Gender Free/Neutral Tees

[wjemather]

To me the main point about having a set of tees rated for both sexes means that you can have a comp off one set of the tees only. Quickly off the top of my head this means no need for course rating adjustment shots as it is already done in the course and slope ratings.

Mixed tee adjustments still apply due to the different Course Ratings (and/or pars in Stableford) for men and women. For example, our green tees have course ratings of 66.0 for men and 71.1 for women (par 67 for both), so the women receive a 5.1 adjustment in medal & match play and 5 strokes in Stableford.

Of course, if CONGU had adopted "CR-Par" in the Course Handicap calculation, we could forget mixed tee adjustments were ever a thing.

 

[sunshine]

The gender specific becomes muddy water now. Is it based on born gender or identifying gender?

USGA and R&A have aligned on a protocol for this that enables people to compete in identifying gender once they meet certain criteria. Looking to follow principles that have been adopted across many other sports, e.g. rugby where it could be dangerous.

 

[Oddsocks]

USGA and R&A have aligned on a protocol for this that enables people to compete in identifying gender once they meet certain criteria. Looking to follow principles that have been adopted across many other sports, e.g. rugby where it could be dangerous.

I’m not sure how’s it’s aligned though. For example let’s take Caitlyn Jenner, a previous male Olympic athlete which has transitioned and very openly. Arguably she was a very strong male athlete pre trans and if a golfer would have a very clear strength advantage of playing from the red tees against other women. On the flip if she was asked to play off the yellows or whites it would be discrimination. The same could be said if she competed in womens boxing, weight lifting etc.

The above are extreme and precise situations, but as I said I it definitely opens up muddy waters. I honestly feel with the gender fluid/neutral approach, tees should not be labelled as male or female, but we should label them as colours and the give them the appropriate SI. As this becomes more common you will have pre trans men playing off forward tee’s which could be deemed and advantage and pre trans women playing from whites which could be seen as a disadvantage. I would keep them labelled and allow the handicaps to work the difference out of a period of time.

 

[bunkerblaster]

Mixed tee adjustments still apply due to the different Course Ratings (and/or pars in Stableford) for men and women. For example, our green tees have course ratings of 66.0 for men and 71.1 for women (par 67 for both), so the women receive a 5.1 adjustment in medal & match play and 5 strokes in Stableford.

Of course, if CONGU had adopted "CR-Par" in the Course Handicap calculation, we could forget mixed tee adjustments were ever a thing.

We are moving to "CR-Par" in April 2024 (?). 1. So will we still need to use the mixed tee adjustment facility if men and women play off the same tees which have been separately C and S rated for both sexes?

2. Course Handicap adjustment for such a comp post April 2024 using CR-Par?

3. Using the example above would par 67 for men and par 70 for women make any difference to the adjustment?

4. Course ratings and par should be as close to equal as they can. Again using the example above, should the some of the pars on the women`s card be increased to close the gap?

 

[D-S]

We are moving to "CR-Par" in April 2024 (?). 1. So will we still need to use the mixed tee adjustment facility if men and women play off the same tees which have been separately C and S rated for both sexes?

2. Course Handicap adjustment for such a comp post April 2024 using CR-Par?

3. Using the example above would par 67 for men and par 70 for women make any difference to the adjustment?

4. Course ratings and par should be as close to equal as they can. Again using the example above, should the some of the pars on the women`s card be increased to close the gap?

Stableford or medal?

 

[bunkerblaster]

Both/Either?

 

[wjemather]

We are moving to "CR-Par" in April 2024 (?). 1. So will we still need to use the mixed tee adjustment facility if men and women play off the same tees which have been separately C and S rated for both sexes?

2. Course Handicap adjustment for such a comp post April 2024 using CR-Par?

3. Using the example above would par 67 for men and par 70 for women make any difference to the adjustment?

4. Course ratings and par should be as close to equal as they can. Again using the example above, should the some of the pars on the women`s card be increased to close the gap?

Mixed tee adjustments will still be necessary in medal & match play when pars are different. Some playing handicap calculations (e.g. foursome, greensome) are changing such that all contributions to the team handicap are calculated using the same par (the one designated for scoring) regardless of the tee being played.

There is no need to course ratings and pars to be close to the same value.

 

[bunkerblaster]

Thanks for your response

 

[ntommo]

I think the confusion comes with the term Gender Neutral when all it is doing is rating the traditional "women's Red tees" for men and the traditional "men's yellow and whites" for women if they feel they want to play off them. We've just had ours done and I cant see any women wanting to play of the yellows / whites however I can see the Reds being used for seniors and possibly other men when the feeling arises. It can also give you different options when playing competitions if you want to mix it up a bit.

 

[Swango1980]

I’m not sure how’s it’s aligned though. For example let’s take Caitlyn Jenner, a previous male Olympic athlete which has transitioned and very openly. Arguably she was a very strong male athlete pre trans and if a golfer would have a very clear strength advantage of playing from the red tees against other women. On the flip if she was asked to play off the yellows or whites it would be discrimination. The same could be said if she competed in womens boxing, weight lifting etc.

The above are extreme and precise situations, but as I said I it definitely opens up muddy waters. I honestly feel with the gender fluid/neutral approach, tees should not be labelled as male or female, but we should label them as colours and the give them the appropriate SI. As this becomes more common you will have pre trans men playing off forward tee’s which could be deemed and advantage and pre trans women playing from whites which could be seen as a disadvantage. I would keep them labelled and allow the handicaps to work the difference out of a period of time.

In handicap golf, I'm guessing it wouldn't matter. If a person wanted to identify as a male, then their handicap would be subject to the Men Ratings and if they wanted to identify as a female, the female ratings.

I guess it might be more interesting if a person wanted to identify sometimes as a male, and sometimes as a female. After all, they can only have one handicap. Or does the system allow for a person to have a male and a female handicap?

I've said before that would there not be logic to just have ONE set of ratings for all golfers, and not try and account for differences in sex, just like they don't account for differences in age.

 

[sweaty sock]

In handicap golf, I'm guessing it wouldn't matter. If a person wanted to identify as a male, then their handicap would be subject to the Men Ratings and if they wanted to identify as a female, the female ratings.

I guess it might be more interesting if a person wanted to identify sometimes as a male, and sometimes as a female. After all, they can only have one handicap. Or does the system allow for a person to have a male and a female handicap?

I've said before that would there not be logic to just have ONE set of ratings for all golfers, and not try and account for differences in sex, just like they don't account for differences in age.

Yes, one system, is all thats required, the golf ball or course has no opinion on why, who or what is driving it 180, 250, or 350yards. Its set up as a challenge to everyone, why a handicap system needs changed to account for what reproductive organs you have is a total mystery.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes, one system, is all thats required, the golf ball or course has no opinion on why, who or what is driving it 180, 250, or 350yards. Its set up as a challenge to everyone, why a handicap system needs changed to account for what reproductive organs you have is a total mystery.

It is only a guess, but is it to ensure that we still get a comparable proportion of scratch lady golfers to male golfers. Or generally, a comparative number of male and female golfers at similar handicaps?

I suppose if a golf course was set up to challenge a scratch golfer, and the intended pars set of that course, it would always be set up differently for men to woman. At pro level, I'm sure the ladies play courses and holes of different yardages to the men, even though par may be comparable. So they may have filtered that through into handicaps, where they measure the course against the expected length of each sex and how they'd score against players of the same gender.

I suppose I can see it making sense from that point of view, albeit it would still feel a lot simpler to have one set of ratings for all sexes. Although would the ratings be based on the assumed yardages men can hit the ball, the assumed yardages ladies can hit the ball or somewhere in between?

 

[rulefan]

Although would the ratings be based on the assumed yardages men can hit the ball, the assumed yardages ladies can hit the ball or somewhere in between?

In effect that's what happens now.
For M & F genders, ratings are assessed for both scratch (M - 250 yard drive, F - 210) and bogey (M - 200, F - 150) players. And virtually all other elements are also gender specific.
The Slope & Bogey ratings for a gender gives the Slope. The problem is that the formula for calculating the Slope is different for each gender and the Slope is used directly to calculate the Course Handicap.
I really can't see a gender neutral Course Rating being practicable.

 

[sweaty sock]

It is only a guess, but is it to ensure that we still get a comparable proportion of scratch lady golfers to male golfers. Or generally, a comparative number of male and female golfers at similar handicaps?

I suppose if a golf course was set up to challenge a scratch golfer, and the intended pars set of that course, it would always be set up differently for men to woman. At pro level, I'm sure the ladies play courses and holes of different yardages to the men, even though par may be comparable. So they may have filtered that through into handicaps, where they measure the course against the expected length of each sex and how they'd score against players of the same gender.

I suppose I can see it making sense from that point of view, albeit it would still feel a lot simpler to have one set of ratings for all sexes. Although would the ratings be based on the assumed yardages men can hit the ball, the assumed yardages ladies can hit the ball or somewhere in between?

Nah makes no sense to me that way.

That would be like making the womens 100m only 80m long so they had an equal number of sub 10 second runners.

Scratch means you shoot near par, if you cant, then youre not. If a short hitting bloke goes up a tee, the rating changes, he cant just become a 'short hitting scratch'.

We dont have a different par for old people, short people, so why women?

Conversation on the 1st tee - Hi whats your handicap, Im off 10. Well, Im 'old man' scratch, do you know what 'old man' par is round here? Yeah its 84. Im normal bloke 10, with normal bloke par being 73, that means I give you 1 short.

 

[Swango1980]

Nah makes no sense to me that way.

That would be like making the womens 100m only 80m long so they had an equal number of sub 10 second runners.

Scratch means you shoot near par, if you cant, then youre not. If a short hitting bloke goes up a tee, the rating changes, he cant just become a 'short hitting scratch'.

We dont have a different par for old people, short people, so why women?

Conversation on the 1st tee - Hi whats your handicap, Im off 10. Well, Im 'old man' scratch, do you know what 'old man' par is round here? Yeah its 84. Im normal bloke 10, with normal bloke par being 73, that means I give you 1 short.

I get the point both ways.

All I was saying is that golf isn't like any other sport I can think of from the top of my head. In that at professional level, I'm pretty sure they set up the course differently for men and women? It isn't the same in running, where a marathon is a marathon, 100m is 100m. Or in tennis where the court is the court.

I'm assuming a long par 4 for men could be a par 5 for ladies, for example. Overall course length shorter for ladies generally, relative to par. And therefore, for handicaps, Ratings are different to reflect what would be expected from either sex.

I do get that. But then at same time, the same logic isn't then applied at Senior level. Perhaps it gers complicated at that point, as after certain ages, there can be a steep decline in ability for different Seniors at different ages.

The above is only me trying to guess why it is the way it is, as there must have been logic in it. But I still think one system is probably better for all.

 

[Slab]

Off topic, it does puzzle me how a golf hole can be a different Par depending on tee used. I mean if its long enough to be a Par 5 surely it’s a par 5 from any tee, or it isn't from any

I recall a course where a certain hole is par 4 from yellows, par 5 from white and par 5 from the red… what’s that all about!

 

[Swango1980]

Off topic, it does puzzle me how a golf hole can be a different Par depending on tee used. I mean if its long enough to be a Par 5 surely it’s a par 5 from any tee, or it isn't from any

I recall a course where a certain hole is par 4 from yellows, par 5 from white and par 5 from the red… what’s that all about!

Surely that is a simple enough answer.

A hole could be 350 yards off yellows. It could be 550 yards off blacks. Why would anyone think they could be the same par?

Sure, I gave a clear example, but at some point different tees and lengths of holes will pass a cross over point as to what the expected par of that hole would be.

And the red tee issue is simply because the par is based on the ladies game, not men. If it was rated for men as well, it would be a par 4, assuming reds are not longer than yellows

 

[Slab]

Surely that is a simple enough answer.

A hole could be 350 yards off yellows. It could be 550 yards off blacks. Why would anyone think they could be the same par?

Sure, I gave a clear example, but at some point different tees and lengths of holes will pass a cross over point as to what the expected par of that hole would be.

And the red tee issue is simply because the par is based on the ladies game, not men. If it was rated for men as well, it would be a par 4, assuming reds are not longer than yellows

I understand the minimum length V Par aspect (& for M/F) I just don’t understand the rational why yellows wouldn’t be brought closer to the white (& above the 470 min) making it a Par 5 for both the men’s rated tees, its just a grassed area between the two prepared areas

 

[Alan Clifford]

In effect that's what happens now.
For M & F genders, ratings are assessed for both scratch (M - 250 yard drive, F - 210) and bogey (M - 200, F - 150) players. And virtually all other elements are also gender specific.
The Slope & Bogey ratings for a gender gives the Slope. The problem is that the formula for calculating the Slope is different for each gender and the Slope is used directly to calculate the Course Handicap.
I really can't see a gender neutral Course Rating being practicable.

So age-neutral is supposed to work but gender neutral doesn't? It is such a stupid system.

 

[rulefan]

It is recommended that par be established for each hole in accordance with the following hole lengths:
Par ....... Men ................... ........Women
3 ........ Up to 260 yards ...........Up to 220 yards
4 ........ 200 to 490 yards .........200 to 420 yards
5 .........450 to 710 yards .........370 to 600 yards
6 ........ 670 yards and up ........570 yards and up

There would seem to be a misunderstanding of the difference between Par and Course Rating although hole length has a major impact on both.
Certainly Course Rating has nothing to do with pro or scratch amateur golf. But nor does Par really. It is only a convenient way of comparing relative scores as they progress through the round or competition.