rating/slope for women at men's tees?

[BallStriker]

I generally agree with everything Erik says above, but nothing he said actually answers the fundamental question as to why there are two systems.......does it really matter if we used one system and a female golfer is a 10 handicap instead of a 3 under the women's handicap system?  Is it written somewhere that there needs to be 1% of women that are scratch?

Ultimately, if you look at all golfers without regard to gender, there is a very wide spectrum of swing speeds....why does someone's gender require a different system....for example, player A has a 89 mph swing speed........player B has a 89 mph swing speed....should their handicaps be judged by different systems just because one stands up while urinating?

IDK..........seems to me that if the term "ladies tee" is an antiquated term (which I truly believe is true), there should just be one system for determining handicaps.....

All that said, if there is a good fundamental reason that I am missing, I am all ears........

[No Mulligans]

I generally agree with everything Erik says above, but nothing he said actually answers the fundamental question as to why there are two systems.......does it really matter if we used one system and a female golfer is a 10 handicap instead of a 3 under the women's handicap system?  Is it written somewhere that there needs to be 1% of women that are scratch?

Ultimately, if you look at all golfers without regard to gender, there is a very wide spectrum of swing speeds....why does someone's gender require a different system....for example, player A has a 89 mph swing speed........player B has a 89 mph swing speed....should their handicaps be judged by different systems just because one stands up while urinating?

IDK..........seems to me that if the term "ladies tee" is an antiquated term (which I truly believe is true), there should just be one system for determining handicaps.....

All that said, if there is a good fundamental reason that I am missing, I am all ears........

I think being a scratch player is reaching an expert level and a great accomplishment.  Many aspire to it, few achieve it. Just did a google search, less than 1% of those with HI in the U.S. are scratch or better.

Imo, it should be just as easy/hard for a women to play to par as a man.  It should also be just as easy/hard for a women to get to a 0 HI as it is for a man.

Afterall, "playing to par" and "scratch" do mean something.

[No Mulligans]

This has become as issue for me as well.  While my home course has white tees rated for both men and women, the red tees are only rated for women and the blue only for men.  When I do the calculation as per the USGA unrated tees chart (I am a female golfer), the blues come out with a lower rating than the whites, so obviously it is inaccurate.

How do I go about requesting a rating on the blues for women?  I really like to play them and they are much more challenging than the whites.

Aren't you suppose to take the rating of a female tee box and add to the rating and slope based on yardage distances between the two tee boxes?

Your starting point is the womens rating at the white tee box and you add to that.  The rating and slope could only go up (unless the yardage at the blues is less than the whites).

[DrvFrShow]

Figuring slope from the blue tees is done with the formulas I listed in this post . The ratings and slope should be higher than they are for the white tees. It's based on yardage. Those numbers are taken right out of the USGA Handicap Manual Section 13.

@BallStriker Player A male will probably have a higher handicap than player B female even if they play from the same tee. This is because the course rating and slope for the female is higher than it is for the male. This is because when Player B competes against her own gender she probably hits the ball further than the average female bogey golfer, unless Player B is an outlier and can't control the ball.

@No Mulligans It is just as hard for a woman to get to scratch as it is for a man. Golf is brutal. I personally don't know any women who play scratch. I know a few who play single digit handicap. Most I know play bogey golf or double bogey golf.

[No Mulligans]

@No Mulligans It is just as hard for a woman to get to scratch as it is for a man. Golf is brutal. I personally don't know any women who play scratch. I know a few who play single digit handicap. Most I know play bogey golf or double bogey golf.

I wrote that in a confusing way.  I was trying to support the current practice that there are separate ratings/slope for women and men.

An expert women should have a chance at being a scratch golfer and I'd want to see the ratings be set in a way that about 1% of the women with HI could be scratch and about 1% of the men could be scratch.

[MEfree]

I generally agree with everything Erik says above, but nothing he said actually answers the fundamental question as to why there are two systems.......does it really matter if we used one system and a female golfer is a 10 handicap instead of a 3 under the women's handicap system?  Is it written somewhere that there needs to be 1% of women that are scratch? Ultimately, if you look at all golfers without regard to gender, there is a very wide spectrum of swing speeds....why does someone's gender require a different system....for example, player A has a 89 mph swing speed........player B has a 89 mph swing speed....should their handicaps be judged by different systems just because one stands up while urinating? IDK..........seems to me that if the term "ladies tee" is an antiquated term (which I truly believe is true), there should just be one system for determining handicaps..... All that said, if there is a good fundamental reason that I am missing, I am all ears........

You nailed it! [quote name="No Mulligans" url="/t/40519/rating-slope-for-women-at-mens-tees/18#post_1161815"] An expert women should have a chance at being a scratch golfer and I'd want to see the ratings be set in a way that about 1% of the women with HI could be scratch and about 1% of the men could be scratch.  [/quote] This is a valid opinion, but not a necessity. The handicap system could certainly be made simpler if you only had one non-gender course rating for each tee box and there would be no issue of having tees that are not rated for a particular gender. As Erik pointed out, this would result in very few scratch female golfers (assuming they used the male ratings and didn't come up with a new in-between rating). On the upside, I think it would encourage more men to play the forward tees. Just like the OP had the issue of not having a female rating for the tees she wanted to play, I've played courses that have no men's rating on the forward tees. One justification I can think of for having different handicap systems is that your typical female golfer may need a different slope adjustment formula than your typical male golfer. Right now, there appears to be a difference in the way this is done. Possibly, this makes the slope system more accurate for each gender?? from http://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=24 Slope Rating is computed by the following formula: Bogey rating minus Course Rating multiplied by (5.381 men, 4.24 women) equals Slope Rating.

[iacas]

I generally agree with everything Erik says above, but nothing he said actually answers the fundamental question as to why there are two systems.......does it really matter if we used one system and a female golfer is a 10 handicap instead of a 3 under the women's handicap system?  Is it written somewhere that there needs to be 1% of women that are scratch?

Why do women compete in different classes in the Olympics? Because, for example in weightlifting, they'd never win a medal. Guys would always win. Heck, they wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics.

I gave you the answer as to why, fundamentally, there are two systems: fundamentally, women are not built the same as men.

That's it. It's simply about establishing appropriate scales for the different types of golfers.

If you somehow feel that's wrong , then just take the women's scores and plug them into the men's handicap chart. Voilà - a men's handicap for a woman.

Ultimately, if you look at all golfers without regard to gender, there is a very wide spectrum of swing speeds....why does someone's gender require a different system....for example, player A has a 89 mph swing speed........player B has a 89 mph swing speed....should their handicaps be judged by different systems just because one stands up while urinating?

Because overall women's swing speeds are fundamentally lower. You can't just look at a 65-year-old guy and compare him to a 35-year-old women. You have to compare all men to all women and look at the distribution of those skills.

All that said, if there is a good fundamental reason that I am missing, I am all ears........

Read… I think it's been given now a few times.

Slope Rating is computed by the following formula:

Bogey rating minus Course Rating multiplied by (5.381 men, 4.24 women) equals Slope Rating.

Those are different for men and women, so you're right back where you started. Because, again, women generally hit the ball different distances. So for EVERY set of tees from which both women and men typically play, we rate them for both women and men, and they're TWO different ratings.

---

Perhaps you don't know it, but something like 95% of a course's rating is the distance of the tees. If a man encounters a 480-yard hole, the scratch golfer will hit his tee shot 250 yards followed by a 220-yard second shot. This leaves him in "transition" where he won't hit the green. Maybe this gives him a "4.6" rating for that hole. The more of these a course has, the higher the course rating.

The bogey golfer hits it 200 and 170 (IIRC?) off the tee, so holes longer than 370 boost the slope of the course (as do trees and stuff along the route, of course).

So even within MEN there are technically two course ratings: the scratch rating and the bogey golfer rating. They just munge that into a "slope" rating by assuming it's linear (it simplifies calculations) so they can plot every handicap in between 0 and 18 (and beyond, I suppose, as well).

All women's ratings do is add two more ratings to the two we already have. Females hit the ball 210/190 (reach 400 yard holes in two) and 150/130.

For those who want a single unified handicap rating, why? To what end? Do you so regularly play against other women that you feel it would simplify things? Is it a need to have your superiority more clearly defined? Or do you really, deep down, want to know what your handicap index would be if you shoot 78 from the 4300-yard tees? What is the reason?

[mvmac]

I generally agree with everything Erik says above, but nothing he said actually answers the fundamental question as to why there are two systems.

Because men and women are fundamentally built differently.

does it really matter if we used one system and a female golfer is a 10 handicap instead of a 3 under the women's handicap system?

Do you want one single rating? Why?

for example, player A has a 89 mph swing speed........player B has a 89 mph swing speed....should their handicaps be judged by different systems just because one stands up while urinating?

As Erik said you have to compare all men and all women.

[RickK]

That makes no sense. You're comparing a 65-year-old to a 35-year-old.

Women simply aren't going to be as good, on average or at the top end, as the equivalent guy. LPGA Tour players can't really compete with PGA Tour players. Same is true at an "expert" level - let's just say scratch. While scratch might be the top 1% of men, it might be only the top 0.001% of women if given the same ratings. You'd have 2 handicapper women who were close to being as good as some players on the LPGA Tour.

From what I understand about the course ratings, it does not take into account age, how far you can hit it, and whether or not you are top ranked amateur or just a weekend hack.  Drop the men vs women analogy for a moment.  I am almost 69 years old.  If I am playing a set of tees defined for a tournament and I am playing against a 35 year old guy...for that set of tees the course rating and slope rating is going to be the same for the 2 of us.  PGA or LPGA players do not "get strokes".  If they are playing in their tournaments, the ratings mean nothing.  The ratings are designed for the non-professionals.  So, it does make sense to compare a 65 year old to a 35 year old as long as neither of them are pros.  JMHO

[iacas]

From what I understand about the course ratings, it does not take into account age, how far you can hit it, and whether or not you are top ranked amateur or just a weekend hack.  Drop the men vs women analogy for a moment.  I am almost 69 years old.  If I am playing a set of tees defined for a tournament and I am playing against a 35 year old guy...for that set of tees the course rating and slope rating is going to be the same for the 2 of us.  PGA or LPGA players do not "get strokes".  If they are playing in their tournaments, the ratings mean nothing.  The ratings are designed for the non-professionals.  So, it does make sense to compare a 65 year old to a 35 year old as long as neither of them are pros.  JMHO

You're 69, and hit it shorter than I do, and all that means is that you're unlikely to become an "expert level" (i.e. scratch) golfer. You don't have the distance, but you probably still hit it farther than a 69-year-old woman.

Unless you want to argue that you should have different course ratings for various distance tiers, which I'm sure you're not…

You should have read the later posts. Like #25.

[BallStriker]

I think being a scratch player is reaching an expert level and a great accomplishment.  Many aspire to it, few achieve it. Just did a google search, less than 1% of those with HI in the U.S. are scratch or better.

Imo, it should be just as easy/hard for a women to play to par as a man.  It should also be just as easy/hard for a women to get to a 0 HI as it is for a man.

Afterall, "playing to par" and "scratch" do mean something.

Yes -- I think this is probably the most compelling reason for the two systems -- cheers.

[MEfree]

You're 69, and hit it shorter than I do, and all that means is that you're unlikely to become an "expert level" (i.e. scratch) golfer. You don't have the distance, but you probably still hit it farther than a 69-year-old woman. Unless you want to argue that you should have different course ratings for various distance tiers, which I'm sure you're not… You should have read the later posts. Like #25.

Is the main function of the handicap system to identify who has (or will likely) attain "expert level" relative to the average physical abilities of their category of player or to make it so that golfers of different abilities can have fair & competitive competitions against each other? If it is the former, then yes, we should certainly have different systems for men, women, juniors, seniors, etc. If it is the later, then a single system seems appropriate. FWIW, In skiing, NASTAR races calculate a single ~handicap for everyone (the % your time is over the national pace setters time) and then award medals based on what percentile that handicap puts you in relative to your gender and age. This allows for a kid, woman or old man to get a higher medal with a slower time than what I might have.

[iacas]

Is the main function of the handicap system to identify who has (or will likely) attain "expert level" relative to the average physical abilities of their category of player or to make it so that golfers of different abilities can have fair & competitive competitions against each other? If it is the former, then yes, we should certainly have different systems for men, women, juniors, seniors, etc. If it is the later, then a single system seems appropriate.

It is to compete against each other, but in having two systems we get the best of both worlds: 99% of the time women compete against women and men against men, but the system still allows you to compete against the opposite gender, too. And we get to have more accurate "scratch" golfers.

The system we have now is fine. It separates men from women re: defining "expert" and "bogey" type golfers (and every other level), but still allows them to play against each other the rare times they do that.

[cutchemist42]

Maybe a dumb question (found this thread through Google) then that came into my head, but how would rating/slope work if a male hit from the red tees?

[DaveP043]

If the red tees are rated for men, its easy, he gets the strokes as calculated based on the slope.  When he posts his scores, the differential is calculated based on the CR and slope for use in calculating his index.  If the red tees are NOT rated for men, the Handicap Manual provides guidelines for estimating the slope and CR based on the distance to the nearest rated tees.(Section 5.2.g,  http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14379 )

[cutchemist42]

@DaveP043  Never knew this, thanks for the answer. Im guessing Canada has a similar system then for unrated tees?

Edited March 31, 2016 by cutchemist42

[DaveP043]

I looked at the Canadian Handicap Manual just now.  It appears to follow the USGA manual very closely, but the Canadian Manual doesn't include the provisions for playing unrated tees.  You might ask your local golf professional what is done in Canada.

[cutchemist42]

59 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I looked at the Canadian Handicap Manual just now.  It appears to follow the USGA manual very closely, but the Canadian Manual doesn't include the provisions for playing unrated tees.  You might ask your local golf professional what is done in Canada.

Yeah I looked too and didnt see anything.

I also completely missed the announcement of no handicap for holes you play alone. 

Edit-I then see other news articles saying the RCGA rejected the USGA handicap ruling on playing alone. Now Im confused.

Edited March 31, 2016 by cutchemist42