Actual distance of LPGA courses

[dhc1]

The OP has obviously never played much golf with LPGA and PGA Tour pros.

 

It's true (only play with retired PGA players)! I'm sure why that matters - I do think that the LPGA plays from a set of tees that are rated and therefore can be compared to elite amateur men.

[dhc1]

So guys on this board are questioning the yardages the the LPGA plays and seem to think that they are playing shorter courses than what is listed.

 

I have a newsflash for you. Don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen on the PGA as well.

 

Strange that the same thing happening on the PGA side doesn't get questioned as much it happening on the LPGA side.

 

This is a fair point. There have been lots of threads discussing what it takes to become a PGA pro and one has to take into account that the distances are likely shorter but the pin placements are usually harder. Some courses may have playing conditions materially different from what normal play usually is (usually public course, I would imagine).

[dhc1]

Tex, no one at all has compared the women and men pros and said they are anywhere near the same. We have been comparing to -4 to scratch. Yes the male pros are better and longer than the women. That has not been the discussion.

How did that thread get into this thread.

No idea. Some are trying to figure out the lady pros women's handicap now as well. Heavy sigh....

 

Shilgy,

 

You repeatedly mention that any attempt to measure the LPGA games is denigrating; perhaps you should have a more open mind and address any specific poster who actually does denigrate woman. There's nothing demeaning about using the USGA handicap system to identify the approximate level of top female professionals. It's math and statistics that can be used for multiple purposes.

 

Your position reminds me of the NRA actively lobbying that there should be no studies done on the impact of gun violence as the act of studying it is inherently biased. I disagree on both points.

[Shilgy]

Tex, no one at all has compared the women and men pros and said they are anywhere near the same. We have been comparing to -4 to scratch. Yes the male pros are better and longer than the women. That has not been the discussion.

How did that thread get into this thread.

No idea. Some are trying to figure out the lady pros women's handicap now as well. Heavy sigh....

 

Shilgy,

 

You repeatedly mention that any attempt to measure the LPGA games is denigrating; perhaps you should have a more open mind and address any specific poster who actually does denigrate woman. There's nothing demeaning about using the USGA handicap system to identify the approximate level of top female professionals. It's math and statistics that can be used for multiple purposes.

 

Your position reminds me of the NRA actively lobbying that there should be no studies done on the impact of gun violence as the act of studying it is inherently biased. I disagree on both points.

I am all for using the USGA system to figure roughly what the lady pros are. Problem is-as I have stated- is too many posters seem to feel threatened when they find out how much better the ladies are than the average am. The ladies average course by my estimate would be about a rating of 71.5 to 72 and slope of 125-130 at 6500 + yards. Slope of course really is meaningless as we know when calculating scratchish caps. Based on this estimation the 100th ranked player from last year averaged 72.6. That would give her approximately a +1 to +2 handicap based on the USGA stating your cap is about two to three strokes lower than your average score. I am getting my average length of courses and ratings from 20+ years of watching them here in Phoenix. They originally played at what was my home course at the time which was the Ping owned Moon Valley CC.

[legitimategolf]

witchhunt

[dhc1]

Tex, no one at all has compared the women and men pros and said they are anywhere near the same. We have been comparing to -4 to scratch. Yes the male pros are better and longer than the women. That has not been the discussion.

How did that thread get into this thread.

No idea. Some are trying to figure out the lady pros women's handicap now as well. Heavy sigh....

 

Shilgy,

 

You repeatedly mention that any attempt to measure the LPGA games is denigrating; perhaps you should have a more open mind and address any specific poster who actually does denigrate woman. There's nothing demeaning about using the USGA handicap system to identify the approximate level of top female professionals. It's math and statistics that can be used for multiple purposes.

 

Your position reminds me of the NRA actively lobbying that there should be no studies done on the impact of gun violence as the act of studying it is inherently biased. I disagree on both points.

I am all for using the USGA system to figure roughly what the lady pros are. Problem is-as I have stated- is too many posters seem to feel threatened when they find out how much better the ladies are than the average am. The ladies average course by my estimate would be about a rating of 71.5 to 72 and slope of 125-130 at 6500 + yards. Slope of course really is meaningless as we know when calculating scratchish caps. Based on this estimation the 100th ranked player from last year averaged 72.6. That would give her approximately a +1 to +2 handicap based on the USGA stating your cap is about two to three strokes lower than your average score. I am getting my average length of courses and ratings from 20+ years of watching them here in Phoenix. They originally played at what was my home course at the time which was the Ping owned Moon Valley CC.

 

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

[Argonne69]

So guys on this board are questioning the yardages the the LPGA plays and seem to think that they are playing shorter courses than what is listed.

 

I have a newsflash for you. Don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen on the PGA as well.

 

Strange that the same thing happening on the PGA side doesn't get questioned as much it happening on the LPGA side.

 

This is a fair point. There have been lots of threads discussing what it takes to become a PGA pro and one has to take into account that the distances are likely shorter but the pin placements are usually harder. Some courses may have playing conditions materially different from what normal play usually is (usually public course, I would imagine).

 

I've been watching the LPGA religiously for many years, and I can't say that the pin placements are harder.

 

The women score because a) they are accurate off the tee (median of 70%, or 9.8 fairways per round), b) hit a lot of greens (median of 67%, or 12 GIRs), and can generally putt (median of 30 putts/round).

 

By comparison, a male 4 handicap averages 61% fairways hit, 8 GIRs, and 32 putts.

[dhc1]

So guys on this board are questioning the yardages the the LPGA plays and seem to think that they are playing shorter courses than what is listed.

 

I have a newsflash for you. Don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen on the PGA as well.

 

Strange that the same thing happening on the PGA side doesn't get questioned as much it happening on the LPGA side.

 

This is a fair point. There have been lots of threads discussing what it takes to become a PGA pro and one has to take into account that the distances are likely shorter but the pin placements are usually harder. Some courses may have playing conditions materially different from what normal play usually is (usually public course, I would imagine).

 

I've been watching the LPGA religiously for many years, and I can't say that the pin placements are harder.

 

The women score because a) they are accurate off the tee (median of 70%, or 9.8 fairways per round), b) hit a lot of greens (median of 67%, or 12 GIRs), and can generally putt (median of 30 putts/round).

 

By comparison, a male 4 handicap averages 61% fairways hit, 8 GIRs, and 32 putts.

 

This to me is what is I enjoy about watching the LPGA - it's not bomb and gouge but rather great shots, often with long-irons in hand. The fact that their games are accessible and, dare-I-say, somewhat comparable to mine is what makes it compelling to watch.

 

Plus, most of the ladies are far more attractive than the PGA.

[Argonne69]

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

 

Grace Na is ranked DFL on the LPGA in scoring average at 75.4. That would put her at roughly scratch to -1. You're saying she's not scratch?

[dhc1]

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

 

Grace Na is ranked DFL on the LPGA in scoring average at 75.4. That would put her at roughly scratch to -1. You're saying she's not scratch?

 

I'd prefer to keep this thread about the actual distances but happy to go to PM.

 

Why do you think she's a -1 to zero (if she was using the men's system)? Based on USGA handicapping and an assumed course rating, we can get what her handicap is. A 75.4 average seems very high unless the courses have very high ratings.

[North Texas]

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

 

Grace Na is ranked DFL on the LPGA in scoring average at 75.4. That would put her at roughly scratch to -1. You're saying she's not scratch?

 

At #158 in scoring average, Grace Na's last 20 scores average 75.6. The best 10 of those 20 average 73.5.

At #150 in scoring average, Alison Walshe's last 20 scores average 73.45. The best 10 of those 20 average 71.5.

 

I don't know close Grace Na is to be a scratch but Alison Walshe definitely is very close to being a scratch golfer.

 

For the record, only 2 LPGA players had a scoring average over 75 and only 5 other players averaged over 74.

So 151 out of 158 LPGA players averaged less than 74.

I'm thinking that if you are in the top 150 then you are probably a scratch golfer.

[moonshine]

RTJ Senator course they played at ~6500 and I played it as a member at 7000 or so but any given day so many tee choices everything changed. Par 5 hole number 8 if I played from their tee and hit blind tee shot correctly would have short iron for second shot. Many times you had a speed slot that you could not see...sometimes players like Wie would be 100 yds in front of playing partner, but gave up strokes on greens. I will say most times on par 3 holes ALL players I watched would hit it above hole and let slope take ball back to pin. In many cases it would have been a tad bit more predictable to simply hit it below the hole IMO. The advantage always was with the players knowing where to carry blind tee shots with penalty being shin high gorse if miss occurred.

 

I met Lexi years ago in parking lot and she Monday qualified with a 68 and some of the shorter hitters struggle to 75 or so score.

[Shilgy]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

I sighed because all of a sudden it became what is their womens cap. They would all be +5 or better because the womens cap is based on the course ratings for women. For women courses are rated for a scratch golfer that hits it 210 yards off the tee. When you get right down to it it also shows why figuring male pro caps is absurd because the ratings are based on 250 total off the tee. Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

[North Texas]

Here's an interesting study that Andrew Rice did comparing the LPGA to the PGA.

 

http://www.andrewricegolf.com/andrew-rice-golf/2010/10/trackman-definitive-answers-at-impact-and-more

 

According to this analysis, in conditions that eliminate roll:

The men will hit a driver and 7 iron 441 yards. The ladies will hit a driver and 7 iron 361 yards.

The men will hit a driver and pw 405 yards. The ladies will a driver and pw 327 yards.

 

Also says that a par 4 of 350 yards for ladies is equivalent to a par 4 of 430 yards for men.

[dhc1]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

It's this reason that I'm interested. They hit it distance-wise around where I do and therefore, they're more relatable as golfers.

[Shilgy]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

It's this reason that I'm interested. They hit it distance-wise around where I do and therefore, they're more relatable as golfers.

Then I would suggest go watch them play when there is an event close to you. They hit it much further and WAY more consistently then many would have you believe. But like I said earlier some-like a buddy of mine-even when presented with the facts do not believe it.

[Argonne69]

Here's an interesting study that Andrew Rice did comparing the LPGA to the PGA.

 

http://www.andrewric...impact-and-more

 

According to this analysis, in conditions that eliminate roll:

The men will hit a driver and 7 iron 441 yards. The ladies will hit a driver and 7 iron 361 yards.

The men will hit a driver and pw 405 yards. The ladies will a driver and pw 327 yards.

 

Also says that a par 4 of 350 yards for ladies is equivalent to a par 4 of 430 yards for men.

 

The numbers don't add up. The average LPGA player hits a driver 250 (w/carry), and a 7 iron 155. That's 405 yards.

 

The average drive on the PGA is 285 yards. The average 7 iron is ~185 yards. That's 470 yards.

[Argonne69]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

I sighed because all of a sudden it became what is their womens cap. They would all be +5 or better because the womens cap is based on the course ratings for women. For women courses are rated for a scratch golfer that hits it 210 yards off the tee. When you get right down to it it also shows why figuring male pro caps is absurd because the ratings are based on 250 total off the tee. Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

Looking at the Tiburon Gold scorecard, the middle tees are rated at 722.6/130 for the women, and measure 5815 yards. The LPGA probably plays this course somewhere between the White (6187) and Gold (6523), which are unrated for the women, but are likely in the ballpark of 74.7/140 and 76.6/151. At last year's CME Championship, the last place finishers averaged 74.5.

[Shilgy]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

I sighed because all of a sudden it became what is their womens cap. They would all be +5 or better because the womens cap is based on the course ratings for women. For women courses are rated for a scratch golfer that hits it 210 yards off the tee. When you get right down to it it also shows why figuring male pro caps is absurd because the ratings are based on 250 total off the tee. Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

Looking at the Tiburon Gold scorecard, the middle tees are rated at 722.6/130 for the women, and measure 5815 yards. The LPGA probably plays this course somewhere between the White (6187) and Gold (6523), which are unrated for the women, but are likely in the ballpark of 74.7/140 and 76.6/151. At last year's CME Championship, the last place finishers averaged 74.5.

Most scorecards I looked at the womens rating was 5-6 strokes higher than the mens from the same tees.

[Argonne69]

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

 

Grace Na is ranked DFL on the LPGA in scoring average at 75.4. That would put her at roughly scratch to -1. You're saying she's not scratch?

 

I'd prefer to keep this thread about the actual distances but happy to go to PM.

 

Why do you think she's a -1 to zero (if she was using the men's system)? Based on USGA handicapping and an assumed course rating, we can get what her handicap is. A 75.4 average seems very high unless the courses have very high ratings.

 

You're probably right. I was basing the rough calculation on men's slope. She's very like in the +3 range if the 6300 to 6500 yard tees were rated for women.

 

Looking through a bunch of scorecards in my office, there are no women's ratings past 6000 yards. The ones near 6000 yards have ratings approaching 76.0, and slopes over 140.

[Shilgy]

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

 

Grace Na is ranked DFL on the LPGA in scoring average at 75.4. That would put her at roughly scratch to -1. You're saying she's not scratch?

 

I'd prefer to keep this thread about the actual distances but happy to go to PM.

 

Why do you think she's a -1 to zero (if she was using the men's system)? Based on USGA handicapping and an assumed course rating, we can get what her handicap is. A 75.4 average seems very high unless the courses have very high ratings.

 

You're probably right. I was basing the rough calculation on men's slope. She's very like in the +3 range if the 6300 to 6500 yard tees were rated for women.

 

Looking through a bunch of scorecards in my office, there are no women's ratings past 6000 yards. The ones near 6000 yards have ratings approaching 76.0, and slopes over 140.

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

[hdr_ric]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

It's this reason that I'm interested. They hit it distance-wise around where I do and therefore, they're more relatable as golfers.

Then I would suggest go watch them play when there is an event close to you. They hit it much further and WAY more consistently then many would have you believe. But like I said earlier some-like a buddy of mine-even when presented with the facts do not believe it.

 

"#alternative facts" :D

[ThinkingPlus]

If you're all for it, why the "heavy sigh" for someone (me) trying to figure out the handicaps? FWIW, I agree that there are posters who try to take unwarranted shots at the LPGA and you are justified in calling them out.

 

That being said, saying that the low-end of the LPGA tour is about a scratch (or a plus 1 to 2 as the numbers are fuzzy at this point) is nowhere near that and some of your comments makes it look like you're the one who "feel(s) threatened"

I sighed because all of a sudden it became what is their womens cap. They would all be +5 or better because the womens cap is based on the course ratings for women. For women courses are rated for a scratch golfer that hits it 210 yards off the tee. When you get right down to it it also shows why figuring male pro caps is absurd because the ratings are based on 250 total off the tee. Which is also why it is so apropos about comparing the ladies to the average am as the driving distances are the same as most of us. **

 

**most meaning not the average 330 yard wrx'r. :)

 

Looking at the Tiburon Gold scorecard, the middle tees are rated at 722.6/130 for the women, and measure 5815 yards. The LPGA probably plays this course somewhere between the White (6187) and Gold (6523), which are unrated for the women, but are likely in the ballpark of 74.7/140 and 76.6/151. At last year's CME Championship, the last place finishers averaged 74.5.

Most scorecards I looked at the womens rating was 5-6 strokes higher than the mens from the same tees.

 

That fits exactly with the statistics that I keep. It is typically 5 - 7 strokes depending upon course and, strangely enough, location (some states/regions rate harder and other states/regions easier). I usually play LPGA length courses unless playing a tournament. I regularly have to do higher math to get a women's rating on those tees so I keep track in a spreadsheet so I don't have to keep repeating the math all the time.

[Argonne69]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

[ThinkingPlus]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

 

Yes, against the women's rating. Generally the same is true for PGA players vs. the men's ratings.

[AdamSecrest]

So guys on this board are questioning the yardages the the LPGA plays and seem to think that they are playing shorter courses than what is listed.

 

I have a newsflash for you. Don't think for a minute that it doesn't happen on the PGA as well.

 

Strange that the same thing happening on the PGA side doesn't get questioned as much it happening on the LPGA side.

 

This is what I was trying to point out. The PGA Tour lists a yardage for each course that is the MAX distance the course can play. From my admittedly limited but logical understanding, they don't put the tees and pins in the same spots each day. Thus, the playing distance can only be shorter than the stated distance. It doesn't seem like it's much so they are still playing really long courses.

 

I have no idea if it's done but the LPGA has room to vary the tee placement forward and back so the playing yardage could theoretically match the listed course yardage. Again, it seems like from what more knowledgeable posters have stated, the women are also playing a little shorter than the listed course yardage.

 

For what it's worth, I think most courses I've played are also set up a little shorter than the listed course yardage as well.

[Argonne69]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

 

Yes, against the women's rating. Generally the same is true for PGA players vs. the men's ratings.

 

Q: How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

Why would we use any other rating? 'Just because the LPGA players hit the ball longer than an average male amateur doesn't change the fact that they are women, and their handicaps would be based on the women's rating from the tees played. If anything, it really shows how good they are. A scratch woman player would be out there shooting in the high 70's, and they're tearing it up with sub 70 rounds. They really are awesome to watch.

[ThinkingPlus]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

 

Yes, against the women's rating. Generally the same is true for PGA players vs. the men's ratings.

 

Q: How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

Why would we use any other rating? 'Just because the LPGA players hit the ball longer than an average male amateur doesn't change the fact that they are women, and their handicaps would be based on the women's rating from the tees played. If anything, it really shows how good they are. A scratch woman player would be out there shooting in the high 70's, and they're tearing it up with sub 70 rounds. They really are awesome to watch.

 

Just adding clarity. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread. Just trying to make sure everyone understands exactly what ratings we are talking about.

[Shilgy]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

 

Yes, against the women's rating. Generally the same is true for PGA players vs. the men's ratings.

 

Q: How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

Why would we use any other rating? 'Just because the LPGA players hit the ball longer than an average male amateur doesn't change the fact that they are women, and their handicaps would be based on the women's rating from the tees played. If anything, it really shows how good they are. A scratch woman player would be out there shooting in the high 70's, and they're tearing it up with sub 70 rounds. They really are awesome to watch.

Again-because we are comparing them to the amateur male. Not to the women out there. Just trying to stay consistent.

[wobgon]

I have been using male handicaps for the lady pro. I guess because the original premise in the Instruction forum was based on a 4 handicap male beating the ladies. I would put a player that averages 75.4 on the ladies tour at a scratch to -1. But the top 100 are all in the +1 to +2 range imo. AND...that is based on everyday conditions for the ratings. For the LPGA the rough is up a bit...pins are a bit more difficult and the greens are firmer and faster. Please note before you flame I am not comparing the conditions to the PGA tour-just to everyday conditions.

 

Given that the women's ratings are 5 to 6 strokes more than the men from the same tees, doesn't that pretty much mean that the women are +6 to +8?

 

Charlie Hull shot four rounds at the CME averaging 67 at a length that would likely rated at 76 to 78 for the women. Heck, even if they moved the tees up every day for a total length of 6200 yards the course would still be rated at roughly 75.0.

 

Yes, against the women's rating. Generally the same is true for PGA players vs. the men's ratings.

 

Q: How many legs would a dog have if you called its tail a leg?

A: Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

Why would we use any other rating? 'Just because the LPGA players hit the ball longer than an average male amateur doesn't change the fact that they are women, and their handicaps would be based on the women's rating from the tees played. If anything, it really shows how good they are. A scratch woman player would be out there shooting in the high 70's, and they're tearing it up with sub 70 rounds. They really are awesome to watch.

 

Just adding clarity. There seems to be quite a bit of confusion in this thread. Just trying to make sure everyone understands exactly what ratings we are talking about.

Clarity??? The op's question and this thread was supposed to be, how long are the courses on the LPGA tour.... Somehow, every thread about this turns into a comparison between the men and the women and a bunch of mumbo jumbo about course rating for men and women.......Why do some have to get so defensive?