Handicaps and other musings

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

So all this talk about Martha Burke and Annika Sorenstam and women’s lib and all has got me thinking, which in my particular case is often a pretty scary thing.

Question 1: How come men and women have different course ratings?

Put it this way: if I play the white tees, the course rating is 70.2.  If my sister plays the same tees, the course rating is 75.3.  All this seems to make sense at first glance.  After all, a course is “tougher” for a woman than for a man.  But, to put it very bluntly, what the heck does your type of genitals have with your ability to play golf?  Men and women are equally capable of hitting a little ball with a stick.  Some hit the ball farther than others, and others have better short games than some.  The ball doesn’t care whether you’re a man or woman.  Nor do your clubs, nor does the hole, nor does the damn tree in the way.  So why the different standards?

I mean, if a woman shoots 78 from the white tees, her handicap becomes 3 (more or less).  If I shoot 76 from the same tees, my handicap is 6 (give or take).  Is she a better golfer than I am?  No.  I actually played better!   Of course, the USGA says that if I play against my sister again, she should add 5 strokes to her course handicap (75.3-70.2=5.1), bringing her back up to 8 while I remain a 6.  That’s perfect, because I play two strokes better than she does, but which brings me back to the first question.  Why have different course ratings?

Question 2:  What came first, the scratch golfer or the course rating?

A scratch golfer is a player who shoots roughly the course rating.  Yet the course rating is what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot.

So which came first?

Question 3:  What’s the difference between Course Handicap and Handicap Index?

Alright, that last question is probably an easier one, but still, I’m not sure I understand the difference.  I know that your Handicap Index is some sort of universal number, your golfing ability measured against a course of average “difficulty”.  And your course handicap is an adjustment made to you handicap index for a specific course that you’d be about to play.

Say Joe is about to play a 7,200 yard brute, Joe’s 10.0 Handicap Index would become, say, a 15 course handicap, whereas at the 6,000 local muni, Joe’s course handicap might very well be 11

But aren’t those extra strokes already reflected with the course rating and slope?  The 7,200 yarder has a course handicap of 77.3 and a slope of 139, whereas the local muni has a course rating of 68.9 and a slope of 114.  Joe would naturally score about a dozen or so strokes higher on the brute than on the muni.  That’s already known.  So what does the Course Handicap have to do with anything?

[JohnV]

Jeremy,

Good questions that I'm sure a lot of people have.

Question 1) The reason there is a difference in men's and women's ratings is that there is a difference between a scratch man and a scratch woman according to the USGA.  First, par is different for a man and woman.  The maximum distance for a par 3 is 250 for a man and 210 for a woman, the maximum distance for a par 4 is 470 and 400.  This is based on studies that show that a "scratch" man can hit it 250 on the drive and 220 on the second (and subsequent) shots, while the "scratch" woman hits is 210 and 190.  Because of that (or is the above because of this ), a woman can't reach a 450 yard hole in 2 while a man can.  Similarly bogie men and women hit it different distances.

When the course rating/slope system was created, a lot of study was done by some good mathmatically astute people to determine how to fairly adjust for the differences.  I suppose they could have done it by somehow having one course rating for the scratch male and then three different kinds of slopes for the bogie male and the females.  But, since men and women don't compete from the same tees anywhere near as much as men/men or women/women (and possibly to be PC) it was decided to separate the sexes.  But, since a similar system was used, it was easy to adjust things for the times that the do compete side-by-side.

Since men's and women's ratings are based on different starting assumptions, there  is an apples to oranges thing her.  But, I'd argue that if a woman shoots 78 from the white tees, she is a better female player than you are male one who shoots 76.

As you said, it does even out when all is taken into consideration which is the way it should be.

Question 2) Chicken or egg to some exent.  The two definitions you gave are circular so I'm not sure you can say which came first.  The other definition of a course rating is that it is the score that the field in the US Amateur should average during stroke play on the course.  So it can be defined without reference to the scratch golfer.  That also can be used to show the difference between men's and women's ratings, it would be the difference between what the Men's Amateur averaged vs what the Women's Amateur averaged if they were to play the same tees.

Question 3)  The difference is there to adjust for the difference in difficulty for the non-scratch player on the different courses.  If you are scratch golfer, there is no difference (0.0 * Slope/113) = 0.  But, if you have a non-zero handicap the system says that the difference between you and the scratch player gets larger as the slope increases above 113 and it gets smaller as the slope goes down from 113 so you should get more or less strokes because of that.  When you post your score, this difference is taken back out to make the handicap differential

(Score - Course_Rating) * 113/ Slope = Differential.

This essentially makes all differentials equally weighted and allows the 10 best ones to be used for calculating your handicap index.  Then when you play, the Slope is factored back in to give you a course handicap.

I hope this helps, but I'd be happy to try to explain further or answer any other questions about this.

[JohnV]

One more thing.

Using your examples:

The Slope (S) is the difference between the Scratch Course Rating (SCR) and the Bogey Course Rating (BCR) (what the scratch and bogey golfers should average on the course) multiplied by a constant (5.381 for men (and don't ask me how they came up with that number.))

So:
S = (BCR-SCR)*5.381
Therefore
BCR = S/5.381 + SCR

So we can calculate the BCR for any course. In your examples,

For your 7200 yarder
BCR = 139/5.381 + 77.3
BCR = 25.8 + 77.3 = 103.1

And for the 6000 yarder
BCR = 114/5.381 + 68.9
BCR = 21.1 + 68.9 = 90.0

The Scratch golfer finds the longer course to be 8.4 strokes tougher while the bogey golfer finds the longer one to be 13.1 strokes tougher.  Because of this the bogey golfer needs more strokes on the harder course.  This is what calculating the Course Handicap from the Handicap Index does for us.

[Dennis_Harwood]

John's statements are correct, but addressing your question #2, I'll try to expand a bit--

The standard for a "scratch" golfer is that "model" of the average stroke play qualifier for the US Am--that is both men and women--

That "average" player is charted and the course rating is based on how that "average" qualifier(now a computer defined model player with certain distance and accuracy abilities) will play the course(drive, recoverablity from obsticals, percentage of targets(greens based on size from specific distances) etc)--

 That man or women is NOT a zero handicap--actually for the US men it is closer to a +2(based on the average qualifier for the the US Am)--

The ladies are are higher thanthat, in part because of smaller number of entries, so with a smaller field it is not a +(closer to a zero)--the womens course for the US Am is also set up a lot easier(6200 vs 7200--slower green speeds, lower rough etc)--

That may explain #2 as to why the ratings turn out different, but it doesn't answer if that is the right way to do it.

[ForkaB]

I'm with you, Jeremy

John and Dennis are effectively saying:  There is a difference between a "scratch" man and a "scratch" woman because the USGA says this is so.  This is really not much different than when the US Constitution said that a "negro" was worth 3/5 of a "caucasian" in determining representation in the US Congress.

In these days of equality of oportunity, why not let the ladies assess their games to the same standard as the men?  Rate all tees (including "ladies" ones) to the same standard and let the handicaps fall where they may?  This would probably mean that Curtis Cup level players would be playing off about 2-4, and even Annika would struggle to maintain a +3 or so, but so what?  If we take this "differring inherent capabilites require adifferent concept of "scratch" crap" why stop at gender?  How about a separate rating for Seniors?  Or Juniors?  Or one-armed golfers?  Or blind golfers?  That would certainly increase the business for those in the busieness of course ratings, but what other good would it do?

Do you think that Pat Mucci or Tom Paul would like to be told:  "Congratulations, guys, now that you are Seniors, your handicap has dropped from 2 to +4, just to conform with what we at the USGA believe to be "scratch" for a geezer!"

I think not.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeremy:  I asked your same question #1 to Dean Knuth when the Slope System first came out, and I remember being told that they had two separate ratings because otherwise even the best women golfers in the world would be a 2 or 3 handicap.

They've gotten better; Rich's estimates are probably more accurate today.  But there still wouldn't be many LPGA players who score lower than the men's course rating from the tees they play, more than 50% of the time.

[JohnV]

Rich, the last time I my home country I seem to recall that the Ladies Golf Union had a different Standard Scratch Score than the men did.  I guess they also see a difference over there.

I think that you would find that it is the women of the USGA and the LGU that want the separate standards, not the men.  The two definitions are consistent with each other and the way of adjusting handicaps based on different course ratingsfor the sexes works just fine.  I don't understand why you seem to think that everything the USGA does is bad.  But some people are like that so I guess we'll leave it at that.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Rich--

I'll second what John said-- If you think its "wrong" to have two seperate definitions of "scratch" don't blame the USGA, blame the ladies--

The historical evidence is that handicaps were computed by the individual clubs, which for whatever reasons, had a seperate set of handicap chairman, men and women-- Then the task fell to regional associations, and the original local associations always offered a single set of course ratings and handicap computations, but nationwide the ladies insisted on their own "raters"--

When the USGA adopted the slope system it was necessary to sell the local associations on using (through license agreements) the system, the USGA again offered have one set of raters and handicap chairmen(a necessary part of the system)--

The only way it was acceptable to the ladies was if they could have a seperate system AND compute their "scratch" golfer as the "average" golfer at the US Womens Am (and not use the male couterpart at the US AM--)

Wrong "villian", Rich.

[John_Conley]

Question 1: How come men and women have different course ratings?

Jeremy:

The non-technical answer is that the USGA handicapping system may be designed to do a lot of things, but it isn't trying to provide for intergender competitions.

As long as we are talking about handicaps, what is this drivel on TGC tomorrow night?  Trevino and Daly against two stockbrokers in separate matches?  They keep saying the amateurs - who probably won't be if they win the match and accept the $100,000 - will be able to use their handicap.  What about Lee and Daly?  Will they use theirs?  A common myth is that Tour players are 0.  Trevino is probably a +4 and Daly is probably +5 or +6.

If they play off 0, it reminds me of a match I played in.  Pretty much an A-B-C-D game with two scratch amateurs, a club pro, and a two-time Tour winner as the four As.  All played as 0s.  Gee, the guy who set the game up for us played with the Tour player and I played with some guy from the club that doesn't even win his club championship.  Fair game.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

JohnV,

Thanks for the answers.

I guess there really shouldn't be a diffferent course rating for men and women.  It 's cut-and-dry sexism, pure and simple.

Isn't it time to eliminate it?  It's amazing that it exists.  Would we tolerate a difference course rating for "whites" and for "blacks"?

As for the difference between Course Handicap and Handicap Index, it all makes sense now.  thanks.  I was pretty sure I knew what the difference was, I just couldn't put a mathematical value to it: Slope.

[TEPaul]

Jeremy:

You got really excellent answers and very detailed ones from particularly JohnV and also Dennis Harwood. JohnV definitely knows his stuff on this subject. And I agree completely with JohnV and Dennis Harwood about Rich Goodale's trite take on this entire subject. All kidding aside, Rich, you're sounding more and more like someone with a really biased agenda with nothing to back up the things you say;

such as;

".........This is really not much different than when the US Constitution said that a "negro" was worth 3/5 of a "caucasian" in determining representation in the US Congress."

That's perhaps the most inane thing you've said to date on this subject. The USGA has and continues to provide a handicap system for a recreational game, period. They're not into social engineering.

[ForkaB]

John, Dennis and Tom

I'm sorry if I offended you through indirectly criticising the USGA.  I did not mean to do so.  My beef on this issue is just as much with the UK authorities, who also have separate course ratings for "ladies," but it is much more about the idea that such separate course ratings are anachronistic, demeaning to the ladies (IMHO) and sexist, as Jeremy says above.  Tom Doak's anecdote of his discussion with the "Pope of Slope" seems to confirm this.  IN addition, this discrimination and attempt at unreasonable granularity (slope)contribute to the unnecessary complication of our simple and beautiful recreational game.

Tom P

If the USGA is not "into" social engineering, why do they have the First Tee Program, or why have they discontinued holding Open events at courses which have discriminatory membership policies?  These are good things, and are aimed more at the place of golf in the wider community than just golf as a game.

PS--every post I write seems to be the "inanest" ever in your not-so-humble opinion.  Will you please tell me when I have regressed to pond slime so that I can activate the "de-evolutionary" clause in my Long Term Disability insurance policy?

John V

I do not doubt your belief that the conventional wisdom is that the women "want" their own handicapping system, but that is quite possibly because they have never been given the other alternative.  Over here in Scotland, when the evil issue of granting women equal voting and playing rights at private clubs raised its ugly head 5-10 years ago, the CW was that the ladies were just happy as clams with their inferior status--after all, they were granted slightly lower dues and they were, of course, just ladies!  This turned out to not be true and at both of the clubs of which I was a member at the time, the offending discriminatory rules and procedures were scrapped, by supermajority (2/3) vote.  At one of them, the (now) mulit-gender voting membership simultaneously threw out the Council nominee for Club Captain and voted in a Lady for the position!

Life does move on, ob li di, ob la dah........

[JohnV]

Rich, as you can see from Dennis' historical overview of the slope system, the women were initially going to be a part of one system, but opted out.

I think there is a difference between equal access at clubs and a combined handicap system.  Women want (and deserve one) but don't seem to want the other.  There are enough separate women's regional associations in the US that do course ratings to convince me that they don't want to be a part of the club in this instance.

By the way Rich, you should remove the H from IMHO when you post, IMO.

[ForkaB]

John

If the USGA (and the R&A) really know what women want, more power to them--in fact if they could harness that power they could probably rule the world!

Rich

PS--I'll be honestly humble when the majority of the posters on this DG agree to do so too, i.e. once in a very blue moon, to quote that most remarkable of women, Nanci Griffith, who would have a helluva a time playing off 12 without the extra strokes the male chauvinist handicapping systems give to her....

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Does it bother you that the USGA has passed a "law" that says infant, junior, flat-bellied, wannabie, senior and nearly-dead men must have the same definition of "scratch?"

[TEPaul]

"PS--every post I write seems to be the "inanest" ever in your not-so-humble opinion.  Will you please tell me when I have regressed to pond slime so that I can activate the "de-evolutionary" clause in my Long Term Disability insurance policy?"

Rich:

You know me--I'm always happy to accomodate you. Please don't even feel the need to ask.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
If the USGA is not "into" social engineering, why do they have the First Tee Program, or why have they discontinued holding Open events at courses which have discriminatory membership policies?  These are good things, and are aimed more at the place of golf in the wider community than just golf as a game."

Rich:

Now there you've asked a damn good question. Maybe you think it's a good thing for the USGA to be into spending members money on social engineering issues such as the First tee but I don't. I think the USGA ought to be spending the money on some issues that involve golfers who are in the game for their own reasons and their own motivations apart from social engineering issues and whatever in hell is going on in the inter-cities and such.

But if you ask why are they really doing it, in my opinion? I'd say it's sort of political positioning on their part for other things they might want or might want protected in a political context. I think it's sort of the quid for what might be their quo someday (politically).

It's an odd thing for what are basically a bunch of political and cultural conservatives to be doing too. Maybe their starting to feel the guilt for their generations long conservative stance. And this is coming from a broken down old New York liberal who once loved social enginneering until I finally grew up and saw it doesn't work that well in an organizational and governmental sense. To me social engineering is more about personal responsibility.

And about tournament venues for the USGA like Opens and such I think the USGA should stay completely out of the discriminatory policy issue altogether and simply decide if they want to go to any course and club and if that club wants to have them hold a tournament there.

All this stuff with people like Martha Burk or Hootie Johnson or Jesse Jackson or Caesar Chavez or Rich Goodale I think they should just ignore and leave all that to the club and the members. If any member anywhere has a problem with any of that they can decide to support the club or leave it for whatever reason, business, personal, who cares? I'd kind of treat the Hall Thompson/Shoal Creek issue a tad differently though if I were the USGA. I'd tell him to just apologize for making a remark that egregious and then we'll come to your course with a big tournament. But if he flat-assed refused to apologize I'd just say (if I were the USGA);;

"Ok then we don't want to deal with an egregious bigot like you've decided to act like if you have anything to do with this club."  

All that stuff should be a matter of personal responsibility and not organizational or governmental social engineering.

[Dennis_Harwood]

Rich-- You seem to cling to the belief that the USGA(and other ruling bodies) are imposing on their own volition a seperate rating/slope standard for ladies golfers(because I assume that is what fits your preception of what the USGA is)-- Nothing could be further from the truth--

Prior to the adoption of the GHIN/slope system ladies handicaps throughout the US were seperately administered by ladies golf associations which tablulated and fixed the ladies handicaps in the various geographical areas of the US--

Those regional associations were approached by the USGA(as were all regional associations in addition to the lades associations, which in all cases are open to men and women, but women generally prefer to belong to the ladies golf associations)-- The USGA was told that the womens associations would not endorse or adopt the GHIN/slope concept, and incorporate for their members, UNLESS there was a seperate ladies "scratch" and the ladies groups would be in charge of "rating courses for ladies"--

This may not fit with your preception, but it is the facts-- A lady may join any regional golf association, mantain her handicap with that association, etc, but only a small fraction do--they chose (free choice now in a democratic society) to join ladies associations, and INSIST that the USGA allow them to compute their handicaps on a different standard--

Just the reverse of your preception(which is that the USGA forces them to accept the dual system)--  Why no seperate Sr rating? Never seen the need--I can win money at my handicap!

BTW--as a recognized Constitutional Law scholar when I was in law school I don't remember the part of the US Constitution that counted fractional votes for slaves--could you refresh my recollection as to the Article and Section number?

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Dennis,

If the ladies insist on their own ratings system, why does the USGA recognize that system?  

[Dennis_Harwood]

Shivas--Thanks--I must have blocked that section out of my mind--

Jeremy-- I'm not sure I understand your question.  

I think about 30% of golfers in the US who have handicaps, and are members of associations are ladies-- A handicap is not assigned by the USGA, it is assigned by a recognized regional association who is licensed by the USGA to compute and assign handicaps to its individual members(each region in the US has a limited number of recognized associations)--

When the associations which maintain the handicaps of its lady members tell the USGA that they will not utlilize its system unless it makes provision for defining a seperate "womens" scratch and insists that the rating teams that rate courses in the area must be from that ladies association and must have an independent ladies slope/course rating, then I think the USGA can (and must) properly bend to the mandate of a large portion of its members and accomadate a seperate ladies standard--

Are you suggesting the USGA should have said to the ladies associations-"No, we will have a single standard. If you don't like it your are politically wrong and go compute your own handicaps."

[John_Conley]

The United States Golf Association is hardly the evil body that Rich Goodale wishes it were.

Great story, Dennis.

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Dennis,

I recognize that in practice, it would have been (quite unfortunately) very poorly received for the USGA to state "No, we will have a single standard. If you don't like it your're wrong and go compute your own handicaps.".  However, I believe that the USGA should have said so.  But before doing, it should have welcomed input from the ladies associations and perhaps defined "scratch" golfer based in part on those comments.

So, IMO or IMHO, a single standard should still exist.

[ForkaB]

Dennis

Thanks for the historical interpretation of why ratings are different based on gender.  I know that if I were a lady, I'd find it a demeaning system, but I am not.  I'm sure it's too much to ask of a voluntary body like the USGA to take a pro-active, and probably controversial, stance on this issue.

Shivas

Thanks for confirming my comment about Article I.  When challenged by a renowned Constitutional scholar, a poor little layman like me can be led to wonder that his memory of what he was taught in 8th grade might be faulty.

John C

I don't believe nor have I ever said that the USGA was or is "evil."  I think they are a very well meaning group, but often misguided in what they do, mostly in terms of being overly conservative (i.e. accepting what was and is, rather than what might be).  I know I'm in a small minority in this opinion, paticularly on this site.

Jeremy

I continue to agree with you that a single rating standard "should" exist.  I doubt we'll see it, however, until frost warnings are issued for the River Hades......

[Dennis_Harwood]

Jeremy-- "Still exist" The fact is that a single standard never existed, despite attempts by the associations to develope and implement a single standard--

From the "History of Course Rating"-- "The first measure of course difficulty was par. That developed from the concept of what would be the score for perfect play at Preswick, site of the Open in 1870?.  Each course then developed its own "opinion" of par.

However, the first course rating system was developed by the Ladies Golf Union starting in 1893(in the British Isles) which was designed to develope seperate handicaps for women--as stated "by 1900 the LGU had done what the men had signally failed to do--establish a system of handicapping that was reasonably reliable from club to club."--

The Ladies then started, both in the Isles and in the US, to assign a "Ladies Par" based on Ladies play, which would compute their handicaps--

In 1911 the USGA, in an attempt to catch up on the mens side suggested a "par rating" for each course "based on the play of the US Amatuer Champion, Jerome Travers"--However on the mens side each course was permitted to establish its own "par rating"--

Both mens and womens associations functioned in tandem, but seperately with course ratings being established from the mens side by the standard of the US Am Champ and the ladies by the US Womens champ--

It is interesting to note that the US AM is not restricted to men. Anyone, children, seniors, ladies, midams, aliens, men/women from Mars may compete in the US Am, and the "model scratch golfer" is created from the average qualifier in that event-- When the slope system was conceived the "bogey" golfer was also necessary--and so, as you may know that golfer who would generally shoot 18 strokes higher than the scratch golfer on the average US course(fixed at a 113 slope) was charted--again there was no gender limitation on that "bogey" golfer-- He/she could be a  child, women, senior, alien, etc--the only criteria was to chart the game of that player who would shoot, on the average, 18 strokes higher than a scratch golfer on that "average"(113 slope) course--

It was not the USGA, rather it was the women on the committee, representing the ladies side, who insisted that the seperate ladies slope and bogey golfer be maintained(rejecting the suggestion that the game of the best golfers, be they women or men, seniors or children, become the model scratch and the game of those shooting bogey golf, be they men, women, children, etc; be used for all golfers)--

Rather the women insisted that a seperate system be used for women only, based on the best of the women(the US Womens Am which includes only those female at birth) as compared with the "bogey" lady(that lady who will score 18 strokes higher, on the average, over the lady scratch)--

I am sorry that the historical facts don't fit your notion of "sexist" or discrimination, but they don't--

If the ladies, who are eligible for the US AM, MidAm, Sr Am, US Open championships,  demand that championships be held for ladies only is the USGA(and the R&A) being politically incorrect in honoring that request?

If the women, who for over 100 years, have insisted that handicaps be computed and based on courses they set up for women and using the "par" standard for just ladies(and not all golfers), is the USGA and R&A being "sexist" and politically incorrect in honoring that request--

If you so contend you have lost me entirely!

[Jeremy_Glenn.]

Dennis,

Indulge me for a second and read the following re-interpretation of your previous post, substituting gender for race:
____

From the "History of Course Rating"-- "The first measure of course difficulty was par. That developed from the concept of what would be the score for perfect play at Preswick, site of the Open in 1870?.  Each course then developed its own "opinion" of par.

However, the first course rating system was developed by the Negro Golf Union starting in 1893 (in the British Isles) which was designed to develope seperate handicaps for african-americans--as stated "by 1900 the NGU had done what the caucasians’ had signally failed to do--establish a system of handicapping that was reasonably reliable from club to club."--

The African-americans then started, both in the Isles and in the US, to assign a "Negro Par" based on African-americans’ play, which would compute their handicaps--

In 1911 the USGA, in an attempt to catch up on the caucasians’ side suggested a "par rating" for each course "based on the play of the US Amateur Champion, Jerome Travers"--However on the caucasians’ side each course was permitted to establish its own "par rating"--

Both caucasians’ and african-americans’ associations functioned in tandem, but seperately with course ratings being established from the caucasians’ side by the standard of the US Am Champ and the African-americans by the US Negro champ--

It is interesting to note that the US AM is not restricted to caucasians. Anyone, children, seniors, African-americans, midams, aliens, caucasians/black from Mars may compete in the US Am, and the "model scratch golfer" is created from the average qualifier in that event-- When the slope system was conceived the "bogey" golfer was also necessary--and so, as you may know that golfer who would generally shoot 18 strokes higher than the scratch golfer on the average US course(fixed at a 113 slope) was charted--again there was no racial limitation on that "bogey" golfer-- He/she could be a  child, woman, senior, alien, etc--the only criteria was to chart the game of that player who would shoot, on the average, 18 strokes higher than a scratch golfer on that "average"(113 slope) course--

It was not the USGA, rather it was the african-americans on the committee, representing the African-americans’ side, who insisted that the seperate black slope and bogey golfer be maintained(rejecting the suggestion that the game of the best golfers, be they black or white, seniors or children, become the model scratch and the game of those shooting bogey golf, be they white, black, children, etc; be used for all golfers)--

Rather the african-americans insisted that a seperate system be used for african-americans only, based on the best of the african-americans (the US Negro Am which includes only those black at birth) as compared with the "bogey" black (that black who will score 18 strokes higher, on the average, over the black scratch)--

I am sorry that the historical facts don't fit your notion of "racism" or discrimination, but they don't--

If the african-americans, who are eligible for the US AM, MidAm, Sr Am, US Open championships, demand that championships be held for african-americans only is the USGA (and the R&A) being politically incorrect in honoring that request?

If the african-americans, who for over 100 years, have insisted that handicaps be computed and based on courses they set up for african-americans and using the "par" standard for just african-americans (and not all golfers), is the USGA and R&A being "racist" and politically incorrect in honoring that request--
____

The issue is not who is guilty, racist, sexist, responsible, irresponsible, etc...

Can we not see how "wrong" such as system feels, no  matter who wants it.  Would we be willing to accept such a system?  Isn't it ugly a divisive?

Why is it any different for men and women?