should be something other than "scratch" and "bogey" golfers. Even with the higher course ratings, I'd bet there are not all that many scratch women playing handicapped events...a slope line drawn from a 10 index to 30 index would likely be more useful IMO.

 

 

[larrybud]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> I did a simple calculation where I started on Pinehurst No. 6, middle tees. Assume that, under the current system, a man and a woman each shoot nothing but scores of 90 and they only play that course from the middle tees. The guy ends up as a 16.7 and the lady a 10.6.

>

> Now lets assume that they both move up to the 'senior tees'. The guy will need to start shooting 88's to maintain his handicap (actually 20 straight 88's would make him a 16.6). The lady would need to shoot 86's to maintain her 10.6 index.

>

> Clearly the USGA sees men and women as being different beyond just shooting different scores on average. A single system would not accommodate that difference. That doesn't prove that the USGA is correct, but it does show how the current system is more different than simply giving lady golfers lower indexes than they would have using men's ratings.

 

I don't believe your math is correct for Pinehurst #6: (shooting 90)

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=44454

white (F) 76.4/ 139, (M) 70.7/125

F=11.0 index, course handicap = 14

M=17.4 index, course handicap = 19

 

Move to Green Tees

(F) 73.5 / 128, (M) 68.3 / 120

F course handicap = 12

M course Handicap = 18, minus 5.2 for course rating = 13, the guy would get 1 shot.

 

So now we have a rounding or rating issue where two players, who shoot exactly the same scores on one tee box move to another tee box and 1 player get a shot. I don't see the equity in that.

[larrybud]

> @Augster said:

> 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.

 

See the above example. They shoot the same scores from one set of tees, then move to another set of tees, and suddenly one player, the guy in this case, is getting a shot.

[HatsForBats]

> @larrybud said:

> > @Augster said:

> > 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.

>

> See the above example. They shoot the same scores from one set of tees, then move to another set of tees, and suddenly one player, the guy in this case, is getting a shot.

 

The woman would get a shot on the first set of tees since the course rating difference is 5.7 rounded to 6.

 

white (F) 76.4/ 139, (M) 70.7/125

F=11.0 index, course handicap = 14 + 6

M=17.4 index, course handicap = 19

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @larrybud said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I did a simple calculation where I started on Pinehurst No. 6, middle tees. Assume that, under the current system, a man and a woman each shoot nothing but scores of 90 and they only play that course from the middle tees. The guy ends up as a 16.7 and the lady a 10.6.

> >

> > Now lets assume that they both move up to the 'senior tees'. The guy will need to start shooting 88's to maintain his handicap (actually 20 straight 88's would make him a 16.6). The lady would need to shoot 86's to maintain her 10.6 index.

> >

> > Clearly the USGA sees men and women as being different beyond just shooting different scores on average. A single system would not accommodate that difference. That doesn't prove that the USGA is correct, but it does show how the current system is more different than simply giving lady golfers lower indexes than they would have using men's ratings.

>

> I don't believe your math is correct for Pinehurst #6: (shooting 90)

> https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=44454

> white (F) 76.4/ 139, (M) 70.7/125

> F=11.0 index, course handicap = 14

> M=17.4 index, course handicap = 19

>

> Move to Green Tees

> (F) 73.5 / 128, (M) 68.3 / 120

> F course handicap = 12

> M course Handicap = 18, minus 5.2 for course rating = 13, the guy would get 1 shot.

>

>** So now we have a rounding or rating issue where two players, who shoot exactly the same scores on one tee box move to another tee box and 1 player get a shot. I don't see the equity in that.**

That is the whole point of the slope based system. When I first started playing golf, you got a handicap rather than an index that needed to be turned into a handicap. The problem was those handicaps did not travel well. A guy who was an 18 handicap at a tough course with lots of trouble for a bogey golfer might go to an easy course with little trouble and shoot 12 over the CR, while a scratch might shoot around the CR at both courses.

@larrybud, you have ignored most of my posts so far. Even the ones where I asked you specific questions. That Man and Woman who you say both shoot 90 at Pebble Beach. Have you ever heard the saying horses for courses? OWGR #33 Kevin Na said this year that there are only 7 or 8 courses on Tour where he can contend. https://www.golfchannel.com/news/kevin-na-62-comfortable-colonial-i-can-contend-7-or-8-courses

 

The current system predicts that the Man would be 5 better than the Woman at Colonial CC white tees. What is your basis for saying that it is likely they will both shoot the same scores on all courses? Do you really believe that a Man who shoots 90 at PB has the same strengths and weaknesses as a Woman who shoots 90? I know that the woman that I have played with that shoot 90 esc tend to be more consistent, straighter, but shorter than the average men that I see shoot 90 esc...is your experience different?

 

[dlygrisse]

What if he or she is a "they" are there only two pronoun's in golf? What if a guy identifies as a girl? It's inevitable, it's going to happen..... :D

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @dlygrisse said:

> What if he or she is a "they" are there only two pronoun's in golf? What if a guy identifies as a girl? It's inevitable, it's going to happen..... :D

 

I've said above that the slope system would probably be more accurate looking at Club head speed rather than gender (but less practical to implement). If you were to measure the club head speed of every self identified man and every self identified woman who shot 90 at PB, which group do you think would have the higher club head speed?

[Newby]

What has club head speed got to do with putting, chipping and getting out of bunkers?

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @Newby said:

> What has club head speed got to do with putting, chipping and getting out of bunkers?

How many people with a 70 mph club head speed are great out of deep bunkers?

If I told you two players who both average 90 (10 best ESC out of 20) at PB white tees had club head speeds of 80 & 110, who would you guess is the better putter and chipper? I know that I would guess that the player with the 80 mph club head speed is shorter, straighter and more consistent off the tee. While I might bet on the player with the 110 mph if there were multiple 220+ forced carries, if the course was tighter from 250-320 with greens that allowed for a bit of run up, I would go with the 80 mph player.

 

I don't know all the ins and outs of how bogey rating is determined, but I would guess that more of the obstacle rating comes from bunkers, hazards, etc. rather than chipping and putting.

 

@Newby- If you knew a players index, what 1 piece of additional information would want to know to get a better idea of what courses/tees they may play well on or poorly on? i.e. If you had a match against an opponent and had your choice of tees and course, what else would you want to know about their game?

[DaveLeeNC]

> @larrybud said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I did a simple calculation where I started on Pinehurst No. 6, middle tees. Assume that, under the current system, a man and a woman each shoot nothing but scores of 90 and they only play that course from the middle tees. The guy ends up as a 16.7 and the lady a 10.6.

> >

> > Now lets assume that they both move up to the 'senior tees'. The guy will need to start shooting 88's to maintain his handicap (actually 20 straight 88's would make him a 16.6). The lady would need to shoot 86's to maintain her 10.6 index.

> >

> > Clearly the USGA sees men and women as being different beyond just shooting different scores on average. A single system would not accommodate that difference. That doesn't prove that the USGA is correct, but it does show how the current system is more different than simply giving lady golfers lower indexes than they would have using men's ratings.

>

> I don't believe your math is correct for Pinehurst #6: (shooting 90)

> https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=44454

> white (F) 76.4/ 139, (M) 70.7/125

> F=11.0 index, course handicap = 14

> M=17.4 index, course handicap = 19

>

> Move to Green Tees

> (F) 73.5 / 128, (M) 68.3 / 120

> F course handicap = 12

> M course Handicap = 18, minus 5.2 for course rating = 13, the guy would get 1 shot.

>

> So now we have a rounding or rating issue where two players, who shoot exactly the same scores on one tee box move to another tee box and 1 player get a shot. I don't see the equity in that.

 

My post was not about course handicaps. I was simply pointing out that the current system (in most cases) assumes that men and women "react differently" to differing course parameters and that is reflected in how handicap indexes are calculated. If there were a single system this would have to change. I suspect that the USGA believes that this difference is warranted, so they are unlikely to go to a single system where this difference cannot exist .

 

That was my only point. It was about handicap index calculations, and not about course handicaps.

 

dave

[Newby]

> @SkiSchoolPro said:

 

>

> @Newby- If you knew a players index, what 1 piece of additional information would want to know to get a better idea of what courses/tees they may play well on or poorly on? i.e. If you had a match against an opponent and had your choice of tees and course, what else would you want to know about their game?

 

How straight they were

[Pepperturbo]

No mathematical reasoning. Outside of equal pay for an equal job, men and women are not equal on a golf course or sports in general. We've seen that in track & field and wrestling, which I won't go into. I've played golf with LPGA women pros and single-digit amateur women both much younger than me. There must be a difference in standards.

 

It's poor reasoning to suggest having one rating for both sexes would save money and make it easier for match play. My wife and I are both past Inter-club team members. Neither of us has encountered a club that pits women against men or has the sexes on the same tees, even if a woman wanted to compete against men. IMO the most significant reasons are distance and it's physically impossible for one to equal the other.

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

> @larrybud said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I did a simple calculation where I started on Pinehurst No. 6, middle tees. Assume that, under the current system, a man and a woman each shoot nothing but scores of 90 and they only play that course from the middle tees. The guy ends up as a 16.7 and the lady a 10.6.

> >

> > Now lets assume that they both move up to the 'senior tees'. The guy will need to start shooting 88's to maintain his handicap (actually 20 straight 88's would make him a 16.6). The lady would need to shoot 86's to maintain her 10.6 index.

> >

> > Clearly the USGA sees men and women as being different beyond just shooting different scores on average. A single system would not accommodate that difference. That doesn't prove that the USGA is correct, but it does show how the current system is more different than simply giving lady golfers lower indexes than they would have using men's ratings.

>

> I don't believe your math is correct for Pinehurst #6: (shooting 90)

> https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=44454

> white (F) 76.4/ 139, (M) 70.7/125

> F=11.0 index, course handicap = 14

> M=17.4 index, course handicap = 19

>

> Move to Green Tees

> (F) 73.5 / 128, (M) 68.3 / 120

> F course handicap = 12

> M course Handicap = 18, minus 5.2 for course rating = 13, the guy would get 1 shot.

>

> So now we have a rounding or rating issue where two players, who shoot exactly the same scores on one tee box move to another tee box and 1 player get a shot. I don't see the equity in that.

 

Something funny with the slope. Difference should have been more like 7 or 8 points rather than 11. Maybe some forced carries are dramatically different between white and green tees. Anyway, the very high slope rating bumps the lady golfer's handicap from the white tees which evaporates from the green. The other stroke seems to be a round off issue. Rub of the green so to speak. The handicap system's ability to equalize is most stressed at the extremes; competitions with large index differences or mixed gender competitions.

[SkiSchoolPro]

> @Newby said:

> > @SkiSchoolPro said:

>

> >

> > @Newby- If you knew a players index, what 1 piece of additional information would want to know to get a better idea of what courses/tees they may play well on or poorly on? i.e. If you had a match against an opponent and had your choice of tees and course, what else would you want to know about their game?

>

> How straight they were

 

Makes senses. How would you determine how straight a player is in terms of a HC system? I'd say that letting people self declare gender is pretty easy and ~99% accurate (at least for lower stakes), self-declaring age less accurate but relatively straight forward (and can often be verified via DL, etc.), club head speed not as straight forward, but not that hard to test once a year or so...

 

I'd guess among players who shoot the same score on an average golf course, there is an inverse correlation between their club head speed and how straight they hit the ball. In terms of a HC system, I'd say it would take far fewer data points to get a good estimation of someone's club head speed rather than how straight they were...of course, on the PGA Tour, they attempt to measure both.

[Fade]

I suppose there are several ways to organize sports, M vs. W:

 

Swimming: Same distance, different results.

Track Running: Same distance, different results.

Golf: Different distance, similar results.

Shot Put: Different weight, similar results.

 

Is the accepted method for the first 2 examples superior to that for the latter 2?

[MadGolfer76]

> @dlygrisse said:

> What if he or she is a "they" are there only two pronoun's in golf? What if a guy identifies as a girl? It's inevitable, it's going to happen..... :D

Already happening in high school sports. Maine had the first athletic policy that addressed it and college sports should be considering it now if they haven't already.

 

[wkuo3]

> @larrybud said:

> 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?

>

Because damn if you do and damn if you don't.

In this case, the two scoring system is like you said, because of vanity and shows "equivalent" scale to the man's. If we put both on the same scale then, there be crying of not being treated as equal..........

Because we are different, and thank goodness for that. I just don't understand why everything could be measured on the same base. If anyone crying that they don;t get paid for playing professional sports. I'd say, professional sports are business. When anyone could generate the same volume of income and not being paid on the same scale then, there is a valid base for argument.

So, in this case, a quantitative measure would be a good quideline ( for the plaing ability and the funds generated in related fields ). As far as I'm concerned, the two different scale to measure standing for the men/women professional golfers is necessary to promote the sports. But don't tell that to my wife, or I'll have peanut butter sandwiches for weeks.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Fade said:

> I suppose there are several ways to organize sports, M vs. W:

>

> Swimming: Same distance, different results.

> Track Running: Same distance, different results.

> Golf: Different distance, similar results.

> Shot Put: Different weight, similar results.

>

> Is the accepted method for the first 2 examples superior to that for the latter 2?

 

I think it depends on the context of the sport and what makes sense. How would you "equalize results" in swimming? Race 180 meters backstroke but call it the 200m backstroke? You don't have that kind of flexibility in most swimming venues and it would just seem silly. You could more easily do it in running events, but you can't erase the silly part.

 

Putting the ladies on 7500 yard courses really changes the nature of golf and (IMHO) would be far less interesting.

 

So it (IMHO) depends on the nature of the sport.

 

dave

[Mudguard]

> @Bluefan75 said:

So far it sounds like the guys are reasonably on board. I still think there will be some who would hate the idea of her score beating theirs on the same course, but...I'd like to see how well she does.

In fairness she should play off the tee that closely corresponds to the course rating the men will play off, otherwise the equivalent is to send the men off an even longer tee (if it is possible).

 

[Newby]

> @Fade said:

> I suppose there are several ways to organize sports, M vs. W:

>

> Swimming: Same distance, different results.

> Track Running: Same distance, different results.

> Golf: Different distance, similar results.

> Shot Put: Different weight, similar results.

>

> Is the accepted method for the first 2 examples superior to that for the latter 2?

 

Check out the Powderhall Sprint for handicapping

[golfortennis]

> @Mudguard said:

> > @Bluefan75 said:

> So far it sounds like the guys are reasonably on board. I still think there will be some who would hate the idea of her score beating theirs on the same course, but...I'd like to see how well she does.

> In fairness she should play off the tee that closely corresponds to the course rating the men will play off, otherwise the equivalent is to send the men off an even longer tee (if it is possible).

>

 

Oh no, she'll be off the gold tees like the rest of them. She's a competitor in the field. No special treatment other than the fact she's allowed to tee it up. Suzy Whaley she is not!

[Fade]

> @Newby said:

> > @Fade said:

> > I suppose there are several ways to organize sports, M vs. W:

> >

> > Swimming: Same distance, different results.

> > Track Running: Same distance, different results.

> > Golf: Different distance, similar results.

> > Shot Put: Different weight, similar results.

> >

> > Is the accepted method for the first 2 examples superior to that for the latter 2?

>

> Check out the Powderhall Sprint for handicapping

 

 

Nice. There is a lot more visibility than in golf handicapping.