Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[bph7]

I didn't move the bar at all. Not once. I'm quoting you on the 5 shots lower.

 

A +3 on a course with rating of 76/155 would average about 74 with his best 50% averaging 72. You then said that same +3 would average about 5 shots lower. That's 67 on his best 50% and 69 on his average. You're completely missing the point. A +3 from 7100+ yards would be BETTER than a +3 from 700 yards closer.

 

When did I say average high schooler. I warned you already, stop spouting off with BS and trying to attribute things I never said to me. I was VERY specific. I said a GOOD high school golfer who would finish about 30-40th in Boys junior is about the same as the 100th ranked LPGA player.

 

And no I think a +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player. Angela Stanford is a men's +1.2 and is 45th on tour in scoring average. The 100th ranked player averages 1.5 strokes more than she does and is about the equivalent of a 0.

Not sure why you are posting this way but...

A Good high school golfer in most peoples terms is not 30-40th in the Boys Junior. Color it any way you want but that is elite.

 

Stanfords scores were all from 2-4 years ago so hardly represent her own tour play.

 

You have your opinion and I have mine. A +3 is a plus three. 7000 or 6300. Now do the slope differences come into play as discussed ad nauseam already? Sure. But a plus three will shoot lower scores from the shorter course more likely but still be a plus 3 .

To the bolded part yes he is shooting lower scores. But he is still a +3. Unless, as you will recall we were discussing a 76/155 course versus a 71.5/125 course. Two different courses. I would love to see the scorecard where one set of tees is 76/155 and the further up tee is 71.5/125. If the back tees are sloped at 155 it is VERY unlikey the up tees are just 125.

 

Last-I don't need a warning from you but your facts are off. Just because Stanford has an ancient index of +1.2 and a player in the current year is 1.5 strokes back that does not make the current LPGA scoring average a 0 handicap. If she averages 72.7 on courses rated at 71.5 she would be about a +2. Just for fun...Caroline Hedwall is having an awful year. She happens to be your 100th lady pro with a 72.7 scoring average. But guess what. Using the better half of her last 20 tournament scores on the LPGA site she averages 68.8. If we use your stated 71.5 rating what is her handicap? Depending on slope a little north (better) than +2.7.

 

Two things: first your last paragraph brings up an excellent point about using best 10 of 20 to determine handicap instead of average. I was going to bring that up myself.

 

However, when it comes to Stanford, the fact that the scores are "old" doesn't help your case. She was much better 2-4 years ago. Last 6 money place finishes are 7, 16, 12, 19, 34 and this year currently 39. So the last two years have been the worst in a while. If anything, her cap would be even higher now.

 

That aside, the "men's caps" of everyone on lpga are going to be lower than their scoring average as you pointed out. So maybe plus 2.5 is really about the number.

Scores she posted away from the tour really do not matter anyway in this discussion do they? If Jason Day goes out with his buds and decides to post a few 80's is that his handicap? 2.5 below scoring average sounds about right to me as well.

Thank you-

 

I think we pretty much agree. I was just saying that if we were going to take those scores she posted at face value, the fact that they were old would only lend credence to her "men's cap" being even higher since she was objectively a better golfer a few years ago. But all in all I agree that it's probably better not to consider them.

 

I wish we could get more exact data on the true men's ratings of the courses as they are set up for the LPGA events, but I think overall, even being conservative, they likely are not rated higher than 71/120 or so. So given that information we could try to calculate the indexes of others ranked higher or lower (as you did with Hedwall) and actually get some data. My guess is that 50-100 are around the plus 2 range for men.

[Fort Worth Pro]

Just wanted to throw out that I have no idea how shady oaks is only rated 74.0/137. That place is brutal. Way harder than colonial. The greens might as well have windmills in spots.

[North Texas]

Okay, I guess I got lost in all this discussion.

 

When we're talking about the women, are we supposed to be basing everything on what the course ratings/slope is for men at the courses the ladies play. And not what the ratings/slope is based on women?

[Shilgy]

Okay, I'm going to throw this out there just for the hell of it :superman:

 

Grace Na is dead last (155th) on the LPGA tour with a scoring average of 75.6.

I looked at her last 20 scores and then averaged her best 10 rounds.

Those best 10 rounds averaged 73.9.

 

Based on the course ratings at my course for women, I'm going to guess that this puts her at about a 0 handicap.

 

But that's impossible as her average is only 1.5 shots from her best 50%. It has to be at least 3 shots. And that'd make her a 2-3 handicap using the men's ratings not a plus handicap.

 

I thought since she was a woman, I was supposed to use the women's ratings ;)

If you use the men's ratings, I would have to agree with you.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say about her average only being 1.5 shots from her best 50. But I'll double check my info.

 

I was joking about the 1.5 shots. Shilgy believes that all golfers best 50% of their round are 3 shots better than their index and can't be closer than that

Should I reply there you go misquoting? I pasted a usga article that said it was average. I never ever ever said what you just said. I said the usga says most will average 3 shots over their handicap. Not the 50% mumbo jumbo you just wrote.

This has to be a rehash of some of the weirdest and worst threads of wrx.

What's next? Could any of us beat Tiger today?

[iteachgolf]

Okay, I'm going to throw this out there just for the hell of it :superman:

 

Grace Na is dead last (155th) on the LPGA tour with a scoring average of 75.6.

I looked at her last 20 scores and then averaged her best 10 rounds.

Those best 10 rounds averaged 73.9.

 

Based on the course ratings at my course for women, I'm going to guess that this puts her at about a 0 handicap.

 

But that's impossible as her average is only 1.5 shots from her best 50%. It has to be at least 3 shots. And that'd make her a 2-3 handicap using the men's ratings not a plus handicap.

 

I thought since she was a woman, I was supposed to use the women's ratings ;)

If you use the men's ratings, I would have to agree with you.

 

Not sure what you are trying to say about her average only being 1.5 shots from her best 50. But I'll double check my info.

 

I was joking about the 1.5 shots. Shilgy believes that all golfers best 50% of their round are 3 shots better than their index and can't be closer than that

Should I reply there you go misquoting? I pasted a usga article that said it was average. I never ever ever said what you just said. I said the usga says most will average 3 shots over their handicap. Not the 50% mumbo jumbo you just wrote.

This has to be a rehash of some of the weirdest and worst threads of wrx.

What's next? Could any of us beat Tiger today?

 

50% isn't Mumbo jumbo. It's their handicap.

 

And you've repeatedly tried to use the 3 strokes as a hard and fast rule while ignoring real facts

 

 

We both agreed a +3 from a course rated 150+ would average around 74 with their best 50% averaging 72. But you then tried to argue that said player wouldn't be better than the 100th ranked LPGA player because because of your 3 shot rule from a course rated around 72. Which ignores the logic that a player who averages 74 from 7,100 yards on an extremely difficult golf course will average much lower than 73 on an easy 6400 yard course.

[bph7]

Okay, I guess I got lost in all this discussion.

 

When we're talking about the women, are we supposed to be basing everything on what the course ratings/slope is for men at the courses the ladies play. And not what the ratings/slope is based on women?

 

Yes, if we are comparing to men's handicaps, we should use the men's rating, that way everyone is on the same system. You can use the women's rating, in which case they'd all be much better, probably plus 5 or better, but if we are comparing to men's caps it's meaningless.

[bph7]

I just calculated Lydia Ko's cap for her last 20 LPGA scores. Her best 10 averaged 66.5. Assuming average men's rating/slope of 71/120, her men's cap is (66.5-71) * (113/120) * .96 = +4.1. So, assuming the rating/slope is in the ballpark, the best LPGA player is a +4.1 men's. Being even more conservative, and assuming rating/slope of 72/130, her men's cap would be plus 4.5. That seems about what I thought it would be.

[bph7]

And for further reference, karrie Webb, who is 50th, has a best 10 average of 70.0. Using the most conservative estimate of 72/130, this makes her a +1.7 men's. Just another data point.

[isaacbm]

I just calculated Lydia Ko's cap for her last 20 LPGA scores. Her best 10 averaged 66.5. Assuming average men's rating/slope of 71/120, her men's cap is (66.5-71) * (113/120) * .96 = +4.1. So, assuming the rating/slope is in the ballpark, the best LPGA player is a +4.1 men's. Being even more conservative, and assuming rating/slope of 72/130, her men's cap would be plus 4.5. That seems about what I thought it would be.

 

Which is exactly what I did 200 posts ago and seven threads ago! Lol

[2bGood]

OK-I see what you are saying about the excessively high slope course player. We moved from what score a +3 averages to comparing slopes. Obee averaged 1.5-3.5 above his cap for those two years-not just the 1.5 you stated. He said his cap varied from +1 to +3 and averaged over the rating by x amount lol. He said his average was 72.x so we are all using the x as .5. :)

Will the +3 from the excessively high slope course suffer from the inability to go low? Some players would imo. A +3 on your 76.0/155 course would average about 72(?) for his best 10 scores. Actual average more in the 74 range I would think.

From Obees post just above(#390) the elite am is likely not a 4 handicap-or even just a +2. And yes they could would be a level level woman pro.

 

PS the reasons you brought up is part of why the system is a bit flawed. As Obee would attest, and I was a few years back, when you play an event using a percentage of the cap the + player actually is helped rather than harmed on the percentage. A 4 cap in an event using 50% of handicap becomes a 2 while the +4 becomes a +2. Has always seemed off to most of us but that is how it works.

 

Not many +2s are playing a course that's 6500 and rated 72. Obee is the outlier not the norm. Most in that range are playing 7000+.

 

And you're proving my point. The plus 3 would average around 74 from 7100 yards on a very tough course. You don't think he'd be more than a shot better on a course that's 700 yards shorter and rated 5 shots easier? Like I said. No chance a +3 on a 7100 yard course averages 73 on a 6400 yard course rated 71.5. They'd probably average around 70 with best 10 averaging 68.5. That's way better than the 50-100 ranked LPGA scoring average.

 

I am not sure that can be true. The average length played on the PGA tour is 7270 yards and they are seeking out the "long" courses. I have to think the average golf course in the USA is well under 7000 as it is only in recent years that these 7000+ yard "championship" courses popped up. Though better golfers might want to play out of 7000+ yard clubs, there just is not that many to play out of across the country as older clubs used to shoot for 6300 yards.

 

I have no data to back it up, but I would bet big money there are more +2 playing out of sub 7000 yard courses then over 7000 yard courses.

 

 

When Richard(+2.8) Played with Suzann Petterson and I at Isleworth, we Played the Palmer tees, which are the second longest at 7065yds(Par 72, 74.8/141), behind the Tiger tees at 7544yds. He had a 70, 72 to Suzann's 71 & 70. He also Played with Stacy from the same tees along with his tour friend and his tour buddie had a 69, Richard and Stacy had 71's. Also, thank you Shilgy and Birly. You are both sweethearts :) Madison

Oh-so a +4 can compete. ;) And you such a bully! :cheesy: Was Richard heavily medicated when he took that seriously? No one-make that NO ONE- on this board would ever mistake you for a bully.

 

Sadly there seems to be movement to expand the definition of what a bully is. These days disagreeing with someone could classify you as a 'bully'. Mini rant over.

[BMC]

 

 

 

That's the male 4 handicap being beaten by the LPGA pro (and this thread).

[Forged4ever]

I just calculated Lydia Ko's cap for her last 20 LPGA scores. Her best 10 averaged 66.5. Assuming average men's rating/slope of 71/120, her men's cap is (66.5-71) * (113/120) * .96 = +4.1. So, assuming the rating/slope is in the ballpark, the best LPGA player is a +4.1 men's. Being even more conservative, and assuming rating/slope of 72/130, her men's cap would be plus 4.5. That seems about what I thought it would be.

 

Which is exactly what I did 200 posts ago and seven threads ago! Lol

I definitely think a Canadian road trip is in the cards.

 

If we get ourselves into any trouble, Maddie is amazing at explaining that it's all just a misunderstanding, lmao.

 

My passport's still good :)

 

My Best,

RP

[TheGeekGolfer]

A 4hdcp couldn't beat David Toms let alone a longer hitter like Lydia Ko, or Mo Martin.

Mo Martin is NOT a 'longer hitter'. Her average off the tee is ranked 150th, at 239.445.

 

I've been following this thread and haven't jumped in, yet.

 

However, I think the answer is simple math. Can a 4 hdcp (male) beat an LPGA pro' - YES. Will that 4 hdcp (male) do it, most likely NOT. If we assume the male is a 'longer hitter' (average carry 270, 290-300 w/ roll). If you move them up to the LPGA tee (6400 yds), they will almost definitely still lose as their length off the tee, even playing 3-iron / hybrid / 3-wood off the tee won't over-compensate for their lack of consistency with irons and short game. If you move the LPGA player back to the 'back' tees where the course plays close to 'par' rating, closer to 6700+ yards, then things will start to even out. Take the 155th player on the LPGA scoring average list, Grace Na, averages 75.64. If that's at her 6400 yd course, rating for male hdcp at say 70, then that's actually about a +6 round of golf. Put her back and her average would go up by a couple of strokes, I would guess.

 

So, in conclusion, I believe that yes (have a chance, not all the time), a 4 hdcp male can beat an LPGA tour player (not top 50) if they were playing the back tees. The title says 'NOTHING' about tournament conditions or fans, so I didn't factor that in at all.

[iteachgolf]

OK-I see what you are saying about the excessively high slope course player. We moved from what score a +3 averages to comparing slopes. Obee averaged 1.5-3.5 above his cap for those two years-not just the 1.5 you stated. He said his cap varied from +1 to +3 and averaged over the rating by x amount lol. He said his average was 72.x so we are all using the x as .5. :)

Will the +3 from the excessively high slope course suffer from the inability to go low? Some players would imo. A +3 on your 76.0/155 course would average about 72(?) for his best 10 scores. Actual average more in the 74 range I would think.

From Obees post just above(#390) the elite am is likely not a 4 handicap-or even just a +2. And yes they could would be a level level woman pro.

 

PS the reasons you brought up is part of why the system is a bit flawed. As Obee would attest, and I was a few years back, when you play an event using a percentage of the cap the + player actually is helped rather than harmed on the percentage. A 4 cap in an event using 50% of handicap becomes a 2 while the +4 becomes a +2. Has always seemed off to most of us but that is how it works.

 

Not many +2s are playing a course that's 6500 and rated 72. Obee is the outlier not the norm. Most in that range are playing 7000+.

 

And you're proving my point. The plus 3 would average around 74 from 7100 yards on a very tough course. You don't think he'd be more than a shot better on a course that's 700 yards shorter and rated 5 shots easier? Like I said. No chance a +3 on a 7100 yard course averages 73 on a 6400 yard course rated 71.5. They'd probably average around 70 with best 10 averaging 68.5. That's way better than the 50-100 ranked LPGA scoring average.

 

I am not sure that can be true. The average length played on the PGA tour is 7270 yards and they are seeking out the "long" courses. I have to think the average golf course in the USA is well under 7000 as it is only in recent year that these 7000+ yard courses "championship" course popped up. Though better golfers might want to play out of 7000+ yard club, there just is not that many to play out of across the country as older clubs used to shoot for 6300 yards.

 

I have no data to back it up, but I would bet big money there are more +2 playing out of sub 7000 yard courses then over 7000 yard courses.

 

 

When Richard(+2.8) Played with Suzann Petterson and I at Isleworth, we Played the Palmer tees, which are the second longest at 7065yds(Par 72, 74.8/141), behind the Tiger tees at 7544yds. He had a 70, 72 to Suzann's 71 & 70. He also Played with Stacy from the same tees along with his tour friend and his tour buddie had a 69, Richard and Stacy had 71's. Also, thank you Shilgy and Birly. You are both sweethearts :) Madison

Oh-so a +4 can compete. ;) And you such a bully! :cheesy: Was Richard heavily medicated when he took that seriously? No one-make that NO ONE- on this board would ever mistake you for a bully.

 

Sadly there seems to be movement to expand the definition of what a bully is. These days disagreeing with someone could classify you as a 'bully'. Mini rant over.

 

Maybe in the northeast where land is limited. Here short courses are 6900 yards and most the back tee is 7200-7600. There are courses where the up tee is 7200 here. Look at the junior event I post. Both local courses were over 7,000 yards and they could have played it a lot longer.

 

The two shorter courses with some good players locally are Donald Ross courses built in the early 1920s. And they are 6,900 yards. The majority of courses here are over 7,000 yards and are all at sea level

[wobgon]

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.

What am i unequivocally wrong about...What has happened many times?...As far as your questions, yes,i have played with more than one lpga pro......Yes i have played with a more than one nationally competitive am. as well as many pga tour players

[Forged4ever]

OK-I see what you are saying about the excessively high slope course player. We moved from what score a +3 averages to comparing slopes. Obee averaged 1.5-3.5 above his cap for those two years-not just the 1.5 you stated. He said his cap varied from +1 to +3 and averaged over the rating by x amount lol. He said his average was 72.x so we are all using the x as .5. :)

Will the +3 from the excessively high slope course suffer from the inability to go low? Some players would imo. A +3 on your 76.0/155 course would average about 72(?) for his best 10 scores. Actual average more in the 74 range I would think.

From Obees post just above(#390) the elite am is likely not a 4 handicap-or even just a +2. And yes they could would be a level level woman pro.

 

PS the reasons you brought up is part of why the system is a bit flawed. As Obee would attest, and I was a few years back, when you play an event using a percentage of the cap the + player actually is helped rather than harmed on the percentage. A 4 cap in an event using 50% of handicap becomes a 2 while the +4 becomes a +2. Has always seemed off to most of us but that is how it works.

 

Not many +2s are playing a course that's 6500 and rated 72. Obee is the outlier not the norm. Most in that range are playing 7000+.

 

And you're proving my point. The plus 3 would average around 74 from 7100 yards on a very tough course. You don't think he'd be more than a shot better on a course that's 700 yards shorter and rated 5 shots easier? Like I said. No chance a +3 on a 7100 yard course averages 73 on a 6400 yard course rated 71.5. They'd probably average around 70 with best 10 averaging 68.5. That's way better than the 50-100 ranked LPGA scoring average.

 

I am not sure that can be true. The average length played on the PGA tour is 7270 yards and they are seeking out the "long" courses. I have to think the average golf course in the USA is well under 7000 as it is only in recent year that these 7000+ yard courses "championship" course popped up. Though better golfers might want to play out of 7000+ yard club, there just is not that many to play out of across the country as older clubs used to shoot for 6300 yards.

 

I have no data to back it up, but I would bet big money there are more +2 playing out of sub 7000 yard courses then over 7000 yard courses.

 

 

When Richard(+2.8) Played with Suzann Petterson and I at Isleworth, we Played the Palmer tees, which are the second longest at 7065yds(Par 72, 74.8/141), behind the Tiger tees at 7544yds. He had a 70, 72 to Suzann's 71 & 70. He also Played with Stacy from the same tees along with his tour friend and his tour buddie had a 69, Richard and Stacy had 71's. Also, thank you Shilgy and Birly. You are both sweethearts :) Madison

Oh-so a +4 can compete. ;) And you such a bully! :cheesy: Was Richard heavily medicated when he took that seriously? No one-make that NO ONE- on this board would ever mistake you for a bully.

 

Sadly there seems to be movement to expand the definition of what a bully is. These days disagreeing with someone could classify you as a 'bully'. Mini rant over.

I was called a "hater" today for the first time in the real world in a group therapy session. I go only because this ole geezer in the next room said he'd go if I went otherwise he wasn't going because in his eyes everyone in the group is too "lovey touchy feely," lol. So Maddie tells him that I'll go and then she guilts me into it cuz his wife passed at Christmas and he has no kids.

 

So we're talkin about society and I really hadn't said much and Joe says that the problem is that the world has turned into a bunch of p******, lmao

 

I leaned over and quietly told him to STFU and this 30 something guy with testicular cancer says "the problem is the world is full of haters like you two."

 

I didn't say a friggin word or give an opinion, nothin!

 

I've never been called a hater in the real world.

 

These group sessions aint worth a s*** and now Joe loves it because he's a cantankerous argumentative old fart and everyone on the floor ignores him but me.

 

He falls asleep in my room for chrissakes.

 

I'm starting to go a little crazy

 

Apologies for the ramble.

 

Oh yea, I almost forgot~

 

Back in the day, I could spank a #50-100 LPGAer

 

Stay well my Friends,

RP

[Shilgy]

OK-I see what you are saying about the excessively high slope course player. We moved from what score a +3 averages to comparing slopes. Obee averaged 1.5-3.5 above his cap for those two years-not just the 1.5 you stated. He said his cap varied from +1 to +3 and averaged over the rating by x amount lol. He said his average was 72.x so we are all using the x as .5. :)

Will the +3 from the excessively high slope course suffer from the inability to go low? Some players would imo. A +3 on your 76.0/155 course would average about 72(?) for his best 10 scores. Actual average more in the 74 range I would think.

From Obees post just above(#390) the elite am is likely not a 4 handicap-or even just a +2. And yes they could would be a level level woman pro.

 

PS the reasons you brought up is part of why the system is a bit flawed. As Obee would attest, and I was a few years back, when you play an event using a percentage of the cap the + player actually is helped rather than harmed on the percentage. A 4 cap in an event using 50% of handicap becomes a 2 while the +4 becomes a +2. Has always seemed off to most of us but that is how it works.

 

Not many +2s are playing a course that's 6500 and rated 72. Obee is the outlier not the norm. Most in that range are playing 7000+.

 

And you're proving my point. The plus 3 would average around 74 from 7100 yards on a very tough course. You don't think he'd be more than a shot better on a course that's 700 yards shorter and rated 5 shots easier? Like I said. No chance a +3 on a 7100 yard course averages 73 on a 6400 yard course rated 71.5. They'd probably average around 70 with best 10 averaging 68.5. That's way better than the 50-100 ranked LPGA scoring average.

 

I am not sure that can be true. The average length played on the PGA tour is 7270 yards and they are seeking out the "long" courses. I have to think the average golf course in the USA is well under 7000 as it is only in recent years that these 7000+ yard "championship" courses popped up. Though better golfers might want to play out of 7000+ yard clubs, there just is not that many to play out of across the country as older clubs used to shoot for 6300 yards.

 

I have no data to back it up, but I would bet big money there are more +2 playing out of sub 7000 yard courses then over 7000 yard courses.

 

 

When Richard(+2.8) Played with Suzann Petterson and I at Isleworth, we Played the Palmer tees, which are the second longest at 7065yds(Par 72, 74.8/141), behind the Tiger tees at 7544yds. He had a 70, 72 to Suzann's 71 & 70. He also Played with Stacy from the same tees along with his tour friend and his tour buddie had a 69, Richard and Stacy had 71's. Also, thank you Shilgy and Birly. You are both sweethearts :) Madison

Oh-so a +4 can compete. ;) And you such a bully! :cheesy: Was Richard heavily medicated when he took that seriously? No one-make that NO ONE- on this board would ever mistake you for a bully.

 

Sadly there seems to be movement to expand the definition of what a bully is. These days disagreeing with someone could classify you as a 'bully'. Mini rant over.

You seem to have missed it, he was kidding.

[Shilgy]

And for further reference, karrie Webb, who is 50th, has a best 10 average of 70.0. Using the most conservative estimate of 72/130, this makes her a +1.7 men's. Just another data point.

12 of her last 20 were majors. Guessing course and conditions were a little tougher.

[bph7]

And for further reference, karrie Webb, who is 50th, has a best 10 average of 70.0. Using the most conservative estimate of 72/130, this makes her a +1.7 men's. Just another data point.

12 of her last 20 were majors. Guessing course and conditions were a little tougher.

 

You are right. I went back and took her best 10 scores of the year and they averaged to 68.1. So taking her ten best of the entire year, she'd be (68.1-72)*(113/130)*.96= +3.3. So she's definitely no better that no matter what. And that's making an extremely conservative course rating assumption too. +2.5 at absolute best and probably more like +2.

[knock it close]

So the course the gals are playing this week I know pretty well. Now they're playing it about 300 yards shorter but I think Lydia woulda clipped me pretty handly today. I've only played Raven twice this year, played the other side a half dozen or so, and I've shot 73 and 74. Both in pristine condition with the greens fairly receptive. Not sure how they were today but I heard they were rock hard for the practice round and it was cold, windy, and overall pretty damn miserable. Probably the reason I aint goin this week is cause i like my ego.

 

I think the mens course rating this week would be 71.5/131

[Shilgy]

71.5 131 would be my estimation for the Phoenix event as well. Estimation because they play nine from each of two courses and mix the tees. Mostly they play the tips but do move up a tee v on a few.

[knock it close]

71.5 131 would be my estimation for the Phoenix event as well. Estimation because they play nine from each of two courses and mix the tees. Mostly they play the tips but do move up a tee v on a few.

Yea they're apparently playing at 66 and change which is right between 1 up and 2 up on Raven, gonna play shorter tho cause of the altitude.

[Shilgy]

To anyone who was put off by the "discussion" earlier I would like to apologize. I spend time on golf because I love all things about golf and discussing them. As many of you knows that is not my normal way of posting.

Thank you,

Scott

[Spongerob]

No chance in hell. When a 4 handicap shoots par once a year at a tournament tricked up course he might get a hard on (from experience). When an LPGA player shoots par on a tournament tricked up course she is mad because she made absolutely nothing on the greens. A 4 like me and an lpga player may as well be from different planets. A 4 is impressive to an average 18 handicap but it's pure crap compared to the truly skilled pros. They make breaking par every day look easy. It's not.

[2bGood]

You seem to have missed it, he was kidding.

 

I knew he was kidding. I should have noted my rant was not really about the discussion so much as off shoot about how the term bully is getting overused and miss used.

[ebk]

Earlier this year I read an interview with an LPGA pro (can't remember which one). She was asked what makes her laugh on the course and she replied that it's the 5 handicap guy in the pro am that thinks he can beat her.

[knockdstiff]

No...No...No....a thousand times No.

 

Yes - I know, Mr. 4 Handicap. You can outdrive her by 20 yards and you're 2 clubs longer with the irons.

 

Just because you can hit the ball further does NOT mean you'd show up and consistently post 60s in tournament conditions. Just...No.

 

How often does a 4 handicap/index break par?

 

Could a 10 handicap male going off the lady tees beat a male scratch player off the tips straight up? Even if the 10 handicap was substantially longer? No.

 

What about if it's a tournament where the scratch player has hundreds of rounds of professional competitive experience and the 10 handicap guy has a 10 handicap at his local course? No?

 

No.

[wobgon]

No...No...No....a thousand times No.

 

Yes - I know, Mr. 4 Handicap. You can outdrive her by 20 yards and you're 2 clubs longer with the irons.

 

Just because you can hit the ball further does NOT mean you'd show up and consistently post 60s in tournament conditions. Just...No.

 

How often does a 4 handicap/index break par?

 

Could a 10 handicap male going off the lady tees beat a male scratch player off the tips straight up? Even if the 10 handicap was substantially longer? No.

 

What about if it's a tournament where the scratch player has hundreds of rounds of professional competitive experience and the 10 handicap guy has a 10 handicap at his local course? No?

 

No.

Sorry......this has already been established abou 10 pages ago.

[2bGood]

 

Maybe in the northeast where land is limited. Here short courses are 6900 yards and most the back tee is 7200-7600. There are courses where the up tee is 7200 here. Look at the junior event I post. Both local courses were over 7,000 yards and they could have played it a lot longer.

 

The two shorter courses with some good players locally are Donald Ross courses built in the early 1920s. And they are 6,900 yards. The majority of courses here are over 7,000 yards and are all at sea level

 

I don't think this argument is one either one of us can win with good data. I did do a fast look at the listing of florida golf courses, therein well over a thousand listed, and no source puts them out in a nice list with yardages. When you poke around a bit the majority are not over 7000 - plenty of low 6000 course - but you get all kinds of courses in the list including executive length, crappy munis and private clubs focused on seniors.

 

I am very confident the majority of golf courses in the US are under 7000 yards, but I have no way to prove it.

 

But even if i could prove it would tough/impossible to weed out the courses that are unlikely to have + cap players playing out of them.

 

By the way I am in the Northwest where land is not that limited - and the best course we have have (in my view and most ranking lists) are all under 7000 yards

[wobgon]

Earlier this year I read an interview with an LPGA pro (can't remember which one). She was asked what makes her laugh on the course and she replied that it's the 5 handicap guy in the pro am that thinks he can beat her.

Sort of like the pga tour player saying the funniest thing to him is the lpga tour player who thinks she can beat him.....I'm not a fan of anyone who laughs at anyone else who is making it possible for them to make a living.