or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Courses and Architecture › course handicap index variances
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

course handicap index variances

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 

I went to check out a course locally that I have not been to in a long time and was looking at the score card. In particular, comparing the handicap/slope at the different tee locations.  The most forward tee has overall length of 4941 yards, 70.5/125  compared to the middle tee 6035 yards 69.6/125.  What I find interesting is that the shorter tees, have a higher course handicap yet the pars for each individual holes are the same.  That would indicate to me that the forward tees are more difficult than the middle unless they are taking into consideration the gender/age of the players from those tees.  Am I mistaken?

 

The back tee (Blue) are 6537 71.7/133 if you are curious.

post #2 of 51

Yeah, good bet that the forward tee rating is for women. ;)

 

A course I play often is the same:

 

Back: 73.5/136/6951

Blue: 71.7/129/6583

White: 69.4/124/6187

 

and

 

Red: 71.5/125/5245

post #3 of 51
Gender.

The most forward tees likely reflected a course rating and slope for women while the middle and back tees were rated for men.
post #4 of 51
Thread Starter 

Yep, that is what I was thinking. Some would call it sex discrimination I suppose.

post #5 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacker James View Post

Yep, that is what I was thinking. Some would call it sex discrimination I suppose.

 

And others would call it reality, and basic Golf Handicapping.

post #6 of 51

I have started to see courses rate all tees for men, including the most forward tees.  That is a great idea, along with changing the tee "color" from red to almost any other hue.  A few courses have also rated many of the tees for women, not just the most forward one or two sets. Golf attracts a broad spectrum of ages and abilities and allowing a rated choice in yardage from 5,000 to 7,500 is long overdue.

post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

And others would call it reality, and basic Golf Handicapping.

 

This.

 

The Red tees are ladies tees. Not "forward tees". Politically correct BS...

 

Women can't hit it as far as men on average, so they tee forward.

 

You hit your drive short of the ladies tees and, well...you know the rule...

post #8 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

This.

 

The Red tees are ladies tees. Not "forward tees". Politically correct BS...

 

Women can't hit it as far as men on average, so they tee forward.

 

You hit your drive short of the ladies tees and, well...you know the rule...

 

I'm about as non-PC as they come, but I'm gonna disagree.  The forward tees are completely appropriate for a lot of beginners, senior men and juniors.  Just as some women are fully capable of playing further back.

 

Calling them the "ladies" tees can cause some people to play further back than they really should.  My course rates all tees for the men and the first two sets for women.

post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

I'm about as non-PC as they come, but I'm gonna disagree.  The forward tees are completely appropriate for a lot of beginners, senior men and juniors.  Just as some women are fully capable of playing further back.

 

Calling them the "ladies" tees can cause some people to play further back than they really should.  My course rates all tees for the men and the first two sets for women.

 

I guess. I grew up with them as the "ladies" tees, and even at 10, was hitting from the white tees. The amount of razzing I would have gotten if I played from the reds...woof.

 

Although even though I could only hit driver like 150 yards, it was straight as an arrow back then...

post #10 of 51


Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

And others would call it reality, and basic Golf Handicapping.

Sure, women don't hit the ball as far (in general), but having different course ratings for men and women does create some confusion- the main reason this thread was started.  

Pre-teen boys, 90+ y.o. men, etc. don't tend to hit the ball as far as 30 y.o. men, but they don't have a separate CR or Slope.    

 

If a 30 index man is playing a match against a 30 index woman from the same set of tees, my guess is a lot of people would assume that the two should be playing even based on their handicaps.

 

The idea behind handicapping is to allow people of different skill level to compete against each other on an equitable basis- this is much easier to accomplish if all players are measured against the same standard.

 

Overall, I think the handicapping system is VERY GOOD, especially with the addition of slope but the only reason to have separate CRs/slopes for different groups is to make it appear that the different groups are more equal in ability than they are.

 

post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

Sure, women don't hit the ball as far (in general), but having different course ratings for men and women does create some confusion- the main reason this thread was started.  

Pre-teen boys, 90+ y.o. men, etc. don't tend to hit the ball as far as 30 y.o. men, but they don't have a separate CR or Slope.    

 

If a 30 index man is playing a match against a 30 index woman from the same set of tees, my guess is a lot of people would assume that the two should be playing even based on their handicaps.

 

The idea behind handicapping is to allow people of different skill level to compete against each other on an equitable basis- this is much easier to accomplish if all players are measured against the same standard.

 

Overall, I think the handicapping system is VERY GOOD, especially with the addition of slope but the only reason to have separate CRs/slopes for different groups is to make it appear that the different groups are more equal in ability than they are.

 

Thinking about this a bit more- I agree with what I initially wrote- except for the word ONLY.  There is another valid reason to have separate handicapping systems for men and women based on the fact that changes in length and obstacles/difficulty may affect a typical man and typical woman differently.  

 

i.e. suppose you had a 9 y.o boy, 35 y.o. man and 50 y.o woman who all shoot 90 from the same set of tees on a 6,000 yard course.  My guess is that the boy and woman are more consistent and tend to hit the ball straighter than the typical middle aged man.  If the course was tightened and shortened, their scores may go down while the typical males scores may go up.  Conversely, if the course was lengthened with less obstacles/hazards, their score may go up while the typical males score might go down.  

 

Having separate CRs/slopes for men and women makes it more confusing when they compete against each other, but may allow for better optimization/portability of handicaps when they are competing within their own gender at a variety of golf courses.

post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

This.

 

The Red tees are ladies tees. Not "forward tees". Politically correct BS...

 

Women can't hit it as far as men on average, so they tee forward.

 

You hit your drive short of the ladies tees and, well...you know the rule...

Spoken like a man who has never taught his young son how to play. I recall the first time my son played "a real 18 hole course." He was proud to play -- and played from the forward tees. Might have been embarrassed to play the ladies tees.

 

I always call them "forward tees."

post #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

Thinking about this a bit more- I agree with what I initially wrote- except for the word ONLY.  There is another valid reason to have separate handicapping systems for men and women based on the fact that changes in length and obstacles/difficulty may affect a typical man and typical woman differently.  

 

i.e. suppose you had a 9 y.o boy, 35 y.o. man and 50 y.o woman who all shoot 90 from the same set of tees on a 6,000 yard course.  My guess is that the boy and woman are more consistent and tend to hit the ball straighter than the typical middle aged man.  If the course was tightened and shortened, their scores may go down while the typical males scores may go up.  Conversely, if the course was lengthened with less obstacles/hazards, their score may go up while the typical males score might go down.  

 

Having separate CRs/slopes for men and women makes it more confusing when they compete against each other, but may allow for better optimization/portability of handicaps when they are competing within their own gender at a variety of golf courses.

 

How does it make it more confusing when they compete against each other?  They all have a handicap index.....that index converts to a course handicap based on the set of tees that each is playing.  The delta between those individual course handicaps is the basis for strokes given and received.  If they're competing from different tees, the course handicaps are adjusted based on the difference in course rating for the tees each is playing. 

 

Absolutely nothing different from 2 guys competing against each other.....

post #14 of 51

Several years ago, I met a young lady that I played a lot of golf with for a few years.  She never played the red tees.  Whatever tee box I played from, she would play one tee box forward of that and it was a battle to beat her. 

I asked her when we started playing golf together why she decided to move back from the reds.  She gave me 2 reasons.  The first was obvious...she hit the ball far enough that there was no reason not to play farther back and get to play more of the course.  The second reason was interesting.  "If I play from the reds, the course/slope rating is higher.  Playing the reds would cause my handicap to be lower.  If my handicap is set mostly playing from the white tees, when I play in tournaments from the red tees, I can pretty much shoot lights out and my course handicap will be higher."

Apparently she was dead on because everyone wanted her on their team in mixed events. 

post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post

 

How does it make it more confusing when they compete against each other?  They all have a handicap index.....that index converts to a course handicap based on the set of tees that each is playing.  The delta between those individual course handicaps is the basis for strokes given and received.  If they're competing from different tees, the course handicaps are adjusted based on the difference in course rating for the tees each is playing. 

 

Absolutely nothing different from 2 guys competing against each other.....

So in my example of the two 30 index players, one male and the other female- let's suppose they are competing from the SAME set of tees, does either the man or women get/give shots?  If it was two men or two women competing against each other, they would play even, correct?  Not necessarily so for a man vs. woman.   

 

Assume a Male slope of 122 and a Female slope of 141 for the set of tees they are playing and tell me who should be giving who shots (if any).

post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

So in my example of the two 30 index players, one male and the other female- let's suppose they are competing from the SAME set of tees, does either the man or women get/give shots?  Assume a Male slope of 122 and a Female slope of 141 for the set of tees they are playing.

 

Same index, same tees, the woman would get extra strokes. 

 

Figure how you calculate handicap for a course, and look what you posted about the gender slope.

 

Either that, or I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Could be both...

post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickK View Post

Several years ago, I met a young lady that I played a lot of golf with for a few years.  She never played the red tees.  Whatever tee box I played from, she would play one tee box forward of that and it was a battle to beat her. 

I asked her when we started playing golf together why she decided to move back from the reds.  She gave me 2 reasons.  The first was obvious...she hit the ball far enough that there was no reason not to play farther back and get to play more of the course.  The second reason was interesting.  "If I play from the reds, the course/slope rating is higher.  Playing the reds would cause my handicap to be lower.  If my handicap is set mostly playing from the white tees, when I play in tournaments from the red tees, I can pretty much shoot lights out and my course handicap will be higher."

Apparently she was dead on because everyone wanted her on their team in mixed events. 

If she played the whites or blues and turned in the score as if she played the reds, then this would be similar to me playing the tips and turning in the score as if I played the whites.  Of course, if the tees she played were un-rated for women, it is not so clear a case of sandbagging.

post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

 

Same index, same tees, the woman would get extra strokes. 

 

Figure how you calculate handicap for a course, and look what you posted about the gender slope.

 

Either that, or I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Could be both...

I'll post how I think it works AFTER I see David's answer, but I think it gets more complicated if the tees they are playing from are not rated for women.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Courses and Architecture
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Courses and Architecture › course handicap index variances