Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Silky]

What happens when professionals play in a course setup for regular members? Birdies fest!

How can one dream to beat one who play for a living and practice the craft almost everyday, boy or girl?

If you practice everyday and a +4, you are still no good.

If you play once a week and you are a +4, you are a golfing genius to me.

[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.

 

To answer my own question, I did a quick charting of scoring averages from both tours, and the result did confirm my theory, and the difference in the size of talent pool was even more than I expected. The lowest scoring averages were pretty close but there was a very fast decline in The LPGA tour and the scoring difference between Lydia Ko and the 75th ranked Q Baek is bigger than the one between Mickelson and the 155th PGA player, Geoff Ogilvy.

 

So while a 4-handicap man would very likely lose, the specific likelihood could depend on the particular level of LPGA player in question. Also there is probably still a lot of room in the LPGA in terms of improving the talent pool.

[isaacbm]

What happens when professionals play in a course setup for regular members? Birdies fest!

How can one dream to beat one who play for a living and practice the craft almost everyday, boy or girl?

If you practice everyday and a +4, you are still no good.

If you play once a week and you are a +4, you are a golfing genius to me.

 

Huh?

[isaacbm]

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.

I thought they were playing the Teebox that is closer to 6400 this week. But it's probably a combination. So the course rating is probably closer to 71. I'm thinking of going out there on Saturday.

Any guess as to what the winning score will be?

[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.

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.

 

Overly sensitive?

 

By the way, I was assuming 72 holes - I think everyone else is thinking 18.

[isaacbm]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

[mdgboxx]

 

 

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

 

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

 

I've been called cantankerous on this board...I had to look it up! :taunt:

[deadsolid...shank]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

 

That sounds just like one of our courses. 6,300 yards at about 3,500' elevation. 69.7/119

 

That's probably not relevant at all but I've enjoyed reading this thread so much that I wanted to post in it so I get notified when a new one comes in

[mdgboxx]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

 

That sounds just like one of our courses. 6,300 yards at about 3,500' elevation. 69.7/119

 

That's probably not relevant at all but I've enjoyed reading this thread so much that I wanted to post in it so I get notified when a new one comes in

 

Haha!

 

I did the same. I got tired of clicking on "Content I follow".

 

Interesting thread indeed. I added 5 stars in rating.

[nikegal]

 

 

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

 

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

 

I've been called cantankerous on this board...I had to look it up! :taunt:

Hi MD :) Somehow Richard screwed up that quote because your post shows him reaponding to Dan's quote, which was not the case as he was responding to Shilg's post. I don't know what he did though that wasn't his post on top, only the bottom one below Shilg's. He's still not too good with the phone/computer, lolol.

 

Joe is a sweetheart and was married for 61 years and married his wife when they were 18yo. He was a Korean War Vet and Vietnam. He has really taken a liking to Richard and Richard would not do something if did not want to, even for me. Richard has a way with the guys that others find "cantankerous" and a little gruff. Joe is not cantankerous and neither are you, hahaha. Take care :) Madison

[notsohard]

Under this "slope" rating system, a +3 is about scratch.

A scratch golfer on 0 is -3.

So a 4 capper under this slope rating system would get his ar$e kicked by a LPGA player.

[iteachgolf]

Under this "slope" rating system, a +3 is about scratch.

A scratch golfer on 0 is -3.

So a 4 capper under this slope rating system would get his ar$e kicked by a LPGA player.

 

Not sure what you're talking about. A +3 is a +3 and on courses with a high slope he's a +4.

[notsohard]

Under this "slope" rating system, a +3 is about scratch.

A scratch golfer on 0 is -3.

So a 4 capper under this slope rating system would get his ar$e kicked by a LPGA player.

 

Not sure what you're talking about. A +3 is a +3 and on courses with a high slope he's a +4.

 

I'm referring back to the Australian Calculated Course Rating system (CCR), where the system was a truer indication of ones handicap.

[iteachgolf]

Under this "slope" rating system, a +3 is about scratch.

A scratch golfer on 0 is -3.

So a 4 capper under this slope rating system would get his ar$e kicked by a LPGA player.

 

Not sure what you're talking about. A +3 is a +3 and on courses with a high slope he's a +4.

 

I'm referring back to the Australian Calculated Course Rating system (CCR), where the system was a truer indication of ones handicap.

 

I'd disagree. The course rating and slope system makes handicaps from different courses of varying difficulty comparable. The British system and old Australian system had huge flaws where a +3 on a really hard course was likely WAY better than a +3 from a much shorter easier course. It was essentially only accurate to the course you played

[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.

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

 

I'm sorry, but I thought you were disagreeing that a +2 could beat a mid-level LPGA tour pro. Your response was sort of cryptic, so I guess I shouldn't have jumped the gun. My apologies.

[wobgon]

Obee......No apology needed....Thanks though....I think we pretty much agree on this.

[Obee]

 

And no I think a +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player. Angela Stanford is a men's +1.4 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.

 

Sorry that this reply is coming late. I composed a long reply the other day, and it got all garbled up.

 

So I definitely disagree with this statement: "a (male) +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player."

 

We are definitely not "significantly" better. Several buddies and I recently played a practice round for the SCGA Mid-Am. Playing with us was a woman ranked around 80th in the Rolex rankings. All of my buddies (there were seven of us) are competitive California mid-ams with indexes in the +1 to +3 range. We played the black tees at 6900ish 73.5/135. She played one set of tees up at 6600ish 72.0/127.

 

It was a moderately windy afternoon (10-15 mph) and the greens were very firm in preparation for the tournament. She played well and was the only one of us to break par that day with a nice 71. My buddies and I were all bunched between 73 and 75. We had never played the course, but we were joined by a member who gave us all the advice we needed.

 

If she played the back tees with us, I would have expected her to shoot another 2 - 3 shots higher, so right where we all landed. Now, factor in that we played a course we had all played maybe once before, and that's and that's maybe a shot or shot and a half.

 

Average score for the field for the tournament was 76. Average score for those that made the cut was 74.5.

 

Those scores really just add color, but the bottom line is that there is no way a +2 is "significantly better," IMHO. I think there are probably some guys out there that are in that range that want to THINK they are significantly better, but I would argue that they are not. At least not the +2's I play with in California....

 

I'm a +1 playing out of a very difficult course with a high slope and rating, and I would expect to beat her maybe half the time.

 

I've always maintained that +2 is right around the break-even point with an mid-level LPGA player, and that was confirmed by that day. Sure, it's only one round, but with the mid-am played there, I think it becomes more impactful due to all of the scores shot from +handicap men, so there are lots of scores there to compare with.

 

From the tips, her range would be probably 68 to 78, just like most of the +handicap men that played in the tournament. One thing she would have in her favor: I bet she wold rarely shoot in the 80's, whereas a male +2 amateur with a wife and kids and a job, can show up and throw up a big number (80+) due to their inconsistency and inability to practice/play much. From the tips I think a male amateur's low would be lower than her low, but I think her bad rounds would be better than a +2 am's bad rounds, if that makes sense.

 

So I know it's splitting hairs, but I would change "significantly" to "slightly," which is a "significant" difference. LOL!

 

 

[Forged4ever]

Obee......No apology needed....Thanks though....I think we pretty much agree on this.

Me too

 

:)

 

Have a nice weekend Bro!

 

My Best,

RP

[Forged4ever]

Another thing~

 

When Suzann lets the big dog eat, she pounds the ball, not Michelle long but the second longest female that I've Played with or seen, though in full disclosure, I've only been to two LPGA events and two Symetra.

 

This has nothing to do with anything but WTF's new, this has been one of those bunkers & rough weeks ;)

 

All the Best,

RP

[iteachgolf]

 

And no I think a +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player. Angela Stanford is a men's +1.4 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.

 

Sorry that this reply is coming late. I composed a long reply the other day, and it got all garbled up.

 

So I definitely disagree with this statement: "a (male) +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player."

 

We are definitely not "significantly" better. Several buddies and I recently played a practice round for the SCGA Mid-Am. Playing with us was a woman ranked around 80th in the Rolex rankings. All of my buddies (there were seven of us) are competitive California mid-ams with indexes in the +1 to +3 range. We played the black tees at 6900ish 73.5/135. She played one set of tees up at 6600ish 72.0/127.

 

It was a moderately windy afternoon (10-15 mph) and the greens were very firm in preparation for the tournament. She played well and was the only one of us to break par that day with a nice 71. My buddies and I were all bunched between 73 and 75. We had never played the course, but we were joined by a member who gave us all the advice we needed.

 

If she played the back tees with us, I would have expected her to shoot another 2 - 3 shots higher, so right where we all landed. Now, factor in that we played a course we had all played maybe once before, and that's and that's maybe a shot or shot and a half.

 

Average score for the field for the tournament was 76. Average score for those that made the cut was 74.5.

 

Those scores really just add color, but the bottom line is that there is no way a +2 is "significantly better," IMHO. I think there are probably some guys out there that are in that range that want to THINK they are significantly better, but I would argue that they are not. At least not the +2's I play with in California....

 

I'm a +1 playing out of a very difficult course with a high slope and rating, and I would expect to beat her maybe half the time.

 

I've always maintained that +2 is right around the break-even point with an mid-level LPGA player, and that was confirmed by that day. Sure, it's only one round, but with the mid-am played there, I think it becomes more impactful due to all of the scores shot from +handicap men, so there are lots of scores there to compare with.

 

From the tips, her range would be probably 68 to 78, just like most of the +handicap men that played in the tournament. One thing she would have in her favor: I bet she wold rarely shoot in the 80's, whereas a male +2 amateur with a wife and kids and a job, can show up and throw up a big number (80+) due to their inconsistency and inability to practice/play much. From the tips I think a male amateur's low would be lower than her low, but I think her bad rounds would be better than a +2 am's bad rounds, if that makes sense.

 

So I know it's splitting hairs, but I would change "significantly" to "slightly," which is a "significant" difference. LOL!

 

I think a legit +2 wins 70% of the time from 7,000 yards. I'd call that significant.

 

And 80th in Rolex rankings isn't the same as 80th in scoring average. Danielle Kang is 25th in scoring average and is 82nd in Rolex rankings. Ryann O'toole is 76th in Rolex rankings and 46th in scoring average. They are 1.5-2 shots better than the 100th ranked woman in scoring average per round. The 100th ranked player shoots over 80 about 6% of the time from 6400 yards. From 7000 it'd happen a lot more often.

[Obee]

 

And no I think a +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player. Angela Stanford is a men's +1.4 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.

 

Sorry that this reply is coming late. I composed a long reply the other day, and it got all garbled up.

 

So I definitely disagree with this statement: "a (male) +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player."

 

We are definitely not "significantly" better. Several buddies and I recently played a practice round for the SCGA Mid-Am. Playing with us was a woman ranked around 80th in the Rolex rankings. All of my buddies (there were seven of us) are competitive California mid-ams with indexes in the +1 to +3 range. We played the black tees at 6900ish 73.5/135. She played one set of tees up at 6600ish 72.0/127.

 

It was a moderately windy afternoon (10-15 mph) and the greens were very firm in preparation for the tournament. She played well and was the only one of us to break par that day with a nice 71. My buddies and I were all bunched between 73 and 75. We had never played the course, but we were joined by a member who gave us all the advice we needed.

 

If she played the back tees with us, I would have expected her to shoot another 2 - 3 shots higher, so right where we all landed. Now, factor in that we played a course we had all played maybe once before, and that's and that's maybe a shot or shot and a half.

 

Average score for the field for the tournament was 76. Average score for those that made the cut was 74.5.

 

Those scores really just add color, but the bottom line is that there is no way a +2 is "significantly better," IMHO. I think there are probably some guys out there that are in that range that want to THINK they are significantly better, but I would argue that they are not. At least not the +2's I play with in California....

 

I'm a +1 playing out of a very difficult course with a high slope and rating, and I would expect to beat her maybe half the time.

 

I've always maintained that +2 is right around the break-even point with an mid-level LPGA player, and that was confirmed by that day. Sure, it's only one round, but with the mid-am played there, I think it becomes more impactful due to all of the scores shot from +handicap men, so there are lots of scores there to compare with.

 

From the tips, her range would be probably 68 to 78, just like most of the +handicap men that played in the tournament. One thing she would have in her favor: I bet she wold rarely shoot in the 80's, whereas a male +2 amateur with a wife and kids and a job, can show up and throw up a big number (80+) due to their inconsistency and inability to practice/play much. From the tips I think a male amateur's low would be lower than her low, but I think her bad rounds would be better than a +2 am's bad rounds, if that makes sense.

 

So I know it's splitting hairs, but I would change "significantly" to "slightly," which is a "significant" difference. LOL!

 

I think a legit +2 wins 70% of the time from 7,000 yards. I'd call that significant.

 

And 80th in Rolex rankings isn't the same as 80th in scoring average. Danielle Kang is 25th in scoring average and is 82nd in Rolex rankings. Ryann O'toole is 76th in Rolex rankings and 46th in scoring average. They are 1.5-2 shots better than the 100th ranked woman in scoring average per round. The 100th ranked player shoots over 80 about 6% of the time from 6400 yards. From 7000 it'd happen a lot more often.

 

Damn you, man! I can't argue with your logic. :-)

 

And I'll just say that one of the golfers you mentioned was the one we played with. LOL!

 

[iteachgolf]

 

And no I think a +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player. Angela Stanford is a men's +1.4 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.

 

Sorry that this reply is coming late. I composed a long reply the other day, and it got all garbled up.

 

So I definitely disagree with this statement: "a (male) +2 is significantly better than the 100th ranked LPGA player."

 

We are definitely not "significantly" better. Several buddies and I recently played a practice round for the SCGA Mid-Am. Playing with us was a woman ranked around 80th in the Rolex rankings. All of my buddies (there were seven of us) are competitive California mid-ams with indexes in the +1 to +3 range. We played the black tees at 6900ish 73.5/135. She played one set of tees up at 6600ish 72.0/127.

 

It was a moderately windy afternoon (10-15 mph) and the greens were very firm in preparation for the tournament. She played well and was the only one of us to break par that day with a nice 71. My buddies and I were all bunched between 73 and 75. We had never played the course, but we were joined by a member who gave us all the advice we needed.

 

If she played the back tees with us, I would have expected her to shoot another 2 - 3 shots higher, so right where we all landed. Now, factor in that we played a course we had all played maybe once before, and that's and that's maybe a shot or shot and a half.

 

Average score for the field for the tournament was 76. Average score for those that made the cut was 74.5.

 

Those scores really just add color, but the bottom line is that there is no way a +2 is "significantly better," IMHO. I think there are probably some guys out there that are in that range that want to THINK they are significantly better, but I would argue that they are not. At least not the +2's I play with in California....

 

I'm a +1 playing out of a very difficult course with a high slope and rating, and I would expect to beat her maybe half the time.

 

I've always maintained that +2 is right around the break-even point with an mid-level LPGA player, and that was confirmed by that day. Sure, it's only one round, but with the mid-am played there, I think it becomes more impactful due to all of the scores shot from +handicap men, so there are lots of scores there to compare with.

 

From the tips, her range would be probably 68 to 78, just like most of the +handicap men that played in the tournament. One thing she would have in her favor: I bet she wold rarely shoot in the 80's, whereas a male +2 amateur with a wife and kids and a job, can show up and throw up a big number (80+) due to their inconsistency and inability to practice/play much. From the tips I think a male amateur's low would be lower than her low, but I think her bad rounds would be better than a +2 am's bad rounds, if that makes sense.

 

So I know it's splitting hairs, but I would change "significantly" to "slightly," which is a "significant" difference. LOL!

 

I think a legit +2 wins 70% of the time from 7,000 yards. I'd call that significant.

 

And 80th in Rolex rankings isn't the same as 80th in scoring average. Danielle Kang is 25th in scoring average and is 82nd in Rolex rankings. Ryann O'toole is 76th in Rolex rankings and 46th in scoring average. They are 1.5-2 shots better than the 100th ranked woman in scoring average per round. The 100th ranked player shoots over 80 about 6% of the time from 6400 yards. From 7000 it'd happen a lot more often.

 

Damn you, man! I can't argue with your logic. :-)

 

And I'll just say that one of the golfers you mentioned was the one we played with. LOL!

 

I figured I had a 50/50 shot and figured I got it rightt first chance but figured I'd give myself better odds.

[mdgboxx]

@nikegal

 

Hi Maddie,

 

Richard did not screw up! :cheesy: .....Welcome to the GolfWRX "ruse" to incl. a quote that the board settings will accept. :taunt:

 

In order to prevent adding multiple pages of quotes, some irrelevant, every time we reply to a "multi-quote" post, the board is set up to ALLOW No More than 4 quotes. (If you see 5 quotes before you reply, it (reply) will be blocked. :diablo:

 

The way around it, is to delete 1 or 2 previous quotes, bringing the total down to less than five. :butcher:

 

It was NOT Richard's mistake, it was I, who deleted a couple of "quotes". I had to keep the "cantankerous" in there to make my point. (I'm not much of a *comedian*, that streak doesn't run in my lineage) :rofl: So, I use EMOes

 

 

EDITED to add:

 

It's either that, or copy/paste the whole thing. (No Emo) LMAO

[northgolf]

@nikegal

 

Hi Maddie,

 

Richard did not screw up! :cheesy: .....Welcome to the GolfWRX "ruse" to incl. a quote that the board settings will accept. :taunt:

 

In order to prevent adding multiple pages of quotes, some irrelevant, every time we reply to a "multi-quote" post, the board is set up to ALLOW No More than 4 quotes. (If you see 5 quotes before you reply, it (reply) will be blocked. :diablo:

 

The way around it, is to delete 1 or 2 previous quotes, bringing the total down to less than five. :butcher:

 

It was NOT Richard's mistake, it was I, who deleted a couple of "quotes". I had to keep the "cantankerous" in there to make my point. (I'm not much of a *comedian*, that streak doesn't run in my lineage) :rofl: So, I use EMOes

 

The board obviously need a censored limit of emoticons.

[Jacob Mac]

I feel like more attention needs to be focused on Richard spanking lpga players. By far the best part of the thread.

[knock it close]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

Hmm good info, I see the LPGA obviously tried to juice up the website saying it would play 66 and change. Good start for Jaclyn and nice of Patty to hop on the bag. I know one of the kids that works at HP was talking to Jaclyn about looping but his appendix blew a week ago. Nice little Glencoe CR for Murph the other day.

[isaacbm]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

Hmm good info, I see the LPGA obviously tried to juice up the website saying it would play 66 and change. Good start for Jaclyn and nice of Patty to hop on the bag. I know one of the kids that works at HP was talking to Jaclyn about looping but his appendix blew a week ago. Nice little Glencoe CR for Murph the other day.

Yup 62 out there with a lost ball. Kids got potential!!

[knock it close]

Just talked to a buddy that's caddying this week at the LPGA tournament. He said the course played 6350 today and that's at 3200 feet elevation. Basically 5900 at sea level. He did say that the rough was very long though. He finished top 30 in Canadian Am (current NCAA Div 1 player) a few weeks ago and said the rough was similar. The players in his group couldn't advance it with much more than an 8 iron if it settled in at all. So huge premium on accuracy.

 

His bag this week is in the top 10 so far and she's an 18 year old am from Calgary. Hope she does great!!

 

Basically the course rating if this course was at sea level would be 69 this week.

 

I was playing devils advocate a bit so I asked him what he thought a field of top college boys would shoot on this course. He said cut would be 8 under and winning score would be close to 30. That sounds exactly right to me for a course playing 6000 at sea level with greens running 10.5 and pins only being moderate.

Hmm good info, I see the LPGA obviously tried to juice up the website saying it would play 66 and change. Good start for Jaclyn and nice of Patty to hop on the bag. I know one of the kids that works at HP was talking to Jaclyn about looping but his appendix blew a week ago. Nice little Glencoe CR for Murph the other day.

Yup 62 out there with a lost ball. Kids got potential!!

Played HP with him right before the TransMiss, flew it back fringe on heritage 8, barely a breath of wind.

[mdgboxx]

@nikegal

 

Hi Maddie,

 

Richard did not screw up! :cheesy: .....Welcome to the GolfWRX "ruse" to incl. a quote that the board settings will accept. :taunt:

 

In order to prevent adding multiple pages of quotes, some irrelevant, every time we reply to a "multi-quote" post, the board is set up to ALLOW No More than 4 quotes. (If you see 5 quotes before you reply, it (reply) will be blocked. :diablo:

 

The way around it, is to delete 1 or 2 previous quotes, bringing the total down to less than five. :butcher:

 

It was NOT Richard's mistake, it was I, who deleted a couple of "quotes". I had to keep the "cantankerous" in there to make my point. (I'm not much of a *comedian*, that streak doesn't run in my lineage) :rofl: So, I use EMOes

 

The board obviously need a censored limit of emoticons.

 

There actually is! :taunt:

[nikegal]

I feel like more attention needs to be focused on Richard spanking lpga players. By far the best part of the thread.

Please don't encourage him, hahaha. Have a nice weekend :) Maddie