Cage Match to the DEATH: LPGA Tour vs. Middle-aged Scratch and Below

[Shilgy]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

As I mentioned earlier there certainly is a lack of depth on the LPGA. Players in the 130-150 range are not as close to being competitive as #200+ on the mens. So your scratch can hang his hat on being able to topple them in a round.

 

But then he would struggle against the 57 year old occasional LPGA player also.

 

Funny how this goes. When discussing men's golf all we hear is "scratch ain't s**t" . But against the woman he turns into a 280+ yard driving, green hitting putting machine.

 

Some of the players in Obee's tournament will score better than some of the LPGA players did. In their one event compared to the ladies one event.

 

Shilgy,

 

You didn't answer the question: would you take the 150th LPGA player with a calculated index of 1.9 over a men's scratch in a series of matches over an extended period of time (not just one round)? Let's assume that the men's scratch is also based off of T scores (and I could care less about distances hit, as the score is the score and the math is the math.....)

My first sentence in the post you replied to covered that. Yes he could likely topple the #150 player at times. Do I think the calculated handicap for the scratch would likely be higher if he were playing to put bread on the table like the lady pro? Also yes.

You are comparing the scratch to lady pros that will not get or keep their card. Smylie Kaufman is averaging a bit over 74 strokes per round. Likely on courses that would be rated at 75-77 in tournament conditions. The scratch might get lucky and have a good day on a Kaufman poor. Bowditch is averaging 77.17 this year. The scratch might beat him in a tournament round. Occasionally. But not likely in a casual round. Just a guess.

[dhc1]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

As I mentioned earlier there certainly is a lack of depth on the LPGA. Players in the 130-150 range are not as close to being competitive as #200+ on the mens. So your scratch can hang his hat on being able to topple them in a round.

 

But then he would struggle against the 57 year old occasional LPGA player also.

 

Funny how this goes. When discussing men's golf all we hear is "scratch ain't s**t" . But against the woman he turns into a 280+ yard driving, green hitting putting machine.

 

Some of the players in Obee's tournament will score better than some of the LPGA players did. In their one event compared to the ladies one event.

 

Shilgy,

 

You didn't answer the question: would you take the 150th LPGA player with a calculated index of 1.9 over a men's scratch in a series of matches over an extended period of time (not just one round)? Let's assume that the men's scratch is also based off of T scores (and I could care less about distances hit, as the score is the score and the math is the math.....)

My first sentence in the post you replied to covered that. Yes he could likely topple the #150 player at times. Do I think the calculated handicap for the scratch would likely be higher if he were playing to put bread on the table like the lady pro? Also yes.

You are comparing the scratch to lady pros that will not get or keep their card. Smylie Kaufman is averaging a bit over 74 strokes per round. Likely on courses that would be rated at 75-77 in tournament conditions. The scratch might get lucky and have a good day on a Kaufman poor. Bowditch is averaging 77.17 this year. The scratch might beat him in a tournament round. Occasionally. But not likely in a casual round. Just a guess.

 

Respectfully, Shilgy, you still haven't answered the question and your commentary sounds like a reasonable argument why a higher handicap can upset a lower handicap, irrespective of gender. However, that's not what we're discussing here.

 

You specifically stated that they could topple the 150th ranked LPGA "at times" which is not the same as saying that they should be expected to win in a 20 round match. Which is it: the 150th ranked player with a 1.9 calculated index vs. a men's scratch (assuming his scores are T scores) over 20 rounds?

 

The comparison to PGA pros is not worth engaging in and I think you know that as you (rightfully) argued against those same types of points in the 4 vs. LPGA.

[Your-away!]

It must work very differently in America, a scratch Handicap in the Uk would maybe shoot level, maybe 1 or 2 under on an easy day, maybe once every few months, most of the time its mid to late 70's, bad day low 80's, on a tough course

 

Scratch men againt LPGA women would get mullered!

[Your-away!]

Oh and UK handicaps are done through tournaments, if your a scratch from only playing friendly games, then.... :rofl:

[jmck]

Sure, he might shoot 75-75 and miss the cut. Pernilla Lindbergh is on your list at 79-73. Would the scratch have won at the ANA shooting 65-67-70-71? Seems highly unlikely doesn't it? Marina Alex is on your list at 76-74. 10 of her last 26 rounds are in the 60's and she's averaging 71.09 this year on tour. I'm sure your average scratch could do that if he was really about a +3.

 

Handicaps are an interesting thing. We hear "scratch" and think that means the player averages about par. In reality he will average about 3 over the course rating and only even shoot the rating about 1 time in 4. So yes, he could perhaps make a very rare occasional cut.

 

^^^^ This. Every single time this thread comes up posters come out of the woodwork who totally misunderstand the difference between what scores make up a handicap versus what makes up a year long scoring average on the LPGA tour.

 

Care to respond to Argonne's calculated handicap of the 150th ranked player? It's been calculated as equivalent to men's 1.9 index over the season.

 

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

[DavePelz4]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

 

Very interesting scenario. As you can see below, Stephanie Meadow was the 150th ranked LPGA player in 2017 with a scoring average of 73.3. They're only showing 145 players so far this year.

 

150 - Stephanie Meadow - 73.300

 

In 2017 Ms. Meadow had a lowest round of 69 which she posted twice and a high water mark of 79. She played about 35 rounds last year with 25 of them being 75 or less. 10 rounds were 76 or higher.

 

Over a long series of rounds, I'd take her to win 85-90% of the time. Over 35 rounds as she played last year, I think a true scratch such as OB would beat her 3-4 times.

 

What are your thoughts?

[Your-away!]

Sure, he might shoot 75-75 and miss the cut. Pernilla Lindbergh is on your list at 79-73. Would the scratch have won at the ANA shooting 65-67-70-71? Seems highly unlikely doesn't it? Marina Alex is on your list at 76-74. 10 of her last 26 rounds are in the 60's and she's averaging 71.09 this year on tour. I'm sure your average scratch could do that if he was really about a +3.

 

Handicaps are an interesting thing. We hear "scratch" and think that means the player averages about par. In reality he will average about 3 over the course rating and only even shoot the rating about 1 time in 4. So yes, he could perhaps make a very rare occasional cut.

 

^^^^ This. Every single time this thread comes up posters come out of the woodwork who totally misunderstand the difference between what scores make up a handicap versus what makes up a year long scoring average on the LPGA tour.

 

Care to respond to Argonne's calculated handicap of the 150th ranked player? It's been calculated as equivalent to men's 1.9 index over the season.

 

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

 

Totally agree, a scratch wouldnt get any where near any of them rounds apart from maybe the 76 and 79, especially considering the course the women play on, yes it wont be long but it will still be bloomin difficult for a scratch

[dhc1]

Sure, he might shoot 75-75 and miss the cut. Pernilla Lindbergh is on your list at 79-73. Would the scratch have won at the ANA shooting 65-67-70-71? Seems highly unlikely doesn't it? Marina Alex is on your list at 76-74. 10 of her last 26 rounds are in the 60's and she's averaging 71.09 this year on tour. I'm sure your average scratch could do that if he was really about a +3.

 

Handicaps are an interesting thing. We hear "scratch" and think that means the player averages about par. In reality he will average about 3 over the course rating and only even shoot the rating about 1 time in 4. So yes, he could perhaps make a very rare occasional cut.

 

^^^^ This. Every single time this thread comes up posters come out of the woodwork who totally misunderstand the difference between what scores make up a handicap versus what makes up a year long scoring average on the LPGA tour.

 

Care to respond to Argonne's calculated handicap of the 150th ranked player? It's been calculated as equivalent to men's 1.9 index over the season.

 

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

 

 

?

 

Argonne calculated the equivalent index of the 150th ranked LPGA player based upon her actual rounds played and it came up to a men's 1.9. It's math.

[dhc1]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

 

Very interesting scenario. As you can see below, Stephanie Meadow was the 150th ranked LPGA player in 2017 with a scoring average of 73.3. They're only showing 145 players so far this year.

 

150 - Stephanie Meadow - 73.300

 

In 2017 Ms. Meadow had a lowest round of 69 which she posted twice and a high water mark of 79. She played about 35 rounds last year with 25 of them being 75 or less. 10 rounds were 76 or higher.

 

Over a long series of rounds, I'd take her to win 85-90% of the time. Over 35 rounds as she played last year, I think a true scratch such as OB would beat her 3-4 times.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

DP - I haven't done the math myself and am relying on Argonne69 whom I believe is a poster with good intent who understands the handicap system. I have no reason to doubt his calculations as he's a big LPGA supporter. My point is that if the 150th ranked LPGA is a 2 men's index, I'd take the scratch over her. In other words, I trust the math, same as with the 4 vs. an LPGA players - the math is pretty clear.

 

That being said, if I had to guess, i think that the bottom of the LPGA tour is right around scratch and not 2 strokes over. I think that the range of +2 to one over is the approximate range for the back half of the ladies tour. That's great golf IMO.

[DavePelz4]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

 

Very interesting scenario. As you can see below, Stephanie Meadow was the 150th ranked LPGA player in 2017 with a scoring average of 73.3. They're only showing 145 players so far this year.

 

150 - Stephanie Meadow - 73.300

 

In 2017 Ms. Meadow had a lowest round of 69 which she posted twice and a high water mark of 79. She played about 35 rounds last year with 25 of them being 75 or less. 10 rounds were 76 or higher.

 

Over a long series of rounds, I'd take her to win 85-90% of the time. Over 35 rounds as she played last year, I think a true scratch such as OB would beat her 3-4 times.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

DP - I haven't done the math myself and am relying on Argonne69 whom I believe is a poster with good intent and understands the handicap system. My point is that if the 150th ranked LPGA is a 2 men's index, I'd take the scratch over her.

 

If I had to guess, i think that the bottom of the LPGA tour isn't above scratch but right around it. I think that the range of +2 to one over is the approximate range for the back half of the ladies tour. That's great golf IMO.

 

Inside the US handicap system you can't overlook the fact the best 10 of the most recent scores are used as handicaps are more of your "potential" while an average score is just that...an average.

 

Arg knows his stuff and so much of this is still subjective, even though you have historical data to back up either side of the discussion. It's the beauty of the game...for 1 round, anything can happen.

 

I've shared the story before of someone who used to join us on a weekend golf trip. 3 days, 5 rounds. I played with him for 10+ years and maybe saw him break 100,10% of the time. Over 1 weekend he caught fire, posted several rounds in the low 80's and shot a 79. It was a handicapped tournament and he blew the group away by a huge margin. The following weekend he went back to shooting 105. Still one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in golf.

[c7015]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

[KBong]

I've shared the story before of someone who used to join us on a weekend golf trip. 3 days, 5 rounds. I played with him for 10+ years and maybe saw him break 100,10% of the time. Over 1 weekend he caught fire, posted several rounds in the low 80's and shot a 79. It was a handicapped tournament and he blew the group away by a huge margin. The following weekend he went back to shooting 105. Still one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in golf.

LOL

DP4....why doesn't it surprise me that you'd hang out with a sandbagger/cheater.....does he play blades too? :taunt:

[dhc1]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men’s 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men’s college programs. That’s how good the top ams are.

[Shilgy]

All of my posts have said that over then long term the lpga pro wins the vast majority of the time.

 

But...1 round...anything can happen.

 

Would you take the 150th ranked LPGA pro whose recent rounds indicate a men's 1.9 index (as per Argonne) vs. a scratch male amateur over a long series of rounds?

 

Very interesting scenario. As you can see below, Stephanie Meadow was the 150th ranked LPGA player in 2017 with a scoring average of 73.3. They're only showing 145 players so far this year.

 

150 - Stephanie Meadow - 73.300

 

In 2017 Ms. Meadow had a lowest round of 69 which she posted twice and a high water mark of 79. She played about 35 rounds last year with 25 of them being 75 or less. 10 rounds were 76 or higher.

 

Over a long series of rounds, I'd take her to win 85-90% of the time. Over 35 rounds as she played last year, I think a true scratch such as OB would beat her 3-4 times.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

DP - I haven't done the math myself and am relying on Argonne69 whom I believe is a poster with good intent who understands the handicap system. I have no reason to doubt his calculations as he's a big LPGA supporter. My point is that if the 150th ranked LPGA is a 2 men's index, I'd take the scratch over her. In other words, I trust the math, same as with the 4 vs. an LPGA players - the math is pretty clear.

 

That being said, if I had to guess, i think that the bottom of the LPGA tour is right around scratch and not 2 strokes over. I think that the range of +2 to one over is the approximate range for the back half of the ladies tour. That's great golf IMO.

Because you are talking two different players. Argonne went by #150 this year I believe. You would need to ask him. It is early yet in the season. The other posts are using the #150 from last year end. As DP pointed out that was a scoring average of 73.3.

[Shilgy]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men's 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men's college programs. That's how good the top ams are.

Now who is changing the parameters? We are not discussing the US Am winner or D1 player are we? Are they anything like a scratch player? More likely +3 to +5.

 

This is exactly why I was staying out of this thread. And I will let myself back out again now.

 

Have a great weekend all!

[DavePelz4]

I've shared the story before of someone who used to join us on a weekend golf trip. 3 days, 5 rounds. I played with him for 10+ years and maybe saw him break 100,10% of the time. Over 1 weekend he caught fire, posted several rounds in the low 80's and shot a 79. It was a handicapped tournament and he blew the group away by a huge margin. The following weekend he went back to shooting 105. Still one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in golf.

LOL

DP4....why doesn't it surprise me that you'd hang out with a sandbagger/cheater.....does he play blades too? :taunt:

 

Over the years, he lost thousands and thousands of dollars to the group. As much as I suck, he sucked even more if that's possible. But that 1 weekend, he was just amazing. He played Callaway Diablo irons. The stupid things you remember Sir.

[jmck]

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

 

 

?

 

Argonne calculated the equivalent index of the 150th ranked LPGA player based upon her actual rounds played and it came up to a men's 1.9. It's math.

 

It's not just math. That's the point you keep missing. Player A posts a 1.9 cap playing a different course every week under tournament conditions. Player B posts a 1.9 cap in casual rounds with his buddies playing the same country club year 'round. Player A waxes player B 9+ times out of 10.

 

It's like saying a bum and Bill Gates look at a twenty dollar bill the same way because "it's math."

[KBong]

I'm late to the party....so I maybe be repeating things.

If indeed Steph Meadow's is a 1.9 men's cap and Obee is a scratch......I'd still take Meadows to win more stroke play matches over the long run assuming it's on a course played no longer than 6400 or 6500 yards.

I might think if they played match play.....then results might be 50/50.

 

Why?

I don't know Obee....I assume he's a regular guy with a regular life...has a family, a regular job and plays golf about 10 hrs a week...2 rds plus a bit of practice.

 

Although Steph Meadows is a low ranking LPGA pro and assuming she doesn't have a P/T regular job to help out with finances....Steph likely plays/practices 60-70+ hours a week...why so much golf?...because she is struggling to make a living playing competitive golf...so she needs to put in that much more time to excel.

 

That means Steph is playing/practicing anywhere from 50-60 more hours that Obee...assuming he's a regular working class family man.

Therefore with so much play....Steph's touch is more consistent/refined and won't likely have as many blow up holes in stroke play vs a 'regular' scratch player.

[dhc1]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men's 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men's college programs. That's how good the top ams are.

Now who is changing the parameters? We are not discussing the US Am winner or D1 player are we? Are they anything like a scratch player? More likely +3 to +5.

 

This is exactly why I was staying out of this thread. And I will let myself back out again now.

 

Have a great weekend all!

 

C’mon Shilgy. Jumping into a thread that you’ve misunderstood is poor form.

 

You can clearly see that the poster I responded to was drawing a distinction between pros and all amateurs as s/he states that the pro “ALWAYS beats a good amateur.”

[KBong]

I've shared the story before of someone who used to join us on a weekend golf trip. 3 days, 5 rounds. I played with him for 10+ years and maybe saw him break 100,10% of the time. Over 1 weekend he caught fire, posted several rounds in the low 80's and shot a 79. It was a handicapped tournament and he blew the group away by a huge margin. The following weekend he went back to shooting 105. Still one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in golf.

LOL

DP4....why doesn't it surprise me that you'd hang out with a sandbagger/cheater.....does he play blades too? :taunt:

 

Over the years, he lost thousands and thousands of dollars to the group. As much as I suck, he sucked even more if that's possible. But that 1 weekend, he was just amazing. He played Callaway Diablo irons. The stupid things you remember Sir.

LOL

Glad to see you and I are similar and have 'easy target/suck*r' golf friends who like to donate to our "Green Fee" charity funds...maybe we should combine our efforts and start a GoFundMe account for ourselves....I'd like to base in in the US......$1 US greenback = $1.35 Canadian peso.

[c7015]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men's 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men's college programs. That's how good the top ams are.

 

how is a D1 men's college player a Middle-aged Scratch?

[c7015]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men's 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men's college programs. That's how good the top ams are.

Now who is changing the parameters? We are not discussing the US Am winner or D1 player are we? Are they anything like a scratch player? More likely +3 to +5.

 

This is exactly why I was staying out of this thread. And I will let myself back out again now.

 

Have a great weekend all!

 

C'mon Shilgy. Jumping into a thread that you've misunderstood is poor form.

 

You can clearly see that the poster I responded to was drawing a distinction between pros and all amateurs as s/he states that the pro "ALWAYS beats a good amateur."

 

in a thread where the entire context is based off LPGA Tour vs. Middle-aged Scratch and Below

[dhc1]

oh probably don't need to jump in here at page 8 but the pedigree of a tour player always trumps a good am even if a stats case can be made for either group IMO.

 

This is just as wrong as saying a men's 4 would be competitive with an LPGA player.

 

The winners of the US Am and MidAm would demolish the lower end LPGA player. Same with the good D1 men's college programs. That's how good the top ams are.

Now who is changing the parameters? We are not discussing the US Am winner or D1 player are we? Are they anything like a scratch player? More likely +3 to +5.

 

This is exactly why I was staying out of this thread. And I will let myself back out again now.

 

Have a great weekend all!

 

C'mon Shilgy. Jumping into a thread that you've misunderstood is poor form.

 

You can clearly see that the poster I responded to was drawing a distinction between pros and all amateurs as s/he states that the pro "ALWAYS beats a good amateur."

 

in a thread where the entire context is based off LPGA Tour vs. Middle-aged Scratch and Below

 

The context of this poster was he was jumping in 8 pages in. Perhaps I misunderstood that poster’s intent and he was referring to scratch rather than pro vs amateur and was engaging in hyperbole

[dhc1]

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

 

 

?

 

Argonne calculated the equivalent index of the 150th ranked LPGA player based upon her actual rounds played and it came up to a men's 1.9. It's math.

 

It's not just math. That's the point you keep missing. Player A posts a 1.9 cap playing a different course every week under tournament conditions. Player B posts a 1.9 cap in casual rounds with his buddies playing the same country club year 'round. Player A waxes player B 9+ times out of 10.

 

It's like saying a bum and Bill Gates look at a twenty dollar bill the same way because "it's math."

 

Why are you assuming that the men’s amateur only plays “casual rounds with his buddies playing the same country club year 'round?“ I’d guess that’s not how Obee and his fellow competitors would describe themselves....

 

It would be interesting to see how amateurs’ regular handicaps compare to their tournament handicaps (calculated on just their tournaments scores), assuming you know, that those scratch players can tear themselves away from their same country club to compete.

[dhc1]

I'm late to the party....so I maybe be repeating things.

If indeed Steph Meadow's is a 1.9 men's cap and Obee is a scratch......I'd still take Meadows to win more stroke play matches over the long run assuming it's on a course played no longer than 6400 or 6500 yards.

I might think if they played match play.....then results might be 50/50.

 

Why?

I don't know Obee....I assume he's a regular guy with a regular life...has a family, a regular job and plays golf about 10 hrs a week...2 rds plus a bit of practice.

 

Although Steph Meadows is a low ranking LPGA pro and assuming she doesn't have a P/T regular job to help out with finances....Steph likely plays/practices 60-70+ hours a week...why so much golf?...because she is struggling to make a living playing competitive golf...so she needs to put in that much more time to excel.

 

That means Steph is playing/practicing anywhere from 50-60 more hours that Obee...assuming he's a regular working class family man.

Therefore with so much play....Steph's touch is more consistent/refined and won't likely have as many blow up holes in stroke play vs a 'regular' scratch player.

 

Kbong,

 

Thanks for the response.

 

Can you walk me through the logic? Player A practices daily and based upon that practice level shoots averages 5 over par over 20 rounds. Player B doesn’t practice nearly as much but on the same courses shoots an average of three over par over 20 rounds (or two stroke better.)

 

Why is player A more likely to win a heads up match over 20 rounds?

[jmck]

What's a men's 1.9 doing playing on the LPGA tour? Did he get a sponsor's exemption?

 

There is zero chance a men's 1.9 index can get through LPGA Q school. He could maybe sneak through round one if he plays to his index. He could maybe sneak through round two if he plays out of his mind. He would get absolutely smoked in the finals. 20 players get through the finals and earn a card. Five under over the course of four rounds got you a tie for 20th last year. Like Shilgy says, a scratch golfer shoots the course rating approximately one round out of four. You really think a 1.9 man is going shoot a total of five under for four consecutive rounds in tournament conditions?

 

Here. Take a look at the rounds the 150th player had to shoot to make an LPGA cut last year.

 

Four cuts made in 20 events = 150th on the LPGA tour. These are the scores from those four events that added up to making about ~$24k in a full year on the LPGA tour.

 

73-68-74-73

67-71-69

72-69-79-74

67-74-76-73

 

That's five out of 15 rounds where she broke 70.....all to make four cuts out of 20 (and $24k), good for 150th on the LPGA tour. Good luck to your 1.9 handicap man. He's going to need it.

 

 

?

 

Argonne calculated the equivalent index of the 150th ranked LPGA player based upon her actual rounds played and it came up to a men's 1.9. It's math.

 

It's not just math. That's the point you keep missing. Player A posts a 1.9 cap playing a different course every week under tournament conditions. Player B posts a 1.9 cap in casual rounds with his buddies playing the same country club year 'round. Player A waxes player B 9+ times out of 10.

 

It's like saying a bum and Bill Gates look at a twenty dollar bill the same way because "it's math."

 

Why are you assuming that the men's amateur only plays "casual rounds with his buddies playing the same country club year 'round?" I'd guess that's not how Obee and his fellow competitors would describe themselves....

 

It would be interesting to see how amateurs' regular handicaps compare to their tournament handicaps (calculated on just their tournaments scores), assuming you know, that those scratch players can tear themselves away from their same country club to compete.

 

Where did I say anything about Obee's group? I'm using a straight forward example to point out the flaw in your continuing assumption that a 1.9 cap = a 1.9 cap = a 1.9 cap, which just isn't true.

 

Second of all, it would indeed be a safe assumption that there is no one in Obee's group who plays as much tournament golf as an LPGA tour player.

 

Here's another example for you. A 1.9 from Oakmont smokes a 1.9 from Goat Hill Muni 9+ times out of 10, despite all the math being done via slope/ratings.

 

For you to keep saying "it's math" displays a deep lack of understanding how tournament golf actually works.

[Argonne69]

Keep in mind that I calculated the indexes using the men's 71.8 rating for the blue tees at Wilshire CC, as I don't have the ratings for the courses hosting the LPGA tournaments. I play courses averaging 6400 yards, and I believe the rating is a good representation of the courses they play. Of course the actual indexes could be a bit higher or lower.

[kekoa]

I know an LPGA golfer. Have played a lot of golf with her. Have seen her play with scratch golfers. Not even close.

 

Meghan (sp?) right? I had a chance to speak with her after the round saturday. She was super nice and almost gave me her putter. lmao

[KBong]

Kbong,

 

Thanks for the response.

 

Can you walk me through the logic? Player A practices daily and based upon that practice level shoots averages 5 over par over 20 rounds. Player B doesn't practice nearly as much but on the same courses shoots an average of three over par over 20 rounds (or two stroke better.)

 

Why is player A more likely to win a heads up match over 20 rounds?

No logic...just my opinion.

 

Steph who would play so much more and basically everyday....has some good muscle memory/touch to scramble well vs. Obee who doesn't play often.....though Steph's cap is 2 strokes higher...I think her scoring dispersion might be generally tighter...I think the scores from Steph are from unfamiliar courses.....where Obee might play a lot at a few familiar courses...not to say his cap can't travel well.....so those 'blow-up' rds he would lose.

 

Obviously nothing is back up with fact in this thread....but if I was betting....I think Steph would win 11 vs 9 times over Obee....once the match changes to over 6700.....Obee has the advantage and winning more....7000+ yards....Obee's winning 15-5...maybe 16-4.

[BIG STU]

They say put your money where your mouth is. I'll put up serious collateral in the form of a dozen KSig golf balls, with free shipping and take OB for the win against the first person, only, who is willing to donate the equivalent value to their local First Tee when OB wins.

 

Again first person only to post in this thread.

 

Mods,hopefully this is OK?

Hey you know I will gamble at the drop of a hat. I said way back this would be a pick bet. OK you made your pick I will pick the LPGA ladies. To show you how much a gambler I am if you had picked the LPGA ladies I would have took Obee. Now K Sigs are not available here but should I lose I will donate a dozen Srixon or something comparable to the First tee here and if you lose you can donate the Kirklands to the First Tee in your area. But I will not put "Little Chicago" in the bet It aint leaving here--- PM me with the results---