Could a 4 cap beat Lydia Ko?

[nitram]

It COULD happen, I mean Danny Willett won the Masters after all, but the odds say it won't.

[Shilgy]

11 minutes ago, nitram said:

It COULD happen, I mean Danny Willett won the Masters after all, but the odds say it won't.

Danny Willett was 12th in the owgr the week BEFORE he won the Masters. Not exactly a fluke.

 

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=12920&year=2016

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Interesting website I stumbled upon that might interest you and others: http://www.ongolfhandicaps.com/.

Probably well known around here, but I had not encountered it.

Interesting, thank you for that.  But he is incorrect, I believe, in the part about handicap allowances in stroke play.

He quotes:

The Committee could argue the tournament has more than 30 players and thus the 95% allowance is justified. That would be specious reasoning. The 95% allowance has no effect on its intended purpose of benefitting the low-handicap player.   No one in the first flight (handicaps of 10 and under) will get a reduced handicap.

 

That would have been true under the old handicap allowance system where you rounded more than once. But now, when we apply the 95% to the index and then calculate the PH we can for example take a 3 down to a 2 for the event. 

[nitram]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Danny Willett was 12th in the owgr the week BEFORE he won the Masters. Not exactly a fluke.

 

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=12920&year=2016

But what has he done since?

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, nitram said:

But what has he done since?

He’s bounced around between 30 and 80 or so in the rankings. 
 

Which does not change the original statement I replied  to.  His win was not a fluke at the time.  A decline after a win does not mean the win was a fluke does it?  Or was Spieth’s early career success a fluke as well?  He fell almost as far as Willett.

[nitram]

What I'm trying to say is he's one and done on the PGA Tour and proves every dog has their day. He was playing well entering the Masters but you know as well as I do that doesn't mean anything as far as winning. There are countless times a person enters the tournament as a favorite or high in the rankings and doesn't finish the deal.  So yeah I consider it a fluke. While Spieth may have fallen further than Willett, it's comparing apples to oranges as Spieth has won several tournaments and additional majors.

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, nitram said:

What I'm trying to say is he's one and done on the PGA Tour and proves every dog has their day. He was playing well entering the Masters but you know as well as I do that doesn't mean anything as far as winning. There are countless times a person enters the tournament as a favorite or high in the rankings and doesn't finish the deal.  So yeah I consider it a fluke. While Spieth may have fallen further than Willett, it's comparing apples to oranges as Spieth has won several tournaments and additional majors.

And Willett has one more win since his last major than Spieth.  Willett was a high ranking player and closed the deal in 2016 when Spieth blew a gasket. 
 

Differing opinions is all.  To me if it was certainly not a fluke at the time it doesn’t change later. For whatever reason neither of those was able to sustain their performance though Spieth certainly appears to be trending back to prior form.

[Obee]

3 hours ago, isaacbm said:

This is my exact point. Slope changed the way handicap is calculated. It’s a good idea when trying to balance out a 2 handicap playing against a 12  handicap in the club matchplay. It isn’t a good way of comparing how good a tour pro is versus a scratch golfer though. 
 

edit: What I mean is that obviously adding the slope system is a better way to create a fair match between players of different handicaps.

I just think as a general rule trying  to assign a handicap to a tour pro is often irrelevant.  At that level what is most important is their ability to shoot 4  low scores in a row.  That’s what really separates them from club players with a low handicap. 
    It’s better to shoot 69 4times in a row (week after week) then it is to shoot 76,69,62,76The  guy who shoots the latter 4  scores will actually have a lower handicap even though he can’t make a cut. 
    

 

Of course that's true, although the guy capable of shooting the 62 on Tour will make cuts, for sure. It's just that he will miss far more cuts than the other guy.

 

It would be nice if GHIN allowed more freedom to fiddle with one's scoring data. When comparing oneself to a pro, the only way you can do that is to take your scoring AVERAGE  versus the course RATING and you would have a pretty good idea.

 

For instance:

 

Player 1, a "club player":

 

+1.0, traveling tournament index. Scoring average, all rounds, 73.6. Average course rating of courses played, 72.0. You could say he has a "all scores index" of 1.6

 

Same golfer, has a tournament scoring average of 74.9 and an average course rating of 73.8. He has a "all scores tournament index" of 1.1

 

It would be nice if all of those data points were available right on GHIN without having to manipulate the data oneself.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Interesting, thank you for that.  But he is incorrect, I believe, in the part about handicap allowances in stroke play.

He quotes:

The Committee could argue the tournament has more than 30 players and thus the 95% allowance is justified. That would be specious reasoning. The 95% allowance has no effect on its intended purpose of benefitting the low-handicap player.   No one in the first flight (handicaps of 10 and under) will get a reduced handicap.

 

That would have been true under the old handicap allowance system where you rounded more than once. But now, when we apply the 95% to the index and then calculate the PH we can for example take a 3 down to a 2 for the event. 

I haven't read all the articles yet.  Seems pretty prolific generating lots of info.

[kingnthenorthjb]

Maybe if she played blindfolded and left handed.

[NoFancyUsername.]

On 4/27/2021 at 8:03 AM, Forged4ever said:

Back in the Day???

 

How bout TODAY????

 

Strongly felt??

 

Tell em to feel this🥴.......

 

CHIII???

 

Not to be offensive, however F*CK CHIII😉!!

 

Ok, now that I'm loosened up, how bout a guy who was a card carryin Member of the Big Boy Tour for eight years before he tore his shoulder up and it basically ended his career within 4-5 years, as he spent his last four years on the Buy.com Tour, garnering 4 Top-10's and a runner-up in 2000, basically Playin wack a mole due to his trashed shoulder???

 

Nate, meet Patrick Burke, WRX User Name: @rangersgoalie

 

I love these threads😂😂🤙

 

You guys are the friggin Best(not you Nate🤙😊) 👊 🤗😘

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends⛳️
RP

 

Burkey, a little guy if i remember, Won a couple down under. Decent game. Sad about the shoulder.

[Forged4ever]

9 hours ago, NoFancyUsername. said:

Burkey, a little guy if i remember, Won a couple down under. Decent game. Sad about the shoulder.

Yeppers, that's him, his heart♥️  has always been bigger than he was and kept him on Tour for almost a decade, waaaaay past the sell dates of all of those supposed "god like" swings of Players that were labeled as "can't miss."  This swing shot is from the 1992 Walt Disney World Golf Classic, with his college team photo, where he was an AA at Cal State and a more recent shot included. I love the cap🧢 he had on at the Disney cuz it reminds me of the Amana hats that we used to wear back in the day that had the height of friggin train conductors' hats😂😂. They sat so high on your head regardless of how low down ya pulled em, you still had to either tilt your head down or hold em by those huge brims out front when the wind kicked up, and we looked like these rap thugs😂😂

 

Oh, and if ya notice, @rangersgoalie was sportin the 7-day lonnnnnnng before all the Tour sheep🐑🐑 starting wearin 'em. 
 

Have a Great Season Brotha👊
RP

Edited May 3, 2021 by Forged4ever

[rangersgoalie]

6 hours ago, Forged4ever said:

Yeppers, that's him, his heart♥️  has always been bigger than he was and kept him on Tour for almost a decade, waaaaay past the sell dates of all of those supposed "god like" swings of Players that were labeled as "can't miss."  This swing shot is from the 1992 Walt Disney World Golf Classic, with his college team photo, where he was an AA at Cal State and a more recent shot included. I love the cap🧢 he had on at the Disney cuz it reminds me of the Amana hats that we used to wear back in the day that had the height of friggin train conductors' hats😂😂. They sat so high on your head regardless of how low down ya pulled em, you still had to either tilt your head down or hold em by those huge brims out front when the wind kicked up, and we looked like these rap thugs😂😂

 

Oh, and if ya notice, @rangersgoalie was sportin the 7-day lonnnnnnng before all the Tour sheep🐑🐑 starting wearin 'em. 
 

Have a Great Season Brotha👊
RP

I only had one chin at one point!!

Richard, those hats certainly date things, don’t they!!

[grm24]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:21 PM, Shilgy said:

He’s bounced around between 30 and 80 or so in the rankings. 
 

Which does not change the original statement I replied  to.  His win was not a fluke at the time.  A decline after a win does not mean the win was a fluke does it?  Or was Spieth’s early career success a fluke as well?  He fell almost as far as Willett.

No he didn't. Not even close. In 2018 Willett was ranked as low as 462nd in the world. He fell much further than YJS ever did. Furthest YJS was in the OWGR during his slump was 92nd in the world after M/C at the Farmers this year. Year end rankings in the OWGR don't tell the entire story of where a player was at during a given season.

 

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=12920&year=2018

Edited May 4, 2021 by grm24

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, grm24 said:

No he didn't. Not even close. In 2018 Willett was ranked as low as 462nd in the world. He fell much further than YJS ever did. Furthest YJS was in the OWGR during his slump was 92nd in the world after M/C at the Farmers this year. Year end rankings in the OWGR don't tell the entire story of where a player was at during a given season.

 

http://www.owgr.com/en/Ranking/PlayerProfile.aspx?playerID=12920&year=2018

You are correct. I looked at the year summaries and figured, incorrectly, he had fallen to 120th or so.

It is amazing how quickly he plummeted in the rankings.

 

I will stand by my statement that anyone in the top 15 at the time winning a major is not a fluke.

 

That said, Thank you for the correction.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Shilgy

[grm24]

29 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I will stand by my statement that anyone in the top 15 at the time winning a major is not a fluke.

No kidding. Willett winning the Masters was hard and well earned. Bogey free 67 in the final round of The Masters. How often does that happen? It's rare. Even with the players at the rear of the field that are supposed to have no pressure on them. Willett was only 3 shots out of the lead entering the final round. Still so many alleged rational golf fans that to this day will not give him his due. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by grm24

[stingerfade]

13 hours ago, rangersgoalie said:

I only had one chin at one point!!

Richard, those hats certainly date things, don’t they!!

The hats are coming back with the rope. I can’t wear a hat that’s taller than my face LOL

[stingerfade]

5 hours ago, grm24 said:

No kidding. Willett winning the Masters was hard and well earned. Bogey free 67 in the final round of The Masters. How often does that happen? It's rare. Even with the players at the rear of the field that are supposed to have no pressure on them. Willett was only 3 shots out of the lead entering the final round. Still so many alleged rational golf fans that to this day will not give him his due. 

I think they hold it against him that he looks like reik from GOT

[cardia10]

On 5/2/2021 at 1:14 PM, nitram said:

But what has he done since?

He gets to show up at least once a year for a pretty solid tournament and the coolest dinner on the planet. Other than that, who cares.

Edited May 18, 2021 by cardia10

[farmer]

Not touched on, but Lydia is a PROFESSIONAL.  She gets up, does her morning routine, then spends the day working on her craft.  An on-their-game D1 player might hang, maybe a young ex-college player, but anyone over, say, 30, has responsibilities beyond daily hours spent working on their sand game.  That professionalism over four days will wear your a** out.

Those Amana caps were the ugliest, but all caps from that era made me look like a tall, skinny mushroom.

[Yuck]

Ok,

 

Today a genuine 4 capper just qualified for the Florida State AM.  Course was set up at 7,263 yards near sea level.  CR 75.0, Slope 136.  He shot 72.  His index this Morning was 4.1.

conditions were breezy.  That is probably about the best I have seen a 4 play in a tournament situation.  He is a genuine 4 who posts all of his scores.  I golf with him frequently.  He is 40ish with kids and a career.

 

that being said, a 4 beating Ko would be an exceedingly rare event.  Less than 1 in a hundred rounds.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Yuck

[cardia10]

14 hours ago, Yuck said:

Ok,

 

Today a genuine 4 capper just qualified for the Florida State AM.  Course was set up at 7,263 yards near sea level.  CR 75.0, Slope 136.  He shot 72.  His index this Morning was 4.1.

conditions were breezy.  That is probably about the best I have seen a 4 play in a tournament situation.  He is a genuine 4 who posts all of his scores.  I golf with him frequently.  He is 40ish with kids and a career.

 

that being said, a 4 beating Ko would be an exceedingly rare event.  Less than 1 in a hundred rounds.

I think this is a good start to the comparison. Keep us updated as to how he finishes. I'll always pull for the 4, but I'm betting it will be tough to hold up to that standard over multiple rounds of a tournament. 

[Shilgy]

14 hours ago, Yuck said:

Ok,

 

Today a genuine 4 capper just qualified for the Florida State AM.  Course was set up at 7,263 yards near sea level.  CR 75.0, Slope 136.  He shot 72.  His index this Morning was 4.1.

conditions were breezy.  That is probably about the best I have seen a 4 play in a tournament situation.  He is a genuine 4 who posts all of his scores.  I golf with him frequently.  He is 40ish with kids and a career.

 

that being said, a 4 beating Ko would be an exceedingly rare event.  Less than 1 in a hundred rounds.

If he posts that score he will likely drop to a 2 as the exceptional score provision will be added to his last 20 scores plus the drop from that very nice round.

[Yuck]

5 hours ago, Shilgy said:

If he posts that score he will likely drop to a 2 as the exceptional score provision will be added to his last 20 scores plus the drop from that very nice round.

FSGA posts all of our Tournament rounds.  He dropped to a 3 because of it.  The round showed as -2.5 differential.  With his 4.1 index, he just missed the exceptional score provision by 0.4.   I assumed because the CR was 75.0 , the differential would be 3.0.  I was hoping to get a stroke from him now.

[tacklingdummy]

On 4/5/2021 at 12:28 PM, ThinkingPlus said:

The first 3 rounds this past week, Lydia played equivalent to a +2.5.  How many of the +2s here on WRX think they are going to lose to a 4?

 

On top of that, a difference is that Lydia isn't dropping the worst 10 scores of the last 20 to get that +2.5 handicap. This is why I think the handicap system is flawed. Handicap system should be average score (or the differential to par based on average scores) adjusted to difficulty of the course which would be more accurate. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by tacklingdummy

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

On top of that, a difference is that Lydia isn't dropping the worst 10 scores of the last 20 to get that +2.5 handicap. This is why I think the handicap system is flawed. Handicap system should be average score adjusted to difficulty of the course which would be more accurate. 

FYI - the WHS (new) system utilizes the best 8 of 20 and eliminated the 0.96 multiplier.  The handicap system has always been based on something closer to potential to help mitigate sandbagging.  That's why a rolling average of some sort isn't used.  Also averages respond fairly slowly to either improved play or a disintegrating game which is less than fair either way.

[JeffreySpicoli]

10 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

On top of that, a difference is that Lydia isn't dropping the worst 10 scores of the last 20 to get that +2.5 handicap. This is why I think the handicap system is flawed. Handicap system should be average score (or the differential to par based on average scores) adjusted to difficulty of the course which would be more accurate. 

Another thread with your misunderstandings of the handicap system.

 

*Sigh*

[tacklingdummy]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

FYI - the WHS (new) system utilizes the best 8 of 20 and eliminated the 0.96 multiplier.  The handicap system has always been based on something closer to potential to help mitigate sandbagging.  That's why a rolling average of some sort isn't used.  Also averages respond fairly slowly to either improved play or a disintegrating game which is less than fair either way.

 

They use average scores as a metric for ranking and awards in pretty all competitive golf both amateur and professional tours. PGA Vardon Trophy and LPGA Vare Trophy. There is no handicapping and dropping last 10 worst scores of last 20. If average scoring is how they rank/rate pros and high level competitive amateurs, they should use the same system for all golfers. 

[tacklingdummy]

3 hours ago, JeffreySpicoli said:

Another thread with your misunderstandings of the handicap system.

 

*Sigh*

 

Don't follow or read my opinions then. Simple. It is a debate forum. 😜

[Shilgy]

6 minutes ago, tacklingdummy said:

 

They use average scores as a metric for ranking and awards in pretty all competitive golf both amateur and professional tours. PGA Vardon Trophy and LPGA Vare Trophy. There is no handicapping and dropping last 10 worst scores of last 20. If average scoring is how they rank/rate pros and high level competitive amateurs, they should use the same system for all golfers. 

Put simply…..per the USGA the handicap is more a measure of your potential, as @ThinkingPlusmentioned, not average. 
 

The reason is simple.  Handicaps are made so that in general two players, or even multiple players, can have a match where the results would be close to 50-50.  On average a player shoots approximately 3 strokes over his handicap as an average.  So why is everyone’s handicap not just 3 higher?  Because that would skew the results in favor of the higher handicap. One side effect of that would be a disincentive to improve.  A lower handicap player will generally have a narrower score range than the high handicap.  If you were say a 5 handicap would you want to give your 10 handicap buddy a few more strokes because his occasional high scores are MUCH higher?  What does the occasional high score have to do with your ability to play golf?

 

In a, poorly worded on my part, nutshell that’s is why they use 8 of 20.