Quote:
What I'm saying is that mathematically as well as physically, women are playing a different course than men.
How do you account for the fact that women shoot on average 75 rating points less than men? The math says that for women, the course is 75 points harder.
|
Quote:
The top Pro Women shoot about 100 ratings points higher than you do as a man. so by your logic, they are playing a different course than you when you and they play the same layout at a PDGA event? 
|
You and others keep on wanting to make this personal, when I am talking about the group. As a group, women shoot 75 rating points lower than men do as a group. As a group, they are playing a different course than men are playing. This is how statistics work. You speak about the results of a group. So, as a group, women play a different course than men. That's what the statistics say. For them, the course is 75 rating points harder, as a group, than it is for men.
As a group, as a group, as a group.
Statistics are about groups of people. Individuals are not bound by statistics. But in a sport you can make rules for that sport that work for groups of people, to be fair to the individuals in that group. That's why there are men and women sports, separate from each other, because that's what's fair to men and women in that group.
Are we clear now?
Edited to add:
My rating is a measurement of my skill with respect to other men players on the course. I'm not that good a player. I started about 2 years ago, and now that I'm 39, I'm realizing that I've got a work ahead of me to crack 900. But I've got hope.
Now here's something to think about. I'm an amateur, not a pro. There are 5823 amateur men, and my rating is so far down the group, I don't have time to click that far. Maybe I'm 4000th?
An amateur woman with my rating would be in the top 20 out of 438 women amateurs.
Tell me again you think it's fair for women and men to be on the same scale when my rating qualifies me to be in the top 20 of women amateurs.