LPGA Off Season

[AWinfortheAges]

Looks like theye found everything now. From her Insta...

• daniellekang
  Clubs were randomly thrown in the streets and were recovered thanks to the people that picked them up and returned it! Some definitely need to be looked at but I’m glad no one was hurt. Also very thankful for the Las Vegas police department for being so prompt as well. Car was found too. All of the material stuff can be fixed so no worries there. Everyone just stay healthy and have a happy new year ♥️
  

 

Good thing she didn`t find the culprit, she tends to run a bit hot sometimes.

 

I can't remember the source, but I think an interview of her brother exists where he states that she hates when people touch her clubs. And she either was motivated to beat someone really bad in a round because of it, or she and the individual got into it physically.

[Argonne69]

While watching the PGA at Torrey Pines on Saturday, I noticed that two of the par 5's had been set up at under 550 yds. The median driving distance on the tour is now 292 yds, which means the mid-pack player is hitting an iron into the green for their second shot. If I hear one more person complain about how the LPGA sets up the courses short I'm going to have a conniption.

[North Texas]

While watching the PGA at Torrey Pines on Saturday, I noticed that two of the par 5's had been set up at under 550 yds. The median driving distance on the tour is now 292 yds, which means the mid-pack player is hitting an iron into the green for their second shot. If I hear one more person complain about how the LPGA sets up the courses short I'm going to have a conniption.

 

Yep. Most people who complain about how the LPGA sets up the courses on the short side do not realize that, comparatively speaking, the women play a longer course then the men do most every week. Then you have the usual suspects who have to feel good about themselves and put down the women's game. And then you have those that are just clueless in general.

[new2g0lf]

While watching the PGA at Torrey Pines on Saturday, I noticed that two of the par 5's had been set up at under 550 yds. The median driving distance on the tour is now 292 yds, which means the mid-pack player is hitting an iron into the green for their second shot. If I hear one more person complain about how the LPGA sets up the courses short I'm going to have a conniption.

 

Yep. Most people who complain about how the LPGA sets up the courses on the short side do not realize that, comparatively speaking, the women play a longer course then the men do most every week. Then you have the usual suspects who have to feel good about themselves and put down the women's game. And then you have those that are just clueless in general.

 

I don't think it's putting down the women's game to recognize the course length is different and imo that is what detracts appreciation from the women's game.

 

Women marathoners run 26.2 miles, the same distance as the men so direct comparisons can be made between the mens and womens time and most people accept and respect the reason for the time differences.

 

In golf they have created different playing fields so womens scores more closely reflect the mens but the scores are "tainted" by playing a shorter course. If you're not not factoring handicap index, slope and course rating into the equation there's no way to fairly compare 2 men that play from different tee boxes, the scores don't tell the entire story in golf and thus that is the problem I see when people compare the talent on the LPGA to the PGA, it's apples and oranges.

[Argonne69]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

[new2g0lf]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

 

Slippery slope much? We're not talking about kids or amateurs, we're talking about the best male and female golfers in the world.

 

For us mere mortals, handicap index, course rating and slope provide us with with ways of comparing games with people that use different tee boxes, that is not the case with the professionals. There is no quantifiable method to compare the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour players. There's plenty of threads that suggest a male scratch golfer can compete on the LPGA Tour but it's all subjective opinion. If the women played the same courses and similar distances you could better quantify how good they are compared to the men, which maybe is why they don't want to.

[Argonne69]

They don't want to? Lol. How many courses that host the men are willing to allow the women to set foot on the course? Very, very few. Until the women get a chance to play many of the same courses, it's kind of moot. Why would they want to play the same distances? They already have a smaller audience than the men. Would many people trek out to watch them shoot in the 90's playing 7700 yard courses?

 

The two tours are entertainment. Birdies attract crowds. I have no problem if either tour has a few short par 5's, or driveable par 4's. Since the players are competing against each other under the same conditions, it doesn't really matter. I was simply pointing out that a vocal minority like to give the women grief for playing "easy" courses, when the men do exactly the same thing.

[North Texas]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

 

Slippery slope much? We're not talking about kids or amateurs, we're talking about the best male and female golfers in the world.

 

For us mere mortals, handicap index, course rating and slope provide us with with ways of comparing games with people that use different tee boxes, that is not the case with the professionals. There is no quantifiable method to compare the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour players. There's plenty of threads that suggest a male scratch golfer can compete on the LPGA Tour but it's all subjective opinion. If the women played the same courses and similar distances you could better quantify how good they are compared to the men, which maybe is why they don't want to.

 

Serious question. Why is it important that we, or you, need to quantify how good the women are compared to men? Don't you already know or have a good idea?

[new2g0lf]

They don't want to? Lol. How many courses that host the men are willing to allow the women to set foot on the course? Very, very few. Until the women get a chance to play many of the same courses, it's kind of moot. Why would they want to play the same distances? They already have a smaller audience than the men. Would many people trek out to watch them shoot in the 90's playing 7700 yard courses?

 

The two tours are entertainment. Birdies attract crowds. I have no problem if either tour has a few short par 5's, or driveable par 4's. Since the players are competing against each other under the same conditions, it doesn't really matter. I was simply pointing out that a vocal minority like to give the women grief for playing "easy" courses, when the men do exactly the same thing.

 

To my knowledge there's less than a handful of courses that are men only but I haven't done comprehensive research to verify it. Great players attract crowds, Tiger on an off day has a larger gallery than most tournament leaders.

 

Not to beat a dead horse but women marathoners compete on the same course as men as they do in most other sports. I've never heard it suggested that women marathons should be shortened so their times are more in line with the men.

 

I suggested similar distances as a way to better manage the comparisons when some wish to discuss equal pay and abilities. I don't believe a course should be altered to provide more birdies for either men or women. Let's the courses play as they were intended and the scores be what they are.

[new2g0lf]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

 

Slippery slope much? We're not talking about kids or amateurs, we're talking about the best male and female golfers in the world.

 

For us mere mortals, handicap index, course rating and slope provide us with with ways of comparing games with people that use different tee boxes, that is not the case with the professionals. There is no quantifiable method to compare the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour players. There's plenty of threads that suggest a male scratch golfer can compete on the LPGA Tour but it's all subjective opinion. If the women played the same courses and similar distances you could better quantify how good they are compared to the men, which maybe is why they don't want to.

 

Serious question. Why is it important that we, or you, need to quantify how good the women are compared to men? Don't you already know or have a good idea?

 

I don't really care, but I often see multiple threads about equal pay or how the men and women compare in terms of their abilities so it would be helpful for the masses to have real data. Golf is one of the few individual sports where you are forced to speculate because there is little to no data that offers a real comparison. As I said in the above post, I don't believe courses should be altered to artificially lower scores, let them play the courses and let the scores be what they are. The courses you and I play aren't manipulated to allow us shoot lower scores, so I'm not sure why it's necessary at the pro level beyond wanting to exaggerate their already outstanding abilities.

[ChronicSlicer]

 

 

I suggested similar distances as a way to better manage the comparisons when some wish to discuss equal pay and abilities.

 

In all reality all this would do is prove the guys are longer, which everyone knows. All you could use to compare them would be putting really.

[Titleist_PT23]

They don't want to? Lol. How many courses that host the men are willing to allow the women to set foot on the course? Very, very few. Until the women get a chance to play many of the same courses, it's kind of moot. Why would they want to play the same distances? They already have a smaller audience than the men. Would many people trek out to watch them shoot in the 90's playing 7700 yard courses?

 

The two tours are entertainment. Birdies attract crowds. I have no problem if either tour has a few short par 5's, or driveable par 4's. Since the players are competing against each other under the same conditions, it doesn't really matter. I was simply pointing out that a vocal minority like to give the women grief for playing "easy" courses, when the men do exactly the same thing.

 

To my knowledge there's less than a handful of courses that are men only but I haven't done comprehensive research to verify it. Great players attract crowds, Tiger on an off day has a larger gallery than most tournament leaders.

 

Not to beat a dead horse but women marathoners compete on the same course as men as they do in most other sports. I've never heard it suggested that women marathons should be shortened so their times are more in line with the men.

 

I suggested similar distances as a way to better manage the comparisons when some wish to discuss equal pay and abilities. I don't believe a course should be altered to provide more birdies for either men or women. Let's the courses play as they were intended and the scores be what they are.

Similar distances and seeing what the women would shoot have nothing to do with equal pay. Regardless of what some think is right, fair, or ideal, the pay won't be the same until the viewership/advertising proposition is the same for those putting up the money. If all you are trying to say is that Stacy Lewis' comments about "I hit the same percentage of fairways/GIR, pay me the same" are out of touch with reality, then fine.

 

Honestly, I don't really get what you are trying to prove here. As you mention, marathon times are longer for women and everyone understands/knows that. Having women play a 7000+ yard course will just result in some degree of higher scores, which everyone already knows too.

 

To me, adjusted for driving distance / clubhead speed (which is a fundamental piece of ability in the game of golf), the women are playing very comparable course lengths and putting up very comparable scores to the men on the PGA tour. In reality, most amateur hacks play tees that are way too long relative to what the LPGA/PGA players play. 200 yards x 26 = a lot of middle aged men should be teeing off from the red tee box at their local course.

 

If you want to see how women will do against scratch men, then just get funding and sponsor an event that will let these different groups of players compete against each other on the same course. There's no reason to ruin the LPGA's tournaments (i.e product) by having them all tee it up at 7,000+ week after week.

[Titleist_PT23]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

 

Slippery slope much? We're not talking about kids or amateurs, we're talking about the best male and female golfers in the world.

 

For us mere mortals, handicap index, course rating and slope provide us with with ways of comparing games with people that use different tee boxes, that is not the case with the professionals. There is no quantifiable method to compare the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour players. There's plenty of threads that suggest a male scratch golfer can compete on the LPGA Tour but it's all subjective opinion. If the women played the same courses and similar distances you could better quantify how good they are compared to the men, which maybe is why they don't want to.

Also, exactly what a "scratch" golfer is can be quite different.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 72 rating / 130 slope / 6500 yard course? He'll get crushed every day.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 74 rating / 140 slope / 7000 yard course? This person probably hits it about 275 yards on average. If this type of player is the competition on a 7,000 yard course then maybe it's a real question.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 77 rating / 150 slope / 7500+ yard course? How many of these people are there really? Seems like if you are playing these tees you are a pro / aspiring pro and are better than scratch. Regardless, at some point these scratch players will win if the course is long enough, as the women just can't hit it far enough to reach greens in regulation.

[Argonne69]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

[new2g0lf]

So, basically what you're saying is that every golfer should tee it up from 7700 yds, and if they shoot 120, so be it. Then everyone would be able to compare the games, even if the rounds wound up taking 6 hours.

 

At the same time the Little League World Series should be played in Yankee Stadium on a full size field, because then we'd know how the 13 year olds compare to the major league players.

 

Slippery slope much? We're not talking about kids or amateurs, we're talking about the best male and female golfers in the world.

 

For us mere mortals, handicap index, course rating and slope provide us with with ways of comparing games with people that use different tee boxes, that is not the case with the professionals. There is no quantifiable method to compare the LPGA Tour and PGA Tour players. There's plenty of threads that suggest a male scratch golfer can compete on the LPGA Tour but it's all subjective opinion. If the women played the same courses and similar distances you could better quantify how good they are compared to the men, which maybe is why they don't want to.

Also, exactly what a "scratch" golfer is can be quite different.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 72 rating / 130 slope / 6500 yard course? He'll get crushed every day.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 74 rating / 140 slope / 7000 yard course? This person probably hits it about 275 yards on average. If this type of player is the competition on a 7,000 yard course then maybe it's a real question.

 

A guy that is scratch on a 77 rating / 150 slope / 7500+ yard course? How many of these people are there really? Seems like if you are playing these tees you are a pro / aspiring pro and are better than scratch. Regardless, at some point these scratch players will win if the course is long enough, as the women just can't hit it far enough to reach greens in regulation.

 

That is my point, once you get to the professional level, index, course rating and slope are not considered for men or women. We have no way to make any of the comparisons you list because the women's courses are set up so they can achieve a winning score that is consistent with mens scores. The tournament committee manipulates the course setup to achieve a score within a desired range, it all just seems contrived, especially in cases where the women play the same course as the men.

[new2g0lf]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

 

Most courses on a daily basis are setup to provide relief to tee boxes and areas of the green that need time to heal and pace of play. Little consideration is given to how hard the course will play (beyond pace of play issues) unless there's a specific tournament on that day.

 

Entertainment is about watching the best compete. Baseball is also about entertainment but MLB doesn't tell teams to adjust their outfield fences based on their rosters so every team hits a similar number of home runs.

[North Texas]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

 

Most courses on a daily basis are setup to provide relief to tee boxes and areas of the green that need time to heal and pace of play. Little consideration is given to how hard the course will play (beyond pace of play issues) unless there's a specific tournament on that day.

 

Entertainment is about watching the best compete. Baseball is also about entertainment but MLB doesn't tell teams to adjust their outfield fences based on their rosters so every team hits a similar number of home runs.

 

I'm just going to quote agolf1 from his above post #72.

 

"Honestly, I don't really get what you are trying to prove here."

[new2g0lf]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

 

Most courses on a daily basis are setup to provide relief to tee boxes and areas of the green that need time to heal and pace of play. Little consideration is given to how hard the course will play (beyond pace of play issues) unless there's a specific tournament on that day.

 

Entertainment is about watching the best compete. Baseball is also about entertainment but MLB doesn't tell teams to adjust their outfield fences based on their rosters so every team hits a similar number of home runs.

 

I'm just going to quote agolf1 from his above post #72.

 

"Honestly, I don't really get what you are trying to prove here."

 

I'm honestly not trying to prove anything, just having a discussion about my observations on how men and women are compared within different sports.

 

It seems to me that if the powers that be were really that interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers regardless of sex and age they'd play the same tees and courses rather than fabricate a course set up to achieve a specific winning score.

 

When you and I play in a tournament, we factor in handicap index, CR and slope and play the same course, that's why there are best gross and net awards.

[Argonne69]

The answer is simple. The powers that be are not at all interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers against each other. They're interested in TV ratings. Period.

 

Any discussion of men vs. women is strictly confined to the halls of GolfWRX forums, where a handful of low single digit cappers believe they are superior to the LPGA players because they can hit a drive 275 yards, and that any woman capable of shooting par or better must be the result of tricked-up course conditions, including gimmicky short par 4's and 5's.

[North Texas]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

 

Most courses on a daily basis are setup to provide relief to tee boxes and areas of the green that need time to heal and pace of play. Little consideration is given to how hard the course will play (beyond pace of play issues) unless there's a specific tournament on that day.

 

Entertainment is about watching the best compete. Baseball is also about entertainment but MLB doesn't tell teams to adjust their outfield fences based on their rosters so every team hits a similar number of home runs.

 

I'm just going to quote agolf1 from his above post #72.

 

"Honestly, I don't really get what you are trying to prove here."

 

I'm honestly not trying to prove anything, just having a discussion about my observations on how men and women are compared within different sports.

 

It seems to me that if the powers that be were really that interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers regardless of sex and age they'd play the same tees and courses rather than fabricate a course set up to achieve a specific winning score.

 

When you and I play in a tournament, we factor in handicap index, CR and slope and play the same course, that's why there are best gross and net awards.

 

Where have you gotten the idea that the powers that be have an interest in measuring the abilities of pro golfers regardless of sex and age?

[new2g0lf]

The courses we play are altered all the time to effect scores. You ever play a course set up for a greenskeeper's revenge event? The course can easily be 10 to 20 strokes harder than a normal setup. On the flipside, plenty of courses set pin positions in easy spots at times, and move tee markers forward in the teeing area. Heck, why not just leave the tees at the back of the teeing area to make the hole play as long as possible?

 

Again, professional tournament golf is about entertainment, not making the course as difficult as possible.

 

Most courses on a daily basis are setup to provide relief to tee boxes and areas of the green that need time to heal and pace of play. Little consideration is given to how hard the course will play (beyond pace of play issues) unless there's a specific tournament on that day.

 

Entertainment is about watching the best compete. Baseball is also about entertainment but MLB doesn't tell teams to adjust their outfield fences based on their rosters so every team hits a similar number of home runs.

 

I'm just going to quote agolf1 from his above post #72.

 

"Honestly, I don't really get what you are trying to prove here."

 

I'm honestly not trying to prove anything, just having a discussion about my observations on how men and women are compared within different sports.

 

It seems to me that if the powers that be were really that interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers regardless of sex and age they'd play the same tees and courses rather than fabricate a course set up to achieve a specific winning score.

 

When you and I play in a tournament, we factor in handicap index, CR and slope and play the same course, that's why there are best gross and net awards.

 

Where have you gotten the idea that the powers that be have an interest in measuring the abilities of pro golfers regardless of sex and age?

 

I haven't, I know for a fact they aren't but there are numerous discussions here about how the PGA should assist the LPGA, how LPGA players should play in PGA events, pay gaps and comparisons of scratch golfers and LPGA members which is really what I was responding to.

[I_HATE_SNOW]

The answer is simple. The powers that be are not at all interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers against each other. They're interested in TV ratings. Period.

 

Any discussion of men vs. women is strictly confined to the halls of GolfWRX forums, where a handful of low single digit cappers believe they are superior to the LPGA players because they can hit a drive 275 yards, and that any woman capable of shooting par or better must be the result of tricked-up course conditions, including gimmicky short par 4's and 5's.

This, so many lose sight of professional sports being pure entertainment.

[ChronicSlicer]

The answer is simple. The powers that be are not at all interested in measuring the abilities of pro golfers against each other. They're interested in TV ratings. Period.

 

Any discussion of men vs. women is strictly confined to the halls of GolfWRX forums, where a handful of low single digit cappers believe they are superior to the LPGA players because they can hit a drive 275 yards, and that any woman capable of shooting par or better must be the result of tricked-up course conditions, including gimmicky short par 4's and 5's.

 

I`m roughly 450 miles away and could hear the mic drop on that one! Well said.

[Raving Shanker]

Apparently I am going to cause conniptions with this comment, but i would like to see the women play longer holes. It has nothing to do with men, or comparisons with men. It is because I'd like to see a wider range of golf skills tested. The standard and common 350 yard hole in the LPGA is a drive and wedge for Lexi, but it's a drive and 8-iron for even the shorter hitters. My own experience is that standing over a 100 m pitching wedge for a second shot is a whole lot more comfortable than a 6-iron or longer. The longer shot tests your mettle, as well as your skill. The LPGA would be tougher, and more intriguing to watch, if some length were added to the women's game - not on every hole, but overall.

 

It was pointed out that the women are already playing a proportionally longer course than the men. I agree! But there is not much that can be done with the men because it's a real estate problem. It is a bit sad and frustrating that my home city, Adelaide SA, could never hold a top flight men's event in this era. The 3 courses that stage the Australian women's open have no capacity to be lengthened for a men's event. To make them suitably difficult they'd have to be tricked up to hell.

[Raving Shanker]

This thread is the off-season thread! I think it should be pronounced officially dead. Roll on Thursday!

[ChronicSlicer]

Apparently I am going to cause conniptions with this comment, but i would like to see the women play longer holes. It has nothing to do with men, or comparisons with men. It is because I'd like to see a wider range of golf skills tested. The standard and common 350 yard hole in the LPGA is a drive and wedge for Lexi, but it's a drive and 8-iron for even the shorter hitters. My own experience is that standing over a 100 m pitching wedge for a second shot is a whole lot more comfortable than a 6-iron or longer. The longer shot tests your mettle, as well as your skill. The LPGA would be tougher, and more intriguing to watch, if some length were added to the women's game - not on every hole, but overall.

 

I`m all for testing skill levels, but I really don`t enjoy watching bogey golf every week. Tell the "shorter" hitters to spend more time in the gym, swing faster and eat spinach. ( It worked for Popeye )

 

If that doesn`t work, just ask Lexi to dial it back a tad bit. I`m sure she`ll understand.

[Argonne69]

I thought the Olympic Golf Course used for the 2016 Olympics was a great test of golf. There was a good balance of long and short holes. The par 4 2nd, 7th, 11th, 12th, and 13th all played more than 440 yds. It was no pitch and putt. The par 5 1st and 10th played more than 550 yds. The par 3 14th was over 200 yds, which offset the par 3 17th that played just over 100 yds. There were three short par 4s that played under 350 yds.

[Titleist_PT23]

I thought the Olympic Golf Course used for the 2016 Olympics was a great test of golf. There was a good balance of long and short holes. The par 4 2nd, 7th, 11th, 12th, and 13th all played more than 440 yds. It was no pitch and putt. The par 5 1st and 10th played more than 550 yds. The par 3 14th was over 200 yds, which offset the par 3 17th that played just over 100 yds. There were three short par 4s that played under 350 yds.

I don't have any real data here, but it "feels" like the women have more long-irons (to the extent in the bag) or hybrids into par 4 greens than the men do. Heck, a 500 yard par 4 is a driver and mid-iron these days for a lot of guys on the PGA Tour.

 

One other advantage the men have is if they hit it into the rough, they have the swing speed to get the ball out of all but the worst lies. At 95 mph, this can be difficult for some mid-irons and is next to impossible for anything longer if you don't have a good lie.

 

Clearly, the women are more accurate off the tee, although I don't know if this is just because 3 degrees offline is less total yards right/left at 250 yards vs. 300 yards and both are hitting to roughly the same fairways (in terms of width). Again, no data on this either but it also looks like the PGA tour has more greens with forced carries / water in front/around vs. some of the LPGA courses look like the tracks us mortals can play on a regular basis (i.e. easier for the ladies to just hack the ball up towards the green even if the shot is low/running).

[Titleist_PT23]

I haven't, I know for a fact they aren't but there are numerous discussions here about how the PGA should assist the LPGA, how LPGA players should play in PGA events, pay gaps and comparisons of scratch golfers and LPGA members which is really what I was responding to.

Posted elsewhere. Obviously, this is not the greatest field. Distance is not set at exact parity like you dream of but there is clearly an advantage for the men.

 

http://www.vicopengolf.com/card

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/the-vic-open-is-more-than-a-novel-event-its-a-model-for-the-future

 

Amid all of this giddiness, there have been one or two murmurings of discontent. Many of the women have noted the sight of several of their tees sitting either directly alongside or marginally ahead of those of the men. This, many argue, will lead to a wide disparity in the winning scores that will only support the chauvinistic notion that the men can play and the women can’t.

 

“It’s not that hard,” says one woman who asked not to be identified. “All they have to do is set the test up so that we are all hitting the same clubs into the greens. There are some holes out there where I’ll be going in with a hybrid and many of the men will be hitting short irons. To a tight pin, that’s just not fair.”

[Argonne69]

Yeah, ridiculous that the women are playing the course 5% shorter than the men, even though the women average 15% shorter off the tee.