Could a Scratch Golfer break 85 at Augusta?

[Rookie1422]

I’d like to believe so, not too much trouble off the tee. And he should have a decent short game. It would be close, it I sure hope he could do it.

[RobotDoctor]

I'd like to believe so, not too much trouble off the tee. And he should have a decent short game. It would be close, it I sure hope he could do it.

 

The problem off the tee isn't that ANGC is a tight course. The problem is multi-fold. 1) There is hardly a perfectly flat lie on the course. Yes, there may be some flat lies but generally an approach shot is off some uphill/downhill/side hill lie. 2) The fairway shrinks in side depending on where the pin is placed on the green. Angles mean a heck of a lot on this course. 3) Trees are strategically placed on several holes that will, all but, eliminate a decent approach shot. 4) From the tournament tees a golfer better be able to carry the ball 275 yards or more. Also keep in mind how the grass is cut on many holes (grain into the player so it stops the balls). 5) With the undulation of the fairway balls will have a tendency to roll off the fairway and into short second cut which will reduce spin and hold on the greens.

 

A scratch better have a tremendous short game to tame this course. I would agree that a true scratch should have a decent short game. Once upon a time ago when I was a decent scratch golfer (early 90s - mid/late 20s), I used to man handle a course. I would drive 12-13 fairways, hit 14-16 greens and score a ho-hum round of par or 1-2 over. My short game was fair but nowhere it is now (early 50s) but the rest of my game other than putting is not even close to where I once was. If the hypothetical golfer is like the way I was then it'll be a long day.

[Roadking2003]

I just can't see how anyone could get round there in those conditions on their first go without making a double. Or for that matter without having at least one very big number.

 

Phil had two triples. Your average scratch would very likely have multiple doubles and maybe a triple or two. Four putting would be in play.

[Mcgeeno]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

If you are a 1 or 2 and don’t think you could break 100 at any course from any tees let alone Augusta I’m thinking you have some problems.

 

I’m a 2 and would take a “break 100” bet anywhere from any set of tees.

[oikos1]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

If you are a 1 or 2 and don't think you could break 100 at any course from any tees let alone Augusta I'm thinking you have some problems.

 

I'm a 2 and would take a "break 100" bet anywhere from any set of tees.

 

That's not the bet.

[DFS PFD]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

If you are a 1 or 2 and don't think you could break 100 at any course from any tees let alone Augusta I'm thinking you have some problems.

 

I'm a 2 and would take a "break 100" bet anywhere from any set of tees.

 

I admire your confidence, my normal courses aren't set up for Major Championships, and I've played a few that are and had an unpleasant surprise and the level of difficulty. Sorry for being honest. Good for you though. See you on the .com soon I'm guessing.

[isaacbm]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

OK now we’re just getting ridiculous. If you’re a legit one handicap and you regularly play with scratch golfers and you honestly don’t think any of you could break 100, then you are either some of the biggest vanity handicap in the entire world or you literally have the least amount of self-confidence of any golfers that’s ever played.

 

100? Come on!!

[Bye]

It's cleaver because a target of 84 sounds easy. Everyone knows it is difficult there with tournament conditions. The stipulations takes away one of the most important parts which is knowledge of the course. And even then it's one thing knowing where the trouble is, it is another thing keeping away from it.

 

It tugs at ones ego a bit when someone says you can't shoot 12 over or better on one of or the most pristine courses on the planet.

 

 

 

[Hankshank]

When you say 85 and scratch, I suppose you mean in masters condition and from championship tee. I guess there are tees a good bit closer to the holes. Condolezza, Warren and Bill do not want to make 115 each time they play the course?

[cdnglf]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

If you are a 1 or 2 and don't think you could break 100 at any course from any tees let alone Augusta I'm thinking you have some problems.

 

I'm a 2 and would take a "break 100" bet anywhere from any set of tees.

 

I admire your confidence, my normal courses aren't set up for Major Championships, and I've played a few that are and had an unpleasant surprise and the level of difficulty. Sorry for being honest. Good for you though. See you on the .com soon I'm guessing.

 

 

If a scratch can't break 100 on a course rated 78, what about a +1? A +3? We saw +4/+5 Ams shoot in the mid 70s last week. Ghim shot as low as 72. Yeah, he had a few practice rounds, but this is ~30 strokes you're talking about.

 

Where between scratch and +5 is the magic non-linearity?

[JL1]

I think there are two groups here debating this issue that have very different ideas in their mind of what is a scratch golfer.

 

Group A probably defines a scratch golfer as someone whose game travels well and shoots around par no matter where they play. Group B might define a scratch golfer as someone who carries a 0 handicap on their home course but whose game doesn't travel very well at all. Are the two very different types of players described above both true scratch players? No.

 

Even if you take the better player of the two described above, if that player can't hit it 300 then they'd be playing a fairway metal into every par 4 at ANGC except hole 3. Good luck with that.

[TheCityGame]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

[RobotDoctor]

When you say 85 and scratch, I suppose you mean in masters condition and from championship tee. I guess there are tees a good bit closer to the holes. Condolezza, Warren and Bill do not want to make 115 each time they play the course?

 

Courses are never maintained in tournament condition all the time. Augusta National Golf Club is not the exception here. It has been reported that the general condition of the greens is a bit softer and rolling around a 9 for standard play. I am sure the there might be a couple of times a year ANGC maintains tournament conditions, during Masters week and during the Club Championship.

 

Look at courses like Bethpage Black, Pinehurst #2, Torrey Pines South. All these courses play a lot tamer during non tournament play than when championships are played. So yes, the topic of this debate is during Sunday tournament conditions.

 

It seems that some people don't quite understand the criteria this thread is based on.

[jacobEDGE]

Even if you take the better player of the two described above, if that player can't hit it 300 then they'd be playing a fairway metal into every par 4 at ANGC except hole 3. Good luck with that.

 

Eh, not necessarily. Long irons? Sure, but not necessarily a hybrid or fairway wood.

 

Even hitting a 250 yard drive would give you around 200 to the center of the green on most holes. Less if the pin is in front. For me, that's a 4 or 5 iron. (And I do hit my driver about 250-260). My hybrid goes 235, and my 3-wood goes 240-250.

[straightshot7]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

You're not throwing this out there to support one side or the other except you obviously are.

 

I don't see how this example is even worth bringing up.

 

He is a plus handicap and played the course at 1,100 yards less with a caddie and without the course/Greens in tournament condition.

 

Totally different scenario.

[TheCityGame]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

You're not throwing this out there to support one side or the other except you obviously are.

 

I don't see how this example is even worth bringing up.

 

He is a plus handicap and played the course at 1,100 yards less with a caddie and without the course/Greens in tournament condition.

 

Totally different scenario.

I brought it up as an example of how people's perceptions can differ from reality. The point of my post was the difference between the twitter poll and the actual results.

 

Not as an example of what a scratch golfer, from the pro boxes, without a caddie, would shoot. It's not even the same universe. He's a better golfer, playing from member boxes, with a caddy. He says right in the article that even though he knew all the pins, he needed the caddie's read.

[JL1]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

Thanks for that well reasoned post. I wonder how many of his twitter followers realize he once shot that 63 at Napanee GC? Equally interesting is the writer's own take on things. Even he seems unsure what to make of it considering the difference in yardage and the like. And he even had the thought that on an errant shot or two that perhaps his caddie had awarded him a, cough cough, "preferred" lie.

 

Btw, this writer is still young and can still hit it 300, and he played on the Canada Mackenzie Tour so he is probably significanty better than your normal scratch player.

[straightshot7]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

You're not throwing this out there to support one side or the other except you obviously are.

 

I don't see how this example is even worth bringing up.

 

He is a plus handicap and played the course at 1,100 yards less with a caddie and without the course/Greens in tournament condition.

 

Totally different scenario.

I brought it up as an example of how people's perceptions can differ from reality. The point of my post was the difference between the twitter poll and the actual results.

 

Not as an example of what a scratch golfer, from the pro boxes, without a caddie, would shoot. It's not even the same universe. He's a better golfer, playing from member boxes, with a caddy. He says right in the article that even though he knew all the pins, he needed the caddie's read.

 

It was your statements "Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation" and

 

"I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day."

 

That make it clear there was a dual purpose to your post.

 

Either way, it sounds like you're building a case for the 85+ side.

 

This guy has pursued professional golf, hits it 300 (more than the average scratch) and as you noted played in a much easier scenario.

 

It seems likely that a worse golfer would shoot 10 higher on a course with 1,100 more yards, no caddie, and much faster greens.

[JL1]

Even if you take the better player of the two described above, if that player can't hit it 300 then they'd be playing a fairway metal into every par 4 at ANGC except hole 3. Good luck with that.

 

Eh, not necessarily. Long irons? Sure, but not necessarily a hybrid or fairway wood.

 

Even hitting a 250 yard drive would give you around 200 to the center of the green on most holes. Less if the pin is in front. For me, that's a 4 or 5 iron. (And I do hit my driver about 250-260). My hybrid goes 235, and my 3-wood goes 240-250.

 

I am thinking of the longer holes and the uphill holes, but you are correct that some of the holes would still be just a long iron as opposed to a fairway metal. Still, hitting into those greens as a scratch with a 4 iron vs. a tour pro with a wedge or 9 seems like a monumental difference.

[nichho]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

I've just spent an hour reading both of those article, I loved them both. Thanks

[JL1]

Purely out of curiosity from reading this thread (which to my chagrin I think I may now be addicted to) I did a little research.

 

According to the 2017 spring guide, the National Golf Foundation estimates 25.8 million unique players played golf in the US within 12 months of Spring 2017. They also claim 77 percent of golfers are male, which means there are approximately 19,866,000 male golfers. The USGA says that 1.6 percent of male golfers are 0 handicap or better. Link: https://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-index-statistics/mens-handicap-index-statistics-d24e6096.html

 

This means that by definition there are around 318,000 (rounded) scratch or better male golfers. Seems unlikely to me that this many male golfers could walk onto Augusta under tournament conditions and shoot an 85. I say that I guess mainly because I think there are vast differences between golfers who carry 0 handicaps or better. There are only two such players at my semi suburban semi rural country club carrying a 0 or better. One of them carries a +1, the other a 0. Truth be told these two are about 6 strokes apart on our home course, and more than that on any given difficult away course. The guy who is the +1 is one of the top 30 or so players in a large metropolitan golf association and one of the top 50 players in the state. The other guy never competes in anything outside our club except maybe once a year in a member-guest (which is a nothing burger) at another local club. I once asked him why he never competes in anything in our own golf association or the state level tournaments and, at least here he was brutally honest. "I'm not good enough", he said. Kind of sums things up.

 

I look at golf like I look at a lot of things. The higher up the food chain, the better the player. A PGA Tour Player is considered the top level player in the world. The European Tour has players as good as PGA Tour Players, but overall it is a notch below. The web.com and Asia Tour are next. Then NCAA top players. After that the Latin America and Mackenzie Tours. Then the other mini tours. That is 5 or 6 steps down before you ever hit the State Opens which the typical scratch player like the guy I described above doesn't think he is good enough to play in.

 

EDIT: Parziale won the Mid Am in 2017 and played in the 2018 Masters and shot 79-81. Our +1 is not in his league, and our 0 is not even close to our +1. This, I guess, sums up all of my addiction prompted postings here in this thread. I crazily think there are 6 or 7 huge notches of talent between the tour players and the typical scratch player, and several huge notches even between a guy like a US Mid Am champ and a "typical" scratch.

 

Ok, I'm out to the course now. Time to see if I can get my own swing in proper order.

[mjen43]

Purely out of curiosity from reading this thread (which to my chagrin I think I may now be addicted to) I did a little research.

 

According to the 2017 spring guide, the National Golf Foundation estimates 25.8 million unique players played golf in the US within 12 months of Spring 2017. They also claim 77 percent of golfers are male, which means there are approximately 19,866,000 male golfers. The USGA says that 1.6 percent of male golfers are 0 handicap or better. Link: https://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-index-statistics/mens-handicap-index-statistics-d24e6096.html

 

This means that by definition there are around 318,000 (rounded) scratch or better male golfers. Seems unlikely to me that this many male golfers could walk onto Augusta under tournament conditions and shoot an 85. I say that I guess mainly because I think there are vast differences between golfers who carry 0 handicaps or better. There are only two such players at my semi suburban semi rural country club carrying a 0 or better. One of them carries a +1, the other a 0. Truth be told these two are about 6 strokes apart on our home course, and more than that on any given difficult away course. The guy who is the +1 is one of the top 30 or so players in a large metropolitan golf association and one of the top 50 players in the state. The other guy never competes in anything outside our club except maybe once a year in a member-guest (which is a nothing burger) at another local club. I once asked him why he never competes in anything in our own golf association or the state level tournaments and, at least here he was brutally honest. "I'm not good enough", he said. Kind of sums things up.

 

I look at golf like I look at a lot of things. The higher up the food chain, the better the player. A PGA Tour Player is considered the top level player in the world. The European Tour has players as good as PGA Tour Players, but overall it is a notch below. The web.com and Asia Tour are next. Then NCAA top players. After that the Latin America and Mackenzie Tours. Then the other mini tours. That is 5 or 6 steps down before you ever hit the State Opens which the typical scratch player like the guy I described above doesn't think he is good enough to play in.

 

Stewart Hagestad won the Mid Am in 2016 and played in the 2017 Masters and shot 79-81. Our +1 is not in his league, and our 0 is not even close to our +1. This, I guess, sums up all of my addiction prompted postings here in this thread. I crazily think there are 6 or 7 huge notches of talent between the tour players and the typical scratch player, and several huge notches even between a guy like a US Mid Am champ and a "typical" scratch.

 

Ok, I'm out to the course now. Time to see if I can get my own swing in proper order.

 

Hagestad made the cut and came in around 40th I believe. His worst round was like 74 I think.

 

I agree with your jumps in levels, as I posted the same thing earlier, but at the top levels the differences are fractions of shots. There is like a 6-7 level jump between a good but non elite college player and a Masters professional participant but the difference is only about 2-3 shots per round.

[rsd1244]

I see this being possible.

[Obee]

Purely out of curiosity from reading this thread (which to my chagrin I think I may now be addicted to) I did a little research.

 

According to the 2017 spring guide, the National Golf Foundation estimates 25.8 million unique players played golf in the US within 12 months of Spring 2017. They also claim 77 percent of golfers are male, which means there are approximately 19,866,000 male golfers. The USGA says that 1.6 percent of male golfers are 0 handicap or better. Link: https://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-index-statistics/mens-handicap-index-statistics-d24e6096.html

 

This means that by definition there are around 318,000 (rounded) scratch or better male golfers. Seems unlikely to me that this many male golfers could walk onto Augusta under tournament conditions and shoot an 85. I say that I guess mainly because I think there are vast differences between golfers who carry 0 handicaps or better. There are only two such players at my semi suburban semi rural country club carrying a 0 or better. One of them carries a +1, the other a 0. Truth be told these two are about 6 strokes apart on our home course, and more than that on any given difficult away course. The guy who is the +1 is one of the top 30 or so players in a large metropolitan golf association and one of the top 50 players in the state. The other guy never competes in anything outside our club except maybe once a year in a member-guest (which is a nothing burger) at another local club. I once asked him why he never competes in anything in our own golf association or the state level tournaments and, at least here he was brutally honest. "I'm not good enough", he said. Kind of sums things up.

 

I look at golf like I look at a lot of things. The higher up the food chain, the better the player. A PGA Tour Player is considered the top level player in the world. The European Tour has players as good as PGA Tour Players, but overall it is a notch below. The web.com and Asia Tour are next. Then NCAA top players. After that the Latin America and Mackenzie Tours. Then the other mini tours. That is 5 or 6 steps down before you ever hit the State Opens which the typical scratch player like the guy I described above doesn't think he is good enough to play in.

 

Stewart Hagestad won the Mid Am in 2016 and played in the 2017 Masters and shot 79-81. Our +1 is not in his league, and our 0 is not even close to our +1. This, I guess, sums up all of my addiction prompted postings here in this thread. I crazily think there are 6 or 7 huge notches of talent between the tour players and the typical scratch player, and several huge notches even between a guy like a US Mid Am champ and a "typical" scratch.

 

Ok, I'm out to the course now. Time to see if I can get my own swing in proper order.

 

Might want to re-check your Hagestad numbers....

 

This year's Mid-Am champ (Parziale?) did not fare well (79, 81). In the past, the Mid-Am champs have not done too well either, but Hagestad was a big exception in 2017, he played superbly and made the cut.

 

Average score of the Mid-Am champs is prolly 77(ish)? over the last 10 years, I would guess.

 

These guys are ~2 - 3 shots better than a guy like me when I'm playing a decent amount of golf (and not injured) on a reasonably difficult course. They are prolly 3 - 6 better on a really tough track like Augusta in Masters conditions, on average.

 

How do I know? I've been playing tournament golf with these types of guys for the better part of 20 years and have tournament results that prove it.

 

Short courses, long courses (7400ish at The Carlton Woods Invitational), and everything in between.

 

 

 

 

[widow-maker]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

You're not throwing this out there to support one side or the other except you obviously are.

 

I don't see how this example is even worth bringing up.

 

He is a plus handicap and played the course at 1,100 yards less with a caddie and without the course/Greens in tournament condition.

 

Totally different scenario.

I think the one thing that it does support is that a very good player isn't going to automatically 3 and 4 putt all the greens. You don't shoot 75 with 40 putts. This was the day after the Tournament with the pins still in the Sunday positions.

[JL1]

Sorry guys, I meant to write Parziale, not Hagestad. My bad, and thanks for the correction.

[Shilgy]

So, I'm not throwing this out there to support one side or the other because obviously the conditions are different than laid out in the OP.

 

This guy won the media lottery and played it. Same pins. He's a very good golfer.

 

1) from the member tees. 6350.

2) he's probably better than a scratch

 

So, like I said, I'm not throwing that out there AT ALL as an argument for one side or the other.

 

What is very illustrative, however, is the perception that people share -- with people in this thread -- about the difficulty of Augusta and/or the "greatness" of the pros. He polled his twitter followers before he played.

 

35% of them said "90-99". 31% said 100+. 2/3rds of the people thought a very good golfer who was trying to go pro wouldn't break 90 at Augusta. People who are interested enough in golf to follow golf.com on twitter.

 

8% said "70-79".

 

He shot 75.

 

Maybe it will at least put to rest any conversation like "a scratch golfer wouldn't break 90 if he hit 18 greens in regulation".

 

I guess the greens must have slowed down from 15 to 9 in the course of a day.

 

Thanks for that well reasoned post. I wonder how many of his twitter followers realize he once shot that 63 at Napanee GC? Equally interesting is the writer's own take on things. Even he seems unsure what to make of it considering the difference in yardage and the like. And he even had the thought that on an errant shot or two that perhaps his caddie had awarded him a, cough cough, "preferred" lie.

 

Btw, this writer is still young and can still hit it 300, and he played on the Canada Mackenzie Tour so he is probably significanty better than your normal scratch player.

Just a easy question...Napanee is under 6000 yards and you play the same nine twice. Is that 63 relevant?

 

Guessing he's a writer now, not a player.**

 

Just looked, he last played Canada in 2015 and had a nearly 75 stroke average. Guessing with his new job he's not much better than scratch.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/players/player.47290.dylan-dethier.html

[Mcgeeno]

I play to a true 1-2 every where I go (I understand that's not scratch), and I doubt I (or anyone I play with that's scratch) could break 100 my first round there with tournament conditions. The greens and approaches into them alone could undo any chance at 85 with the extreme undulations and speed. (Looking at you Sergio)

 

If you are a 1 or 2 and don't think you could break 100 at any course from any tees let alone Augusta I'm thinking you have some problems.

 

I'm a 2 and would take a "break 100" bet anywhere from any set of tees.

 

I admire your confidence, my normal courses aren't set up for Major Championships, and I've played a few that are and had an unpleasant surprise and the level of difficulty. Sorry for being honest. Good for you though. See you on the .com soon I'm guessing.

 

Not on the .com at all, but you won't see me shooting a 100 as a "1 or 2 anywhere I go".

[Mcgeeno]

I think there are two groups here debating this issue that have very different ideas in their mind of what is a scratch golfer.

 

Group A probably defines a scratch golfer as someone whose game travels well and shoots around par no matter where they play. Group B might define a scratch golfer as someone who carries a 0 handicap on their home course but whose game doesn't travel very well at all. Are the two very different types of players described above both true scratch players? No.

 

Even if you take the better player of the two described above, if that player can't hit it 300 then they'd be playing a fairway metal into every par 4 at ANGC except hole 3. Good luck with that.

 

Zach Johnson averages 270 and most definitely does not hit a fairway metal into every green.

 

300+ would be ideal. 270 would be the limit ::in my opinion:: for having a chance. I think thats reasonable and realistic for many scratch golfers.

[JL1]

The guy who who created the "shots gained" statistics says the average scratch (using only rounds where they actually shoot par) is 33 yards shorter off the tee than the average pro. That article where he uses that stat was once linked to this website.