Could a Scratch Golfer break 85 at Augusta?

[RobotDoctor]

Doesn't it seem that, compared to other courses, Augusta under masters conditions would result in the largest difference between knowing the course playing with an experienced caddie versus never having set foot on the course with no caddie?

 

That is, qualitatively, it seems to me that the OP's stipulations are especially penal for this course in this tournament. Maybe Oakmont... Anyway, to me that's why the Torrey comparison isn't totally apt.

 

Nope. Seems like it would be the exact opposite. I can tell you the breaks of putts having never stepped foot on property. I know where you can and cannot miss shots. I know where you should pick your spots. I know the club choice and lines to take off each tee. It's pretty much the most well known course in the world. Can't say the same for virtually every other course on tour.

 

Trust me there isnt a flat second shot on that course. You might think you know but when you step foot there you realize how much TV doesnt do it justice.

 

I disagree with the flat lie statement. I bet there is one or two places on the course that offers a flat lie. ;)

 

Seriously, I am in agreement here. One flat lie I can think of is on 13 on the left side right next to Rae's Creek. It seems as if there is a 5 to 10 yard area there but a slight bit left and your in the creek. While many of us see the areas where players have hit, the areas of do's and don'ts, the command of the golf ball to hit to those areas is an absolute must. Just a couple of yards off and a great shot ends up in jail. How many scratch golfers play to those exacting standards and couple that with a major championship layout and Sunday major championship conditions. That's a very tall order.

[RobotDoctor]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

[MtlJeff]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

 

Its just as relevant as most of the stories in this thread have gotten. Like what an 11-12 handicap shot at this course or another.....

 

Scratch players aren't bums. A poster earlier said something like (paraphrasing) "i'm watching pros grind out pars and i'm supposed to be believe a scratch could do this"....No you're not supposed to. We're talking about shooting 85, which to my earlier point if it's not possible for a scratch to do than the course is rated 85+ (and to be honest more like 87-88+ if we're saying "impossible")

 

That would make it basically the hardest golf course in history, right? That would mean the top pros there are shooting +20 handicap rounds when they shoot 68's on Sunday , which a number of them will do. There is a really, really big gap between pros and scratch players, but not so big that pros will shoot under par every year on Sunday and no scratch could ever break 85. The math of it just doesn't add for me.

[RobotDoctor]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

 

Its just as relevant as most of the stories in this thread have gotten. Like what an 11-12 handicap shot at this course or another.....

 

Scratch players aren't bums. A poster earlier said something like (paraphrasing) "i'm watching pros grind out pars and i'm supposed to be believe a scratch could do this"....No you're not supposed to. We're talking about shooting 85, which to my earlier point if it's not possible for a scratch to do than the course is rated 85+ (and to be honest more like 87-88+ if we're saying "impossible")

 

That would make it basically the hardest golf course in history, right? That would mean the top pros there are shooting +20 handicap rounds when they shoot 68's on Sunday , which a number of them will do. There is a really, really big gap between pros and scratch players, but not so big that pros will shoot under par every year on Sunday and no scratch could ever break 85. The math of it just doesn't add for me.

 

The basis for my belief is the original criteria. First and foremost, the original criteria is ludicrous and most likely not possible. Anyone playing ANGC and not have a caddy is foolish. So let's examine a true scratch golfer. This player can play with some level of control and most likely has some distance capability (must carry the ball at least 275-280 yards). If the scratch golfer is a low ball hitter then they has no chance. If the scratch golfer hits a high ball flight then we can continue the discussion. Let's assume this scratch golfer can work a golf ball a bit on command. Let's assume that this scratch golfer has somewhat of a decent short game and can scramble. Let's assume this scratch golfer can putt well and can control his putting distance. A caddy would guide a scratch golfer where to hit the ball and most definitely not to hit the ball. The caddy will offer incredible insight with the line and speed of putts. The caddy provides a wealth of knowledge a first time player at ANGC simply won't have not matter how many Masters tournament rounds they have watched on TV. TV is not 3 dimensional and those of us who have been fortunate to walk the grounds of ANGC can attest how much more hilly, undulating, and fast the course is in person than what we imagined it to be just by watching the Masters on TV. The margin for error is slim on many holes between an outstanding shot and one that leads to peril.

 

Change the original criteria to add a caddie and who knows.

[MtlJeff]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

 

Its just as relevant as most of the stories in this thread have gotten. Like what an 11-12 handicap shot at this course or another.....

 

Scratch players aren't bums. A poster earlier said something like (paraphrasing) "i'm watching pros grind out pars and i'm supposed to be believe a scratch could do this"....No you're not supposed to. We're talking about shooting 85, which to my earlier point if it's not possible for a scratch to do than the course is rated 85+ (and to be honest more like 87-88+ if we're saying "impossible")

 

That would make it basically the hardest golf course in history, right? That would mean the top pros there are shooting +20 handicap rounds when they shoot 68's on Sunday , which a number of them will do. There is a really, really big gap between pros and scratch players, but not so big that pros will shoot under par every year on Sunday and no scratch could ever break 85. The math of it just doesn't add for me.

 

The basis for my belief is the original criteria. First and foremost, the original criteria is ludicrous and most likely not possible. Anyone playing ANGC and not have a caddy is foolish. So let's examine a true scratch golfer. This player can play with some level of control and most likely has some distance capability (must carry the ball at least 275-280 yards). Let's assume this scratch golfer can work a golf ball a bit on command. Let's assume that this scratch golfer has somewhat of a decent short game and can scramble. Let's assume this scratch golfer can putt well and can control his putting distance. A caddy would guide a scratch golfer where to hit the ball and most definitely not to hit the ball. The caddy will offer incredible insight with the line and speed of putts. The caddy provides a wealth of knowledge a first time player at ANGC simply won't have not matter how many Masters tournament rounds they have watched on TV. TV is not 3 dimensional and those of us who have been fortunate to walk the grounds of ANGC can attest how much more hilly, undulating, and fast the course is in person than what we imagined it to be just by watching the Masters on TV. The margin for error is slim on many holes between an outstanding shot and one that leads to peril.

 

Change the original criteria to add a caddie and who knows.

 

A scratch golfer shoots 72 on a course rated 72 roughly 10/20 times. He is nothing more or less than that. If he cannot shoot 85 at Augusta on Sunday tournament conditions under any circumstances, than what the pros do there from a numbers perspective doesn't really make sense.

[cdnglf]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

 

Its just as relevant as most of the stories in this thread have gotten. Like what an 11-12 handicap shot at this course or another.....

 

Scratch players aren't bums. A poster earlier said something like (paraphrasing) "i'm watching pros grind out pars and i'm supposed to be believe a scratch could do this"....No you're not supposed to. We're talking about shooting 85, which to my earlier point if it's not possible for a scratch to do than the course is rated 85+ (and to be honest more like 87-88+ if we're saying "impossible")

 

That would make it basically the hardest golf course in history, right? That would mean the top pros there are shooting +20 handicap rounds when they shoot 68's on Sunday , which a number of them will do. There is a really, really big gap between pros and scratch players, but not so big that pros will shoot under par every year on Sunday and no scratch could ever break 85. The math of it just doesn't add for me.

 

The basis for my belief is the original criteria. First and foremost, the original criteria is ludicrous and most likely not possible. Anyone playing ANGC and not have a caddy is foolish. So let's examine a true scratch golfer. This player can play with some level of control and most likely has some distance capability (must carry the ball at least 275-280 yards). If the scratch golfer is a low ball hitter then they has no chance. If the scratch golfer hits a high ball flight then we can continue the discussion. Let's assume this scratch golfer can work a golf ball a bit on command. Let's assume that this scratch golfer has somewhat of a decent short game and can scramble. Let's assume this scratch golfer can putt well and can control his putting distance. A caddy would guide a scratch golfer where to hit the ball and most definitely not to hit the ball. The caddy will offer incredible insight with the line and speed of putts. The caddy provides a wealth of knowledge a first time player at ANGC simply won't have not matter how many Masters tournament rounds they have watched on TV. TV is not 3 dimensional and those of us who have been fortunate to walk the grounds of ANGC can attest how much more hilly, undulating, and fast the course is in person than what we imagined it to be just by watching the Masters on TV. The margin for error is slim on many holes between an outstanding shot and one that leads to peril.

 

Change the original criteria to add a caddie and who knows.

 

Attending the Masters once makes you smarter than Knuth and Broadie.

Just imagine if you'd also slept at a Holiday Inn Express...

[RobotDoctor]

A friend of mine who's a 5-6 index was there a few years ago as a spectator, didn't get to hit any shots but said the course is really nice, and you can still get food really cheap on the grounds.

 

That's why i think it can be done

 

Because food is cheap? Before attending a Masters practice round I would have been in the camp that a scratch golfer definitely can break 85 under the original criteria set forth in this thread. After witnessing first hand the course and conditions during a Masters tournament I definitely believe under the original criteria no chance. This scenario of scratch vs tournament scratch does add a little bit of intrigue but at the end of the day Sunday Masters conditions can be extremely brutal. That's a scenario I am sure most, it not all, scratch golfers have never seen.

 

Its just as relevant as most of the stories in this thread have gotten. Like what an 11-12 handicap shot at this course or another.....

 

Scratch players aren't bums. A poster earlier said something like (paraphrasing) "i'm watching pros grind out pars and i'm supposed to be believe a scratch could do this"....No you're not supposed to. We're talking about shooting 85, which to my earlier point if it's not possible for a scratch to do than the course is rated 85+ (and to be honest more like 87-88+ if we're saying "impossible")

 

That would make it basically the hardest golf course in history, right? That would mean the top pros there are shooting +20 handicap rounds when they shoot 68's on Sunday , which a number of them will do. There is a really, really big gap between pros and scratch players, but not so big that pros will shoot under par every year on Sunday and no scratch could ever break 85. The math of it just doesn't add for me.

 

The basis for my belief is the original criteria. First and foremost, the original criteria is ludicrous and most likely not possible. Anyone playing ANGC and not have a caddy is foolish. So let's examine a true scratch golfer. This player can play with some level of control and most likely has some distance capability (must carry the ball at least 275-280 yards). If the scratch golfer is a low ball hitter then they has no chance. If the scratch golfer hits a high ball flight then we can continue the discussion. Let's assume this scratch golfer can work a golf ball a bit on command. Let's assume that this scratch golfer has somewhat of a decent short game and can scramble. Let's assume this scratch golfer can putt well and can control his putting distance. A caddy would guide a scratch golfer where to hit the ball and most definitely not to hit the ball. The caddy will offer incredible insight with the line and speed of putts. The caddy provides a wealth of knowledge a first time player at ANGC simply won't have not matter how many Masters tournament rounds they have watched on TV. TV is not 3 dimensional and those of us who have been fortunate to walk the grounds of ANGC can attest how much more hilly, undulating, and fast the course is in person than what we imagined it to be just by watching the Masters on TV. The margin for error is slim on many holes between an outstanding shot and one that leads to peril.

 

Change the original criteria to add a caddie and who knows.

 

Attending the Masters once makes you smarter than Knuth and Broadie.

Just imagine if you'd also slept at a Holiday Inn Express...

 

Whether I have attended the Masters or not doesn't make me smarter than anyone. Besides, Knuth's slope rating is an estimate because he wasn't allowed to actually test the course. He didn't drop one single ball on the greens or checked landing areas, shot receptiveness or anything he normally does. To take what Knuth "rated" the course at as gospel is a bit of an assumption. Also, we're talking a completely different set of circumstances with Sunday Masters conditions. If any course held these conditions as a constant the grasses would be over stressed and die. Sunday Masters conditions are an anomaly geared for this tournament, not what would be used for a true slope measurement.

 

And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I am a Hilton Honors Diamond member. I prefer this chain over IHG properties. ;)

[cdnglf]

Whether I have attended the Masters or not doesn't make me smarter than anyone. Besides, Knuth's slope rating is an estimate because he wasn't allowed to actually test the course. He didn't drop one single ball on the greens or checked landing areas, shot receptiveness or anything he normally does. To take what Knuth "rated" the course at as gospel is a bit of an assumption. Also, we're talking a completely different set of circumstances with Sunday Masters conditions. If any course held these conditions as a constant the grasses would be over stressed and die. Sunday Masters conditions are an anomaly geared for this tournament, not what would be used for a true slope measurement.

 

And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I am a Hilton Honors Diamond member. I prefer this chain over IHG properties. ;)

 

As I posted last time this thread was resurrected, I couldn't find any statistical evidence that Augusta plays more difficult on Sunday than any other day of the tournament. Not sure what your point about "stressed grasses is"... the purpose of the article was to rate it in tournament condition.

 

Yeah, Knuth made an estimate... based on having rated thousands of courses in his life. You are not only rejecting his estimate, you are saying he was wrong by about 8 strokes. Again, based on... having been there once.

[RobotDoctor]

Whether I have attended the Masters or not doesn't make me smarter than anyone. Besides, Knuth's slope rating is an estimate because he wasn't allowed to actually test the course. He didn't drop one single ball on the greens or checked landing areas, shot receptiveness or anything he normally does. To take what Knuth "rated" the course at as gospel is a bit of an assumption. Also, we're talking a completely different set of circumstances with Sunday Masters conditions. If any course held these conditions as a constant the grasses would be over stressed and die. Sunday Masters conditions are an anomaly geared for this tournament, not what would be used for a true slope measurement.

 

And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I am a Hilton Honors Diamond member. I prefer this chain over IHG properties. ;)

 

As I posted last time this thread was resurrected, I couldn't find any statistical evidence that Augusta plays more difficult on Sunday than any other day of the tournament. Not sure what your point about "stressed grasses is"... the purpose of the article was to rate it in tournament condition.

 

Yeah, Knuth made an estimate... based on having rated thousands of courses in his life. You are not only rejecting his estimate, you are saying he was wrong by about 8 strokes. Again, based on... having been there once.

 

I don't disagree with his assessment but let's keep it real. He made it during a practice round when the conditions are not at its most difficult. Some estimates I have heard over the years is that ANGC can be 3-4 strokes more difficult between Monday/Wednesday of Masters week to Sunday. I have heard comments from players playing in the Masters in years past who have attested that the greens between Wednesday and Thursday had sped up a fair bit. If this is true then maybe a real assessment can be Sunday conditions can be as high as 81 or 82. If this is indeed plausible then it is realistic that a scratch golfer cannot break 85 during Sunday Masters tournament conditions and tees. Would this be plausible?

 

And I am not the only one making this assessment.

[cdnglf]

Whether I have attended the Masters or not doesn't make me smarter than anyone. Besides, Knuth's slope rating is an estimate because he wasn't allowed to actually test the course. He didn't drop one single ball on the greens or checked landing areas, shot receptiveness or anything he normally does. To take what Knuth "rated" the course at as gospel is a bit of an assumption. Also, we're talking a completely different set of circumstances with Sunday Masters conditions. If any course held these conditions as a constant the grasses would be over stressed and die. Sunday Masters conditions are an anomaly geared for this tournament, not what would be used for a true slope measurement.

 

And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I am a Hilton Honors Diamond member. I prefer this chain over IHG properties. ;)

 

As I posted last time this thread was resurrected, I couldn't find any statistical evidence that Augusta plays more difficult on Sunday than any other day of the tournament. Not sure what your point about "stressed grasses is"... the purpose of the article was to rate it in tournament condition.

 

Yeah, Knuth made an estimate... based on having rated thousands of courses in his life. You are not only rejecting his estimate, you are saying he was wrong by about 8 strokes. Again, based on... having been there once.

 

I don't disagree with his assessment but let's keep it real. He made it during a practice round when the conditions are not at its most difficult. Some estimates I have heard over the years is that ANGC can be 3-4 strokes more difficult between Monday/Wednesday of Masters week to Sunday. I have heard comments from players playing in the Masters in years past who have attested that the greens between Wednesday and Thursday had sped up a fair bit. If this is true then maybe a real assessment can be Sunday conditions can be as high as 81 or 82. If this is indeed plausible then it is realistic that a scratch golfer cannot break 85 during Sunday Masters tournament conditions and tees. Would this be plausible?

 

And I am not the only one making this assessment.

 

I think that is wild exaggeration, but it is largely irrelevant. Knuth was there for all 3 days of practice. And again, there is no evidence it is typically harder on Sunday than Thursday. So we're really talking about the difference between Wednesday and Thursday.

 

But even if it was true, your claim still wouldn't stand up. Add 4 shots to Knuth's estimated rating of 78, and you've got a rating of 82. A scratch player is going to shoot 84 or better on a course with a rating of 82 more often than not.

[RobotDoctor]

Whether I have attended the Masters or not doesn't make me smarter than anyone. Besides, Knuth's slope rating is an estimate because he wasn't allowed to actually test the course. He didn't drop one single ball on the greens or checked landing areas, shot receptiveness or anything he normally does. To take what Knuth "rated" the course at as gospel is a bit of an assumption. Also, we're talking a completely different set of circumstances with Sunday Masters conditions. If any course held these conditions as a constant the grasses would be over stressed and die. Sunday Masters conditions are an anomaly geared for this tournament, not what would be used for a true slope measurement.

 

And no, I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I am a Hilton Honors Diamond member. I prefer this chain over IHG properties. ;)

 

As I posted last time this thread was resurrected, I couldn't find any statistical evidence that Augusta plays more difficult on Sunday than any other day of the tournament. Not sure what your point about "stressed grasses is"... the purpose of the article was to rate it in tournament condition.

 

Yeah, Knuth made an estimate... based on having rated thousands of courses in his life. You are not only rejecting his estimate, you are saying he was wrong by about 8 strokes. Again, based on... having been there once.

 

I don't disagree with his assessment but let's keep it real. He made it during a practice round when the conditions are not at its most difficult. Some estimates I have heard over the years is that ANGC can be 3-4 strokes more difficult between Monday/Wednesday of Masters week to Sunday. I have heard comments from players playing in the Masters in years past who have attested that the greens between Wednesday and Thursday had sped up a fair bit. If this is true then maybe a real assessment can be Sunday conditions can be as high as 81 or 82. If this is indeed plausible then it is realistic that a scratch golfer cannot break 85 during Sunday Masters tournament conditions and tees. Would this be plausible?

 

And I am not the only one making this assessment.

 

I think that is wild exaggeration, but it is largely irrelevant. Knuth was there for all 3 days of practice. And again, there is no evidence it is typically harder on Sunday than Thursday. So we're really talking about the difference between Wednesday and Thursday.

 

But even if it was true, your claim still wouldn't stand up. Add 4 shots to Knuth's estimated rating of 78, and you've got a rating of 82. A scratch player is going to shoot 84 or better on a course with a rating of 82 more often than not.

 

Just how many scratch players have played on a course that's hosted a major championship and at major championship conditions? We're talking a scratch player, not a + handicap player and probably someone who has never played in a major championship. How tough is this scratch player mentally? Will they break concentration after a couple bad breaks or are they tough enough to grind out a good score?

 

Lots of ifs, ands and buts in everyone's assessments. You know what they say about it's, ands and buts.

[MtlJeff]

Why would we assume as a default position someone in the top 1% of their sport is not capable of handling any kind of adverse situation?

[cdnglf]

I don't disagree with his assessment but let's keep it real. He made it during a practice round when the conditions are not at its most difficult. Some estimates I have heard over the years is that ANGC can be 3-4 strokes more difficult between Monday/Wednesday of Masters week to Sunday. I have heard comments from players playing in the Masters in years past who have attested that the greens between Wednesday and Thursday had sped up a fair bit. If this is true then maybe a real assessment can be Sunday conditions can be as high as 81 or 82. If this is indeed plausible then it is realistic that a scratch golfer cannot break 85 during Sunday Masters tournament conditions and tees. Would this be plausible?

 

And I am not the only one making this assessment.

 

I think that is wild exaggeration, but it is largely irrelevant. Knuth was there for all 3 days of practice. And again, there is no evidence it is typically harder on Sunday than Thursday. So we're really talking about the difference between Wednesday and Thursday.

 

But even if it was true, your claim still wouldn't stand up. Add 4 shots to Knuth's estimated rating of 78, and you've got a rating of 82. A scratch player is going to shoot 84 or better on a course with a rating of 82 more often than not.

 

Just how many scratch players have played on a course that's hosted a major championship and at major championship conditions? We're talking a scratch player, not a + handicap player and probably someone who has never played in a major championship. How tough is this scratch player mentally? Will they break concentration after a couple bad breaks or are they tough enough to grind out a good score?

 

They don't have to grind out a "good score"; they just have to shoot under 85.

 

 

Lots of ifs, ands and buts in everyone's assessments. You know what they say about it's, ands and buts.

 

False equivalence. Knuth's spent his life on this stuff. Broadie's been at it for more than a decade. You went to Augusta once.

[jd502]

Not a chance. Nerves alone of being at Augusta would add a few strokes.

[RobotDoctor]

At the end of the day some people believe a scratch golfer can break 85 under the original criteria. Some don't. This scenario is ridiculous and a moot point as it is never going to happen. I believe I've said all I want to regarding this subject. Carry on all.

[The Pearl]

There is a bit of a benchmark. The world's best amateurs get to play in the tournament each year. Some do pretty well, some not so much. Just a quick glance throughout the years and I would guess the stroke average would be mid to high 70s.

 

If you rephrase and invert the question, "could a street scratch without prep and a caddy get inside 10 strokes of the world's best amateur's under tournament conditions playing Augusta National"?

 

Seems like a much more unlikely when put this way.

[mackelcan]

Depends if he plays to shoot the best score possible or just to break 80. To say no double bogeys tells me he would play very conservatively

[straightshot7]

There is a bit of a benchmark. The world's best amateurs get to play in the tournament each year. Some do pretty well, some not so much. Just a quick glance throughout the years and I would guess the stroke average would be mid to high 70s.

 

If you rephrase and invert the question, "could a street scratch without prep and a caddy get inside 10 strokes of the world's best amateur's under tournament conditions playing Augusta National"?

 

Seems like a much more unlikely when put this way.

 

Yeah the difference between the "world's best amateurs" and the average "scratch" is the difference between a Ferrari and a Honda Civic (no offense to Honda).

 

Seeing how the average scratch routinely puts up 75's on the comfort of their own course that they play day in and day out. And the amateurs that play the Master's are proven top amateur tournament players and winners. Huge difference. Grand Canyon wide difference.

 

To think that playing from the Tournament tees with no caddie or practice round won't add at least 10 strokes compared to the "top amateurs" on average is unreasonable.

 

Unless the "scratch" player happens to have something like Olympic Club as their home course, their home course will not compare in difficulty to Augusta in tournament conditions.

 

They will be overwhelmed. They will get frustrated. They will shoot 90 on average.

 

Will there be the 1/100 guy who shoots 78? Yeah. 1/100.

 

The average "scratch" is not a very good player imo. Not if they are just doing it on their home, easy course. If they have real amateur tournament or college experience, okay. They may be a real player. But your average "scratch" is no where near capable of playing at a Tour level or the level of a U.S. amateur champion, for example.

[MtlJeff]

To put into perspective how big a gap 10 strokes per round is. Every player (pro or otherwise) needs to hit 3 shots per par 4/5 (unless he is routinely dunking balls) and 2 shots per par 3. These are non negotiable, doesn't matter how good he is.

 

That equals 50 shots a round that MUST be hit by both players.

 

So a 10 shot difference between 85 and 75 means in the given example the scratch player is 40% worse than the top AM. This is too big a gap IMO

 

I am sure there are members of this site who play at courses where there are elite ams or even pros. At my club for example we had a player who played in a US Open as an Amateur and then played multiple years as a pro. He never won our club championship by 30 shots. (it's a 3 day event). In fact he never won it by more than 10 strokes. And our club at the time was mostly horrible , non travelling, barely above simian, scratch players

[Golfjack]

To put into perspective how big a gap 10 strokes per round is. Every player (pro or otherwise) needs to hit 3 shots per par 4/5 (unless he is routinely dunking balls) and 2 shots per par 3. These are non negotiable, doesn't matter how good he is.

 

That equals 50 shots a round that MUST be hit by both players.

 

So a 10 shot difference between 85 and 75 means in the given example the scratch player is 40% worse than the top AM. This is too big a gap IMO

 

I am sure there are members of this site who play at courses where there are elite ams or even pros. At my club for example we had a player who played in a US Open as an Amateur and then played multiple years as a pro. He never won our club championship by 30 shots. (it's a 3 day event). In fact he never won it by more than 10 strokes. And our club at the time was mostly horrible , non travelling, barely above simian, scratch players

That's a legit argument but what was that course playing at? The problem is how a scratch player can adjust to a very difficult pga majors tournament setup course. Not a club championship setup that they have played many many times. Part of being really good at golf is their varying ability to adjust to different situations, whether it be messed up lies or really difficult course setups.

 

Scratch guys are good, and while there are scratch guys who play 7400 yard setups, most are playing 6500 (most courses just aren't that long). It's a different skill test and takes some out of their comfort zone.

[The Pearl]

I asked Monte this in his Masters thread. He said not a chance.

[kizell]

If he can hit it 320+ off of the tee, like most Golfwrxers, then yeah. No problem.

 

Nah I disagree. The difference between 75 and 65 at Augusta is based on length, but to be able to break 85 you don't need to be a bomber there. You need to have great touch around the greens. Length would only be a hindrance at 1, 7, 11, and 18. If all you have to do is make par the other holes are manageable with a good short game.

[Vardon Grip]

What? Is ANGC the hardest course in the world or something? The leader is -14 after 3 rounds and there's lots of other courses don't yield scores that low, as in most US Open venues at USGA set up.

 

Long way of saying that a real scratch beats 85, you don't get to scratch without skills and a short game. As a matter of fact, I'm a 5 and I can post a sub 83 at ANGC, just send me the invite and I'll prove it.

 

I'm available most Saturdays, except this Cinco de Mayo.

[mjen43]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

[kizell]

My position is that if you put 100 scratch golfers on that course, around half would break 85, 25% would break 80, and less than 10% would hit the 75 mark. And that's a worst case scenario imo.

 

So Yes, a scratch golfers definitely would have the ability and potential to break 85.

[jeffreyl]

For those that believe that “ scratch” could break 85..... Mark OMeara shot 81, Friday. Masters Champ and still can putt and chip on that golf course, How many “scratch” golfers would come close to his score, playing the same course and tees?

 

Having seen the greens and what it takes to putt and chip, doubt that many would come close. Just my opinion. I have played with, touring Pros, Club Pros, and D1 golfers (+ handicaps. )

 

I believe that there are a few “ scratch” that possibly could, on the 1st try it would be difficult! Monte is a good golfer and a good judge of talent, he said, as it was set up, Friday, no way.

 

It is my belief, that if you have not seen play, in person, at the Masters, you are just speculating about the condition and set-up.

 

[The Pearl]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

[mjen43]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

 

So he was 2/2 with room to spare in a situation as close as we can possibly get to the OPs premise. Who do you think on this list could not do it? I’m virtually certain my “below average college player” could occasionally match the level of Parziale’s play over a single round, could he do it?

[BRIDGESTONE1]

I'm a two/three handicap and shot 84 twice at Bethpage Black from the tips this summer, first time there. Google says the slope of Augusta is farrrrrr less than BBB. So there ya have it. A scratch golfer is much better than me, should be doable.

[straightshot7]

My question for those who think the scratch could not do it is what level of player they think could do it? Scoring average was 71.2 today. I think most would agree a scratch player is not 14 shots worse than a top professional. I think most would agree the average scratch player is about 8-10 or so shots worse than touring professionals, conservatively. Do you non-believers think there is some exponential quality to Augusta that widens the gulf between skill levels as one gets worse?

 

On a scale of:

Web.com player

Top ranked collegiate/amateur

Canadian tour player

USGA mid-amateur championship caliber

Good, but not elite college player (say #3 man on #25 ranked team, which is about 72.5 competitive scoring average)

Top ranked junior golfer

Average college player (#3 man on #75 ranked team, which is about 73ish competitive scoring average)

Below average college player (#5 man on #100 ranked team, about 75ish competitive scoring average)

Occasional traveler on a bad college team ( about 77-78ish competitive scoring average on limited sample on a team ranked above #125)

 

At this point we are getting very close in ability to your average Joe scratch golfer, if not already there. Your typical #6-8 man on a college team ranked around #120ish is going to be right around that 0 handicap region. Most people in this skill range (0 handicap/scratch) are competitive tournament players and have tournament experience, and probably fit/have fit in the past somewhere on this scale, or very close to it, so I think this is a pretty representative scale of general player ability. When you start talking about people better than average Joe scratch, these are the types of players you encounter. So, where do the naysayers find the cutoff line?

 

The current Mid Am Champ just posted a 79/81. That is with a caddy and practice rounds. Based on your tiered system above that is 5 to 6 levels above your average Joe Scratch.

 

So he was 2/2 with room to spare in a situation as close as we can possibly get to the OPs premise. Who do you think on this list could not do it? I'm virtually certain my "below average college player" could occasionally match the level of Parziale's play over a single round, could he do it?

 

Parziale is a +3.8 and Mid-Am Champion. How is that even remotely close to the OP's premise!?

 

The "below average college player" is not on Parziale's level whatsoever. They would have to absolutely career to play on his level.