Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Shilgy]

That was a response to a specific statement. A course isn't magically more difficult when the LPGA arrives than it is the rest of the time. Of the courses the LPGA could play on in my area they play on one of the easiest if not the easiest. Galloway National a mile down the road is an absolute beast compared to Seaview.

If that is at me I was referring to the setup, not the course rating/difficulty. The lpga course will usually be set up with more difficult pins, for example, than the course the 4 earned his handicap at. In addition, when I belonged to Moon Valley when the Phoenix event was held there it was much more difficult than the normal setup. The rough was grown for weeks and then groomed. The greens were double rolled each day and the pins were difficult. And Annika still shot 59. Not the lady pro we are all referring to but the setup was tough. So perhaps the event in your neighborhood is not groomed for the event but that is not the norm imo.

 

You seem to be assuming that all 4-handicaps play goat track munis that don't have fast greens and tough pin locations.

Not at all. Just saying that very few courses have tour difficulty pins on a day in day out basis. But I get it-we disagree and that is fine. I also disagree with the guy a couple posts above that thinks the LPGA courses are getting shorter. No biggie.

[Argonne69]

Interestingly, with all the latest and greatest technology, driving distances haven't really changed all that much on the LPGA in the last decade. In 2007, the longest player averaged 275 yards. The median was 247 yards. In 2017 the longest player is averaging 277, and the median is 249. If you go back 20 years you begin to see the major changes (263/237).

 

Driving accuracy has improved more significantly. In 2007 the best player hit 81% of the fairways, and this season it's 81%. The median in 2007 was 65%, and its 77% this season.

[PepsiDuck]

Huh? A four is a four is a four. 'Doesn't matter if they're long or short hitting. Doesn't matter if they play easy courses or hard courses. If the HC system is doing its job, this all evens out. A long hitting 4 HC will obviously have a worse short game than a short hitting four.

 

The most important question to ask in all of this is, does the USGA handicap system accurate account for the difference in men and women when it assesses course rating and slope? I'd venture to say that it does not and that the original assertion of this thread does have some merit.

[Shilgy]

Huh? A four is a four is a four. 'Doesn't matter if they're long or short hitting. Doesn't matter if they play easy courses or hard courses. If the HC system is doing its job, this all evens out. A long hitting 4 HC will obviously have a worse short game than a short hitting four.

 

The most important question to ask in all of this is, does the USGA handicap system accurate account for the difference in men and women when it assesses course rating and slope? I'd venture to say that it does not and that the original assertion of this thread does have some merit.

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

[PepsiDuck]

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

 

I generally agree that a 4 really is not as good as most think. Is there a generally accepted "crossover" point where the female golfer's handicap is equivalent to the male golfer when playing from the same tees?

 

And is the bottom LPGA pro's "handicap" calculated as a man or woman? Is the +1/+2 figure you offer an equivalent male handicap based on their female handicap (which may be +4 or +5) or their female handicap?

[dap]

That was a response to a specific statement. A course isn't magically more difficult when the LPGA arrives than it is the rest of the time. Of the courses the LPGA could play on in my area they play on one of the easiest if not the easiest. Galloway National a mile down the road is an absolute beast compared to Seaview.

If that is at me I was referring to the setup, not the course rating/difficulty. The lpga course will usually be set up with more difficult pins, for example, than the course the 4 earned his handicap at. In addition, when I belonged to Moon Valley when the Phoenix event was held there it was much more difficult than the normal setup. The rough was grown for weeks and then groomed. The greens were double rolled each day and the pins were difficult. And Annika still shot 59. Not the lady pro we are all referring to but the setup was tough. So perhaps the event in your neighborhood is not groomed for the event but that is not the norm imo.

 

You seem to be assuming that all 4-handicaps play goat track munis that don't have fast greens and tough pin locations.

Not at all. Just saying that very few courses have tour difficulty pins on a day in day out basis. But I get it-we disagree and that is fine. I also disagree with the guy a couple posts above that thinks the LPGA courses are getting shorter. No biggie.

Most LPGA courses are around 6300 yards. Very rarely are they 6600 yards. Last years British Open course was 6300 yards. Most typical championship courses from the blue tee's would be 6700 yards minimum and I would assume a lot of low handicap male players play this length.

 

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/randall-mell/randalls-rant-time-lpga-courses-get-tough

 

[Argonne69]

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

 

I generally agree that a 4 really is not as good as most think. Is there a generally accepted "crossover" point where the female golfer's handicap is equivalent to the male golfer when playing from the same tees?

 

And is the bottom LPGA pro's "handicap" calculated as a man or woman? Is the +1/+2 figure you offer an equivalent male handicap based on their female handicap (which may be +4 or +5) or their female handicap?

 

As was posted for the Kia Classic, they played roughly the blue tees Thursday and Friday at ~6700 yards. For men it's 72.5/135, and for women it's roughly 77/145. The winner averaged 67 for 4 days. Clearly, the 4 HC would get murdered by the basically +5 to +6 player (based on the men's rating). The median score was -1.25 each day, or roughly +2. The 71st player (Maria Parra) averaged +2 each day. However, she is currently ranked 349th in the world. Nobody would classifier her as a low ranking LPGA player. Just ahead of her 3 players tied for 68th place averaging just under +1 each day.

 

So, let's take Thidapa Suwannapura, ranked 273rd in the world. She finished 68T shooting 70, 74, 73, and 74. I don't think the 4 beats her any day of the tournament, and she's not even a low ranked LPGA player.

 

I disagree with Mel's assessment. It's not the length, but the lack of rough. The early season tournaments, other than the ANA, are played on courses that have very little rough. Add firm conditions, and the stats show that many players are hitting it longer off the tee. At the ANA we saw what a little rough could do.

[PepsiDuck]

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

 

I generally agree that a 4 really is not as good as most think. Is there a generally accepted "crossover" point where the female golfer's handicap is equivalent to the male golfer when playing from the same tees?

 

And is the bottom LPGA pro's "handicap" calculated as a man or woman? Is the +1/+2 figure you offer an equivalent male handicap based on their female handicap (which may be +4 or +5) or their female handicap?

 

As was posted for the Kia Classic, they played roughly the blue tees Thursday and Friday at ~6700 yards. For men it's 72.5/135, and for women it's roughly 77/145. The winner averaged 67 for 4 days. Clearly, the 4 HC would get murdered by the basically +5 to +6 player (based on the men's rating). The median score was -1.25 each day, or roughly +2. The 71st player (Maria Parra) averaged +2 each day. However, she is currently ranked 349th in the world. Nobody would classifier her as a low ranking LPGA player. Just ahead of her 3 players tied for 68th place averaging just under +1 each day.

 

So, let's take Thidapa Suwannapura, ranked 273rd in the world. She finished 68T shooting 70, 74, 73, and 74. I don't think the 4 beats her any day of the tournament, and she's not even a low ranked LPGA player.

 

I caddied for a buddy who played in the Wednesday Pro-Am for the Kia Classic. We played from the tournament tees, and it definitely didn't feel like it played 6700 yards.

 

For the record, I don't think the 4 has a chance in hell.

[dlygrisse]

The best golf I ever played, I was around a 4 or a 5. (Not there any longer) I would occasionally have a round of golf at around even par every year or two, on an easy course from the middle tees, when the weather was nice. Best ever was -2/68, which I did a couple of times. This mythical LPGA player playing in those same conditions would have to have a mighty bad day to lose to me, I know this for sure. Could it have happened? Sure, I guess. I put the odds at 1000-1.

 

So could it happen? Sure. But it aint likely. Not even close.

[Argonne69]

I caddied for a buddy who played in the Wednesday Pro-Am for the Kia Classic. We played from the tournament tees, and it definitely didn't feel like it played 6700 yards.

 

For the record, I don't think the 4 has a chance in hell.

 

The tournament tees were a combination of grey, (mostly) blue, white, and gold (on Saturday and Sunday). The weekend length on the card was 6476 with the teebox moved up on #16.

 

 

[Shilgy]

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

 

I generally agree that a 4 really is not as good as most think. Is there a generally accepted "crossover" point where the female golfer's handicap is equivalent to the male golfer when playing from the same tees?

 

And is the bottom LPGA pro's "handicap" calculated as a man or woman? Is the +1/+2 figure you offer an equivalent male handicap based on their female handicap (which may be +4 or +5) or their female handicap?

+1 to +2 male cap.

[flog2]

rollin' rollin' rollin', got to keep things rollin', Rawhide!

[Shilgy]

That was a response to a specific statement. A course isn't magically more difficult when the LPGA arrives than it is the rest of the time. Of the courses the LPGA could play on in my area they play on one of the easiest if not the easiest. Galloway National a mile down the road is an absolute beast compared to Seaview.

If that is at me I was referring to the setup, not the course rating/difficulty. The lpga course will usually be set up with more difficult pins, for example, than the course the 4 earned his handicap at. In addition, when I belonged to Moon Valley when the Phoenix event was held there it was much more difficult than the normal setup. The rough was grown for weeks and then groomed. The greens were double rolled each day and the pins were difficult. And Annika still shot 59. Not the lady pro we are all referring to but the setup was tough. So perhaps the event in your neighborhood is not groomed for the event but that is not the norm imo.

 

You seem to be assuming that all 4-handicaps play goat track munis that don't have fast greens and tough pin locations.

Not at all. Just saying that very few courses have tour difficulty pins on a day in day out basis. But I get it-we disagree and that is fine. I also disagree with the guy a couple posts above that thinks the LPGA courses are getting shorter. No biggie.

Most LPGA courses are around 6300 yards. Very rarely are they 6600 yards. Last years British Open course was 6300 yards. Most typical championship courses from the blue tee's would be 6700 yards minimum and I would assume a lot of low handicap male players play this length.

 

 

http://www.golfchann...urses-get-tough

One guys opinion. And wasn't Stupples the one that went Double eagle eagle or so to win the British a few years ago? So far this year they have averaged 6632. Do they play some tees up occasionally? Sure they do as do all tours. But let's use the 6300 you say is the number. Using the average womens drive of 250 versus the mens 285 we come up with an equivalent yardage of about 7160. Still too short? Could the courses be set up slower and with more rough? Probably. Sounds like the same complaint many make about the PGA tour course setups.

[PowderedToastMan]

The only 4 handicap that has a chance against the women is Tiger Woods going into the 2010 Masters.

[ThinkingPlus]

Huh? A four is a four is a four. 'Doesn't matter if they're long or short hitting. Doesn't matter if they play easy courses or hard courses. If the HC system is doing its job, this all evens out. A long hitting 4 HC will obviously have a worse short game than a short hitting four.

 

The most important question to ask in all of this is, does the USGA handicap system accurate account for the difference in men and women when it assesses course rating and slope? I'd venture to say that it does not and that the original assertion of this thread does have some merit.

 

Since you brought it up showing obvious curiosity, here are the differences between men's and women's ratings/slopes that I have compiled in a couple of states where I played a decent number of courses. Since I typically play ~LPGA length courses these numbers are applicable to your question (the rating/slope difference for the same tees does vary some with distance). These values are average rating/slope difference between same tees for men and women. Number of courses is larger than 20 in each case. While that number of courses may not meet statistical significance criteria it cannot be too far off. Enjoy!

 

CA: 6.1/10.4

NM: 5.6/11.1

[PepsiDuck]

Since you brought it up showing obvious curiosity, here are the differences between men's and women's ratings/slopes that I have compiled in a couple of states where I played a decent number of courses. Since I typically play ~LPGA length courses these numbers are applicable to your question (the rating/slope difference for the same tees does vary some with distance). These values are average rating/slope difference between same tees for men and women. Number of courses is larger than 20 in each case. While that number of courses may not meet statistical significance criteria it cannot be too far off. Enjoy!

 

CA: 6.1/10.4

NM: 5.6/11.1

 

Thanks for those numbers; they are around what I'd expect. I personally feel that the USGA rating/slope system isn't quite right...to illustrate, let's flip the script a bit. Rather than both players play from the tips, what if both the man and woman played from the red tees? What result?

[Argonne69]

Since you brought it up showing obvious curiosity, here are the differences between men's and women's ratings/slopes that I have compiled in a couple of states where I played a decent number of courses. Since I typically play ~LPGA length courses these numbers are applicable to your question (the rating/slope difference for the same tees does vary some with distance). These values are average rating/slope difference between same tees for men and women. Number of courses is larger than 20 in each case. While that number of courses may not meet statistical significance criteria it cannot be too far off. Enjoy!

 

CA: 6.1/10.4

NM: 5.6/11.1

 

Thanks for those numbers; they are around what I'd expect. I personally feel that the USGA rating/slope system isn't quite right...to illustrate, let's flip the script a bit. Rather than both players play from the tips, what if both the man and woman played from the red tees? What result?

 

Lol. That's a trick question, right? A 4 HC male would never play from the reds. Heck, it's hard enough to get them to play from the whites.

[ThinkingPlus]

Since you brought it up showing obvious curiosity, here are the differences between men's and women's ratings/slopes that I have compiled in a couple of states where I played a decent number of courses. Since I typically play ~LPGA length courses these numbers are applicable to your question (the rating/slope difference for the same tees does vary some with distance). These values are average rating/slope difference between same tees for men and women. Number of courses is larger than 20 in each case. While that number of courses may not meet statistical significance criteria it cannot be too far off. Enjoy!

 

CA: 6.1/10.4

NM: 5.6/11.1

 

Thanks for those numbers; they are around what I'd expect. I personally feel that the USGA rating/slope system isn't quite right...to illustrate, let's flip the script a bit. Rather than both players play from the tips, what if both the man and woman played from the red tees? What result?

 

Assuming you get actually get the 4 cap to play from the forward tees then the results should be roughly the same. The 4 cap gets smoked. In fact it would likely be less of a contest. The best opportunity per the USGA handicap system rules is for the tees to be the absolute longest giving the largest delta between men's and women's ratings. We are still only talking a few tenths extra benefit though.

[PepsiDuck]

Assuming you get actually get the 4 cap to play from the forward tees then the results should be roughly the same. The 4 cap gets smoked. In fact it would likely be less of a contest. The best opportunity per the USGA handicap system rules is for the tees to be the absolute longest giving the largest delta between men's and women's ratings. We are still only talking a few tenths extra benefit though.

 

I agree that it'd be even more of a blowout. My question was more pointed toward the rating system itself...if a scratch man and scratch woman both played from the red tees, would the man be able to make up the 6+ stroke difference as easily as if they were playing from the tips?

[ThinkingPlus]

Assuming you get actually get the 4 cap to play from the forward tees then the results should be roughly the same. The 4 cap gets smoked. In fact it would likely be less of a contest. The best opportunity per the USGA handicap system rules is for the tees to be the absolute longest giving the largest delta between men's and women's ratings. We are still only talking a few tenths extra benefit though.

 

I agree that it'd be even more of a blowout. My question was more pointed toward the rating system itself...if a scratch man and scratch woman both played from the red tees, would the man be able to make up the 6+ stroke difference as easily as if they were playing from the tips?

 

The difference would be smaller so the scratch man would be giving fewer strokes to the scratch woman. In theory it should be equivalent, but at some point if a course gets long enough the forced carries come into play eliminating a woman who isn't long enough to consistently cover the carries. At the shorter end it should be more equivalent since special factors such as forced carries do not come into play. For the mathematically inclined the rating/slope differences as the yardage changes is well illustrated by comparing the men's and women's adjustment for yardage tables provided by the USGA. If you were to plot those lookup tables you should see that the slope of the straight lines are different between men and women.

[deadsolid...shank]

Funny, someone like Stupples, who knows more about it than anyone here makes an observation (which happens to coincide with numerous posts regarding course length), and it gets ignored.

 

And for what's it's worth, I'm not making any comment on the thread question (the 4 man vs the LPGA'er outcome), just the suspicion that they list yardages longer than they often are

[dhc1]

I would agree except for the fact that in this thread we are not comparing ladies handicaps. The lady pros, in general, match up perfectly to the USGA rating system. The course rating is based on a male scratch player that hits it 250 off the tee which is about the average lady pros distance. So the have the scratch players distance but are more consistent at scoring and are in the +1 to +2 neighborhood of a male cap.

 

So CAn a 4 beat the bottom lady pro? Sure-occasionally/rarely. Is the 4 the equivalent of the bottom LPGA pro? Not even close imo.

 

I generally agree that a 4 really is not as good as most think. Is there a generally accepted "crossover" point where the female golfer's handicap is equivalent to the male golfer when playing from the same tees?

 

And is the bottom LPGA pro's "handicap" calculated as a man or woman? Is the +1/+2 figure you offer an equivalent male handicap based on their female handicap (which may be +4 or +5) or their female handicap?

+1 to +2 male cap.

 

I'm pretty close to you but think it's scratch to +1 primarily because I believe that LPGA courses play meaningfully shorter than the stated distances. Members at Westchester CC believe that the course played well below the stated 6600 yards and pin placements were generally easier over the four days than the normal set-up (i.e., closer to the way they set it up for charity outings).

 

I note that no one has even attempted to make good on my challenge to actually set up a match.....

[Shilgy]

To the last couple posts perhaps some events they shorten the course. We all know the PGA and USGA do the same most events. I can only speak of three of the venues used here in Phoenix and they they played essentially the full yardage every day. I noticed this year one tee was up a bit and another hole they used a back tee that same day that usually they did not use. All three courses played between 6600-6700 every day. Same with the pins. and greens rolled and fast and as many tucked pins as most mens tour events.

I think of this part of the discussion as being similar to a buddies comment recently that I posted earler. "No woman can outdrive me" he says. When asked how far he hits it he admits 250 on a good drive but that he can pop one 270 sometimes. When told Lexi and a couple others AVERAGE over that he doubles down with the "no woman can outdrive me" bit.

If we do not think 7200 is too short for the men why is 6300 short for the ladies? Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

[dhc1]

Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

I don't.....

 

I was thinking of asking a stats class to work out the probability that a men's 4 beats and (men's) scratch on any given day. It should be a pretty easy problem, given basic assumptions about each player's volatility and average score. High vol is the inferior player's best friend in this situation as they're trying to make up a sizeable gap, made even worse due to ESC....

[Argonne69]

Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

I don't.....

 

I was thinking of asking a stats class to work out the probability that a men's 4 beats and (men's) scratch on any given day. It should be a pretty easy problem, given basic assumptions about each player's volatility and average score. High vol is the inferior player's best friend in this situation as they're trying to make up a sizeable gap, made even worse due to ESC....

 

How so? The better player rarely has a double or worse, so ESC is not invoked as frequently as a higher handicap player. Since they are playing heads-up, those doubles and worse are going to kill the 4.

 

Volatility? If anything, the high GC player probably has a greater distribution of scores than the scratch player.

[dap]

Let's not forget that not all 4's are the same. There are tournament 4's and the vanity 4 who only hands in his good rounds.

[dhc1]

Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

I don't.....

 

I was thinking of asking a stats class to work out the probability that a men's 4 beats and (men's) scratch on any given day. It should be a pretty easy problem, given basic assumptions about each player's volatility and average score. High vol is the inferior player's best friend in this situation as they're trying to make up a sizeable gap, made even worse due to ESC....

 

How so? The better player rarely has a double or worse, so ESC is not invoked as frequently as a higher handicap player. Since they are playing heads-up, those doubles and worse are going to kill the 4.

 

Volatility? If anything, the high GC player probably has a greater distribution of scores than the scratch player.

 

You misread what I wrote: ESC hurts the higher handicap as you mentioned. however, increased volatility in either player helps the worse player: if there was no volatility, the lower handicap would automatically win. If either player has huge swings (e.g., high volatility), it increases the chance of a upset. In Wall Street terms, an out of the money option wants as much volatility as possible....

[Argonne69]

I'm betting that volatility is higher in the higher handicap player. Better players have far fewer outliers.

[ThinkingPlus]

Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

I don't.....

 

I was thinking of asking a stats class to work out the probability that a men's 4 beats and (men's) scratch on any given day. It should be a pretty easy problem, given basic assumptions about each player's volatility and average score. High vol is the inferior player's best friend in this situation as they're trying to make up a sizeable gap, made even worse due to ESC....

 

I was going to do that one day, but just haven't gotten around to it. Need to gather a bit of information first. I think the typical assumptions hold for the handicap system, but there are some nuances that need to be checked. ESC may skew the distribution. Not sure how much. Need to get mean score to setup the distributions (H.I. isn't directly usable in the distribution).

[bph7]

Assuming you get actually get the 4 cap to play from the forward tees then the results should be roughly the same. The 4 cap gets smoked. In fact it would likely be less of a contest. The best opportunity per the USGA handicap system rules is for the tees to be the absolute longest giving the largest delta between men's and women's ratings. We are still only talking a few tenths extra benefit though.

 

I agree that it'd be even more of a blowout. My question was more pointed toward the rating system itself...if a scratch man and scratch woman both played from the red tees, would the man be able to make up the 6+ stroke difference as easily as if they were playing from the tips?

 

In theory, it shouldn't matter which set of tees, the match should be just as "even". And in practice, since you convert indexes to course handicaps, their would be fewer strokes given to the higher cap as you moved up and the slope decreased, which would decrease the difference in course handicap. In practice, many have their own ideas about who would have more of an advantage as the distanced changed (even accounting for the rating). However, none of these theories that people hold has ever been backed up with any kind of evidence. It's mostly just speculation. That's why I think it's best to just default to the usga's rules and practices (which have been researched for decades) than to try to insert a random adjustment based on speculation.