Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[wobgon]

Ok, so we've all agreed that a 4 cap would have no chance. What would it take. Let's say to beat an lpga player ranked 50-100. I'd say a legit plus 2 with tourney experience could compete with lpga 50-100.

 

I would say a legit +4 with tournament experience to have a chance.

For the first time in this thread, i will step up and say that a legit +4 with tournament experience could deff. beat many Lpga pros playing the back tee's.

[dpb5031]

3-5. Players Competing from Different Tees or Men and Women from Same Tees

 

a. Different Tees: Men vs. Men; Women vs. Women; Women vs. Men

 

Different tees usually have different Ratings. Because a USGA Course Rating reflects the probable score of a scratch golfer, the higher-rated course is more difficult, and the player playing from the set of tees with the higher USGA Course Rating receives additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between each USGA Course Rating, with .5 or greater rounded upward. The additional stroke(s) are added to the Course Handicap of the player playing from the higher-rated set of tees. (See Decision 3-5/1.)

 

Example 1 : If men playing from the middle tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.3 compete against men playing from the back tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 72.6, the men playing from the back tees will add two strokes (72.6 - 70.3 = 2.3 rounded to 2 ) to their Course Handicap.

 

Example 2: If women playing from the forward tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 73.4 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add three strokes (73.4 - 70.9 = 2.5 rounded to 3) to their Course Handicap.

 

b. Same Tees: Men vs. Women

 

Men and women playing from the same set of tees will have different ratings. Because the women's USGA Course Rating usually will be higher, women receive additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between ratings, with .5 or greater rounded upward.

 

Example : If women playing from the middle tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 rounded to 6) to their Course Handicap.

 

The adjustment must be added to the higher-rated tee players' Course Handicap even if it causes aCourse Handicap to exceed the maximum possible for the Slope Rating of the set of tees being played. Alternatively, it is permissible to subtract the extra handicap strokes from the Course Handicap of the player playing from the tees with the lower USGA Course Rating.

[iteachgolf]

Ok, so we've all agreed that a 4 cap would have no chance. What would it take. Let's say to beat an lpga player ranked 50-100. I'd say a legit plus 2 with tourney experience could compete with lpga 50-100.

 

I would say a legit +4 with tournament experience to have a chance.

 

Legit +4 with tournament experience would dust a LPGA tour player with scoring average 50-100. He would lose more often than not to the top 10 on the LPGA tour but 50-100 is a completely different story. Your saying a tourney +4 would average over par on courses averaging 6400 yards with course ratings around 72.

[HitEmTrue]

No. I didn't realize we went from comparing two golfers to two golfers competing against each other net.

 

That was never clear to me.

 

 

"Put another way, a zero handicap woman competing against men from the men's tees will typically be somewhere between a 6-8 handicap."

 

Do you see how this statement is correct?

 

The handicaps have to be based on the same course ratings for them to be able to compete with each other. It can either be the women's rating, or the men's, but ONE of the two golfers is going to have to have course handicap adjusted to compare to the other.

[b.helts]

3-5. Players Competing from Different Tees or Men and Women from Same Tees

 

a. Different Tees: Men vs. Men; Women vs. Women; Women vs. Men

 

Different tees usually have different Ratings. Because a USGA Course Rating reflects the probable score of a scratch golfer, the higher-rated course is more difficult, and the player playing from the set of tees with the higher USGA Course Rating receives additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between each USGA Course Rating, with .5 or greater rounded upward. The additional stroke(s) are added to the Course Handicap of the player playing from the higher-rated set of tees. (See Decision 3-5/1.)

 

Example 1 : If men playing from the middle tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.3 compete against men playing from the back tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 72.6, the men playing from the back tees will add two strokes (72.6 - 70.3 = 2.3 rounded to 2 ) to their Course Handicap.

 

Example 2: If women playing from the forward tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 73.4 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add three strokes (73.4 - 70.9 = 2.5 rounded to 3) to their Course Handicap.

 

b. Same Tees: Men vs. Women

 

Men and women playing from the same set of tees will have different ratings. Because the women's USGA Course Rating usually will be higher, women receive additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between ratings, with .5 or greater rounded upward.

 

Example : If women playing from the middle tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 rounded to 6) to their Course Handicap.

 

The adjustment must be added to the higher-rated tee players' Course Handicap even if it causes aCourse Handicap to exceed the maximum possible for the Slope Rating of the set of tees being played. Alternatively, it is permissible to subtract the extra handicap strokes from the Course Handicap of the player playing from the tees with the lower USGA Course Rating.

 

dpb4031. My sincere apologies for saying you were wrong. I thought your daughter was a very high caliber player and never thought you'd have been talking about a net event.

 

You were absolutely right about how a handicap system works when a woman plays a man in a net match or tournament.

 

I clearly misread your post and its meaning and was colored by a faulty memory.

[iteachgolf]

<sigh> this is wrong.

 

A woman competing against men from the men's tees will still have the same handicap she had before. She would shoot about the same scores as a 6-8 handicap man.

 

I can assure you I am not wrong. Do some homework and get back to us.

 

Edited to add a <sigh> ��

 

Are you talking about in a net event?

 

So now you want the lady to shoot the same score as a 6-8 index man (that's what you said she'd shoot), from the back tees, and somehow compete with the scratch golfer from those tees? Without getting any strokes?

 

No. I didn't realize we went from comparing two golfers to two golfers competing against each other net.

 

That was never clear to me.

 

That's the same thing. Comparing two golfers ability is the same as them playing net. A scratch male will be 6-8 shots lower than a scratch female from the same tees. Saying a scratch woman is 6-8 shots worse than a scratch male is the SAME thing as saying a scratch male needs to give the woman 6-8 shots. Comparing two golfers is the same thing as saying what they'd be net.

 

I can't fathom how you don't get that. Anytime you're comparing two players it's net. You stating how much better one is which is the equivalent to saying how many strokes they'd have to give

[b.helts]

No. I didn't realize we went from comparing two golfers to two golfers competing against each other net.

 

That was never clear to me.

 

 

"Put another way, a zero handicap woman competing against men from the men's tees will typically be somewhere between a 6-8 handicap."

 

Do you see how this statement is correct?

 

The handicaps have to be based on the same course ratings for them to be able to compete with each other. It can either be the women's rating, or the men's, but ONE of the two golfers is going to have to have course handicap adjusted to compare to the other.

 

Yes I do.

[Shilgy]

I see too many of these threads. 4 handicapper beating LPGA player, nope. Maybe 1% chance.

 

But against a +4 player, maybe more often. I'm a +2 and I know many of those LPGA players will smoke me under competitive conditions on same tees. To some of you guys, keep those egos under control.

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

[Shilgy]

frankly, that nikegal sounds like a bit of a bully.

 

If not that, how about one-armed or sight-impaired golf?

What, because she comes into a thread full of guys as the only female posting and makes a bold statement or has an exchange with one of the sharpest members on the board(Wbgon)? I've counted at least nine guys in this thread who have made similar statements in either this or other threads, myself & Wb's included, and not a single one of us is considered a bully and my record on this board is well documented when it comes to virtual world bullying and I will never be physically handicapped enough not to step in a b**** slap a bully in the real world.

 

If you haven't read any of her stuff go back and read some of it before you jump into a thread 10+ pages deep and start takin shots at her. You're THE first person on this board in her 500 + posts or in this thread to say that. What, do you believe that you are so perceptive that you noticed something that some of the finest, sharpest and out spoken members on this board missed??????

 

It's unfortunate that that little 92yo guy in her avatar can't speak up now. He'd been her student since he was 77yo, was a 22+ cap and worshipped the ground that she walked on in a a grandfatherly way, as he had no grandchildren of his own. She threw this BDay party for him at my bar and she had not charged him for a lesson since he hit 80yo. Before his best bud passed, she would take them both out at my club every Monday afternoon to play and sometimes carry his bag because he would get tired walking the hills. Yea, these are the actions of a bully.

 

Besides, since I was 13yo, I have made it my business to humiliate and destroy bullies where I find them. Do you actually believe for one second that the Woman that I Love would be a bully???? Do you actually think that you caught something that noone else on this board caught, or that My Teacher, Harry Welford "Pete" Snead, who was her defacto Father, Mentor and gave her away at her wedding, missed or would have toletated for a second?????

 

She has stepped in numerous times when someone is being bullied on this board as she does in the real world. This is one of the first things that I noticed when I first met her.

 

You wanna consider yourself world class at the game you love?

 

While you attempt to display your wit and use the handicapped to poke fun at and to compare yourself to, you can use me as the bar for comparison~

 

Not only am I half-blind/sight impaired and one armed, the whole left side of my body, arm/leg & hand/foot is presently useless for any high functioning activity such as swinging a club.

 

Under pressure, you can beat me

 

There, you've found your level for the game that you love

 

Take your garbage back to the Classics section.

 

Later,

RP

RP-I am pretty sure Birly was kidding. I could be wrong but that was how I read his post.

[b.helts]

That's the same thing. Comparing two golfers ability is the same as them playing net. A scratch male will be 6-8 shots lower than a scratch female from the same tees. Saying a scratch woman is 6-8 shots worse than a scratch male is the SAME thing as saying a scratch male needs to give the woman 6-8 shots. Comparing two golfers is the same thing as saying what they'd be net.

 

I can't fathom how you don't get that. Anytime you're comparing two players it's net. You stating how much better one is which is the equivalent to saying how many strokes they'd have to give

 

I get that.

 

I obviously misread dpb5031's post and was going at this from the wrong perspective.

[gwlee7]

 

 

Sure but earlier you were using handicaps to compare boys to women that play in only gross events.

 

But he was using the handicaps as a way of showing the scratch male has the advantage and will shoot a lower scorw than the scratch female if they play the same set of tees. Scratch means you should shoot the course rating not par. If the course rating is 69 for men and 73 for women, then the man should shoot a score about 4 shots lower than the woman.

[HitEmTrue]

RP-I am pretty sure Birly was kidding. I could be wrong but that was how I read his post.

 

The entire post seemed tongue-in-cheek to me!

[Jacob Mac]

 

 

Sure but earlier you were using handicaps to compare boys to women that play in only gross events.

 

But he was using the handicaps as a way of showing the scratch male has the advantage and will shoot a lower scorw than the scratch female if they play the same set of tees. Scratch means you should shoot the course rating not par. If the course rating is 69 for men and 73 for women, then the man should shoot a score about 4 shots lower than the woman.

 

That's insulting and priviledged.

[iteachgolf]

I see too many of these threads. 4 handicapper beating LPGA player, nope. Maybe 1% chance.

 

But against a +4 player, maybe more often. I'm a +2 and I know many of those LPGA players will smoke me under competitive conditions on same tees. To some of you guys, keep those egos under control.

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

 

There is zero chance a true +2 or 3 averages 73 on a course rated at 71.5. A 0 handicap male who is a 0 from 7,100 yards might average 73 from courses rated 71.5. A plus handicap on a course with a very high slope is very different than one from with a low one. The +2 or 3 would go very low from 6400 yards on a course rated 71.5/125.

 

On courses with high slopes ( back tees of tournament course) a round of -5 in relation the course rating could only give a -3 differential. Many +3s are shooting closer to 5 shots under the rating fairly often. They aren't going to average 1.5 shots over the rating from 700 yards closer

[dpb5031]

3-5. Players Competing from Different Tees or Men and Women from Same Tees

 

a. Different Tees: Men vs. Men; Women vs. Women; Women vs. Men

 

Different tees usually have different Ratings. Because a USGA Course Rating reflects the probable score of a scratch golfer, the higher-rated course is more difficult, and the player playing from the set of tees with the higher USGA Course Rating receives additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between each USGA Course Rating, with .5 or greater rounded upward. The additional stroke(s) are added to the Course Handicap of the player playing from the higher-rated set of tees. (See Decision 3-5/1.)

 

Example 1 : If men playing from the middle tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.3 compete against men playing from the back tees where the men's USGA Course Rating is 72.6, the men playing from the back tees will add two strokes (72.6 - 70.3 = 2.3 rounded to 2 ) to their Course Handicap.

 

Example 2: If women playing from the forward tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 73.4 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add three strokes (73.4 - 70.9 = 2.5 rounded to 3) to their Course Handicap.

 

b. Same Tees: Men vs. Women

 

Men and women playing from the same set of tees will have different ratings. Because the women's USGA Course Rating usually will be higher, women receive additional stroke(s) equal to the difference between ratings, with .5 or greater rounded upward.

 

Example : If women playing from the middle tees from which the women's USGA Course Rating is 77.3 compete against men playing from the middle tees from which the men's USGA Course Rating is 70.9, the women will add six strokes (77.3 - 70.9 = 6.4 rounded to 6) to their Course Handicap.

 

The adjustment must be added to the higher-rated tee players' Course Handicap even if it causes aCourse Handicap to exceed the maximum possible for the Slope Rating of the set of tees being played. Alternatively, it is permissible to subtract the extra handicap strokes from the Course Handicap of the player playing from the tees with the lower USGA Course Rating.

 

dpb4031. My sincere apologies for saying you were wrong. I thought your daughter was a very high caliber player and never thought you'd have been talking about a net event.

 

You were absolutely right about how a handicap system works when a woman plays a man in a net match or tournament.

 

I clearly misread your post and its meaning and was colored by a faulty memory.

 

No problem, the conversation just evolved, that's all. Most people, even very experienced players are not aware of this facet of the handicapping system and it can be confusing, so I pointed it out. It's relevant because we're comparing players of varying abilities and different genders. The USGA handicapping system has a method for dealing with it.

 

And FWIW, I don't think it's perfect, but it's the best we've got. The ratings are based on assumptions of average distances attributed to men v. women.

Most good female tournament players rarely play the forward tees and hit it just as long (on average) as the average mid hc male club player.

[b.helts]

Sure but earlier you were using handicaps to compare boys to women that play in only gross events.

 

But he was using the handicaps as a way of showing the scratch male has the advantage and will shoot a lower scorw than the scratch female if they play the same set of tees. Scratch means you should shoot the course rating not par. If the course rating is 69 for men and 73 for women, then the man should shoot a score about 4 shots lower than the woman.

 

This is self evident and part of the discussion iteach and I had last night. As I said last night, there is no comparison.

[Obee]

I see too many of these threads. 4 handicapper beating LPGA player, nope. Maybe 1% chance.

 

But against a +4 player, maybe more often. I'm a +2 and I know many of those LPGA players will smoke me under competitive conditions on same tees. To some of you guys, keep those egos under control.

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

 

There is zero chance a true +2 or 3 averages 73 on a course rated at 71.5. A 0 handicap male who is a 0 from 7,100 yards might average 73 from courses rated 71.5. A plus handicap on a course with a very high slope is very different than one from with a low one. The +2 or 3 would go very low from 6400 yards on a course rated 71.5/125.

 

On courses with high slopes ( back tees of tournament course) a round of -5 in relation the course rating could only give a -3 differential. Many +3s are shooting closer to 5 shots under the rating fairly often. They aren't going to average 1.5 shots over the rating from 700 yards closer

 

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

[rangersgoalie]

If it was four rounds, it would be comical

[Shilgy]

I see too many of these threads. 4 handicapper beating LPGA player, nope. Maybe 1% chance.

 

But against a +4 player, maybe more often. I'm a +2 and I know many of those LPGA players will smoke me under competitive conditions on same tees. To some of you guys, keep those egos under control.

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

 

There is zero chance a true +2 or 3 averages 73 on a course rated at 71.5. A 0 handicap male who is a 0 from 7,100 yards might average 73 from courses rated 71.5. A plus handicap on a course with a very high slope is very different than one from with a low one. The +2 or 3 would go very low from 6400 yards on a course rated 71.5/125.

 

On courses with high slopes ( back tees of tournament course) a round of -5 in relation the course rating could only give a -3 differential. Many +3s are shooting closer to 5 shots under the rating fairly often. They aren't going to average 1.5 shots over the rating from 700 yards closer

So the USGA is wrong? I have always read a player will average about 3 strokes over his cap. So a player averages 72.5 on 71.5 rated course is probably about a +2. Depends of course on their score variance but that is the fact. Why would a +2 or +3 go very low from your course rated 71.5/125? The would be expected to shoot,on average, about the course rating. Their better half of scores would average about 69 to create their handicap.

 

Edit-see Obee's post above! (came in while I was typing)

 

Q: How often you should beat your handicap?

 

A: You should average about three shots higher than your handicap. For example, a player with a Course Handicap of 16 on a course with a USGA Course Rating of 71.2 should average about 90, not 87. The USGA Handicap System is based on 96 percent of the best 10 differentials (corrected for Course and Slope Rating) of his last 20 rounds. More than half of your scores should be within three strokes of three over your handicap (87 to 93 in our example). Most golfers will beat their handicap (87 or better in our example) 20 per cent of the time and beat it by three strokes one out of every 20 rounds. For this player to break 80 (beat his handicap by eight), the odds are 1,138 to 1 that his handicap is correct. Do that twice and it would take the average golfer to play over 700 years of golf to accomplish it "fairly". In other words, odds far beyond reasonableness. .

 

By Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department, Knuth invented today's USGA Course Rating and Slope system. EditRegion1

[green5]

I respect the women a ton. The women at the top of the game are phenomenal. There simply isn't as much depth. The top 10 on the LPGA tour are scary good. I wouldn't want to play Stacy Lewis, even from 7100 yards, for money. But the women in he bottom half in another story. There is a massive gap in skill level between the 100th ranked woman and the top 10. The depth has improved drastically in the last 10 years but it still has a ways to go. In another 10 years I think it will be more competitive.

 

I know a girl who top 100 in scoring average and around 100th in money on the LPGA Tour. Has been out there a few years now and only has 2 career top 10s. Its a lot like how the PGA Tour was 60 years ago. Just because I don't think the talent pool is as deep doesn't mean I don't respect them

 

That's something I've been pondering for a while. I discussed with my friends why there's has been such a massive contingency of successful Asian LPGA players in the past 15 years, regardless of their national identity. We speculated that there simply weren't enough good female golfers prior to the Asian explosion and once the girls and their parents saw the opportunity, they really put in some serious work and it exposed how shallow the pool of talent in LPGA was. I believe Richie Hunt once commented something about the depth of talent, or lack thereof, in the LPGA as well. I'm curious to see if it's something backed up by the statistics in standing, etc.

[iteachgolf]

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

 

There is zero chance a true +2 or 3 averages 73 on a course rated at 71.5. A 0 handicap male who is a 0 from 7,100 yards might average 73 from courses rated 71.5. A plus handicap on a course with a very high slope is very different than one from with a low one. The +2 or 3 would go very low from 6400 yards on a course rated 71.5/125.

 

On courses with high slopes ( back tees of tournament course) a round of -5 in relation the course rating could only give a -3 differential. Many +3s are shooting closer to 5 shots under the rating fairly often. They aren't going to average 1.5 shots over the rating from 700 yards closer

 

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

[Obee]

It's too bad this thread was not tittled, can a +2 man beat an LPGA tour pro? I think it would lead to more interesting debate.

 

This thread has been done many times over. And it's not a debate. A male +2 can beat an LPGA Tour pro. And an LPGA Tour pro can be at male +2.

Agree with the 2nd part of what you say, which is the reason folks will have different opinions on the subject......As the current title reads, 99% are on the same side of the issue. As far as it not being a debate. Anything can be a debate.

 

Sorry, but you are unequivocally wrong. It's happened many times. I've done it myself. I've also shot 76 and got beat by 8 shots! LOL

 

Have you ever played with an LPGA pro? Have you ever played with a regionally or nationally competitive amateur (+2 is about the beginning point for a seriously competitive am)? Have you ever played with the two of them together on the same course?

 

Anywhere below scratch and up to about a +2ish (and especially below scratch with tournament experience), and you have a good match between a male amateur and a mid-level LPGA Tour pro. My money is definitely on the lady if they play 10 matches due to her experience and (most likely) better consistency, but the male am would win a fair share of matches.

 

So if the question regarding a male +2 amateur vs. an LPGA Tour pro is "could he win?" then the answer is not in doubt. If the question is "who's better over multiple matches?" then I would say the LPGA Tour pro, but it would be close. That's the only debate at that level.

[Shilgy]

 

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

So really you just do not believe the handicap system it seems. Without doing the slope math a +2 would average about 77 from a course rated at 76.0 . If the same player moved up to the tees rated at 71.5 he would average 72.5.

[Obee]

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

So really you just do not believe the handicap system it seems. Without doing the slope math a +2 would average about 77 from a course rated at 76.0 . If the same player moved up to the tees rated at 71.5 he would average 72.5.

 

You are correct, Shilgy.

[Shilgy]

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

So really you just do not believe the handicap system it seems. Without doing the slope math a +2 would average about 77 from a course rated at 76.0 . If the same player moved up to the tees rated at 71.5 he would average 72.5.

 

You are correct, Shilgy.

Thanks Obee-nice playing in your event from the other thread. I have 10 years on you as I am 59 but way to teach the youngsters a bit of a lesson. :)

[iteachgolf]

Thank you-I was going to reply to another post but this will do fine. How in the worls do some think a 4 capper-or a scratch male-has a chance? Typical scratch will average about 3 over the rating. Do you see the average lady doing that?

Iteach-you mentioned earlier a tournament only +2 cap beating the women. I would say 50-50 on that bet. But...the +2 tournament only player would probably be a +4 or +5 if he posted his more casual rounds as well. A woman that shoots even par-even with the male rating-as a stroke average would be a +2 or +3 when taking the top half of scores.

 

I also told you Ived watched scratch golfers beat LPGA tour players. A tournament +2 would would beat them way more often than 50/50. And no she wouldn't be a + 2 or 3. The courses average a rating of around 71.5 and the 100th ranked scoring average is nearly 73. Scratch golfer absolutely has a chance and probably about a 30-40% chance.

I teach-rather than argue/discuss you post in a few pages where you you said you never stated an "average" LPGA player but were talking about #100 lady player let's discuss this one. I stated a player averaging just under 73- as your post above stated- on a course rated for men at 71.5-again from your post above- would be a +2 to +3 male cap. So a player averages 1 or so over the course rating what do you think their handicap would be?

 

There is zero chance a true +2 or 3 averages 73 on a course rated at 71.5. A 0 handicap male who is a 0 from 7,100 yards might average 73 from courses rated 71.5. A plus handicap on a course with a very high slope is very different than one from with a low one. The +2 or 3 would go very low from 6400 yards on a course rated 71.5/125.

 

On courses with high slopes ( back tees of tournament course) a round of -5 in relation the course rating could only give a -3 differential. Many +3s are shooting closer to 5 shots under the rating fairly often. They aren't going to average 1.5 shots over the rating from 700 yards closer

So the USGA is wrong? I have always read a player will average about 3 strokes over his cap. So a player averages 72.5 on 71.5 rated course is probably about a +2. Depends of course on their score variance but that is the fact. Why would a +2 or +3 go very low from your course rated 71.5/125? The would be expected to shoot,on average, about the course rating. Their better half of scores would average about 69 to create their handicap.

 

Edit-see Obee's post above! (came in while I was typing)

 

Q: How often you should beat your handicap?

 

A: You should average about three shots higher than your handicap. For example, a player with a Course Handicap of 16 on a course with a USGA Course Rating of 71.2 should average about 90, not 87. The USGA Handicap System is based on 96 percent of the best 10 differentials (corrected for Course and Slope Rating) of his last 20 rounds. More than half of your scores should be within three strokes of three over your handicap (87 to 93 in our example). Most golfers will beat their handicap (87 or better in our example) 20 per cent of the time and beat it by three strokes one out of every 20 rounds. For this player to break 80 (beat his handicap by eight), the odds are 1,138 to 1 that his handicap is correct. Do that twice and it would take the average golfer to play over 700 years of golf to accomplish it "fairly". In other words, odds far beyond reasonableness. .

 

By Dean Knuth, Golf Digest Professional Advisor. Former senior director of the USGA handicap department, Knuth invented today's USGA Course Rating and Slope system. EditRegion1

 

You don't understand how handicaps work. Because you divide by the slope, the higher the slope the smaller the differential for the same score. So someone who's a +3 from the back tee at TPC sawgrass has to shoot 5 shots under the rating to have a -3 differential. In other words a +3 at TPC sawgrass would have to average below 73 on his 10 best rounds to be a +3. There is no way that golfer averages 73 on a golf course that is 6400 and rated 71.5/125. Your 3 shot rule is more applicable to high handicaps than guys well into + range. Obee basically averaged 1.5 shots higher than his index.

 

A +3 on a course sloped 155 would be a better golfer than a +3 on a course sloped 126

[iteachgolf]

 

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

So really you just do not believe the handicap system it seems. Without doing the slope math a +2 would average about 77 from a course rated at 76.0 . If the same player moved up to the tees rated at 71.5 he would average 72.5.

 

I believe the handicap system. You just don't get it. You can't negate slope. A +3 from 76/155 is much better than a +3 from 76/130. But they'd have the same handicap. USGA knows this is a flaw in the system and its there to reward + handicaps.

[bph7]

It's too bad this thread was not tittled, can a +2 man beat an LPGA tour pro? I think it would lead to more interesting debate.

 

This thread has been done many times over. And it's not a debate. A male +2 can beat an LPGA Tour pro. And an LPGA Tour pro can be at male +2.

Agree with the 2nd part of what you say, which is the reason folks will have different opinions on the subject......As the current title reads, 99% are on the same side of the issue. As far as it not being a debate. Anything can be a debate.

 

Sorry, but you are unequivocally wrong. It's happened many times. I've done it myself. I've also shot 76 and got beat by 8 shots! LOL

 

Have you ever played with an LPGA pro? Have you ever played with a regionally or nationally competitive amateur (+2 is about the beginning point for a seriously competitive am)? Have you ever played with the two of them together on the same course?

 

Anywhere below scratch and up to about a +2ish (and especially below scratch with tournament experience), and you have a good match between a male amateur and a mid-level LPGA Tour pro. My money is definitely on the lady if they play 10 matches due to her experience and (most likely) better consistency, but the male am would win a fair share of matches.

 

So if the question regarding a male +2 amateur vs. an LPGA Tour pro is "could he win?" then the answer is not in doubt. If the question is "who's better over multiple matches?" then I would say the LPGA Tour pro, but it would be close. That's the only debate at that level.

 

Ok that's fair enough. Would your analysis change at all if we changed the guy to a legit plus four? Surely if a plus 2 could win some of the time, a plus 4 would win more. At what handicap level would the guy become a favorite (assuming legit cap with tourney experience)? I think around +3 is where the guy becomes a favorite.

[Obee]

 

A +3 on a course sloped 155 would be a better golfer than a +3 on a course sloped 126

 

This is also correct. LOL

[bph7]

 

I don't know about "would go." "Could go" low is more accurate for the +2 on a 71.5/125, the average score for such a player would be between 71 and 72. I know because that used to be me! LOL. I played a course at 6560, 72.0/132 (a bit more difficult, but close enough) and my scoring average there for two years was 72.x and my index fluctuated between +1 and +3. I have played with several LPGA Tour pros over the years. I know what they shoot. I know what I shoot. It's not that difficult, people. Just look at IsaacBM's posts. It's math.

 

But if you were a +2 from 76/152 at 7,100 yards you'd have a lower average at those distances and would probably have even lower lows as youd have to shoot more below the course rating to have the same handicap from the longer harder course.

So really you just do not believe the handicap system it seems. Without doing the slope math a +2 would average about 77 from a course rated at 76.0 . If the same player moved up to the tees rated at 71.5 he would average 72.5.

 

I believe the handicap system. You just don't get it. You can't negate slope. A +3 from 76/155 is much better than a +3 from 76/130. But they'd have the same handicap. USGA knows this is a flaw in the system and its there to reward + handicaps.

 

This is a much more complicated topic that most don't get, but I've had email conversations with the USGA about the plus cap/slope issue (i.e. how lower slope ratings make your handicap better on the plus side). The guy tried to justify it and even sent me some pdf's but I kept pointing out holes in the argument and eventually he kind of seemed to concede they knew it was a flaw but just wanted a consistent formula to use.

 

Also the obvious fix to this would be to multiple by (slope/113) instead of (113/slope) if (score minus rating) is less than zero. That way, as the slope increases, the differential would get "more plus" instead of moving more towards zero.