Could a Scratch Golfer break 85 at Augusta?

[straightshot7]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

[TheCityGame]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

I don't know a scratch that hasn't traveled, challenged themselves on very difficult courses, played in club championships - at the least - and quite often at least state amateur tournaments.

 

Personally I've played in conditions several times that you'd never see at Augusta... I'm talking about balls rolling to the hole, stopping, and rolling back. I'm talking about PLACING a ball on a tier in the middle of the green, rolling off the front of the front of the green and 30 yards away.

 

I've hit putts with my back to hole.

 

The rules if physics don't change at Augusta. Any scratch has played in ridiculous conditions tons of times and knows how to deal with it.

 

Is Augusta difficult? Obviously. That's why we're talking about 85! Not 75.

 

I love the Omeara comparison. People are taking the worst golfer out of a field of 80,still breaking 85 by 4 shots and using that as an example of a scratch not being able to do it.

 

Mark Omeara probably played like a 2 that day. Not a +2. A 2.

[powerpushfade]

The scratch player better be a long hitter. A short knocker would have a tough time.

[lowheel]

Most scratches I know haven't shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it's impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use "hard", or "unlikely" or even "improbable" then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

I don't know a scratch that hasn't traveled, challenged themselves on very difficult courses, played in club championships - at the least - and quite often at least state amateur tournaments.

 

Personally I've played in conditions several times that you'd never see at Augusta... I'm talking about balls rolling to the hole, stopping, and rolling back. I'm talking about PLACING a ball on a tier in the middle of the green, rolling off the front of the front of the green and 30 yards away.

 

I've hit putts with my back to hole.

 

The rules if physics don't change at Augusta. Any scratch has played in ridiculous conditions tons of times and knows how to deal with it.

 

Is Augusta difficult? Obviously. That's why we're talking about 85! Not 75.

 

I love the Omeara comparison. People are taking the worst golfer out of a field of 80,still breaking 85 by 4 shots and using that as an example of a scratch not being able to do it.

 

Mark Omeara probably played like a 2 that day. Not a +2. A 2.

 

Terrible comparison.Omeara is not a +2. hes a champions tour pro who plays off a +4 minimum. Hes also 61 and cant hit it past 255 consistently. However he still scored well from the positions his tee ball placed him in. Couples is 58 but can still pound it out there with a gimpy back which eliminates alot of the bigger #s. hes not playing 7500 yard courses on the champions tour. its 6400-6500 all day thus his scores. he retired for a reason

[lowheel]

I think a really big factor is this, are the “Sunday conditions” really like this year’s Friday or Saturday conditions?

 

Big difference there. It was the Friday conditions that originally made me change my mind, but apparently yesterday’s were little more benign.

 

Last years sunday conditions were way tougher of course. this year the rain took the fire out of the course and allowed players to get super aggressive. if it stayed like friday it would be a bloodbath this weekend. Either were not a typical.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think a really big factor is this, are the “Sunday conditions” really like this year’s Friday or Saturday conditions?

 

Big difference there. It was the Friday conditions that originally made me change my mind, but apparently yesterday’s were little more benign.

 

Last years sunday conditions were way tougher of course. this year the rain took the fire out of the course and allowed players to get super aggressive. if it stayed like friday it would be a bloodbath this weekend. Either were not a typical.

 

I agree. Friday was just nasty.

[isaacbm]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

[straightshot7]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make an apples and apples comparison and say that since a "scratch" doesn't ever shoot worse than 85 on the courses they play, they won't shoot worse than 85 on Augusta National.

 

See what I meant?

 

Of course I'm not saying we can't make any comparisons whatsoever. I even mentioned the 78+ rating.

 

I was referring specifically to your idea that since scratches don't shoot 85 on their home courses, they aren't capable of doing it on Augusta National either--that specific analogy does not make sense IMO.

 

That's like saying that if you don't fall down while skiing on the bunny slopes, you won't fall down on a AA Black Diamond either!

[isaacbm]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make an apples and apples comparison and say that since a "scratch" doesn't ever shoot worse than 85 on the courses they play, they won't shoot worse than 85 on Augusta National.

 

See what I meant?

 

Of course I'm not saying we can't make any comparisons whatsoever. I even mentioned the 78+ rating.

 

I was referring specifically to your idea that since scratches don't shoot 85 on their home courses, they aren't capable of doing it on Augusta National either--that specific analogy does not make sense IMO.

 

That's like saying that if you don't fall down while skiing on the bunny slopes, you won't fall down on a AA Black Diamond either!

Either I miss spoke or you misunderstood my point ... what I was trying to say simply is that The idea that it’s “impossible” for a scratch golfer to shoot seven over his handicap is quite honestly ridiculous. To say that it would be hard or to say that it would be improbable is one thing but to say that it is impossible is ridiculous. You even said on your own post that you didn’t think it was impossible. Does that mean we agree or disagree? Lol!

[straightshot7]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make an apples and apples comparison and say that since a "scratch" doesn't ever shoot worse than 85 on the courses they play, they won't shoot worse than 85 on Augusta National.

 

See what I meant?

 

Of course I'm not saying we can't make any comparisons whatsoever. I even mentioned the 78+ rating.

 

I was referring specifically to your idea that since scratches don't shoot 85 on their home courses, they aren't capable of doing it on Augusta National either--that specific analogy does not make sense IMO.

 

That's like saying that if you don't fall down while skiing on the bunny slopes, you won't fall down on a AA Black Diamond either!

Either I miss spoke or you misunderstood my point ... what I was trying to say simply is that The idea that it’s “impossible” for a scratch golfer to shoot seven over his handicap is quite honestly ridiculous. To say that it would be hard or to say that it would be improbable is one thing but to say that it is impossible is ridiculous. You even said on your own post that you didn’t think it was impossible. Does that mean we agree or disagree? Lol!

 

Lol, we agree that it is not impossible.

 

If the contestant were someone like you with a 73.4 tournament stroke average, I would even say the odds were probable.

 

I was just disagreeing with your rationale: "Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 .Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85"

 

There are a lot of crappy "scratches" in the country. Guys that play the same easy, 6,500 yard courses over and over and over.

 

If you put one of those guys out there, I think the course would overwhelm them.

 

 

The top players out there make the course look a lot easier than it is. They all carry their 3 woods 270+ and their drivers 290+.

 

e.g. they make 18 look like an average par 4. Leaving themselves 160-190 in and hitting towering mid-irons in.

 

You're average "scratch" can't do that. In reality, it's a 465 uphill par 4. The average "scratch" would have 215+ in. Those yardages and potential errors would start to compound. And we're not even talking about the greens.

[Mcgeeno]

If the original argument was breaking 80 or posting a 75 or under of course it’s Darn near certain it isn’t happening.

 

Dropping a 100 scratches on Augusta and having them play a round and have to shoot under 85? Cmon a bunch of em would get it done.

[dpark]

With the new Women's National Amateur being held at Augusta, we will have a better idea of how "normal" people would fair on Augusta. They won't play from the tournament tees, probably the member tees, and they won't have them quite as slick as the Masters, but top female Ams compare favorably to unranked men IMHO (i.e. scratch male golfers who primarily play at their own course). So should be interesting to see what the winning scores are next year.

[oz dee cee]

What is Jeff Knox’s handicap???

[TheCityGame]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make an apples and apples comparison and say that since a "scratch" doesn't ever shoot worse than 85 on the courses they play, they won't shoot worse than 85 on Augusta National.

 

See what I meant?

 

Of course I'm not saying we can't make any comparisons whatsoever. I even mentioned the 78+ rating.

 

I was referring specifically to your idea that since scratches don't shoot 85 on their home courses, they aren't capable of doing it on Augusta National either--that specific analogy does not make sense IMO.

 

That's like saying that if you don't fall down while skiing on the bunny slopes, you won't fall down on a AA Black Diamond either!

No, it's like saying that if you don't fall down on bunny slopes and don't fall down on green circles, and don't fall down on blue squares, and don't fall down on single black diamonds, you're probably going to be able to manage not to fall down 10 times on a double black diamond.

[Obee]

I think a really big factor is this, are the “Sunday conditions” really like this year’s Friday or Saturday conditions?

 

Big difference there. It was the Friday conditions that originally made me change my mind, but apparently yesterday’s were little more benign.

 

Last years sunday conditions were way tougher of course. this year the rain took the fire out of the course and allowed players to get super aggressive. if it stayed like friday it would be a bloodbath this weekend. Either were not a typical.

 

And still, Torrey South played tougher on Sunday of the Farmers....

[Short Pete]

But Torrey South ist still tougher on Sunday.

 

Did I mention Torrey South was tougher on Sunday?

[Obee]

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.

 

Yeah, and Larry Mize shot 74 on day 1. Your point? Golfers have tons of variability in their scores. The tougher the course, the higher the slope (generally), the greater the variability in scores for ALL golfers, pros and amateurs alike.

[Obee]

If the original argument was breaking 80 or posting a 75 or under of course it's Darn near certain it isn't happening.

 

Dropping a 100 scratches on Augusta and having them play a round and have to shoot under 85? Cmon a bunch of em would get it done.

 

Yep, and the scores would be all over the map, too. Probably as low as 78 or 79 if someone had a GREAT day and made every 12-footer they looked at, and as high as 100ish. Average would be right in the mid-80's. Maybe as high as 87.

 

Course ratings and slope really work, people. Just do a little research on slope and rating. Hate to keep bringing this up, but just look at the estimates of the rating/slope by people who know what the fock they are talking about. Discussion over. August is NOT rated 90 and sloped 188. It's just not. LOL

[Obee]

What is Jeff Knox's handicap???

 

What is Jeff Knox's handicap???

 

Jeff Knox, according to some quick research that may or may not be the same guy, is currently a +0.2 with a low index of the last 12 months of +1.8. His lowest "tournament scores in the last two years were a nifty 63 on a short course with a rating/slope of 69.9/126, and a 68 on a course rating 71.4/124.

 

Now that seems a bit off, and maybe Jeff doesn't post all his rounds, or this is not the same Jeff Knox? Lists him as a member at Augusta Country Club, Peachtree Golf Club, and Wade Hampton Golf Club.

 

My guess is that Jeff doesn't golf too awful much, or he plays most of his golf at Augusta Narional (where they don't post?) but I'm not sure....

 

By all accounts, Knox is a very solid amateur. He's the kind of player I've played mid-am golf with and against in southern California for 20 years. On any given day he has 67 or 68 in him on even a very, very tough track — especially when he was younger.

[Obee]

Most scratches I know haven't shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it's impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use "hard", or "unlikely" or even "improbable" then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

I don't know a scratch that hasn't traveled, challenged themselves on very difficult courses, played in club championships - at the least - and quite often at least state amateur tournaments.

 

Personally I've played in conditions several times that you'd never see at Augusta... I'm talking about balls rolling to the hole, stopping, and rolling back. I'm talking about PLACING a ball on a tier in the middle of the green, rolling off the front of the front of the green and 30 yards away.

 

I've hit putts with my back to hole.

 

The rules if physics don't change at Augusta. Any scratch has played in ridiculous conditions tons of times and knows how to deal with it.

 

Is Augusta difficult? Obviously. That's why we're talking about 85! Not 75.

 

I love the Omeara comparison. People are taking the worst golfer out of a field of 80,still breaking 85 by 4 shots and using that as an example of a scratch not being able to do it.

 

Mark Omeara probably played like a 2 that day. Not a +2. A 2.

 

Terrible comparison.Omeara is not a +2. hes a champions tour pro who plays off a +4 minimum. Hes also 61 and cant hit it past 255 consistently. However he still scored well from the positions his tee ball placed him in. Couples is 58 but can still pound it out there with a gimpy back which eliminates alot of the bigger #s. hes not playing 7500 yard courses on the champions tour. its 6400-6500 all day thus his scores. he retired for a reason

 

LowHeel,

 

Some info that might help. I just can't believe how far apart we are on this, so I'm just going to keep banging the drum:

 

Mark O'Meara in last year's US Senior Open at Salem Country Club: 149, 9-over for two rounds. Missed cut.

 

My 53 year old buddy, lifelong amateur and usually a legit +1.5 to +3.0 the last few years (but currently a 0.1 after tough winter conditions at our home course), shoots 69, 73 to make the cut and then finishes at 288. He finished within 2 strokes per round(!) of the following players:

 

K. Sutherland E F E

T29 P. Fowler E F E

T29 T. McCorkle E F +1

T29 D. Waldorf E F +2

T29 P. Goydos E F +4

T29 S. Dunlap E F +4

T35 S. Parel +1 F -1

T35 C. Pavin +1 F +6

T37 I. Woosnam +2 F E

T37 M. Goodes +2 F +1

T37 S. McCarron +2 F +2

T40 J. Gallagher +3 F E

T40 T. Watson +3 F +2

T42 T. Pernice +4 F +3

T42 C. Montgomerie +4 F +3

T42 J. Haas +4 F +4

T42 C. Monasterio +4 F +4

T42 M. Small +4 F +6

T47 B. Bryant +5 F +2

T47 P.H. Horgan +5 F +4

T49 J. Schuman +6 F +3

T49 W. Short Jr. +6 F +4

T49 B. Lane +6 F +5

T49 S. Ingraham +6 F +5

53 R. Chapman +7 F +4

 

He also beat the following well-known Champions Tour pros who missed the cut:

 

MISSED THE CUT

MC T. Tolles +2

MC M. Sughrue (a) +2

MC N. Faldo +2

MC J. Riegger +2

MC E. Toledo +2

MC C. Lutz (a) +3

MC T. Armour III +3

MC W. Austin +3

MC L. Roberts +3

MC C. Dennis +3

MC T. Hogarth (a) +4

MC J. Cook +4

MC R. Mediate +4

MC B. Henninger +5

MC G. Sauers +5

MC T. Tryba +5

MC G. Kraft +6

MC D. Toms +6

MC G. Gilbert III +6

MC T. Kite +7

MC J. McGovern +7

MC J. Huston +7

MC B. Tway +7

MC T. Byrum +7

MC M. Calcavecchia +8

MC M. O'Meara +9

MC C. Franco +9

MC H. Irwin +9

MC S. Lowery +13

MC P. Jacobsen +13

MC A. Doyle +15

MC J. Kelly +17

 

So what's the deal here? Is my buddy that good? Is O'Meara not that good? How about all the other pros he beat or tied or was close to?

 

My point is not that my buddy is as good as the top Champions Tour guys over a whole season. That is clearly not the case or he would be out there playing against them.

 

My buddy is not a +6. He proved that one doesn't need to be some ridiculously low index to beat a true professional on the biggest stage in the world in a tournament they all want to win. In other words, it can't be said that it was an "exhibition" or something that didn't "matter." He played, they played, and he bested a whole bunch of them. Do you think he could break 85 at Augusta?

 

And by the way, last year, averaged over the whole season, he was a +2.

 

Do you agree that a guy who could beat 50+ of the best senior pros in the entire world could not just break 85, but could (not would, COULD) shoot in the 70's? Even the mid 70's? Bernhard Langer beat my buddy by only 2.5 shots per round last year. Bernhard Langer! He's made the cut at the last two Masters, while pushing 60 years old, if I'm not mistaken. And we're not talking about one round, we're talking about four rounds of golf on a USGA set-up. Langer played poorly, my buddy played very well, but still, over four rounds, 2.5 strokes per day, on average.

 

And I guarantee you, my buddy was far, far more nervous than Langer was, for obvious reasons. You can probably add a shot or two per round just for the nerves factor with my buddy, and he said he putted like crap and made nothing any of the days, but that's really neither here nor there.

 

The problem is that once you agree that a guy like my buddy COULD not only break 85, but could shoot in the 70's at Augusta, then your entire "it's nearly impossible for a scratch player to do it and it's like 1,000 to 1 if they do" world starts to fall apart.

 

But first I want to hear how a guy who finished 2.5 shots per round behind Bernhard Langer at the US Senior Open couldn't shoot 75 to 79 at Augusta on one of his pretty good to very good days.

 

So much to discuss here, but once we get this out of the way, we can have a real discussion about scratch golfers.... :-)

[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 beelief, that if you have not seen play, in person, at the Masters, you are just speculating about the condition and set-up.

 

Yeah, and Larry Mize shot 74 on day 1. Your point? Golfers have tons of variability in their scores. The tougher the course, the higher the slope (generally), the greater the variability in scores for ALL golfers, pros and amateurs alike.

 

My uneducated point is that Mark O’Meara has putted and chipped on those greens, very successfully. My premise (perhaps very wrong) is that that a “scratch” golfer would struggle. Simply based on observation when I attended. Obviously I could be very wrong, however it s my opinion. I would be intrigued to see a first visit “scratch”, just to see the results!,

[JL1]

Obee, I do not know who your friend is but he sounds more like the exception and less like the rule. Plus, Salem CC from the Championship tees is 6916 yards with a course rating of 73.5 and a slope of 134. Augusta is a much more difficult golf course than that.

 

I have been reading this thread since it started and to me the question isn't black or white. It isn't, to me anyway, whether one scratch golfer can score 85 at Augusta. Of course if you got all scratch golfers on that course some of them would score better than that. The question to me is whether it would be rare, and I think it would.

 

I have a buddy who when he was a small school college AA and +1.5 and who got thru more US Open local qualifiers than I can remember. Beat loads of young college players who were + handicaps. He played Augusta and did not score 85.

 

Jon Smoltz is a +1.7 according to his GHIN profile. I saw him play 18 holes vs Tom Glavin one nite on The Golf Channel. He shot 81 on a track that isn't on the same level as Augusta. Tony Romo is a + 1 point something. We all saw what that opposite field event did to him. He never came close to winning anything in Dallas, let alone the whole state of Texas. Forget winning anything, or even competing, nationally.

 

Your "average" scratch player is a piker whose game does not travel compared to better players in any large Golf Association. Your friend is either much better than an average scratch or he shot the rounds of his life.

 

For the best in the world, Augusta can be scored on. But that course punishes weakness in anyone's game. Your average scratch has plenty of holes in their game. Not that they are outright bad at anything, just that there are some aspects of their game that are not strong. That's why their handicap doesn't travel, because where ever they go their weaknesses get exposed. Augusta will expose the weaknesses.

[Obee]

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

 

Yeah, and Larry Mize shot 74 on day 1. Your point? Golfers have tons of variability in their scores. The tougher the course, the higher the slope (generally), the greater the variability in scores for ALL golfers, pros and amateurs alike.

 

My uneducated point is that Mark O’Meara has putted and chipped on those greens, very successfully. My premise (perhaps very wrong) is that that a “scratch” golfer would struggle. Simply based on observation when I attended. Obviously I could be very wrong, however it s my opinion. I would be intrigued to see a first visit “scratch”, just to see the results!,

 

A scratch golfer absolutely would struggle. It's the level of struggle that we're all arguing about! ;-)

[Obee]

Obee, I do not know who your friend is but he sounds more like the exception and less like the rule. Plus, Salem CC from the Championship tees is 6916 yards with a course rating of 73.5 and a slope of 134. Augusta is a much more difficult golf course than that.

 

I have been reading this thread since it started and to me the question isn't black or white. It isn't, to me anyway, whether one scratch golfer can score 85 at Augusta. Of course if you got all scratch golfers on that course some of them would score better than that. The question to me is whether it would be rare, and I think it would.

 

I have a buddy who when he was a small school college AA and +1.5 and who got thru more US Open local qualifiers than I can remember. Beat loads of young college players who were + handicaps. He played Augusta and did not score 85.

 

Jon Smoltz is a +1.7 according to his GHIN profile. I saw him play 18 holes vs Tom Glavin one nite on The golf channel. He shot 81 on a track that isn't on the same level as Augusta. Tony Romo is a + 1 point something. We all saw what that opposite field event did to him. He never came close to winning anything in Dallas, let alone the whole state of Texas. Forget winning anything, or even competing, nationally.

 

Your "average" scratch player is a piker whose game does not travel compared to better players in any large Golf Association. Your friend is either much better than an average scratch or he shot the rounds of his life plus made some putts he doesn't normally make.

 

For the best in the world, Augusta can be scored on. But that course punishes weakness in anyone's game. Your average scratch has plenty of holes in their game. Not that they are outright bad at anything, just that there are some aspects of their game that are not strong. That's why their handicap doesn't travel, because where ever they go their weaknesses get exposed. Augusta will expose the weaknesses.

 

Not disagreeing with much you have said here. It's the guys claiming "No chance," "1 in a thousand," etc. that I really don't get.

 

And amateurs (like Smoltz, et al.) can, of course, put up big numbers. That's a given. But citing a high score or two makes as much sense as ONLY citing a player's good scores.

 

We all have a range relative to the course we're playing and its rating and slope. Pros and ams alike.

 

The very best pros in the world have a full range that is comparatively huge at Augusta: 63 to 78(?). Their range is higher at Augusta than it is at many courses because it is both very long, AND has a high slope (water, trees, fast, undulating greens, etc.).

 

Amateurs would similarly have a huge range there. It would be even larger, in fact.

 

In my mind, a true scratch (defined as someone who AVERAGES scratch golf over a year -- some months a a +1, others as a 1, others as a 0, etc) with decent tournament experience (former college golfer, competitive mid-am, etc), would have a low-end range of 77ish (which would be about as rare as a pro shooting the low end of THEIR RANGE, a 63) to 95.

 

Top tour pros are ~8 to 12 strokes better than a scratch golfer. 8 better on an easy course, 12+ on the most difficult.

 

Think about it. On a relatively easy 6700 yard course with a rating of 72 and a slope of 130, a scratch golfer is going to shoot 72 quite often, and average about 75, with a low of about 67

 

A Tour pro is going to shoot 63-64 quite regularly and average 65-66. Low end of range is 57 or 58.

 

The tougher the course gets in length/course rating, the higher the LOW scores become. If you also increase the slope rating, the larger the variability becomes, especially for the scratch player versus the pro.

 

If we are talking about a 10-handicapper, all bets are off, low range is probably 90ish, but high range is pushing 120 if playing it down and in because a very high slope kills the mid and high capper. That's why a 14.0 index on a course with a 160 slope becomes a 20(!) course handicap!

 

Btw, contrary to what many here think, it's my firm belief that the guys with the better short games as amateurs that will generally score in a tighter range at Augusta. Most scratch ams are going to miss at least 10 greens out there regardless of how long they hit it. And if you miss greens there, your short game better be pretty darn good to keep it under 90! :-)

 

Meaning: Taken as a group, my guess is that the scratch players with the better short games but that are shorter hitters outperform the long hitters with marginal short games. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CallawayLefty]

As a scratch golfer, am I alone in thinking that if I treated the task at hand as shooting, say, 82 instead of 72 that I might stand a better chance of shooting the sub 85 round? I guess what I mean is if I just accepted I might play a few par 4s like par 5s and otherwise just laid up to comfortable numbers when I missed up, it might actually go better. It seems to me like your biggest trouble at Augusta is forcing the issue when you shouldn’t.

[Obee]

As a scratch golfer, am I alone in thinking that if I treated the task at hand as shooting, say, 82 instead of 72 that I might stand a better chance of shooting the sub 85 round? I guess what I mean is if I just accepted I might play a few par 4s like par 5s and otherwise just laid up to comfortable numbers when I missed up, it might actually go better. It seems to me like your biggest trouble at Augusta is forcing the issue when you shouldnt.

 

No, you're not.

 

Also, remember that the long par fours usually have reasonably sized greens. If you lay up to 70 to 90 yards and can spin a wedge you're going to make your share of fours and fives on the long par fours.

[straightshot7]

Most scratches I know haven’t shot Over 85 since they became a scratch. Literally hundreds of rounds in a row without shooting over 85. Almost to the point where it would seem impossible to them to shoot over 85 . Now you tell them that it’s impossible for them to shoot under 85?

If you want to use “hard”, or “unlikely” or even “improbable” then you can make a case. Though a weak one...

 

But impossible? Come on now.

 

How often do they play a 7,500 yard course with heavily undulating greens running 13-15 stimpmeter? A course with a 78+ course rating?

 

Yeah, likely never.

 

I don't think it's impossible by any stretch. But to compare it to their normal rounds doesn't make sense.

Of course it makes sense! What else are you supposed to compare it to? They got their handicap playing where ever they got their handicap playing. That’s What we’re trying to do here. We’re trying to compare a regular tournament golf course to Augusta National.

My tournament handicap at the end of last year was just a little better than plus one. My tournament stroke average was 73.4. Many of the golf courses I played were 7200 yards rate at 74 to 75. That’s how I got my handicap. I don’t think Augusta is 12 shots harder.

The scoring average the last two days was just over 72. I would say if they held a high-level div2 (most players range from +1 to 1)college golf tournament At Augusta the day after the masters, The average score would be 82-85. And somebody would most definitely shoot in the 70s.

 

It’s all conjecture, speculation, and hypothetical of course! Lol!

 

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make an apples and apples comparison and say that since a "scratch" doesn't ever shoot worse than 85 on the courses they play, they won't shoot worse than 85 on Augusta National.

 

See what I meant?

 

Of course I'm not saying we can't make any comparisons whatsoever. I even mentioned the 78+ rating.

 

I was referring specifically to your idea that since scratches don't shoot 85 on their home courses, they aren't capable of doing it on Augusta National either--that specific analogy does not make sense IMO.

 

That's like saying that if you don't fall down while skiing on the bunny slopes, you won't fall down on a AA Black Diamond either!

No, it's like saying that if you don't fall down on bunny slopes and don't fall down on green circles, and don't fall down on blue squares, and don't fall down on single black diamonds, you're probably going to be able to manage not to fall down 10 times on a double black diamond.

 

The average scratch never plays more than a blue diamond. And they play it repeatedly.

 

You think if they were never allowed to play the same course twice that their handicap wouldn't be higher?

 

So factor that in as well. They play the same easy courses (compared to Augusta), made easier by repeated play.

[lowheel]

I think a really big factor is this, are the “Sunday conditions” really like this year’s Friday or Saturday conditions?

 

Big difference there. It was the Friday conditions that originally made me change my mind, but apparently yesterday’s were little more benign.

 

Last years sunday conditions were way tougher of course. this year the rain took the fire out of the course and allowed players to get super aggressive. if it stayed like friday it would be a bloodbath this weekend. Either were not a typical.

 

And still, Torrey South played tougher on Sunday of the Farmers....

 

Glad to see you’re still here beating the Torrey pines drum...

[chriswrightstuff]

Ian Poulter was a 4 and he's beaten 85 once or twice.

IMHO, a scratch could break 85 and probably would do more so than not. There are 'gettable' holes at Augusta (4 par 5's), I agree that the greatest challenge would be on and around the greens but scratch golfers can navigate themselves to the right spots. If I knew my target was 85 then I'd be play conservatively whenever there was any doubt at all.

[Dave230]

The CNN golf guy Shane O'Donoghue said he shot 81 at Augusta yesterday, as the press get to play the day afterwards. He's nowhere near scratch as far as I know. Know another media guy playing off 4 or 5 that shot better than 80.

 

Would be tournament conditions more or less. The big difference would be back tees and the pressure of playing in front of crowds. But a relatively long competitive scratch player should be able to deal with that.