Rating and Slope

[Danboy]

Why different rating for Women and Men? Have searched and have seen an answer just not a “good” answer. The tees are the tees.

A 20 year old female college golfer? A 77 year old male? Why gender? Why not age? height? BMI? etc.

Rate the tees and let anyone play any tees they want. What am I missing? IMO the use of any Gender ratings is a mistake in todays world.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix%20G%20Golf%20Course%20Course%20Rating%20Slope%20Rating.htm

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Welcome.

Why have any rating at all? Or handicaps for that matter.

The only fair and equitable solution is we all go out, shoot a score and the lowest wins. Simple!

 

[Danboy]

Well, sure that’s fine. Low gross wins, think that’s good. Certainly that is how the big boys on the tour get paid. Many enjoy the friendly competition available in a 4 ball game of golf. That is the reason for the HDCP. My question has to do with rating courses, perhaps you missed that. Many reach a point in golf where things change, i.e., maybe you don’t hit 280 yd drives any longer. If it hasn’t happened, guaranteed it will. Maybe we have everyone play 7200 yd courses? Golf is fun competition, the “opportunity” to reach greens “in regulation” changes and I believe that is the reason for different tees. Not looking for a fight here just looking for a good answer why Gender is used in rating the tees.

 

[Alan Clifford]

If we have to divide the human race into two golfing comunities, a divide based on genitalia is not the best. Old people versus young people would be good. Or fit people versus fat people.

Or perhaps all of them.

I am looking forward, as a fat, old man, to teeing off with a fit, young woman using different ratings at exactly the same spot on the tee box. At least I should get advantageous ratings; unlike now when the fit, young woman who can drive further than me is apparently playing a harder course.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Well, sure that’s fine. Low gross wins, think that’s good. Certainly that is how the big boys on the tour get paid. Many enjoy the friendly competition available in a 4 ball game of golf. That is the reason for the HDCP. My question has to do with rating courses, perhaps you missed that. Many reach a point in golf where things change, i.e., maybe you don’t hit 280 yd drives any longer. If it hasn’t happened, guaranteed it will. Maybe we have everyone play 7200 yd courses? Golf is fun competition, the “opportunity” to reach greens “in regulation” changes and I believe that is the reason for different tees. Not looking for a fight here just looking for a good answer why Gender is used in rating the tees.

I don’t think you will get a good answer.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Why different rating for Women and Men? Have searched and have seen an answer just not a “good” answer. The tees are the tees.

A 20 year old female college golfer? A 77 year old male? Why gender? Why not age? height? BMI? etc.

Rate the tees and let anyone play any tees they want. What am I missing? IMO the use of any Gender ratings is a mistake in todays world.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix%20G%20Golf%20Course%20Course%20Rating%20Slope%20Rating.htm

What you postulate could be done. It would make mixed gender events easier to manage.
Female only and male only events would be largely unaffected.
Females, in general, would have higher handicaps than they do at present.

But a normal/average build 30 year old male and female do tend to have different physical capabilities.
So we would then have the view expressed that a 3.5 handicap female is "as good" as a 0.0 handicap male golfer with respect to their gender. Or some similar view.

What we have is an attempt to cater for the physical difference in gender to produce comparable handicaps that take that into account.

Off our red tees a scratch male has a target of 66.7 (par 68) but a scratch female has a target of 72.1 (par 71)
A difference of 5.4 shots for one round seems a lot to me, but this is actually arbitrary - it just needs to be consistent with how other courses are rated.

 

[rulefan]

It would be very difficult to determine ratings for both without the 'average' woman getting an outlandishly high handicap. The physical abilities of women are so dissimilar.
eg
the average scratch man hits a drive 250 yards. A bogey man hits 200.
the average scratch woman hits a drive 210 yards. A bogey woman hits 150.
There are significant other rating parameters (in particular Slope) which would give higher handicap women massive handicaps

 

[Swango1980]

It would be very difficult to determine ratings for both without the 'average' woman getting an outlandishly high handicap. The physical abilities of women are so dissimilar.
eg
the average scratch man hits a drive 250 yards. A bogey man hits 200.
the average scratch woman hits a drive 210 yards. A bogey woman hits 150.
There are significant other rating parameters (in particular Slope) which would give higher handicap women massive handicaps

Is that a problem?

Surely the physical abilities of a young athletic man and a 70 year old man with health issues is greater than the difference between your average man and woman?

I've always felt that a handicap should be a handicap, and regardless of sex, if you have an Index of 20 then you have the same ability as anyone else of 20. If you have physical limitations based on sex, health, age, etc then it is all simply reflected within the handicap. Clearly, that is not the case at the moment, where a 20 male golfer is better than a 20 female golfer.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Read the disenting comments and change woman, femaie etc to average fat person, unfit person and it still works!

 

[wjemather]

Men and women are physically different. As a result, men hit the ball further than women; men can move the ball more effectively from longer grass; etc.

Ratings are largely based on hitting distances, but there are also significant differences when it comes to other factors (rough height, etc.). Having a single rating system would distort the handicap scale and result in much less accuracy and equity.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Men and women are physically different. As a result, men hit the ball further than women.

Since ratings are largely based on hitting distances, having a single rating system would distort the handicap scale and result in much less accuracy and equity.

I still don't see the logic in this, If someone can shoot 70 , 80, 90 or 100 around a course off the same tees, surely they must be hitting roughly the same distance regardless of gender, unless there is great disparity between gender in the short games of the different sexes, meaning a man regular shooting 90 is crap around the greens and the women is a demon which the putter

 

[Swango1980]

Men and women are physically different. As a result, men hit the ball further than women.

Since ratings are largely based on hitting distances, having a single rating system would distort the handicap scale and result in much less accuracy and equity.

Still ignoring the fact that young men and old men are physically different as well then?

 

[jim8flog]

Why different rating for Women and Men? Have searched and have seen an answer just not a “good” answer. The tees are the tees.

A 20 year old female college golfer? A 77 year old male? Why gender? Why not age? height? BMI? etc.

Rate the tees and let anyone play any tees they want. What am I missing? IMO the use of any Gender ratings is a mistake in todays world.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix%20G%20Golf%20Course%20Course%20Rating%20Slope%20Rating.htm

for the other 'types' yu suggest e.g. age

it is reflected in their handicaps.

Where I play all tees are rated rated for either sex, never met a man yet, regardless of age of or ability, that wants to play off the reds, but do know a few ladies that want to play off the whites.

In the main statistics show women are shorter hitters than men (with obvious exceptions).

This a good guide to distances

The current average driving distance of men and women amateur golfers by age and handicap

Distance in the game of golf is one of the hottest topics currently in the sport, especially with the USGA and R&A’s recent announcement that a plan is in place to roll back the golf ball for professional players. When it comes to the amateur game, just how far are you hitting the ball compared […]

www.golfwrx.com

 

[Voyager EMH]

Men and women are physically different. As a result, men hit the ball further than women.

Since ratings are largely based on hitting distances, having a single rating system would distort the handicap scale and result in much less accuracy and equity.

How?

Everyone would find their appropriate place on the handicap scale and thus achieve accuracy and equity.
13 year old boys and 82 year old men do not distort the male handicap scale (unless they do and I'm wrong).

 

[Alan Clifford]

for the other 'types' yu suggest e.g. age

it is reflected in their handicaps.

Where I play all tees are rated rated for either sex, never met a man yet, regardless of age of or ability, that wants to play off the reds, but do know a few ladies that want to play off the whites.

In the main statistics show women are shorter hitters than men (with obvious exceptions).

This a good guide to distances

The current average driving distance of men and women amateur golfers by age and handicap

Distance in the game of golf is one of the hottest topics currently in the sport, especially with the USGA and R&A’s recent announcement that a plan is in place to roll back the golf ball for professional players. When it comes to the amateur game, just how far are you hitting the ball compared […]

www.golfwrx.com

for the other 'types' yu suggest e.g. gender

it would be reflected in their handicaps.

Where I play all tees are rated rated for either sex, and I play of the reds

I would guess statistics would show fat, old men are shorter hitters than young, fit women.

 

[wjemather]

How?

Everyone would find their appropriate place on the handicap scale and thus achieve accuracy and equity.
13 year old boys and 82 year old men do not distort the male handicap scale (unless they do and I'm wrong).

Ratings are based on standard distances of model golfers that reflect significant real world differences in the average distances of men and women golfers.
Rating men from shorter distances and/or women from longer distances would push many more real world golfers outside the workable scope of those distances, and handicaps would end up being less portable than ever.

 

[jim8flog]

I would guess statistics would show fat, old men are shorter hitters than young, fit women.

One would have to question that looking at some on the Seniors Tours

 

[Voyager EMH]

Ratings are based on standard distances of model golfers that reflect significant real world differences in the average distances of men and women golfers.
Rating men from shorter distances and/or women from longer distances would push many more real world golfers outside the workable scope of the standard distances used in ratings.

So you say.
But how?

Moving to one rating system for all humans would remove the discrepancy.
Men and women are already rated for shorter and longer distances, but separately.
There would have to be a new standard scratch golfer and standard bogey golfer based on all humans and not two separate classes of humans.
It could be done.
I'm not saying it should be done or needs to be done, but I see no reason that it could not be done.
I see no reason why it would not work as effectively as the present system.
Single gender competitions could still take place.

 

[wjemather]

So you say.
But how?

Moving to one rating system for all humans would remove the discrepancy.
Men and women are already rated for shorter and longer distances, but separately.
There would have to be a new standard scratch golfer and standard bogey golfer based on all humans and not two separate classes of humans.
It could be done.
I'm not saying it should be done or needs to be done, but I see no reason that it could not be done.
I see no reason why it would not work as effectively as the present system.
Single gender competitions could still take place.

Sorry. There is no simple way of explaining it that isn't going to end up wasting hours of my time. I already wish I hadn't started.

 

[D-S]

I don't have view on this either way but this young fit women to fat old men spectrum is not probably wide or encompassing enough for the debate - you need both ends of both spectrums.

Currently it is elite amateur men to male beginner/very young boy/elderly infirm man - this is plus 8 to 54 (Men). It is also elite amateur women to female beginner/very young girl/elderly infirm woman plus 6 to 54 (Women).

The difficulty as I understand is trying to get one system that goes from elite amateur man to elderly infirm woman which is much much wider than any system to viably work in apparently.