Driving distance aside, what is the single biggest difference between tour players and scratch/good golfers?

[Ty_Webb]

19 hours ago, Obee said:

Partially yes and partially no. But mostly yes.

 

The greens are definitely firmer than greens that (most) ams play on a daily basis unless they play a lot of tournament golf and/or difficult golf courses or at a club that has elite conditions frequently (they exist).

 

Bu one thing pros do have in their favor is that the surrounds at tour events usually are consistent. Even if they are difficult, the turf is a known quantity that week, meaning that you know what you are going to get when you step into the shot – and you practiced it for a couple hours that week both on and off the course. 

 

At lots of courses amateurs play, the surrounds are in horrible shape where a ball can settle in a hole or between two clumps of grass or on a completely bare lie that is muddy, etc. The pros almost never face those conditions.

 

I have played many tour-conditioned golf courses in my life, and I can tell you that for a player of decent ability who has a solid short game, greenside shots are never something that I struggle with on those set ups. What I do struggle with is the firmness of the greens on approach shots from outside 175ish — and you have all kinds of those on a tour set up if you are hitting it less than 275.

 

Edited to add:

 

But yes, pros up and down stats would be even better if they played the typical soft/softish greens that most ams play assuming reasonable greenside conditions.

 

Agree entirely, but would note that the same (or similar) is true for their long games. Fairways are narrower than most we play and firmer, which is good for distance, but bad for accuracy. The greens are firmer and faster, so it's harder to get your ball to stop close to the hole. And they get to play to pins that some of them look like the greenkeeper missed the green with his hole cutter. Their approach stats would look enormously better if they were playing to pins cut in the middle of greens. Like most people do. 

 

It is quite plausible for a "traveling scratch" to have days where his approach stats gain strokes against the PGA tour. Probably not too often, but occasionally. Especially if they're driving it into trouble. That's happening because they're aiming it at the flag and their shot circle is let's say 30 yards in diameter that day. Most of the time they'll be hitting it inside 30 feet. Poor shots are finishing up 45 feet away. Add all that up and you're looking at strokes gained. Compare that with the PGA Tour player who is looking at a flag cut 3 yards from the edge of the green. They're not aiming at the flag. They could be aiming it as much as 6-7 yards away from it from 160. If their shot circle is 20 yards in diameter (which is so enormously better than 30 yards), then their good shots are 15-25 feet away and half of their decent but not great shots are finishing up further away than that. All that lot adds up to similar looking stats on approach, but the quality of play difference is enormous. I suspect that for some players that's one of the reasons why they think the pros aren't that good at approach shots.

[dmecca2]

I'm currently a +2 HDCP and they're just better at everything. Almost every shot I see on tv, I can say that I've hit that or done that, but they just do it more often. If my game is off, there's a chance I could shoot an 80. Pros will rarely shoot 80, and if they do, it's most likely a non course issue.

[dmecca2]

10 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Agree entirely, but would note that the same (or similar) is true for their long games. Fairways are narrower than most we play and firmer, which is good for distance, but bad for accuracy. The greens are firmer and faster, so it's harder to get your ball to stop close to the hole. And they get to play to pins that some of them look like the greenkeeper missed the green with his hole cutter. Their approach stats would look enormously better if they were playing to pins cut in the middle of greens. Like most people do. 

 

It is quite plausible for a "traveling scratch" to have days where his approach stats gain strokes against the PGA tour. Probably not too often, but occasionally. Especially if they're driving it into trouble. That's happening because they're aiming it at the flag and their shot circle is let's say 30 yards in diameter that day. Most of the time they'll be hitting it inside 30 feet. Poor shots are finishing up 45 feet away. Add all that up and you're looking at strokes gained. Compare that with the PGA Tour player who is looking at a flag cut 3 yards from the edge of the green. They're not aiming at the flag. They could be aiming it as much as 6-7 yards away from it from 160. If their shot circle is 20 yards in diameter (which is so enormously better than 30 yards), then their good shots are 15-25 feet away and half of their decent but not great shots are finishing up further away than that. All that lot adds up to similar looking stats on approach, but the quality of play difference is enormous. I suspect that for some players that's one of the reasons why they think the pros aren't that good at approach shots.

 

This is one reason I don't subscribe to the whole, "tour players average x distance to the hole from x yards out, so why should you expect to be closer?" They're playing tucked pins where it's more beneficial to aim away from the flag, while I'm playing a local club where the pins are MORE than fair.

 

Love the Decade system and I think it's very helpful, there are just parts of it that I think the data doesn't show the whole picture.

[me05501]

13 hours ago, Obee said:

 

<snip>

 

You might admire an individual pitcher's yacker, or the velocity on his fastball, or a catcher's gun, but you were surrounded by people like that all the time and you yourself had gifts as well, or you wouldn't be playing at that level -- even if it's D2 baseball or mini tour golf. 
 

Also to be fair, not everybody is wired that way, but many are.

 

 

 

It seems like this is really important. 

 

Anyone who can really earn a living with their clubs in the trunk has some level of confidence and killer instinct that even the guys winning the scratch club championship lack.

 

They're much more fearless. They're not scared to go low. They expect it. They know they're better than you and it's not even a question. 

 

For the guys having mics shoved in their faces after Sunday finishes, the hard part is pretending to be humble. They're the swingin' D's and they know it. It's that kind of swagger you have to have to do what they do week in and week out.  

[amace04]

On 1/28/2022 at 7:25 PM, wagolfer7 said:

But maybe that's just a mirage.  And maybe they think "putting" but the real data would show it's elsewhere.  

 

 

It's probably this.

 

I don't have specific examples, but golfers at all levels are notoriously bad at evaluating their own game.   Actual course data collected from scratch golfers vs tour pros shows a significant skill gap at pretty much all levels of the game.  Distance, driving accuracy, approach consistency, putting, chipping, play out of the rough, play out of the sand...

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, dmecca2 said:

 

This is one reason I don't subscribe to the whole, "tour players average x distance to the hole from x yards out, so why should you expect to be closer?" They're playing tucked pins where it's more beneficial to aim away from the flag, while I'm playing a local club where the pins are MORE than fair.

 

Love the Decade system and I think it's very helpful, there are just parts of it that I think the data doesn't show the whole picture.

 

The actual Decade system doesn't really have much to say about where the pin is. It's all about the edges of the green and what's next to that. If the pin is cut in the middle then it would say aim at the pin, unless the green is really small or the penalty one side vs the other is very different. 

 

My comment up above was actually based on one of Scott's tweets. He tweeted the strokes gained can start to get a little funky on approach when flags are cut in the middle. In fairness also to him I'm not sure I've seen him say things like what you said. I watch Bryan Bros videos on youtube, and on one of those Wesley hit a shot from 100 yards that finished about 15 feet away (or something like that) and he said it was a terrible shot. Then he said something like "I hate the way they say "oo that shot gained 0.03 of a stroke against an average PGA tour player". I'm not trying to beat an  average tour player. I'm trying to beat the best of them and that shot was terrible". That did kind of strike a chord.

 

I also think for the tour players, not all shots are created equal. For example, the island green at Sawgrass with that Sunday pin, it's going to be extremely hard to gain strokes with that tee shot (or stupid). They're not trying to hit it close to that pin. They're trying to get it somewhere they can safely make three and hoping that they might get lucky, push it 5 yards and it catches the slope and rolls down by the hole. Compare that with an easy pin on a Thursday morning on a large green where they can happily take dead aim at the flag. Those ones they're looking to gain maybe 0.2 to 0.5 of a stroke by stuffing it and only lose 0.03 or so on the Sawgrass Sunday one. So if you come out and play 18 holes where the pin is in the friendly spot, if you're gaining 0.03 of a stroke against the PGA tour baseline, you're not really. That shot where Wesley Bryan gained 0.03 of a stroke was one where he would have been hoping to gain 0.3+ and using that as a buffer for the holes where he really can't. I really feel that.

 

It's an average over a bunch of shots and we all hit our bad ones at times. That's what I find annoying about those comments. If you hit it 25 feet away from 180 that's a decent shot and you're gaining a fraction of a shot over a PGA tour player. Great, but if that's the best you ever do, then it's reasonable to feel upset about that. If you're very rarely hitting the +0.7 shot where you hit it to 5 feet from 150, then it's really hard to make up for the -0.5 shot you hit where you miss it in a bunker from 130. So when I hit what I think is a really good shot and it's covering the pin, but winds up 20 feet short, yes that's annoying and I don't think it's wrong to be mad about it.

[PracticeSwinger]

46 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

The actual Decade system doesn't really have much to say about where the pin is. It's all about the edges of the green and what's next to that. If the pin is cut in the middle then it would say aim at the pin, unless the green is really small or the penalty one side vs the other is very different. 

 

My comment up above was actually based on one of Scott's tweets. He tweeted the strokes gained can start to get a little funky on approach when flags are cut in the middle. In fairness also to him I'm not sure I've seen him say things like what you said. I watch Bryan Bros videos on youtube, and on one of those Wesley hit a shot from 100 yards that finished about 15 feet away (or something like that) and he said it was a terrible shot. Then he said something like "I hate the way they say "oo that shot gained 0.03 of a stroke against an average PGA tour player". I'm not trying to beat an  average tour player. I'm trying to beat the best of them and that shot was terrible". That did kind of strike a chord.

 

I also think for the tour players, not all shots are created equal. For example, the island green at Sawgrass with that Sunday pin, it's going to be extremely hard to gain strokes with that tee shot (or stupid). They're not trying to hit it close to that pin. They're trying to get it somewhere they can safely make three and hoping that they might get lucky, push it 5 yards and it catches the slope and rolls down by the hole. Compare that with an easy pin on a Thursday morning on a large green where they can happily take dead aim at the flag. Those ones they're looking to gain maybe 0.2 to 0.5 of a stroke by stuffing it and only lose 0.03 or so on the Sawgrass Sunday one. So if you come out and play 18 holes where the pin is in the friendly spot, if you're gaining 0.03 of a stroke against the PGA tour baseline, you're not really. That shot where Wesley Bryan gained 0.03 of a stroke was one where he would have been hoping to gain 0.3+ and using that as a buffer for the holes where he really can't. I really feel that.

 

It's an average over a bunch of shots and we all hit our bad ones at times. That's what I find annoying about those comments. If you hit it 25 feet away from 180 that's a decent shot and you're gaining a fraction of a shot over a PGA tour player. Great, but if that's the best you ever do, then it's reasonable to feel upset about that. If you're very rarely hitting the +0.7 shot where you hit it to 5 feet from 150, then it's really hard to make up for the -0.5 shot you hit where you miss it in a bunker from 130. So when I hit what I think is a really good shot and it's covering the pin, but winds up 20 feet short, yes that's annoying and I don't think it's wrong to be mad about it.

 

Agree completely - the whole Stokes Gained idea is to figure out in the long run, when everything has been ironed out, if a particular aspect of your game (compared to your peers and/or other caps) is a strength or a weakeness - and that's it...

 

Obviously, evey shot is contectual (thursday morning or back 9 on Sunday, penal area, course management, mental aspect at the moment, others) and it's a dubious idea to try and explain if a particular shot was good or bad with SG... And I cannot figure out why it's always those SG proponents that try and forcefeed the concept to others with explanations on a particular shot, just shooting themelves in the foot doing so...

 

On the contrary, anyone that simply repels the SG concept, taken as a whole in the long run when everything has been ironed out, because "Bobby Jones never knew what was his SG OTT but still won the Slam!" and think it can't help their own game (analysis that show factual strenghts/weaknesses compared to peers in different area of the game and what are the biggest differenciators) is only showing how stubborn they are and dumb as an aside...

 

[me05501]

I played in a pro-am with a guy who was struggling to make cuts on the Korn Ferry. He was a really solid player who was chasing the dream but I have a feeling he's probably giving lessons somewhere now. 

 

What this guy said about the tournaments was very interesting to me. 

 

He said "most weeks it comes down to a putting contest. There will be several guys hitting it great, and among those the ones who putt well are in a position to win." 

 

But he also emphasized the pressure that puts on the long game and hitting greens. Hitting it close and making the putts is *everyone's* goal for *every* round. Hitting the fat part of the green when the pin is tucked isn't good enough.

 

Those guys have to take on just about every challenge. They might get away with playing smart on a hole here or there, but most days it's about attacking non-stop. 

 

Basically it's not even the same game that we play. It's the difference between Sunday cruising on a Harley and being a stunt rider in the circus.

[ferrispgm]

So in the last 6 years I've gone from a weak 5 handicap to a +2.9.  I can tell you without a doubt that ballstriking improvements and making my misses smaller is the sole reason.  I have more tap in birdies, and birdie putts from inside of 20ft and smaller misses.  Smaller misses around the greens means that I'm not having to hit tricky pitches from thick rough or out of the desert, over bunkers, etc....most short game shots for me on everything but a par 5 is a little chip or short pitch and those are much easier to get close.  

 

In contrast to this, my consistency in scoring started improving when I worked on short game a bit...meaning instead of shooting 71,69,77,70, 83...My rounds are now more like 69, 71, 75,76,70 etc.  Horribly bad rounds are basically non-existent.  Sure they can still happen but it's once every 15 rounds instead of once every 5 rounds.  

[ferrispgm]

Just now, me05501 said:

I played in a pro-am with a guy who was struggling to make cuts on the Korn Ferry. He was a really solid player who was chasing the dream but I have a feeling he's probably giving lessons somewhere now. 

 

What this guy said about the tournaments was very interesting to me. 

 

He said "most weeks it comes down to a putting contest. There will be several guys hitting it great, and among those the ones who putt well are in a position to win." 

 

But he also emphasized the pressure that puts on the long game and hitting greens. Hitting it close and making the putts is *everyone's* goal for *every* round. Hitting the fat part of the green when the pin is tucked isn't good enough.

 

Those guys have to take on just about every challenge. They might get away with playing smart on a hole here or there, but most days it's about attacking non-stop. 

 

Basically it's not even the same game that we play. It's the difference between Sunday cruising on a Harley and being a stunt rider in the circus.

Yes but that's in reference to winning tournaments....that's different than going from a low handicap to a tour level player.  In order to go from say a 3 to a +6 you would literally need to make every putt you look at...not possible on a consistent basis...imperfections on a green alone make that impossible, along with other factors as well of course.

[me05501]

3 minutes ago, ferrispgm said:

Yes but that's in reference to winning tournaments....that's different than going from a low handicap to a tour level player.  In order to go from say a 3 to a +6 you would literally need to make every putt you look at...not possible on a consistent basis...imperfections on a green alone make that impossible, along with other factors as well of course.

 

Exactly. His point supports what Monte and Obee are saying above...that ball striking is the *real* difference. Putting is the icing on the cake.

 

Some guys are willing to accept being streaky putters or not putting as well on certain kinds of greens because on those weeks when they're knocking down pins it doesn't seem to matter as much. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by me05501

[PracticeSwinger]

23 minutes ago, ferrispgm said:

Yes but that's in reference to winning tournaments....that's different than going from a low handicap to a tour level player.  In order to go from say a 3 to a +6 you would literally need to make every putt you look at...not possible on a consistent basis...imperfections on a green alone make that impossible, along with other factors as well of course.

 

19 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

Exactly. His point supports what Monte and Obee are saying above...that ball striking is the *real* difference. Putting is the icing on the cake.

 

Some guys are willing to accept being streaky putters or not putting as well on certain kinds of greens because on those weeks when they're knocking down pins it doesn't seem to matter as much. 

 

Correct:

• SG T2G is the biggest differenciator in the long run
• SG PTT has the biggest 'range wide' effect (short term) in a tourney : -4.0 to +4.0 usually

[Ty_Webb]

9 minutes ago, MtlJayMan said:

 

 

Correct:

• SG T2G is the biggest differenciator in the long run
• SG PTT has the biggest 'range wide' effect (short term) in a tourney : -4.0 to +4.0 usually

 

I always think of that as long game dictates what range your scores will fall in and short game dictates where in that range you'll fall. A pro golf tournament the top ten guys are typically the guys hitting it the best that week and the winner will be the one of those ten who happens to hole the most putts.

 

Side note - I think KFT is a little different than the PGA Tour. That's because the upside/downside difference is so much bigger. On the KFT, if you win, PGA tour and big money beckons. If you lose, you try again next week. On the PGA Tour, if you don't win, the difference between 5th and 15th is a lot of money and finishing 5th is a good ways towards keeping your card. So the KFT tends to be more of a birdie fest with everyone going all out. PGA Tour plays more to Decade's play it relatively safe aspect.

[Krt22]

57 minutes ago, me05501 said:

 

Exactly. His point supports what Monte and Obee are saying above...that ball striking is the *real* difference. Putting is the icing on the cake.

 

Some guys are willing to accept being streaky putters or not putting as well on certain kinds of greens because on those weeks when they're knocking down pins it doesn't seem to matter as much. 

Bingo. You can putt lights out, but you need to have a decent amount of first putt birdie looks. If too many of your first putts are for par, you aren't going any where professionally. 

[MK7Golf21]

18 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Bingo. You can putt lights out, but you need to have a decent amount of first putt birdie looks. If too many of your first putts are for par, you aren't going any where professionally. 

 

between scratch golfer and tour pro I would agree ball striking is biggest difference but to improve ball striking to be a pga tour pro isn't just getting lessons. There is so much that goes into it like experience, mental game, short game, course management and the obvious mechanics. You could take a scratch golfer and improve his ball striking to tour level and he would get out on the PGA tour and hit it all over the place and crumble.

 

 

[llewol007]

Consistency. Pga can put together a string of competitive rounds together for weeks at a time. A scratch player will have bigger waves and be great for a round or two and suddenly fall off in terms of scoring. 

[tthomasgolfer605]

Here's a good idea about the difference. Watch both 9's. 

 

[wagolfer7]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:37 PM, MonteScheinblum said:

He pitched and putted better than I did that day.  I again shot 70 and he shot 85.  It’s why a scratch can beat a tour pro on a given day at their home course, but would lose by 10+ shots on a tour level course.

 

Now conditions aren’t always that tough.  See the Amex…but more often than nit, a scratch can’t handle pins 3 paces from the edge half the day course conditions, because they just don’t hit the ball well enough.  
 

 

 

Thanks @MonteScheinblum for the response.  I always wondered how much harder those setups would be for a scratch golfer.  I honestly didn't see that short game comment coming either.  I guess it's the missed 5-8 footers and few missed up / down conversions that stick out more to the player.  Not the missed 180+ yard shot that led to the missed up / down opportunity.  

 

It's also funny how we get so lost in the details that are really irrelevant.  A tour player is really good at all facets of the game.  What area they are on average more better than the average scratch golfer?  For me personally - I honestly don't care.  Their short games, long games, recovery games, mental part, etc. are all way better than a scratch player.      

[Nels55]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:37 PM, MonteScheinblum said:

I had a buddy who was a scratch when I was playing the Nike/Kornferry.  We played the day before he was coming to watch me.  He shot 70, I shot 72 at a local course.  We got the to event and played Sunday before tournament week.  The rough, firmness and speed of the greens overwhelmed him.  He pitched and putted better than I did that day.  I again shot 70 and he shot 85.  It’s why a scratch can beat a tour pro on a given day at their home course, but would lose by 10+ shots on a tour level course.

 

Now conditions aren’t always that tough.  See the Amex…but more often than nit, a scratch can’t handle pins 3 paces from the edge half the day course conditions, because they just don’t hit the ball well enough.  
 

 

This is so true!  LOL even at my crappy level harder pins and tougher conditions give me an advantage if I am giving strokes and put me at a disadvantage if I am getting strokes.  

 

Probably everyone has heard the story about Ben Hogan taking on the field at Shady Oaks I think it was.  Anyway he played everyone's net score for the day for some amount of money for each player.  Apparently there were guys flying in from out of state to take him on thinking that their 14 strokes or whatever would give them an advantage.  LOL Hogan went out in the morning with the fellow who set the pins and put every hole in the back corner of the green where pretty much only he knew how to get at them.  From what I understand Hogan hated playing against handicaps but he had fun creaming the field that day!

[Ty_Webb]

1 hour ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

Here's a good idea about the difference. Watch both 9's. 

 

I really like Kyle, but he does say some interesting things in there. In the first 9 he mentions how it's all about the short game and how the pros are wizards with a wedge or a putter. In the same 9 holes, he chipped in twice and lipped out another and despite that and the fact he's hitting 200+ mph ball speed, he shot +1. Back 9 he said (accurately I think) how it's about how good your misses are. He hit 3 greens on the back nine and was a few over. I think his scoring had to do with not hitting greens. 

 

Kyle is also something of a special case. I have no idea what his strokes gained approach would be on that course, but assuming it only applies to shots outside 100 yards (I don't know where the cut off would be), he doesn't have very many of those, even on 480 yard par 4s because he hits his driver so forking far. One thing his length does do is enables him to have some very big strokes gained numbers off the tee. If he hits it straight, he's 40-50 yards past most of the longest drivers on tour. If he's hitting it in hazards, then that doesn't help too much though. Watching his vlogs and then watching Wes Bryan's rounds it's very clear where the difference is. Wesley is called Wedgeley because his short game is so good, but his long game is just leaps and bounds ahead of Kyle's. Watch this video - George is a pretty good player, but you can see how every shot pretty much Wesley is just better and the whole lot compounds into a pretty big difference in scores.

 

 

[RoyalMustang]

On 1/28/2022 at 4:33 PM, amace04 said:

Everything.  Literally everything.

 

The skill difference between a tour pro and scratch player is bigger than the difference from a scratch player to a 30 cap.

 

I am sorry-I have to disagree here.  A touring pro may be 25% more skilled than a scratch handicap.  A scratch may be 200% more skilled than a 30.  25% is a ton; at that level, 3% is a lot.  I was a pro cyclist and can tell you the difference in measured power between an average US Pro and average European pro was under 10%.  

 

A scratch can make the same shots that a touring pro can; they just can't do it consistently.  Both can get within 10 feet using a 5-iron from 205 yards.  But the touring pro's miss is still 40 feet away and the scratch is in the bunker. 

 

A 30 handicap will never sniff a green hitting a 5-iron (or a hybrid) from that distance without some punch shot lucky roller. 

 

Objectively, you could say that if

 

1) a pro made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 6/10 times   

2) a scratch made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 3/10 times

3) a 30 handicap made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 2/10 times

 

then you have an argument.  I am pretty sure we can agree that a 30 gets a birdie opp mayb e 1/50 times in that situation; if they can land on a green in the air from 205, they aren't a 30.  At least nobody I have ever seen has that ability who is in the mid 100's for a good round

 

[RoyalMustang]

On 1/28/2022 at 8:12 PM, wagolfer7 said:

 

Yes I've seen you post the data before.  It's hard to argue against when no other data can disprove it otherwise.  

 

Curious again - do they show what the average course rating / slope is for the amateur data vs what the PGA tour's is?  

 

I'd imagine that I would be lower in every category if I played courses that hard.  And possibly not evenly distributed.  Maybe I hit near the same amount of fairways, but go down on GIR's because of course length and my up/down percentage goes down because rough is thicker, greens faster, pins harder placement etc.  

 

I guess my real point would be....is it really an apples to apples comparison?  Just thinking out loud.  I'm not debating the data....it's been supported enough on here and I get it.  

 

I had a buddy that played D1 and tried to make it on the Canadian Tour.  He could barely break 80 out there and said the courses were setup tougher than anything he's ever seen.  That's just one guy and his opinion.  Curious if anyone else has experience with course conditions at a higher level.  If it really is that big of a difference? When you hear commentators say that most amateurs would struggle to break 100 at US Open course, makes me wonder how much harder those courses they play really are.       

 

I played TPC Scottsdale Champions a few weeks back.  

 

Things of note from the caddie:

 

1) rough was 2.5" long: figure 4" for the WM open

2) front of greens would be shaved; miss short on a few holes and you go backwards 10+ yards 

3) tougher pin placements

4) greens were 9.5 to 10 when we played: 12-14 for the tournament is the norm

 

Does that add 10 strokes for the average player? One could make that argument. However, something to consider with the slope/handicap rating: they are based on an average player.  I had a conversation with a guy in the pro shop when I commented that the course seemed "easy" for the slope and stroke rating;  He replied that yes, it is true.  He is a 2 and has shot 2 under a couple of times, been right at par many times.  The thing is though; that course is pretty wide open and long. You put a 2 out there who can drive 320 yards and is usually in the fairway vs the 2 who is always in the fairway at 250 and it is no contest.  The 250 yard guy isn't going to have much success on a 7300 yard course.  It plays 7600 for the tournament.  That is a HUGE disadvantage for anyone with subpar swing speed. 

 

So, I think when we say "average amateur" we have to be a little more specific.  Average HS player who is a 2, young and flexible, and hits the ball a mile? Vs the 45 year old that has good control but has lost a lot of SS?  The average player, even the 2 cap, is a lot more likely to be the 2nd guy than the 1st.   

 

But yeah, the average 18 cap is probably shooting 100 at the US Open, but I don't think the average young 2 cap who hits the ball 320 is shooting 85.  

 

Now, put both 2 caps on a tight, shot-making course from the 30s through 60s, and you could get a very different result.  

[tthomasgolfer605]

1 hour ago, Ty_Webb said:

I really like Kyle, but he does say some interesting things in there. In the first 9 he mentions how it's all about the short game and how the pros are wizards with a wedge or a putter. In the same 9 holes, he chipped in twice and lipped out another and despite that and the fact he's hitting 200+ mph ball speed, he shot +1. Back 9 he said (accurately I think) how it's about how good your misses are. He hit 3 greens on the back nine and was a few over. I think his scoring had to do with not hitting greens. 

 

Kyle is also something of a special case. I have no idea what his strokes gained approach would be on that course, but assuming it only applies to shots outside 100 yards (I don't know where the cut off would be), he doesn't have very many of those, even on 480 yard par 4s because he hits his driver so forking far. One thing his length does do is enables him to have some very big strokes gained numbers off the tee. If he hits it straight, he's 40-50 yards past most of the longest drivers on tour. If he's hitting it in hazards, then that doesn't help too much though. Watching his vlogs and then watching Wes Bryan's rounds it's very clear where the difference is. Wesley is called Wedgeley because his short game is so good, but his long game is just leaps and bounds ahead of Kyle's. Watch this video - George is a pretty good player, but you can see how every shot pretty much Wesley is just better and the whole lot compounds into a pretty big difference in scores.

 

 

Kyle plays all these tour courses from the tips and is around scratch. I don't see how he would get any confidence from that. Add crowds and tour conditions, breaking 80 will be tough for him. Recently shot 76 in a one day mini tour event on a 6800 yard track that doesn't look very tough .  Full-time tournament golf is the only thing that will test him to know where his game is at. 

[wagolfer7]

5 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

Things of note from the caddie:

 

1) rough was 2.5" long: figure 4" for the WM open

2) front of greens would be shaved; miss short on a few holes and you go backwards 10+ yards 

3) tougher pin placements

4) greens were 9.5 to 10 when we played: 12-14 for the tournament is the norm

 

Thanks for the response.  That is pretty cool to get a comparison like that.  

 

Yah it's one of those hypothetical questions that can be debated to the end of time.  Lot of different variables to factor into the equation.  

 

I've played courses that PGA Events have been on.  But never near the same time the event was being played there.  

 

I was just thinking that at my home course - when we setup for a final round of a tournament - I'd say the golf course plays at least 2-3 shots harder than a normal day.  Now that's just me putting a number on it - no data, stats, etc.  Tucked pins, faster greens, longer rough, back of the tee boxes, etc. make the course play harder.  And I always thought short game was a bigger factor.  A lot of players come in and mostly talk about how many 3 putts they had and chips that rolled off the green.  From just a raw perspective, you can come away thinking that faster greens + tough pin placements is what really adds strokes to the card.  But as discussed here - the tucked pins and longer tee distances might be what's impacting the score card more.  And as the data shows - ball striking or lack there of that results in misses that result in higher scores.    

 

I figured if it was 2-3 shots on just my home course setup - than the jump to what the PGA guys play on could be 10 or more.  Hopefully some day I'll report back here, what Augusta played like at the Masters on Sunday 🙂   

 

 

[Barfolomew]

A different way to answer what is the difference.... the Pro Package is the difference.   A tour pro's lifestyle compared to full time working scratch golfer is what I call the Pro Package. 

 

I started a thread here bout 4-5 years ago asking how many strokes is the Pro Package worth compared to a scratch.  Maybe time to do that thread over lol.... I think I listed like 10 things that tour pros get that makes them a better golfer like: practice everyday,  play/practice for free, pristine facilities with all amenities, dont have a day job, same caddy, coaches, fitness trainers, best equipment that is fit perfectly, golf studios in their homes,  no money issues like most do (tour pro not mini tour pro lol),  list goes on and on....

 

How many strokes is that worth? And why its so hard to compare a working stiff player to a tour pro.  So to try and focus on small parts of tour pros games as the difference is short sighted....

 

The tour pro may not even be as naturally talented as a particular scratch golfer but has many advantages that makes them play better 🦒

 

Yes the butt hurt is strong in here.... 🐑

Edited January 31, 2022 by Barfolomew

[tthomasgolfer605]

23 minutes ago, Barfolomew said:

A different way to answer what is the difference.... the Pro Package is the difference.   A tour pro's lifestyle compared to full time working scratch golfer is what I call the Pro Package. 

 

I started a thread here bout 4-5 years ago asking how many strokes is the Pro Package worth compared to a scratch.  Maybe time to do that thread over lol.... I think I listed like 10 things that tour pros get that makes them a better golfer like: practice everyday,  play/practice for free, pristine facilities with all amenities, dont have a day job, same caddy, coaches, fitness trainers, best equipment that is fit perfectly, golf studios in their homes,  no money issues like most do (tour pro not mini tour pro lol),  list goes on and on....

 

How many strokes is that worth? And why its so hard to compare a working stiff player to a tour pro.  So to try and focus on small parts of tour pros games as the difference is short sighted....

 

The tour pro may not even be as naturally talented as a particular scratch golfer but has many advantages that makes them play better 🦒

 

Yes the butt hurt is strong in here.... 🐑

True. They also had some of that lifestyle before getting to the big show. 

[amace04]

1 hour ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

I am sorry-I have to disagree here.  A touring pro may be 25% more skilled than a scratch handicap.  A scratch may be 200% more skilled than a 30.  25% is a ton; at that level, 3% is a lot.  I was a pro cyclist and can tell you the difference in measured power between an average US Pro and average European pro was under 10%.  

 

A scratch can make the same shots that a touring pro can; they just can't do it consistently.  Both can get within 10 feet using a 5-iron from 205 yards.  But the touring pro's miss is still 40 feet away and the scratch is in the bunker. 

 

A 30 handicap will never sniff a green hitting a 5-iron (or a hybrid) from that distance without some punch shot lucky roller. 

 

Objectively, you could say that if

 

1) a pro made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 6/10 times   

2) a scratch made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 3/10 times

3) a 30 handicap made a 5-iron from that distance as a birdie opportunity 2/10 times

 

then you have an argument.  I am pretty sure we can agree that a 30 gets a birdie opp mayb e 1/50 times in that situation; if they can land on a green in the air from 205, they aren't a 30.  At least nobody I have ever seen has that ability who is in the mid 100's for a good round

 

I think we're interpreting the skill- related comment differently.

 

Yes,  a longer scratch player can make almost all the same shots a tour pro can.  The difference like you say is consistency. 

 

As a mid-cap, I can stick a 6i within 5' of the cup.  So can a tour pro. The difference is I might do it once every 75 tries, while they'll do it one in 5-10.

 

If you're a 30, and you're dedicated to becoming scratch,  you can probably do it.   

If you're scratch and dedicated to becoming a tour pro, it's probably not going to happen.   It's so much harder to be as consistently great as them from scratch than it is to get your game down to scratch

[RoyalMustang]

2 minutes ago, tthomasgolfer605 said:

True. They also had some of that lifestyle before getting to the big show. 

 

This is also why, in bike racing, most of the top riders came up through the elite junior ranks; they are full time, racing as pros, as kids in high school.   It is just so much tougher to try to make it in your 20's for these reasons.   You have to support yourself for a certain amount of time.  Those elite juniors get that for not much $ while they are still being supported by their parents.   Once you get to that legit-team pro level, you have full-time support: financial resources, traveling cook, soigneur, mechanic, bus...you just show up and race, recover, and do it again.  But to get there after college requires mega-talent, other-worldly ability to sleep in your car and keep spirits up, or rich parents.  

 

Golf is not physically demanding whatsoever compared to racing a bike, but the stress around travel/food/personal training and recovery is all the same.  You have to figure that those bridging the gap are at least 2-3 strokes better than the average amateur trying to make it; they probably drop another 2-3 once they start getting some support.  

[RoyalMustang]

2 minutes ago, amace04 said:

I think we're interpreting the skill- related comment differently.

 

Yes,  a longer scratch player can make almost all the same shots a tour pro can.  The difference like you say is consistency. 

 

As a mid-cap, I can stick a 6i within 5' of the cup.  So can a tour pro. The difference is I might do it once every 75 tries, while they'll do it one in 5-10.

 

If you're a 30, and you're dedicated to becoming scratch,  you can probably do it.   

If you're scratch and dedicated to becoming a tour pro, it's probably not going to happen.   It's so much harder to be as consistently great as them from scratch than it is to get your game down to scratch

 

 

I dunno-people I have played with who are shooting in the mid 100's on a good day don't look like people who have the athletic ability to ever be a scratch.  Being a scratch is like running a mile in 4:08.   Not elite, but a very fast amateur.  How many people love running, want to get better, but have the ceiling necessary to run 4:08?  Not many.  I probably know 25 people that would give their firstborn to run that fast, and trust me, no amount of training is going to change it.  Our team in college had several walk-ons that would join us for training; these people had been putting in 60-80 miles a week for years, and not a one broke 4:08.  Every one of our scholarship guys was much faster than 4:08 obviously, but you are just talking about a fundamental lack of talent.    

[amace04]

9 minutes ago, RoyalMustang said:

 

 

I dunno-people I have played with who are shooting in the mid 100's on a good day don't look like people who have the athletic ability to ever be a scratch.  Being a scratch is like running a mile in 4:08.   Not elite, but a very fast amateur.  How many people love running, want to get better, but have the ceiling necessary to run 4:08?  Not many.  I probably know 25 people that would give their firstborn to run that fast, and trust me, no amount of training is going to change it.  Our team in college had several walk-ons that would join us for training; these people had been putting in 60-80 miles a week for years, and not a one broke 4:08.  Every one of our scholarship guys was much faster than 4:08 obviously, but you are just talking about a fundamental lack of talent.    

 

But to use your mile analogy. A 4- minute mile is within the realm of possibility.   If you're reasonably athletic, and put in the work, you can probably do it. If you have physical limitations,  then no.  Same with golf.

 

Odds of someone who recreationally runs and can run a 4 min mile competing at the top level in the world is near-zero.  Odds of a scratch am playing on the tour is also near-zero