Laura Davis to play in a Senior Event

[duncan mackie]

Some strange considerations here....

Firstly gender free handicap golf (from a competition perspective) would be relatively easy to implement in theory and would simply require integration of the 2 handicap ratings (which would generally lead to an increase of about 20 - 30% in ladies handicaps). At this point an 18 handicapper would be an 18 handicapper regardless of gender, and they could fairly and equally compete on the same course/tees.
The issue of which tees becomes a much more pure discussion and, as Phil has already posted to this thread, it's an important one in its own right. Not all 18 handicappers have the same charecteristics to their game but whilst currently people migrate naturally to courses that suit them (for either pleasure or competition) they can at least do the same thing in selecting tees to compete from (if real choices exist and are supported with competition).

Which then comes back to the simple question - if gender equality is an objective, and if it's relatively easily achievable (probably save money rather than costing!) why isn't it implemented....

Is it really tied up in the Cabby factors (on both sides), or is it even more deeply engrained? Is there a fear of losing what (relatively) sparse lady memberships currently exist?

When you move to non handicap competition there are obviously factors that do affect performance but handicap competition doesn't have that at all.

It doesn't have to affect whom you play with, which tees you play from or which clubs you join....so why isn't it implemented?

 

[Deleted member 21258]

I think it is great and if it brings positive publicity to golf and its slow evolution out of the old mens club culture, then all for the better. Shame Laura isn't back in her prime for the opportunity, but best of luck to her and hope she wins.

Whilst I personally do not think that men/women are going to be able to generally compete in gender free comps at the highest non handicap competitions due to physical differences in a lot of sports, I think some of the views stated on this thread reflects poorly on handicap golf, golf clubs and golf monthly.

There is no real reason why men/women can not play in handicap competitions or at least have the choice to(ie not to be forced not to play or to play only with the same sex, currently we have the forced to play with the same sex any many clubs). Yeah I get some men will choose to play with men and some women will choice to play with women, that's fine. It is the lack of choice that is the issue, golf needs to involve into a business setup which for a general club means you try not to alienate any customers(whether that is men/women/social golfer/comp golfer etc)

 

[Capella]

There is no reason why female golfers cannot compete with men, providing a suitable golf course is selected. One which puts accuracy ahead of power.

Unless you go pitch&putt, I don't think that can be achieved. Because it still makes a difference if you need a hybrid or a six iron to reach (or a 8 iron vs. a pitching wedge etc.). A two club difference is relatively realistic for a male and female player of similar caliber, no matter if you compare Lexi Thompson with Dustin Johnson or a high handicapped senior lady vs. a gent of the same experience and age level. And I cannot imagine a golf course design where that does not come into play.

Since there is a lot of talk about reining in the men's distances by limiting the ball, that could be an option to level the playing field. And maybe one that is more comparable than teeing off from different spots on the course.

 

[duncan mackie]

Unless you go pitch&putt, I don't think that can be achieved. Because it still makes a difference if you need a hybrid or a six iron to reach (or a 8 iron vs. a pitching wedge etc.). A two club difference is relatively realistic for a male and female player of similar caliber, no matter if you compare Lexi Thompson with Dustin Johnson or a high handicapped senior lady vs. a gent of the same experience and age level. And I cannot imagine a golf course design where that does not come into play.

Since there is a lot of talk about reining in the men's distances by limiting the ball, that could be an option to level the playing field. And maybe one that is more comparable than teeing off from different spots on the course.

I think you are getting overly focused on length - currently a senior male 18 handicapper can, and does, compete all the time with cat 1 teenagers in their regular competitions. The extremes of clubbing and distance are every bit as acute! Even within a lose category such as vets there are huge differences - I frequently find myself with an 8 iron where all my playing partners are using hybrids or woods! In 10 years the boot will be on the other foot....😭

 

[Capella]

I think you are getting overly focused on length - currently a senior male 18 handicapper can, and does, compete all the time with cat 1 teenagers in their regular competitions. The extremes of clubbing and distance are every bit as acute! Even within a lose category such as vets there are huge differences - I frequently find myself with an 8 iron where all my playing partners are using hybrids or woods! In 10 years the boot will be on the other foot....

Yeah, and what chance would the 18 handicapper have in a gross comp against that teenager? Or in a matchplay without shots given? Even on a shorter course? I'd say next to none.

 

[duncan mackie]

Yeah, and what chance would the 18 handicapper have in a gross comp against that teenager? Or in a matchplay without shots given? Even on a shorter course? I'd say next to none.

As I posted originally, and inferred with the reference to regular competitions and the reference to a handicap at all, that would be handicap events. For handicap golfers.

In non handicap events it's not possible to go gender neutral in just about any sport with a physical element involved - and I agree with you (in your discussion with murph) that whilst you could take steps to reduce the impact of course length you can never remove it completely.

In the specific case of Dame Laura and this competition I would expect her to give a good account of herself but wouldn't bet on her making the cut (not even the £1 I won from her on the course many years ago!)

 

[Capella]

As I posted originally, and inferred with the reference to regular competitions and the reference to a handicap at all, that would be handicap events. For handicap golfers.

I agree that that would work. It would mean that women end up with way higher handicaps than men on average (they already do have considerably higher handicaps as it is, both in the UK and in Germany, btw, because despite the gender tees, the game is slightly rigged against them from a physical/physiological standpoint still), but they could compete in netto comps on an even playing field. Psychologically, it would not be a good move, though. It is pretty frustrating when you don't even have a chance to play the occasional (gross) par, no matter how many shots your handicap allows you. I don't think it would encourage more women to take up the game (presuming that's what most of us want ... despite the occasional Cabby who is afraid he won't be able to whip his junk around on the golf course anymore). It also would not help in making golf faster and getting playing times down. I do occasionally play our course off the yellow tees and it is basically playing par 5s all day long with the occasional par 6 thrown in.

The current system where the course plays shorter for the ladies is not so bad. It does not mean that men and women cannot play together (actually, they play together all the time in my neck of the woods ... no problems at all, not even with peeing behind the bushes).

 

[garyinderry]

I would like to see women who have the ability given the opportunity to play in mens competitions.

They could have two handicaps. The women's one they currently have and also a 'full course handicap'.


Currently at our club the women wouldn't want to play in mixed comps. Rarely does any of them break 100. We had one good young women but she has fallen away from the game. There was no competition for her at the club. She would walk the gross score with a bad day at the office.

 

[Capella]

They could have two handicaps. The women's one they currently have and also a 'full course handicap'.

That's basically what the EGA slope system does. You're playing handicap is different, depending on what course you play and what tee you are using. For example my handicap index is 32.5, I play off 37 when I play our course off the reds and off 40 when I play from the blue tees. I cannot officially play off the yellow or white tees, since the German system does not allow courses longer than 5800 m (~6400 yards) to be rated for women, but on shorter courses I can play off the yellows as well (white tees are normally only used for gross comps here, so for club golf, the 'full course' would be the yellows). On one of the neighbouring courses I only have 30 shots off the reds.

I think many of the women at my club haven't broken 100 yet, btw (I haven't), but that does not keep us from playing in mixed comps. (And actually, I'd say at least a third of the guys haven't broken 100 either, at least not on our course).

 

[dewsweeper]

I agree that that would work. It would mean that women end up with way higher handicaps than men on average (they already do have considerably higher handicaps as it is, both in the UK and in Germany, btw, because despite the gender tees, the game is slightly rigged against them from a physical/physiological standpoint still), but they could compete in netto comps on an even playing field. Psychologically, it would not be a good move, though. It is pretty frustrating when you don't even have a chance to play the occasional (gross) par, no matter how many shots your handicap allows you. I don't think it would encourage more women to take up the game (presuming that's what most of us want ... despite the occasional Cabby who is afraid he won't be able to whip his junk around on the golf course anymore). It also would not help in making golf faster and getting playing times down. I do occasionally play our course off the yellow tees and it is basically playing par 5s all day long with the occasional par 6 thrown in.

The current system where the course plays shorter for the ladies is not so bad. It does not mean that men and women cannot play together (actually, they play together all the time in my neck of the woods ... no problems at all, not even with peeing behind the bushes).

I wondered where you disappeared to when we played at Warrington last year !!!!

 

[Kellfire]

Handicap everyone off the same tees and remove the term par from the game and all the problems are solved. Goodbye to tradition though!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I am very interested to see how Dame Laura gets on as I suspect that, even now, she's unlikely to have much if any disadvantage on length.

However, it was surprising (to me at least) that when Sorenstam and Wie tried PGA Tour events they felt that I it was the short game where they lost out to the men.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I am very interested to see how Dame Laura gets on as I suspect that, even now, she's unlikely to have much if any disadvantage on length.

However, it was surprising (to me at least) that when Sorenstam and Wie tried PGA Tour events they felt that I it was the short game where they lost out to the men.

I had not heard that before. That is pretty poor if that is the case. No reason for any difference on that aspect of the game.

 

[BornSlippy1994]

For someone who has never heard of Laura Davies I'm very interested to know what I guess, from a relative newcomer to the game, what reputation does golf have ?

Golf is known for being a game played by posh/upper middle class white, middle aged men. Golf undoubtedly has a stuffy reputation, and arguing women shouldn't be able to compete/play with men because you can't conversely normally around women, or go for a piss during your round is precisely the kind of attitude that lends itself towards such reputation.

 

[Capella]

I am very interested to see how Dame Laura gets on as I suspect that, even now, she's unlikely to have much if any disadvantage on length.

However, it was surprising (to me at least) that when Sorenstam and Wie tried PGA Tour events they felt that I it was the short game where they lost out to the men.

Never heard that before, but agree with Tyrion on this one ... no reason for it. You might need the short game more often if you hit a hybrid into the green instead of a mid iron (which I guess is what would happen on longer par 4s), but from watching a lot of LPGA golf, I really don't feel the ladies' short game is any worse than that of the PGA players. Do you have a link to an interview or such where Annika or Michelle claim that that was the case?

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree that that would work. It would mean that women end up with way higher handicaps than men on average (they already do have considerably higher handicaps as it is, both in the UK and in Germany, btw, because despite the gender tees, the game is slightly rigged against them from a physical/physiological standpoint still), but they could compete in netto comps on an even playing field. Psychologically, it would not be a good move, though. It is pretty frustrating when you don't even have a chance to play the occasional (gross) par, no matter how many shots your handicap allows you. I don't think it would encourage more women to take up the game (presuming that's what most of us want ... despite the occasional Cabby who is afraid he won't be able to whip his junk around on the golf course anymore). It also would not help in making golf faster and getting playing times down. I do occasionally play our course off the yellow tees and it is basically playing par 5s all day long with the occasional par 6 thrown in.

The current system where the course plays shorter for the ladies is not so bad. It does not mean that men and women cannot play together (actually, they play together all the time in my neck of the woods ... no problems at all, not even with peeing behind the bushes).

I understand the psychological elements but having a handicap index that reflects your ability to play from any tee to a particular level shouldn't (as I say I do understand!) impact on the other elements you raise at all. Again I accept that it does because of the current status quo - but it shouldn't. Ladies would be free to play their own events from their current tees if they wished with the fundament difference being that their handicaps would reflect a single, gender free, rating for those (and every other) tee. As I've already posted that would basically result in an increase in the ladies handicaps of around 30% from their current position. As someone else highlights par is completely arbitrary - the issue is with the rating differential between men and women currently when playing the same tees (most of ours are dual rated and there's about a 5 shot difference in them ie If I compete from the red tees I am expected to shoot 68 to play to my playing handicap whilst a lady is expected to shoot 73 to play to hers. You could lose that differential overnight without changing anything else and the only psychological impact is that all the ladies have a higher number against their name (you could take par out of the equation completely and decrease the men's handicaps for the same effect).
But, as you point out, so much is about the psychology of par - and we will probably never loose that....so we will end up with shorter and shorter tees instead 👍. That being one of the biggest drivers for us rating the forward tees for men to compete on I can't really argue against it's power!

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Never heard that before, but agree with Tyrion on this one ... no reason for it. You might need the short game more often if you hit a hybrid into the green instead of a mid iron (which I guess is what would happen on longer par 4s), but from watching a lot of LPGA golf, I really don't feel the ladies' short game is any worse than that of the PGA players. Do you have a link to an interview or such where Annika or Michelle claim that that was the case?

Can't provide a link but I do remember Sorenstam being interviewed ( on the Golf Channel I think) looking back some years later where she stated this.

In Wie's case it was demonstrated by stats after her performances in PGA events.

The only theory I have heard advanced was that the depth of quality in LPGA tournaments is such that the marginal gains secured by the short game are not so important.

 

[shortgame]

I've always thought that - the short game / putting skills at the top of the ladies games is miles behind the mens - obviously there's some outliers like Inbee Park's putting

Don't known why that should be the case as I doubt there's any phyisical limitations - maybe just because it's a much shallower talent pool so it's easier to reach the top (easier but far from easy)

 

[Capella]

I've always thought that - the short game / putting skills at the top of the ladies games is miles behind the mens - obviously there's some outliers like Inbee Park's putting

Don't known why that should be the case as I doubt there's any phyisical limitations - maybe just because it's a much shallower talent pool so it's easier to reach the top (easier but far from easy)

It is a bit difficult to compare stats here, because the official stats for the LPGA and the PGA use different markers. But it is possible to compare the classic ones (I always looked at the top 100 ranked players in the specific category):

Driving Accuracy (so fairways hit):
PGA: 76.8 % (1st) - 61.6% (100th)
LPGA: 87.1% - 68.6%
(so the women do hit it straighter, which is not much of a surprise, since they are hitting it shorter, so dispersion is smaller)

GIR:
PGA: 74.24% - 65.93%
LPGA: 78.9% - 64.7%
(so the very best ladies do hit the green in regulation slightly more often than the best guys, but it levels out further down the line)

No. of Putts per round:
PGA: 27.24 - 29.1
LPGA: 28.23 - 30.38
(so, yes, the guys really use fewer putts, either because they putt better or because they put their approaches closer, unfortunately, there is no really comparable putts per GIR stat or the like)

The only directly comparable short game stat I found was that for sand saves:
PGA: 68.18% - 39%
LPGA: 63.16% - 39.47 %
That looks like a clear win for the guys on first sight, but actually, it is almost all due to Jason Day (he is the one with 68.18%). No. 2 clocks in with 64% sand saves, so not that dramatically different from the girls. So, we don't have a bunker player that comes close to Jason on the ladies tour, but let's face it: that guy is untrue from bunkers at the moment. Apart from that, the ladies can hit it out of the sand just as well as the guys.

It is a shame that there are not more comparable short game stats, but I am pretty certain that the difference would not be that great. The one and only profound difference between male and female golfers comes with the distances hit.

Average driving distance (top 100 again):
PGA: 319.8 - 295.3 yards
LPGA: 276.41 - 250.4 yards

I know the thought of a woman hitting it over 250 yards scares the hell out of some of you guys, but we are talking the very best. The creme de la creme. The world elite. And they are more than 40 yards behind their male counterparts. So don't tell me it is not about length. When comparing the men's and women's golf game, it totally is.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It is a bit difficult to compare stats here, because the official stats for the LPGA and the PGA use different markers. But it is possible to compare the classic ones (I always looked at the top 100 ranked players in the specific category):

Driving Accuracy (so fairways hit):
PGA: 76.8 % (1st) - 61.6% (100th)
LPGA: 87.1% - 68.6%
(so the women do hit it straighter, which is not much of a surprise, since they are hitting it shorter, so dispersion is smaller)

GIR:
PGA: 74.24% - 65.93%
LPGA: 78.9% - 64.7%
(so the very best ladies do hit the green in regulation slightly more often than the best guys, but it levels out further down the line)

No. of Putts per round:
PGA: 27.24 - 29.1
LPGA: 28.23 - 30.38
(so, yes, the guys really use fewer putts, either because they putt better or because they put their approaches closer, unfortunately, there is no really comparable putts per GIR stat or the like)

The only directly comparable short game stat I found was that for sand saves:
PGA: 68.18% - 39%
LPGA: 63.16% - 39.47 %
That looks like a clear win for the guys on first sight, but actually, it is almost all due to Jason Day (he is the one with 68.18%). No. 2 clocks in with 64% sand saves, so not that dramatically different from the girls. So, we don't have a bunker player that comes close to Jason on the ladies tour, but let's face it: that guy is untrue from bunkers at the moment. Apart from that, the ladies can hit it out of the sand just as well as the guys.

It is a shame that there are not more comparable short game stats, but I am pretty certain that the difference would not be that great. The one and only profound difference between male and female golfers comes with the distances hit.

Average driving distance (top 100 again):
PGA: 319.8 - 295.3 yards
LPGA: 276.41 - 250.4 yards

I know the thought of a woman hitting it over 250 yards scares the hell out of some of you guys, but we are talking the very best. The creme de la creme. The world elite. And they are more than 40 yards behind their male counterparts. So don't tell me it is not about length. When comparing the men's and women's golf game, it totally is.

Sorry but the stats you provide for putting seem to indicate that length off the tee is nowhere near the full story.

On average the men are, over four rounds, taking five fewer strokes.

Think about the difference in result between, say, -7 and -2.

Ask Annika what the difference was like. She is better qualified to comment than you or I.