Competing From Different Sets of Tees
Throughout the past year I would guess that I have received at least 50 inquiries having to do with the subject of golfers competing against each other from different sets of tees. Most of the questions dealt with “men versus women” scenarios, while a few have focused on men playing from White tees versus men playing from Blue tees.
In many instances, those asking the questions did not like the answers I gave. They had preconceived, popular notions about handicapping and thought they had the situation all figured out. I had to inform them that they were wrong.
Unfortunately, these preconceived notions resulted in a significant handicap advantage tilted toward the caller’s favor. They did not want to hear what I had to say, because my answers eliminated their advantage and evened the playing field.
The solution to handicap questions for instances where golfers are competing against each other while playing different tees is really quite simple. Section 9-3c of the USGA Handicap System Manual states: “Different tees usually have different USGA Course Ratings. Since course ratings reflect the probable scores of scratch golfers, the higher-rated course is more difficult, and the player playing from the set of tees with the higher USGA Course Rating receives additional strokes equal to the difference between course ratings, with .5 rounded upward.”
This Section goes on to state that the same would be true for men and women competing from the same set of tees since the USGA Course Ratings will be different for each sex.
Many golfers get confused over this handicap adjustment for one of two reasons: They think Slope is designed to take care of the situation, or they relate net scores to par rather than to the course ratings.
Slope does serve as the perfect equalizer for golfers of the same sex competing from the same set of tees. It adjusts a golfer’s USGA/NCGA Handicap Index proportionally based upon the difficulty of those set of tees as measured by the Slope rating. Slope does not equalize the handicaps in instances where golfers are competing against each other from different rated tees.
Net scores should always be viewed in relation to the course rating of the tees being played, not the par of the course. Two golf courses can have the exact same par and yet be separated by several strokes in course ratings. If you record a net score of 74 from a set of tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 75.0, you played about one stroke better than your handicap, regardless of the par of the course. If you record a net score of 66 from a set of tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 65.0, you played about one stroke over your handicap, regardless of the par of the course. In this instance, the net score of 74 actually represents a better playing performance than the net score of 66.
This concept is vitally important when different rated sets of tees are involved. Consider a scenario in which a man is playing from the White tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 70.0 versus a woman playing from the Red tees with a rating of 74.0. If the man plays perfectly to his handicap that round, he will shoot a gross score that results in a net score of around 70, the course rating from those tees. Likewise, if the woman were to play perfectly to her handicap that day, she would shoot a gross score that results in a net score of 74, the course rating from her tees. They both play exactly to their handicaps, and yet the man’s net score defeats the woman’s net score by four strokes. As you can see, something is wrong!
In short, she is playing a golf course that has been deemed four strokes more difficult than the course the man is playing. After both golfers have adjusted their USGA Handicap Indexes for the Slope ratings of their tees, she needs to add four additional strokes to her course handicap prior to play. This will level the playing field and promote a fair competition for all parties involved.
Why is this important to you? More and more clubs have caught onto the idea of establishing a fourth set of tees at their golf course somewhere in yardage between the existing White and Red tees. Many clubs label these new tees as Gold tees and have established them primarily for, senior men golfers who find the White tees too long or for exceptional women golfers who want more of a challenge than the Red tees present. In each instance, the golf course is providing its golfers with an opportunity to maximize their enjoyment by permitting them to select a set of tees that best matches their game.
Why not provide your tournament entrants with the same options?
Let your entrants individually select the tees that they want to play from and then adjust the course handicaps accordingly based upon the difference in ratings. These adjustments have even been built into TPP-2000 (NCGA/GHIN provided Tournament Pairings Program) to assist you in accomplishing this. Such a move is bound to increase everyone’s interest and enjoyment in your tournaments… and isn’t that what it’s all about?
Director of Course Rating & Handicapping Jim Cowan can be e-mailed at jcowan@ncga.org.
How can I get a copy of your TPP 2000. We have men’s group of 60’s-80’s of age and this issue keeps coming up. Thus, I would like a copy of your program so that I can present proper handicaps with creditability via the computer as our group members switch from the various tees.
I am vert computer litrate and would not have any problems following the directions for the computer program.
Thanks,
Robert A Carpenter
July 26th, 2007 at 10:37 amJim, where can I get a copy? I sort of get this but a piece still seems off since most play is not based on net to the rating but net to par. So real situation is men in white tees have 69.6, par 70 and slope of 124. Women on red play 72.9, par 73 and slope of 131. Everyone plays same course everyday. It would seem over time your handicap would indicate how one plays the course relative to the rating. Since both the par and the slope are different it would seem that some of the difference should already be accounted for in handicap index. We play a lot of couple tournaments. By your measure I think we need to add 3 strokes more for the women. But if the woman shoots a 74 she is plus one to par. If a man shoots a 72 he is plus 2 to par. He loses. No one looks to the rating. It just does not seem to be that linear of just comparing the ratings. I thought you have all lectured us that the entire point of the slope was to account for the differences in difficulty based on ratings. BTW, did I get the match correct? A 3.3 difference in ratings results in 3 extra strokes. If we play a tournament where it is two women and two men on a team and on each hole we take one man, one woman, would we need to add strokes? Technically the men and women would be competing separately. Ok, I am asking too many questions.
August 20th, 2007 at 9:57 amI understand what you are coming from but some decisions do not make since. In all ncga events ive played have all been from the white tees. how do you explain the following: I recently competed in the net amateur and the men played from the blues par
September 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm72 69.9 121 6202
women played green 71 67.1 111 4793
How can it be fair that a woman shoot a net 68 with a rating almost 3 strokes lower 1400yards closer and a slope 10 lower than a man
playing to a net 69. the man is a stroke lower than his rating 69-69.9
and the woman is one higher68-67.1. seems if the men play white at 67.9and 116 5770 would be closer to fair please respond
Robert Carpenter,
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pmThe NCGA is only able to issue the software to our member clubs. Check with your club, they have a copy of the program. Once installed, the software can be updated to its most recent version via the internet. Thanks Jim Cowan
Mike,
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:37 pmI apologize for the delay in responding but I was only recently made aware of this new feature within our website. See the above response to Robert Carpenter regarding the software. As to your other questions and comments, I disagree that “most play … is based net to par.” It’s simpler than that, all play is based on “low score wins.” Net 72 by a man in your example beats the women’s net 74 by two strokes everytime, it makes no difference whatsoever how each of those scores relate to par. As to the rest, let me give you an extreme example and see if it makes more sense. Suppose the man and woman always score an 85 from their respective tees (69.6/124 and 72.9/131). The man would ultimately be issued a Handicap Index of 13.4, this 13.4 would translate to a Course Handicap of 15 and the next time he shot his 85 he would record a net score of 70. The par of his tees had no bearing on the Index issued. The woman who shoots 85 would be issued a Handicap Index of 10.4, this 10.4 would translate to a Course Handicap of 12 and the next time she shot her 85 it would translate to a net score of 73. Same thing, the par of the tees she played had no bearing on the Index issued. Without giving her the extra three strokes she is entitled to when she competes against the man, she loses net 70 to net 73 everytime. As to your last question about the 2 men/2 women team where you count the low man’s and low woman’s score per hole, yes the three strokes should be awarded to women. These three strokes could impact each team differently depending on how well the women performed on those three extra stroke holes. Thanks Jim Cowan
Rich,
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:59 pmIt is my understanding that since there were far fewer men in the field for this qualifier than women, instead of awarding all the men three additional strokes based on the difference in ratings, three strokes were deducted from the women. The net 68 that the woman recorded that you referenced would have represented a net 65 had she only been competing against women. A net 65 represents a performance two strokes under her handicap whereas a net 69 by a man is only one stroke better than his. Had the women’s handicaps been left alone and had three strokes been awarded to all the men, her net 65 would have beaten the net 66 of the man (net 69 adjusted for the three strokes). As to the tees used, our Rules and Competition Dept chose those tees for men since they were the closest in yardage to what the qualifiers would play if they advanced to the Championship proper. Thanks Jim Cowan
I do not get your comparison of a woman’s rating of 74 & man’s of 70. You have the woman add 4 strokes to her course handicap. What if the ratings are 73.7 for the woman and 70.1 for the man? How do you add 3.6 strokes to the woman’s course handicap?
I always thought the procedure is to take the rating differential between the tees, in my example 3.6. Since the woman is playing the tees with the highest rating I would add 3.6 to her current handicap index, which I would call her “adjusted handicap index”. Then I would look up her course handicap using her adjusted handicap index. The man would determine his course handicap as usual. In my method the couple then has full stroke differences in course handicap.
If the tees the woman plays has a different set of handicap ratings for various holes than the man’s tees then they can not “net” their course handicaps. For example assume her course handicap is 30, using her adjusted handicap index, and his is 20. Normally playing from the same tees she gets one stroke on the No one through ten stroke holes. But if they are playing a hole rated third for him but fifth for her he should get one stroke and she gets two strokes. On the other hand if the hole is the 13th stroke hole for him, but the number one stroke hole for her, he gets 2 strokes and she gets one stroke.
I plan on using your answer to add a discussion of playing from different tees to Wikipedia’s discussion of handicap indexes, so give me a good answer, and Wikipedia likes authoritative cites as well. For example currently Wikipedia classifies the explanation of Equitable Stroke Control posted there as non-authoritative although it appears to me to be entirely correct.
February 6th, 2008 at 6:59 pmSorry, you have to reverse the number stroke hole in my example in the last sentence of the third paragraph, it is his number one stroke hole, her number 13.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pmTom Bret, thank you for your comments.
Never, ever, ever apply an adjustment to the Handicap Index of players. The adjustment here and everywhere else (like when you are only awarded 90% of your handicap in a particular team format) applies to the Course Handicaps of the players, not the Handicap Index. The process starts by adjusting each golfer’s full Handicap Index to the Course Handicap Table (Slope Table) of the tees they are playing. Once you have these two numbers in hand, in your example the woman would add four strokes to her Course Handicap based upon a 3.6 stroke difference in Course Rating (round to the nearest stroke; .5 rounds up).
If she works out to a 30 and him a 20, she will be the recipient of ten strokes in a head-to-head match. She receives her strokes on her top ten ranked holes. Whether his strokes holes are different or not is immaterial. If he was the one getting the strokes, he would receive them on his stroke holes. That’s it – thanks again – Jim Cowan.
February 7th, 2008 at 10:40 amMy Handicap Index is 12.0. When I play from the Blue tees with a Slope of 129 and Course Rating of 71.1 my handicap is 14. When I play from the White tees with a Slope of 124 and a Course Rating of 67.7 my handicap drops by only one stroke even though the course is 718 yards shorter and makes all the holes reachable in regulation. What are we missing in order to make things equitable so that I can play with groups from either set of tees?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:46 pmCliff, thank you for your comment. As the article indicates, you need to compare your net scores with the Course Rating of the tees you are playing (not par) to gauge how you played in relationship to your handicap. You are naturally expected to shoot lower net scores when you play the easier White tees. A net score equal to the Course Rating would indicate that you played right to your handicap that day. So your “target” net score when you play the Blue tees is a 71. Your “target” net score when you play the White tees is a 68. A gross 85 from the Blue tees and 81 from the White tees would achieve these target scores. So, in other words, an 85 from the Blue tees is considered a nearly identical performance to an 81 from the White tees within the Handicap System. What this means is that if you play from Blue against others playing from White, they need to give you an additional three strokes (71.1 – 67.7 = 3.4, round to 3). If you play from White against others playing from Blue, you need to give them an additional three strokes. If you all play from the same tees, you all have the same target net score and no additional adjustment is required. Thanks – Jim Cowan
February 13th, 2008 at 9:58 amwhat if both sexes are in championship flight where it’s scratch no strokes given in match play
June 5th, 2008 at 8:29 amfollow up on question. should both man and woman play same tees
June 5th, 2008 at 8:32 amDarrel, thank you for your comments. I have never really given that scenario any thought. I guess you would just play at scratch. And whichever gender has the higher Course Rating for their tees would be at a disadvantage. I certainly would not recommend both genders play from the same tees as this would perhaps result in a several stroke advantage for the man (his Course Rating would be much lower). Thanks again – Jim Cowan
June 6th, 2008 at 11:55 amon our home course there is a hole that is a par 5 for the woman from the reds and par 4 for the men from the blues or blacks. in match play who wins? the girls 5 for a par or the guys 4 for par. or is it a tie? thanks -andy bahl
June 18th, 2008 at 7:06 pmAndy – Thank you for your comment. In match play, low score wins, period! Even though both players parred the hole, the man’s 4 wins the hole. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
June 19th, 2008 at 8:42 amthis is good information that people don’t know. so let me make sure I understand – man, 11.1 index, 133 slope, 73.4 rating (equates to a course handicap of 13). playing a woman who is a 20.1 index, 131 slope, 74 rating (equates to 23 course handicap). for stroke play, the man has to give her (23-13) + (74-73.6) = 11 (rounded up) strokes? and for match play, she gets strokes on her 11 hardest holes?
separate question: some people at my club have been saying that in this case, for match play, the man with a 13 gets strokes on his 13 hardest holes, and the woman gets one stroke one each hole, and 2 strokes on numbers 1-6. (ie-her 24 hardest holes). the reason is because the man should be “stroking” on hard holes for him as well. is this totally wrong? on one hand I see it, but the other hand it goes against when I have always just given 10, or 5, or whatever strokes to my opponent on their hardest holes (which means I am effectively playing at scratch), even though I am not.
July 28th, 2008 at 3:08 pmthanks in advance
Steve, thank you for your comments. In your example the woman would receive one additional stroke based upon the .6 higher rating for her set of tees (23 Course Handicap from the Slope Table plus this one additional stroke means she would play to a 24). In a match play scenario the man would be reduced to a scratch and the woman would receive one stroke on the 11 highest ranked holes for women (the person receiving strokes gets them according to the ranking of the holes for their gender). You are correct in that you do NOT dot the 13 strokes for the man and 24 strokes for women. The low handicapper always gets reduced to a scratch and the high plays with the remaining strokes. The best way to look at this is in a match between a 17 and 18. Their way would result in the 18 receiving a stroke on the easiest hole on the course. The correct way leaves the 18 receiving a stroke on the most difficult hole . . . just like the Handicap System intended. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
July 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pmI understand the concepts of the course ratings and making the course handicap index adjustments based on where player’s tee off from. However, would it be allowed for team players, on the same team, play from different tee’s during a 4 ball tournament? Or even allowable to play from different tee’s when your in a match play event? Doing so, just doesn’t seem equitible, even though the course rating is provided to level the playing field and provide level competition.
December 14th, 2008 at 4:28 pmI am now over 80 years and have just started to play the “Forward” Red/Ladies tees as I no longer have the length to play the whites. I
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:14 amcompete with others in my senior’s club. Most players play the White tees. The ratings at Shoreline are: white 69.3 & red 66.5 or 2.8 harder from the white. If I follow your comments I figure I should
DEDUCT 3 strokes from the red handicap chart for my index? Some say I
should deduct 3 stokes from the white chart for my index and some say
I should just use my red handicap for my index. Who’s right?
Donald, thank you for your comment. You apply your Handicap Index to the Men’s Course Handicap Table (Slope Table) for the Red tees. Once you have this number in hand, you deduct three strokes since the Course Rating of your tees is 2.8 strokes lower than White. Thanks again – Jim Cowan.
May 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 amWhat about match play? If a woman play against a man in match play and they play from different tee, how are stroke holes assigned?
let’s say the lady has to give 4 strokes to the male player, in which 4 holes will stroke be given, the tee from which the male player is playing from, or from the tee the lady is playing from?
May 19th, 2009 at 2:30 pmKen, thank you for your comment. The man would adjust his Handicap Index to the Course Handicap Table (Slope Table) for the tees he is playing. The woman would adjust her Handicap Index to the Course Handicap Table for the tees she is playing. Once we have these Course Handicaps in hand, we examine the difference in Course Ratings between the two tees. The golfer playing from the tees with the higher Course Rating receive additional strokes equal to the difference in the Course Ratings (.5 rounds up). If, after all this, the woman is four strokes lower than the man, she plays as a scratch and the man receives one stroke on the #1, 2, 3 and 4th handicapped hole for men. The person receiving strokes always receives them according to the ranking of the holes for their gender. Thanks again – Jim Cowan
May 19th, 2009 at 8:40 pmI am provided with a designation for woman’s 18 holes when I post – I am a new member. I recently played from the Blue tees and could not post according to that handicap / slope index. Can you help me out and change my designation in the system to a man, so that I can start posting from the back tees when played.
My ghin # 8665899
Thanks for your help…I look forward to posting the score which was a good one on a tough course.
Regards,
Jeff Johnson
August 12th, 2009 at 3:11 pmJeff, the designation has been changed. Thanks – Jim Cowan
August 17th, 2009 at 2:37 pmHi Jim,
December 14th, 2009 at 12:27 pmI’m writing an article for the Meadow Club Vista. Can you tell me when “forward” tees came to be and any other information you might have on red tees?
Thank you,
Pat Lyle
Pat, thank you for your comment. I am not aware of a specific year when the term “Forward Tees” was first uttered, but it is certainly a by-product of the age of political correctness (and I still don’t think that this term has reached the masses). I would suspect that the USGA in the late 80’s or early 90’s started recommending its use to get away from the stigma of the term “Ladies” tees. Obviously there has never been anything preventing a woman playing from the White or Blue tees. And there shouldn’t have been anything preventing a man playing from the front, but as long as they were referred to as “Ladies” tees, this wasn’t going to happen. “Red” has inherited some of the negative connotations of “Ladies,” but not nearly to the same extent. “Forward,” being non-gender specific, was considered the best alternative. And ever so slowly, more men are playing the shorter tees. Thanks again – Jim Cowan.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am