Anonymous WRX'er gets his 15 minutes - says 4 hdcp male could win on LPGA

[jvincent]

The point you're missing is that the LPGA doesn't play the ladies tees at your course. They play the equivalent of the men's tees. Just like the men pro's play tees that are way further back than you'd ever play.

I was doing a comparison based on a local course that I know which has hosted an LPGA event. The ladies played the equivalent of the member's men's tees, around 6500-6600 yards. The +4s who play that course don't shoot 62 every time they play those tees.

[ebrasmus21]

Nor do the women shoot 62s every time they tee it up but point taken, I hear you.

[One Putter]

I'm a 2 or 3 hdcp and i'm very confident that any female pro would play circles around me.

 

That's how you know that whoever made that ridiculous comment in the OP isn't a good player. People who are fairly decent at golf recognize how insanely good that next level really is.

[nsxguy]

Wasn't there an old thread on wrx about a SCRATCH player beating an LPGA pro ?

Can't seem to find it.

[m d g]

"I guess to put it another way, if the guys I had in mind only played ladies tees I don’t think they’d be +4’s because they’re already +4’s. If they played ladies tees only I suspect they’d be a nice clip lower than +4"

But wouldn't they just shoot really low scores from the ladies' tees and still be +4s? They'd be expected to shoot low 60s or whatever instead of their usual 67-68 from the tips.

I have a friend who likes to play from the senior tees so sometimes I join him. If I normally shoot 78-82 from my normal tees, I believe I'd be expected to shoot 75-79 (or whatever the differential is) from the senior tees. My index wouldn't change.

I thought that was how it worked.

[oikos1]

No one has yet to mention the mental fortitude an LPGA player would have over a male 4 cap. They would get absolutely destroyed. It's like no one realizes that is the absolute difference between a professional on either the PGA Tour or the LPGA Tour verses the guys you know who can hit it far and shoot "pretty good" scores.

Hopefully this thread will provide some good comedy.

[ThinkingPlus]

Theoretically what you say is true, however in reality it isn't that simple. For most players, there are tees that fit them best and they will shoot their lowest differentials from those tees. They will shoot lower scores from shorter tees and higher from longer tees, but there is a sweet spot for everyone. The issue with playing a really short course/tee is you have to shoot obscenely low to maintain a plus cap from such "easy" tees. Making 10-12 birdies 8 out of twenty rounds with no bogeys can be really, really hard. Just having that many 1 putts per round is hard. If the course is wide open then length will buy some free birdies, but some places nullify distance with forced layups, trees, hazards around the greens, etc... . So with all that for the most part the +4s would tend to be +3s or +2s from the forward tees and get lower differentials as the tees got longer up to a point the course overwhelmed them with distance (unlikely with a male +4).

[tiderider]

too much weed ...

 

it happens ...

[grm24]

Is this it?

[Obee]

That's KIND of about it.

[ebrasmus21]

TP - so tell me this about the handicap system.. Brooke Henderson is apparently a +8 playing LPGA setups. My buddy is a +4 playing male amateur tournament setups (said to be similar to LPGA setups) so does that make sense conceptually trying to use the handicap system as a barometer?

From what I’ve seen LPGA setups are typically somewhere between 6200 and 6700 yards.

I suspect it’s pretty rare for a real tourney +4 male golfer to compete on courses set up at 6200 yards but again I reserve the right to be wrong.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison so I’m really just trying to figure out what matters and what does not in making this nonsensical, hypothetical comparison.

[Obee]

It's definitely NOT an absolute number. Women's handicaps are derived form women's ratings and slopes. Men from men's ratings and slopes. Apples and oranges.

[Obee]

A solid, male, tournament-tested amateur in the +1 to +3 range month after month after month can compete with LPGA pros. A 4-handicapper has exactly a .0000014223434% chance of beating a top 100 female professional.

Next!!! ;-)

[ThinkingPlus]

Yes. If you find the difference in course rating between men and women for your tees of choice in that distance regime and compare to the difference between handicap indices then that would form a good statistical basis for determining a winner. Assuming a difference in course rating of about 6 strokes, then the +4 man would have a 2 stroke advantage statistically over a +8 woman playing the same tees all else being equal (typical caveats are no forced carry's beyond woman's capability, tournament proven handicaps, no 6" rough, etc...).

[ebrasmus21]

Thanks, TP. As is usual, I appreciate your input on this board.

[Obee]

No they certainly don't, but any legit +4 has absolutely shot that low before -- and on longer courses than 6500 - 6600. Most people on this board have never once played with a true +4. I play at a club with three Korn Ferry pros and a Champions Tour player who has won $20+ million in his lifetime. Two of the KF guys are in the top 40 currently and one of them is 6th. They play all the time with amateurs who are +3's and +4's. They give them 1 a side -- if that, and the matches are close. +3's and +4's are capable of shooting 64, 65 on this course, which is rated 75.9 and has a slope of 149. You think 62 isn't in play when they tee it up on a 6500 yard set-up?

But this discussion is not about them. It's about a 4-capper beating an LPGA Pro. And that prospect is just ... stupid.

 

 

[GeorgeHWB]

Since when do so-called legitimate writers use the tweet of some anonymous rando as the basis for an article? Randell Mell must have been desperate for content this week.

[m d g]

I guess I never knew there were 'women's' and 'men's' ratings. I thought the whole idea was to use pure numbers.

Women's tees are easy because they're short. You're supposed to shoot a low score. Men's tees are harder and you're supposed to shoot higher score.

Doesn't the rating and slope take all of this into account?

I shoot 72 from the ladies' tee. I shoot 80 from the men's tee. Each score would be the equivalent of (making this up) an 8 index.

In the end, your index shouldn't change at all. What am I missing?????

[2bGood]

Somehow I think you are wrong - indexes are gender neutral, slope and rating is gendered.

[m d g]

As an addendum to the above...don't think of them as 'ladies'' tees or men's tees. Just think of them as shorter or longer tees.

Whatever your index is, you're supposed to score lower from closer to the hole and higher from farther away...either way, your index shouldn't change.

[2bGood]

Each tee has a different rating if +4 played the the front tee they would have to shoot something like 9 underish or lower to shoot their cap depending on the tee slope and ratings.

[2bGood]

You pretty much have it right except tee are rated for men and women.

[dalehead]

Ouch!

[Red4282]

Would the average score of LPGA golfers be under par on a 7000+ yard course?

 

[m d g]

I didn't know that...thanks.

[the bishop]

All the usual comments that go with claims like this have been made so I'll close it down. I posted because I thought it was funny a story like that would get picked up by national media. Even with the return to golf seems stories are slim pickin's.