+1.9 gal -- how many strokes

[tdiii]

My buddy's daughter is going to college next year on a golf scholarship to a Div. 1 program.  She sports a +1.9 index right now. 

She's played at my home course and we make her play off the same tees as we do.  My buddy's a 5, I'm about a 15.  Last time we played she hit 13 out of 14 fairways and hit every drive between 230 and 250 yards.  She's long enough off the tee and with her irons that she's not hitting long irons or fairway woods into the greens on par 4s or par 3s.   

We played a match last time among her, my buddy and me.  We just made her play as scratch.  It turns out the tees we play from -- the Green tees -- are not rated for women at all at our course.  But, if we assumed the slope rating off our Green tees is 5 more than off the White, the slope rating for women would be 143.  But when I plug her index of +1.9 and that 143 slope rating into GHIN, the course handicap comes back as +2.  Didn't seem right to me, so I plugged in 120 and it also came back +2. 

So, here's the question:  I think her course handicap off our green tees should be around 5 -- but that's sort of a thumb in the air approximation.  I don't think scratch is fair to her. 

So, what do ya'll think her course handicap should be off our Green tees as a +1.9 woman? 

In any event, here's the USGA course rating and and slope database for my course: 

Tee Name	USGA Course Rating (18)	Slope Rating (18)	Front (9)	Back (9)	Bogey Rating (18)	Gender
Black	73.1	135	36.4 / 132	36.7 / 138	98.3	M
Black/Green Combo	72.0	133	36.0 / 129	36.0 / 137	96.7	M
Green	71.2	132	35.6 / 128	35.6 / 136	96.1	M
Green/White Combo	69.9	131	34.9 / 128	35.0 / 134	95.1	M
White	69.1	130	34.5 / 127	34.6 / 133	93.2	M
White/Gold Combo	66.8	128	33.4 / 125	33.4 / 131	90.9	M
Gold	65.9	126	33.0 / 124	32.9 / 128	89.6	M
Burgundy	58.6	100	29.3 / 99	29.3 / 101	77.2	M
White	74.9	138	37.2 / 134	37.7 / 142	107.5	F
G/W Combo	73.0	133	36.3 / 131	36.7 / 135	104.3	F
Gold	71.9	131	35.7 / 128	36.2 / 134	102.8	F
Short Gold	68.5	126	33.5 / 121	35.0 / 131	98.2	F
Burgundy	59.4	102	29.4 / 97	30.0 / 107	83.4	F

 

 

Edited June 17, 2016 by tdiii

[Golfingdad]

56 minutes ago, tdiii said:

My buddy's daughter is going to college next year on a golf scholarship to a Div. 1 program.  She sports a +1.9 index right now. 

She's played at my home course and we make her play off the same tees as we do.  My buddy's a 5, I'm about a 15.  Last time we played she hit 13 out of 14 fairways and hit every drive between 230 and 250 yards.  She's long enough off the tee and with her irons that she's not hitting long irons or fairway woods into the greens on par 4s or par 3s.   

We played a match last time among her, my buddy and me.  We just made her play as scratch.  It turns out the tees we play from -- the Green tees -- are not rated for women at all at our course.  But, if we assumed the slope rating off our Green tees is 5 more than off the White, the slope rating for women would be 143.  But when I plug her index of +1.9 and that 143 slope rating into GHIN, the course handicap comes back as +2.  Didn't seem right to me, so I plugged in 120 and it also came back +2. 

So, here's the question:  I think her course handicap off our green tees should be around 5 -- but that's sort of a thumb in the air approximation.  I don't think scratch is fair to her. 

So, what do ya'll think her course handicap should be off our Green tees as a +1.9 woman? 

In any event, here's the USGA course rating and and slope database for my course: 

Tee Name	USGA Course Rating (18)	Slope Rating (18)	Front (9)	Back (9)	Bogey Rating (18)	Gender
Black	73.1	135	36.4 / 132	36.7 / 138	98.3	M
Black/Green Combo	72.0	133	36.0 / 129	36.0 / 137	96.7	M
Green	71.2	132	35.6 / 128	35.6 / 136	96.1	M
Green/White Combo	69.9	131	34.9 / 128	35.0 / 134	95.1	M
White	69.1	130	34.5 / 127	34.6 / 133	93.2	M
White/Gold Combo	66.8	128	33.4 / 125	33.4 / 131	90.9	M
Gold	65.9	126	33.0 / 124	32.9 / 128	89.6	M
Burgundy	58.6	100	29.3 / 99	29.3 / 101	77.2	M
White	74.9	138	37.2 / 134	37.7 / 142	107.5	F
G/W Combo	73.0	133	36.3 / 131	36.7 / 135	104.3	F
Gold	71.9	131	35.7 / 128	36.2 / 134	102.8	F
Short Gold	68.5	126	33.5 / 121	35.0 / 131	98.2	F
Burgundy	59.4	102	29.4 / 97	30.0 / 107	83.4	F

 

 

Interesting question.  I would say that since the ratings of the tees (that are rated for both men and women) seem to be fairly consistent in their difference - Roughly 6 points - we could estimate that if she were a man (all else equal) she'd have a handicap index somewhere in the vicinity of 4.

3.8 index is 4 from your green tees and 3.9 is 5, so I guess I'd go either of those.

[CR McDivot]

Why deal with handicaps at all?

Play her straight up and take your beating like a man!

Handicaps are nothing more than welfare.

Feel bad about being beaten by a young woman? Deal with it! (And don't forget to give her kudos for her great game!)

[DaveP043]

Calculate her handicap based on the slope, as you've done, it would be around +2.  Then correct it for the difference in course rating for men and women.  To use your white tees as an example, there's nearly a 6 stroke difference.  So her +2 becomes a 4 when playing against men.  You were thinking she should play to 5 from the green tees.  If the difference at the green tees is similar, it seems to me that she should play to 4, giving your buddy one single stroke.  

[xcott]

Wait, women have a different course rating? That doesn't sound right. A handicap is a handicap, right? You take the HI based on the tees you play and go, right?

[DaveP043]

http://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14387

Check out rule 9-3.c for handicap calculations when men are competing from different tees, or men and women are competing from the same or different tees.  In either case, you calculate a course handicap based on the HI and the slope, and then adjust based on the difference in course rating.

[xcott]

I had no idea, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If a woman shoots 72 from the white tees and a man shoots 72 from the white tees whey would they get different treatment? I can't fathom any mathematical reason that they should get a different handicap. 

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, xcott said:

I had no idea, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If a woman shoots 72 from the white tees and a man shoots 72 from the white tees whey would they get different treatment? I can't fathom any mathematical reason that they should get a different handicap. 

Because women don't hit it as far as men, and LPGA Tour players would barely be scratch.

They have different standards for scratch and bogey golfers than men.

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, xcott said:

I had no idea, but it still doesn't make sense to me. If a woman shoots 72 from the white tees and a man shoots 72 from the white tees whey would they get different treatment? I can't fathom any mathematical reason that they should get a different handicap. 

It's easy enough to convert so no real reason also not to.  Consider that it's probably a bit discouraging for women if they have to get their caps based off their comparison to men.  Imagine if they changed the course rating to base off of Tiger Woods in his prime instead a standard "scratch golfer."  Nothing would change relatively between golfers but everybody's caps would immediately jump by about 10 strokes.

Does that seem fun?

[xcott]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Because women don't hit it as far as men, and LPGA Tour players would barely be scratch.

They have different standards for scratch and bogey golfers than men.

They hit farther than some men. Driving distance doesn't figure directly into the HI calculation, just what you scored on a course. I would expect in general women to have a higher HI, but the point of the HI is to even the playing field. If a woman can average a 72 from the white tees, whey does she get more strokes than a guy who can also average 72 from the white tees?

 

2 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Nothing would change relatively between golfers but everybody's caps would immediately jump by about 10 strokes.

In the end like you say it wouldn't matter. If I have to become a 37 and the guy who is a 10 is now a 20, it's not any different. I would think that all golfers would be treated equally, you don't get a different HI when you're over 80 and I bet they drive it shorter too. It just doesn't make mathematical sense to me. 

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

 Consider that it's probably a bit discouraging for women if they have to get their caps based off their comparison to men

Treating women like they are too fragile to handle a HI compared to men is kind of insulting isn't it?

[Golfingdad]

47 minutes ago, xcott said:

If a woman can average a 72 from the white tees, whey does she get more strokes than a guy who can also average 72 from the white tees?

If they were playing against each other, she wouldn't.

48 minutes ago, xcott said:

Treating women like they are too fragile to handle a HI compared to men is kind of insulting isn't it?

I suppose ... but that's only if you would also consider the existence of the LPGA insulting as well???

[DrvFrShow]

So how many strokes does she end up giving you? If I were her I'd give your +5 buddy two strokes, and I'd give you 10 strokes. No way I'm giving you your full 13 strokes. 80% of your HCs. $1 per hole. She plays as a +2. The 1.9 rounds up. I've learned this from listening to men negotiate their handicaps before playing a match.

Sound fair?

[Judah Ben-Hur]

If she's going to college then all bets are off. 

[DrvFrShow]

The NCAA gambling rules don't include playing against your dad for $1 a hole. Or for "loser buys lunch in the clubhouse" against your mom or dad. They're talking about real gambling and taking monetary reward or accepting corporate sponsorship.

[iacas]

On June 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, xcott said:

They hit farther than some men.

As a general rule, they don't.

On June 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, xcott said:

Driving distance doesn't figure directly into the HI calculation, just what you scored on a course.

Driving distance factors into what you score on the course.

From any set of tees, women generally score higher than men.

On June 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, xcott said:

I would expect in general women to have a higher HI, but the point of the HI is to even the playing field. If a woman can average a 72 from the white tees, whey does she get more strokes than a guy who can also average 72 from the white tees?

That's not the situation that's happening. A woman averaging 72 from tees rated 77.0 for women might be 71.3 for men.

On June 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, xcott said:

In the end like you say it wouldn't matter. If I have to become a 37 and the guy who is a 10 is now a 20, it's not any different. I would think that all golfers would be treated equally, you don't get a different HI when you're over 80 and I bet they drive it shorter too. It just doesn't make mathematical sense to me.

Women compete against women, and men against men, typically. We have adjustments for playing from different sets of tees. It's just math - the same way "it's just math" if you got your handicap playing a 67.3/112 course and I got mine on a 74.3/144 course.

On June 17, 2016 at 4:11 PM, xcott said:

Treating women like they are too fragile to handle a HI compared to men is kind of insulting isn't it?

That's not what's happening here.

[xcott]

If women are playing the same courses and the same tees, there is no justification for them to get different handicaps. Their shorter driving distance should be exposed in their actual handicap. If two people play from the whites on the same course 100 times and every single time they both shoot 85, then they should have the same handicap. Their sex should be irrelevant.  The entire purpose of the handicap is to equalize different players to play against each other. If the average woman drives the ball 50 yards shorter than the average man, then the average womans handicap should likely be lower. There is no mathematical need for a modification.

10 hours ago, iacas said:

That's not the situation that's happening. A woman averaging 72 from tees rated 77.0 for women might be 71.3 for men.

On 6/17/2016 at 3:11 PM, xcott said:

That's exactly what's happening here. Having the tees rated differently for women doesn't make sense. So if she shoots the same score as the man she gets a lower handicap. And i can find no justification for that difference other than someone saying that women would not play if their handicaps were so much higher than mens, which I think is insulting. 

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

If women are playing the same courses and the same tees, there is no justification for them to get different handicaps.

It is if their handicap is based on women's handicaps.

The same tees are not rated the same for men and women. So a woman shooting 72 might be a +2 index for women, but might be a 4 handicap for men.

72 is 72, but when the course rating is 74.7 for women and 69.2 for men… the handicaps are not going to be the same when you shoot 72.

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

Their shorter driving distance should be exposed in their actual handicap. If two people play from the whites on the same course 100 times and every single time they both shoot 85, then they should have the same handicap. Their sex should be irrelevant.

I feel as though you're not getting it.

That's true, but only if they've established the handicap based on the same course rating and slope. The course rating and slope are different for men and women.

It's very easy to cross over and arrive at the proper course handicap for when a man plays against a woman.

Nobody tracks those "85"s. They track the differentials.

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

The entire purpose of the handicap is to equalize different players to play against each other. If the average woman drives the ball 50 yards shorter than the average man, then the average womans handicap should likely be lower.

You probably meant higher.

The handicaps are equalized. It's very simple math, and others have explained it to you.

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

There is no mathematical need for a modification.

Once again, yes, there is.

If you average (let's imagine only in your best 10 of 20 rounds) 72 playing a course rated 68.4/110 and I average 72 playing a course rated 74.7/148, should we play off against each other without anyone getting any strokes? Or would you feel disadvantaged?

Because you should request strokes. I'm a +2.1 index and you're a 3.7 index. Depending on the course we play, you'd be owed about six strokes. You have to do the "mathematical modification" when we play courses with different ratings.

The same is true for men vs. women.

Now, yes, I suppose women everywhere could just say "I'd like to be rated against the men's handicap rating," but why would they do that?

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

That's exactly what's happening here. Having the tees rated differently for women doesn't make sense. So if she shoots the same score as the man she gets a lower handicap.

I'm not sure what you're not understanding.

If any golfer shoots a 72 from tees rated 72.0, that golfer gets a differential of 0.0. She's effectively playing a more difficult golf course than the man if she plays the same tees.

3 minutes ago, xcott said:

And I can find no justification for that difference other than someone saying that women would not play if their handicaps were so much higher than mens, which I think is insulting. 

The justification is that women don't hit the ball as far as men. Playing from the same tees, she's effectively playing a more difficult course. This reason was given to you earlier.

Look, the purpose of the handicap system is to allow golfers of different abilities to compete against one another. It's also to establish relative levels of ability. Like it or not, they've separated it by gender. This means an 18 handicapper should be about the same relative level in their respective genders as one in the other gender (maybe 50th percentile, or whatever it is).

https://ncrdb.usga.org/NCRDB/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=13026

Look at the blue tees. For men, they're 72.0/142. For women, they're 78.0/145. A woman who shoots 72 there is a better golfer relative to other women than a man who shoots 72. Heck, a woman who shoots 72 there is likely an LPGA Tour player… a man who does so is just a scratch golfer.

The math, should those two want to play one another, is very easy. Just as the math would be if you want to play against your son or father when they play from the yellow tees while you play the black.

[xcott]

22 minutes ago, iacas said:

It is if their handicap is based on women's handicaps.

The same tees are not rated the same for men and women. So a woman shooting 72 might be a +2 index for women, but might be a 4 handicap for men.

72 is 72, but when the course rating is 74.7 for women and 69.2 for men… the handicaps are not going to be the same when you shoot 72.

I understand that is how it is, however I cannot fathom a mathematical justification for this.

 

23 minutes ago, iacas said:

Now, yes, I suppose women everywhere could just say "I'd like to be rated against the men's handicap rating," but why would they do that?

40 minutes ago, xcott said:

Why would they not is my question? 

 

24 minutes ago, iacas said:

If any golfer shoots a 72 from tees rated 72.0, that golfer gets a differential of 0.0. She's effectively playing a more difficult golf course than the man if she plays the same tees.

No, this is what you think I'm not getting, but I think it's what youre not getting. two people playing from the same tees are playing the same golf course. Their genetailia is irrelevant to the equation.

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

The justification is that women don't hit the ball as far as men. Playing from the same tees, she's effectively playing a more difficult course. This reason was given to you earlier.

 

People over 80 don't hit the ball as far as people under 80, do they get a different handicap? The entire purpose of the handicap is to level the playing field. If you drive it shorter your handicap will likely be higher. (yes mistake earlier). Your sex should be completely irrelevant, as should your age or your arm strength or your previous injuries or any number of things which can make you drive the ball shorter distances than the average. Why is it that sex is the only thing that is used to try and re-level a supposed level playing field?