+1.9 gal -- how many strokes

[xcott]

44 minutes ago, iacas said:

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?

If we've played the same course from the same tees 100 times and we both have shot 80 every single time and then I ask for an extra stroke because I'm a woman, would you feel disadvantaged?

 

[Lihu]

53 minutes ago, xcott said:

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

The mathematical justification is simply that women hit less far than men. It's a physical difference that gave them different ratings to begin with. I don't think that USGA came up with some random set of ratings to see if they stick.

Ladies usually play against ladies and not usually men.

There are plenty of ladies who put drive the average man, but there are also a lot of men who drive 80 to 100 yards past the average man. It's not the normal situation. The normal situation is that they drive less as far and the ratings take this into account.

Your question aimed at ladies handicaps but your logic criticizes the entire handicap system in general. Why have one at all if you want a level playing field between men and women? Why not just play scratch golf, and simply lose every time you play a better player?

A scratch player can shoot 27 strokes higher than his usual and still beat a 27 handicap. It's not challenging nor fun for him. The same goes for all players. It's more fun to see if you can beat someone else on a level playing field. That's why we have handicaps, and why ladies have different course ratings.

 

Quote

Why would they not is my question? 

Actually, it is your question. They have different course ratings to simplify handicapping for ladies, and take into account the shorter distances all ladies hit.

So, this is an example of your method of playing on equal footing. . .

My daughter was playing coed high school golf and played a coed team, and the other team insisted that the ladies play from the same tees as the men else. Actually, the girls on the team were the ones who insisted. However, they were so used to taking extra strokes that they never actually started playing golf as meant to be played. Well my daughter shot 46, which is bad for her, and every girl on the other team shot their usual 55-60 or more. They were used to making at least 9 or more extra strokes because of the length they chose to play, and of course high school teams play with no handicaps. My daughter was used to making regulation and only suffered on the few longer holes. She's used to playing correctly, so she didn't play as badly as the other students.

If the coed teams allowed the ladies to play the handicap difference between ladies and men and play from the correct tees there would be more equal footing for everyone.

So, my daughter is training hard to "make up" for the 6 stroke difference and playing longer tees to shoot in the low 40s she is accustomed.

 

Quote

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.

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?

I feel like you made your original statement without understanding the handicap system, and are now just trying to justify that by arguing that it makes no sense?

Yes, older people can't hit as far, that's why they generally have higher handicaps.

Older ladies have even shorter driving distances, so their handicaps could go "off the charts".

33 minutes ago, xcott said:

If we've played the same course from the same tees 100 times and we both have shot 80 every single time and then I ask for an extra stroke because I'm a woman, would you feel disadvantaged?

 

Yes, because she would be a better player than me to shoot the same score from tee shots 40 yards behind mine.

I have a median drive of 258 yards, would you want to play a round with me without your 27-9.4 strokes?

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, xcott said:

If we've played the same course from the same tees 100 times and we both have shot 80 every single time and then I ask for an extra stroke because I'm a woman, would you feel disadvantaged?

You would not get a stroke in that case. But your (women's) handicap might be 2 while mine (men's) is 8.

Please step back, step out of your current line of thinking, and read what's been written in response to you with fresh eyes.

If everyone had the same handicap system, and a certain set of tees had one rating instead of ratings for men and women, then that would also "work" mathematically, but it would not work at doing what the handicap and course rating system sets out to do.

A course rating and slope establish what a "scratch" level and "bogey" level player can accomplish, and whether you like it or not, those are generally quite different for men and women. Women hit the ball shorter than men. Their course ratings and slope recognize that.

23 minutes ago, xcott said:

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

Women do not hit the ball as far as men.

23 minutes ago, xcott said:

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.

And if the woman is a +2 and the man is a 4 handicap, they would probably be playing at even or very close to it.

But if the woman is a (female) 4 handicap, she would need (and deserve) strokes against a (male) 4 handicap.

The math is what makes their genitalia irrelevant. The math you keep railing against while not seeming to understand it…

23 minutes ago, xcott said:

People over 80 don't hit the ball as far as people under 80, do they get a different handicap?

No, but the USGA can't reasonably be expected to create even more math to adjust for various factors. They chose to create adaptations for four: male and female bogey and scratch golfers.

You might ask "why don't they add more for players over 80?" But then you're on a slope. Why not make handicaps for every 10 years a player can play? But then you'd have 10 year olds and 19 year olds playing with the same handicaps, and so you'd want even smaller divisions. And then you'd have even MORE math to figure out how to play a match against someone.

Men typically play against men, and women typically play against women. Women, generally, are also shorter than men. The divisions (two - men and women) they currently have are likely all the divisions they want to have. It's all that it's reasonable to have.

A woman can play against a man just as easily as two men who established their handicaps on different courses can play against each other. It's not difficult math.

23 minutes ago, xcott said:

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?

Here's where that logic falls apart.

A male scratch golfer is defined as one who can carry the ball about 250 yards and hit second shots 220 yards. A female is 210 and 190.

So a hole that's 470 yards is likely a par four for men, but a par five for women. A hole with a water hazard extending to 220 yards off the tee doesn't pose much of a factor to men, but poses a huge factor to women.

The courses deserve very different ratings and slopes because, again, men hit the ball farther than women.

It's reasonable to create these divisions. It fits the very nature of the handicapping system. It allows players of different levels (including gender) to play against each other. You sometimes have to do a little math, but the only times that doesn't happen is when all players involved play only against each other and from the same tees always. Otherwise, math is involved. And that math levels the playing field.

[xcott]

34 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Your question aimed at ladies handicaps but your logic criticizes the entire handicap system in general. Why have one at all if you want a level playing field between men and women? Why not just play scratch golf, and simply lose every time you play a better player?

 

No, not even close. What I'm saying is that the current handicap system already levels the playing field for people of varying skills, some of whom drive the ball with shorter distances. 

 

34 minutes ago, Lihu said:

They have different course ratings to simplify handicapping for ladies, and take into account the shorter distances all ladies hit.

Why don't they have different course ratings for seniors or for average driving distance?

 

8 minutes ago, iacas said:

The courses deserve very different ratings and slopes because, again, men hit the ball farther than women.

 

So it makes sense to you that a woman with equal skill to a man should be given an advantage? That is the crux here. I maintain that a woman who shoots an 80 on the same tees on the same course as a man who shoots an 80 on the same course on the same tees are equal golfers. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by xcott

[Golfingdad]

22 minutes ago, xcott said:

So it makes sense to you that a woman with equal skill to a man should be given an advantage? That is the crux here. I maintain that a woman who shoots an 80 on the same tees on the same course as a man who shoots an 80 on the same course on the same tees are equal golfers. 

You're not getting it.  Nobody is saying otherwise.  The girl in the OP isn't shooting the same score from the same tees on the same course as a man.

[xcott]

34 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

You're not getting it.  Nobody is saying otherwise.  The girl in the OP isn't shooting the same score from the same tees on the same course as a man.

However as the handicap is calculated, in such a scenario the woman would get a stroke advantage if she were to match a man stroke for stroke from the same tees on the same course. I think that seems weird and wrong. 

[Golfingdad]

40 minutes ago, xcott said:

However as the handicap is calculated, in such a scenario the woman would get a stroke advantage if she were to match a man stroke for stroke from the same tees on the same course. I think that seems weird and wrong. 

No.  She wouldn't.  She would have a different handicap but - as is the ENTIRE POINT of this thread - she wouldn't use that different handicap in matching up against a man.

[Lihu]

43 minutes ago, xcott said:

However as the handicap is calculated, in such a scenario the woman would get a stroke advantage if she were to match a man stroke for stroke from the same tees on the same course. I think that seems weird and wrong. 

Scratch golfers do not get strokes and a +1.9 is definitely not going to get more strokes.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, xcott said:

So it makes sense to you that a woman with equal skill to a man should be given an advantage? That is the crux here. I maintain that a woman who shoots an 80 on the same tees on the same course as a man who shoots an 80 on the same course on the same tees are equal golfers. 

Such a woman would get the same course handicap.

52 minutes ago, xcott said:

However as the handicap is calculated, in such a scenario the woman would get a stroke advantage if she were to match a man stroke for stroke from the same tees on the same course. I think that seems weird and wrong. 

The only thing wrong here is how you keep ignoring what people are telling you. C'mon man… I'll try one last time:

---

If a woman always shoots 75 from the same tees as a guy who always shoots 75, she's going to end up with about the same exact course handicap when they play against each other.

But her (female) handicap index might be +2 while the guy's (male) handicap index might be 4. That's a different handicap index because, relative to their peers (females and males), the woman is a relatively better golfer. But against each other, they're the same… and get the same course handicap.

One quick question: do you understand the difference between course handicaps and handicap indexes?

[xcott]

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Such a woman would get the same course handicap.

The only thing wrong here is how you keep ignoring what people are telling you. C'mon man… I'll try one last time:

---

If a woman always shoots 75 from the same tees as a guy who always shoots 75, she's going to end up with about the same exact course handicap when they play against each other.

But her (female) handicap index might be +2 while the guy's (male) handicap index might be 4. That's a different handicap index because, relative to their peers (females and males), the woman is a relatively better golfer. But against each other, they're the same… and get the same course handicap.

One quick question: do you understand the difference between course handicaps and handicap indexes?

Yes, I understand the difference between course handicap and the HI. 

 

My issue with your above statement is the part where you say "about the exact same". A golfer should have the EXACT same HI if they score the EXACT same scores on the EXACT same tees at the EXACT same course. 

The female who shoots 75 from the tips peers are the men who shoot 75 from the tips, not the women who shoot 95 from the reds or the men who shoot 115 from the whites. This is the crux of it all for me. 

The entire point of the HI is to level the field for ALL golfers, but either they're admitting it does a poor job of that and they need different indexes for different kinds of golfers, or that there is some weird gender bias in the whole system where women should be oddly treated differently. If anyone should be mad it should be men who drive the ball at short distances because they aren't getting the benefit that the women get.

Edited June 20, 2016 by xcott

[iacas]

28 minutes ago, xcott said:

My issue with your above statement is the part where you say "about the exact same". A golfer should have the EXACT same HI if they score the EXACT same scores on the EXACT same tees at the EXACT same course. 

If she routinely plays against the men, she'd have the exact same HI because she'd just apply the male handicap calculation. Problem solved.

Otherwise, you're worrying about a decimal point or two, which is almost always washed out in the rounding to the course handicap.

28 minutes ago, xcott said:

The female who shoots 75 from the tips peers are the men who shoot 75 from the tips, not the women who shoot 95 from the reds or the men who shoot 115 from the whites. This is the crux of it all for me.

She'd have the same course handicap.

28 minutes ago, xcott said:

The entire point of the HI is to level the field for ALL golfers, but either they're admitting it does a poor job of that and they need different indexes for different kinds of golfers, or that there is some weird gender bias in the whole system where women should be oddly treated differently.

:sigh:

There's no "weird gender bias." Women don't hit the ball as far as men, so they created a system that accurately (as accurately as possible) represents the relative abilities of women and men.

That's it.

And I don't think you'll be able to refute that at all.

28 minutes ago, xcott said:

If anyone should be mad it should be men who drive the ball at short distances because they aren't getting the benefit that the women get.

Most likely they're not as good a golfer relative to their fellow male golfers as the female is to hers.

Finally, a real-world example:

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

A woman who is a +1.9 playing from the blue tees (course handicap: -2) playing a 3.5 index male (course handicap: 4) would be… a 4 handicap, because her course rating is 72.0 and his is 78.0. She gets an extra six strokes.

And both players would shoot about 76 in their 10 rounds that count toward their differentials.

For the man: (76 - 72.0) * (113/142) = 3.2
For the woman: (76-78.0) * (113/145) = 1.6

At this point, I don't feel as though you're really sure what your point is anymore.

On June 16, 2016 at 8:25 PM, 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.

…

 

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? 

Tee Name	USGA Course Rating (18)	Slope Rating (18)	Front (9)	Back (9)	Bogey Rating (18)	Gender
Green	71.2	132	35.6 / 128	35.6 / 136	96.1	M
White	69.1	130	34.5 / 127	34.6 / 133	93.2	M
White	74.9	138	37.2 / 134	37.7 / 142	107.5	F

 

White to green for men is roughly 2.

White to green for women would be roughly 2 as well: call it 77.0. 71.2 is 6 off from 77. She gets 6 strokes. She plays as a 4 handicap.

But as noted above, @DaveP043 answered that. I'm just answering again to try to get this back on topic…