Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[chrismikayla]

The difference when I speak of mental is this-

 

Most Ams try to hit the ball on the "sweet spot" of the iron/club, for higher caps, maybe they visualize a quarter(I doubt they even visualize this at all, I'm "just sayin." God do I hate that saying, lmao. I've become soooo passive aggressive. Just sayin :) ), a mid cap a nickel and a low cap a dime.

 

Well, the sweet spot is just that, a "spot" or a point as in needle point, and that is what guys like Isaac, Mitch, FireBlade and STU on up to the Tour Bois and Gals "see" and that is what they hit, again and again again.

 

It is probably hard to comprehend however the internal confidence that one develops by visualizing that and then achieving that is incredible, better than any other high imaginable.

 

There is a hell of a difference between a dime and a needle point.

 

THAT control and mastery of their clubhead allows them to perform under pressure.

 

Then you just rachet that up the higher up the competitive golf food chain ya go and you may get an idea of the skill level involved.

 

Then again, maybe not....

 

Haha, there's that passive aggressive s*** again, lmao

 

Apologies :)

 

Have a great week!!

 

Fairways & Greens 4ever My Friends,

RP

 

 

So true. While I may miss that spot a few times per round some pros may go years without missing an iron shot.

[Obee]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

 

Here's even a better example: John Smoltz. Smoltz is a +1.7 (he's been as low as a +4) and plays from the tips at Hawks Ridge in GA, where the course rating/slope is 76.1/150. He can hit it a mile, and plays in money games, BIG money games, all the time. For many years, he lived in a home with 4 holes in the "backyard", though he has sold that home since. In other words, he is VERY serious about his golf game. Arguably one of the great clutch pitchers in MLB history, Smoltz was never afraid of the big stage, and was a great closer as well as a great starter; the ONLY pitcher in MLB history with 200 wins and 200 saves.

 

In 2011, playing on a sponsor's exemption in a Buy.com (then Nationwide) event at Kinderlou Forest in Valdosta, GA, Smoltz shot 84-87 to miss the cut by 27 shots and finish 9 shots behind the nest-highest score in the field.

 

There is a Bobby Jones quote that I think applies here: "There is golf, and then there is tournament golf." Like Jones, I don't think we should mistake one for the other.

 

Not sure what your point is here, but here's a counter example: A good friend played in the Nationwide Tour "Mark Christopher Charity Classic" in 2003 as the lone amateur qualifier. At the time he was 45 and a +2ish lifelong amateur. He shot 68, 75 and missed the cut by three.

 

John Smoltz's example is trotted out quite frequently, but it's really not a good one IMHO. The scores he put up were clearly not representative of his game. My guess is he was either injured or ridiculously nervous (it can happen to anyone). I can give you dozens of examples of amateurs playing in Nationwide and Web.com events who did just fine and were "competitive" (somewhere at or near the cut line) with the professionals they played with. The pros are significantly better than a +2, but it's measurable, and it's not as many as some would make it out to be.

 

To make it truly even with an elite pro, it's probably about six shots for a tourney-tested +2. Pros are playing to indexes in the +4.5 to +6.5 range, which convert to course handicaps (on difficult, high slope golf courses) of +6 to +10. Give any legit, tourney-tested +2 amateur, six shots, and he will, without a doubt, beat a Phil Mickelson a few times out of 10. Now, add on pressure and galleries and such, and that's another factor. Some ams would handle it fine, others would wilt and shoot way outside their range. But that's not really the question. Given enough times, that pressure would lessen and then it would be game-vs-game. And six shots is enough to even things out.

 

Of course that's just if we're talking about +2's. That limits things. If we're talking about elite ams, then the margin is much, much tighter for a match to be competitive. Tim Hogarth is a 50 year old SoCal amateur, and he wouldn't need more than a stroke or two (if that) to be competitive with the best senior players in the world.

 

The Champions Tour is changing the bar a bit, but I think it's a better comparison due to how amateur men's lives change as they get older and their kids grow up and move away and they have more time to devote to their games. To really see what the margin is, you only need to go over the list of the U.S. Senior Open every year and see how many amateurs qualify (beating out tourney-tested professional veterans in the qualifying process) and then how many actually make the cut. It's not a lot, but there are usually a few every year, and quite a few more that are certainly "competitive" by being near the cut line.

 

Finally, do not take this post the wrong way: In no way am I saying that plus-handicap amateurs are "as good as" professionals. I'm saying there's a definite gap, but trotting out Smoltz's scores don't really help at all. It's cherry-picking literally one of the worst flops in amateur qualifier history (though he didn't even actually qualify!) LOL!

 

Finally, if you want to know what a scratch to +1, fat, but tournament-test, 48 year old amateur would do against Phil Mickelson straight-up but with a 700-yard advantage (7,100 yards for Phil, vs. 6400 yards for the amateur), just ask me.... :happy:

[pinhigh27]

jerry rice has never been 10 shots within +2 in his life

[Forged4ever]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

 

Here's even a better example: John Smoltz. Smoltz is a +1.7 (he's been as low as a +4) and plays from the tips at Hawks Ridge in GA, where the course rating/slope is 76.1/150. He can hit it a mile, and plays in money games, BIG money games, all the time. For many years, he lived in a home with 4 holes in the "backyard", though he has sold that home since. In other words, he is VERY serious about his golf game. Arguably one of the great clutch pitchers in MLB history, Smoltz was never afraid of the big stage, and was a great closer as well as a great starter; the ONLY pitcher in MLB history with 200 wins and 200 saves.

 

In 2011, playing on a sponsor's exemption in a Buy.com (then Nationwide) event at Kinderlou Forest in Valdosta, GA, Smoltz shot 84-87 to miss the cut by 27 shots and finish 9 shots behind the nest-highest score in the field.

 

There is a Bobby Jones quote that I think applies here: "There is golf, and then there is tournament golf." Like Jones, I don't think we should mistake one for the other.

 

Not sure what your point is here, but here's a counter example: A good friend played in the Nationwide Tour "Mark Christopher Charity Classic" in 2003 as the lone amateur qualifier. At the time he was 45 and a +2ish lifelong amateur. He shot 68, 75 and missed the cut by three.

 

John Smoltz's example is trotted out quite frequently, but it's really not a good one IMHO. The scores he put up were clearly not representative of his game. My guess is he was either injured or ridiculously nervous (it can happen to anyone). I can give you dozens of examples of amateurs playing in Nationwide and Web.com events who did just fine and were "competitive" (somewhere at or near the cut line) with the professionals they played with. The pros are significantly better than a +2, but it's measurable, and it's not as many as some would make it out to be.

 

To make it truly even with an elite pro, it's probably about six shots for a tourney-tested +2. Pros are playing to indexes in the +4.5 to +6.5 range, which convert to course handicaps (on difficult, high slope golf courses) of +6 to +10. Give any legit, tourney-tested +2 amateur, six shots, and he will, without a doubt, beat a Phil Mickelson a few times out of 10. Now, add on pressure and galleries and such, and that's another factor. Some ams would handle it fine, others would wilt and shoot way outside their range. But that's not really the question. Given enough times, that pressure would lessen and then it would be game-vs-game. And six shots is enough to even things out.

 

Of course that's just if we're talking about +2's. That limits things. If we're talking about elite ams, then the margin is much, much tighter for a match to be competitive. Tim Hogarth is a 50 year old SoCal amateur, and he wouldn't need more than a stroke or two (if that) to be competitive with the best senior players in the world.

 

The Champions Tour is changing the bar a bit, but I think it's a better comparison due to how amateur men's lives change as they get older and their kids grow up and move away and they have more time to devote to their games. To really see what the margin is, you only need to go over the list of the U.S. Senior Open every year and see how many amateurs qualify (beating out tourney-tested professional veterans in the qualifying process) and then how many actually make the cut. It's not a lot, but there are usually a few every year, and quite a few more that are certainly "competitive" by being near the cut line.

 

Finally, do not take this post the wrong way: In no way am I saying that plus-handicap amateurs are "as good as" professionals. I'm saying there's a definite gap, but trotting out Smoltz's scores don't really help at all. It's cherry-picking literally one of the worst flops in amateur qualifier history (though he didn't even actually qualify!) LOL!

 

Finally, if you want to know what a scratch to +1, fat, but tournament-test, 48 year old amateur would do against Phil Mickelson straight-up but with a 700-yard advantage (7,100 yards for Phil, vs. 6400 yards for the amateur), just ask me.... :happy:

An example of an elite Am in a Web.com event would be Nathan in the Mylan Classic(2010-2013) here in Pgh. In on a SE, he was 1/4 in cuts made, his widest miss mark being 5 and he was 2 inside the line when he made the field. He was anywhere from a +4.4 to +4.8.

 

His game reminds me of what Obe's might be like. No matter who he Plays against, he Plays HIS game, the way he's always Played it and regardless of who you are, how far you hit the ball or how good you are, he Plays his game, his way and lets the ball land where it lands.

 

Pressure is easily learned from, adapted to and overcome with repetition and experience.

 

Especially if someone is elite.

 

All the Best,

RP

[Obee]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

 

Here's even a better example: John Smoltz. Smoltz is a +1.7 (he's been as low as a +4) and plays from the tips at Hawks Ridge in GA, where the course rating/slope is 76.1/150. He can hit it a mile, and plays in money games, BIG money games, all the time. For many years, he lived in a home with 4 holes in the "backyard", though he has sold that home since. In other words, he is VERY serious about his golf game. Arguably one of the great clutch pitchers in MLB history, Smoltz was never afraid of the big stage, and was a great closer as well as a great starter; the ONLY pitcher in MLB history with 200 wins and 200 saves.

 

In 2011, playing on a sponsor's exemption in a Buy.com (then Nationwide) event at Kinderlou Forest in Valdosta, GA, Smoltz shot 84-87 to miss the cut by 27 shots and finish 9 shots behind the nest-highest score in the field.

 

There is a Bobby Jones quote that I think applies here: "There is golf, and then there is tournament golf." Like Jones, I don't think we should mistake one for the other.

 

Not sure what your point is here, but here's a counter example: A good friend played in the Nationwide Tour "Mark Christopher Charity Classic" in 2003 as the lone amateur qualifier. At the time he was 45 and a +2ish lifelong amateur. He shot 68, 75 and missed the cut by three.

 

John Smoltz's example is trotted out quite frequently, but it's really not a good one IMHO. The scores he put up were clearly not representative of his game. My guess is he was either injured or ridiculously nervous (it can happen to anyone). I can give you dozens of examples of amateurs playing in Nationwide and Web.com events who did just fine and were "competitive" (somewhere at or near the cut line) with the professionals they played with. The pros are significantly better than a +2, but it's measurable, and it's not as many as some would make it out to be.

 

To make it truly even with an elite pro, it's probably about six shots for a tourney-tested +2. Pros are playing to indexes in the +4.5 to +6.5 range, which convert to course handicaps (on difficult, high slope golf courses) of +6 to +10. Give any legit, tourney-tested +2 amateur, six shots, and he will, without a doubt, beat a Phil Mickelson a few times out of 10. Now, add on pressure and galleries and such, and that's another factor. Some ams would handle it fine, others would wilt and shoot way outside their range. But that's not really the question. Given enough times, that pressure would lessen and then it would be game-vs-game. And six shots is enough to even things out.

 

Of course that's just if we're talking about +2's. That limits things. If we're talking about elite ams, then the margin is much, much tighter for a match to be competitive. Tim Hogarth is a 50 year old SoCal amateur, and he wouldn't need more than a stroke or two (if that) to be competitive with the best senior players in the world.

 

The Champions Tour is changing the bar a bit, but I think it's a better comparison due to how amateur men's lives change as they get older and their kids grow up and move away and they have more time to devote to their games. To really see what the margin is, you only need to go over the list of the U.S. Senior Open every year and see how many amateurs qualify (beating out tourney-tested professional veterans in the qualifying process) and then how many actually make the cut. It's not a lot, but there are usually a few every year, and quite a few more that are certainly "competitive" by being near the cut line.

 

Finally, do not take this post the wrong way: In no way am I saying that plus-handicap amateurs are "as good as" professionals. I'm saying there's a definite gap, but trotting out Smoltz's scores don't really help at all. It's cherry-picking literally one of the worst flops in amateur qualifier history (though he didn't even actually qualify!) LOL!

 

Finally, if you want to know what a scratch to +1, fat, but tournament-test, 48 year old amateur would do against Phil Mickelson straight-up but with a 700-yard advantage (7,100 yards for Phil, vs. 6400 yards for the amateur), just ask me.... :happy:

An example of an elite Am in a Web.com event would be Nathan in the Mylan Classic(2010-2013) here in Pgh. In on a SE, he was 1/4 in cuts made, his widest miss mark being 5 and he was 2 inside the line when he made the field. He was anywhere from a +4.4 to +4.8.

 

His game reminds me of what Obe's might be like. No matter who he Plays against, he Plays HIS game, the way he's always Played it and regardless of who you are, how far you hit the ball or how good you are, he Plays his game, his way and lets the ball land where it lands.

 

Pressure is easily learned from, adapted to and overcome with repetition and experience.

 

Especially if someone is elite.

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Comparing me to Nathan Smith is a slap in the face to Nathan Smith!! LOL

 

As I've gotten older, though, I do try to play "my game" and only my game. The shorter you get, though, the more impossible it is to do anything but that!!

[nikegal]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

 

Here's even a better example: John Smoltz. Smoltz is a +1.7 (he's been as low as a +4) and plays from the tips at Hawks Ridge in GA, where the course rating/slope is 76.1/150. He can hit it a mile, and plays in money games, BIG money games, all the time. For many years, he lived in a home with 4 holes in the "backyard", though he has sold that home since. In other words, he is VERY serious about his golf game. Arguably one of the great clutch pitchers in MLB history, Smoltz was never afraid of the big stage, and was a great closer as well as a great starter; the ONLY pitcher in MLB history with 200 wins and 200 saves.

 

In 2011, playing on a sponsor's exemption in a Buy.com (then Nationwide) event at Kinderlou Forest in Valdosta, GA, Smoltz shot 84-87 to miss the cut by 27 shots and finish 9 shots behind the nest-highest score in the field.

 

There is a Bobby Jones quote that I think applies here: "There is golf, and then there is tournament golf." Like Jones, I don't think we should mistake one for the other.

 

Not sure what your point is here, but here's a counter example: A good friend played in the Nationwide Tour "Mark Christopher Charity Classic" in 2003 as the lone amateur qualifier. At the time he was 45 and a +2ish lifelong amateur. He shot 68, 75 and missed the cut by three.

 

John Smoltz's example is trotted out quite frequently, but it's really not a good one IMHO. The scores he put up were clearly not representative of his game. My guess is he was either injured or ridiculously nervous (it can happen to anyone). I can give you dozens of examples of amateurs playing in Nationwide and Web.com events who did just fine and were "competitive" (somewhere at or near the cut line) with the professionals they played with. The pros are significantly better than a +2, but it's measurable, and it's not as many as some would make it out to be.

 

To make it truly even with an elite pro, it's probably about six shots for a tourney-tested +2. Pros are playing to indexes in the +4.5 to +6.5 range, which convert to course handicaps (on difficult, high slope golf courses) of +6 to +10. Give any legit, tourney-tested +2 amateur, six shots, and he will, without a doubt, beat a Phil Mickelson a few times out of 10. Now, add on pressure and galleries and such, and that's another factor. Some ams would handle it fine, others would wilt and shoot way outside their range. But that's not really the question. Given enough times, that pressure would lessen and then it would be game-vs-game. And six shots is enough to even things out.

 

Of course that's just if we're talking about +2's. That limits things. If we're talking about elite ams, then the margin is much, much tighter for a match to be competitive. Tim Hogarth is a 50 year old SoCal amateur, and he wouldn't need more than a stroke or two (if that) to be competitive with the best senior players in the world.

 

The Champions Tour is changing the bar a bit, but I think it's a better comparison due to how amateur men's lives change as they get older and their kids grow up and move away and they have more time to devote to their games. To really see what the margin is, you only need to go over the list of the U.S. Senior Open every year and see how many amateurs qualify (beating out tourney-tested professional veterans in the qualifying process) and then how many actually make the cut. It's not a lot, but there are usually a few every year, and quite a few more that are certainly "competitive" by being near the cut line.

 

Finally, do not take this post the wrong way: In no way am I saying that plus-handicap amateurs are "as good as" professionals. I'm saying there's a definite gap, but trotting out Smoltz's scores don't really help at all. It's cherry-picking literally one of the worst flops in amateur qualifier history (though he didn't even actually qualify!) LOL!

 

Finally, if you want to know what a scratch to +1, fat, but tournament-test, 48 year old amateur would do against Phil Mickelson straight-up but with a 700-yard advantage (7,100 yards for Phil, vs. 6400 yards for the amateur), just ask me.... :happy:

An example of an elite Am in a Web.com event would be Nathan in the Mylan Classic(2010-2013) here in Pgh. In on a SE, he was 1/4 in cuts made, his widest miss mark being 5 and he was 2 inside the line when he made the field. He was anywhere from a +4.4 to +4.8.

 

His game reminds me of what Obe's might be like. No matter who he Plays against, he Plays HIS game, the way he's always Played it and regardless of who you are, how far you hit the ball or how good you are, he Plays his game, his way and lets the ball land where it lands.

 

Pressure is easily learned from, adapted to and overcome with repetition and experience.

 

Especially if someone is elite.

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Comparing me to Nathan Smith is a slap in the face to Nathan Smith!! LOL

 

As I've gotten older, though, I do try to play "my game" and only my game. The shorter you get, though, the more impossible it is to do anything but that!!

HaHa, when Richard has talked about guys on the board, he has compared you to Nathan from a personality standpoint. Nathan is just so cerebral. Not that Richard is not. What am I saying, lol?? Richard is not. Sometimes up to 2012, Richard would occasionaly try to "turn back the clock" to say 1993-1996, when he skirted with elite, though his commitments to his business prevented him from just taking off and Playing "the curcuit" of events. In 2012, and it was after a talk with Nathan that a sort of calmness came over Richard, and as he's said, from May on he never pulled that "Hit the shot that I know I can hit, not the shot that I think I can hit" card out of his back right pocket. He just thinks that you are similar to Nathan in that way and he really admires that. He's wrapped kind of tight, lol, and has a hard time accepting the natural aging process, lol. Have a nice day Obes :) Fondly, Maddie.

[kyle75]

At this weeks LPGA event in Canada at a course that comes in at 6600 yds, the leader is -17 and last place is in the +2 to +4 range. So, you need to put up a score somewhere in that range for 3 rounds in a row.

[mdgboxx]

Just for the heck of it, I looked at the average scoring stats on the Symetra Tour.

 

Kathleen Ekey sits 72nd out of 143 players with a 73.692 scoring average. I looked at her last 20 scores and the 10 best of those averaged exactly 70.00. I'm guessing that would put her (men's) handicap around 0 at best and around 3 at worst?

 

So how would she, being average on the Symetra Tour, fare against a 4 handicap man?

I don't believe that it is an apples to apples comparison to take a tour pros tourney rounds and compare them to some Am's handicap rounds for a myriad of reasons,the least of which the average 4- am standing on a Symmetra tee with two pros and a gallery around him, regardless how small, would be fortunate not to vomit on himself. I am speaking to the "normal" 4~ Am, not guys who have been elite or Pros and got on with life. Have a nice day :) Maddie

 

I think though that at times you underestimate some Ams Richard. A lot of guys who get to that level (lower single, i.e. Our "4") are people who have competed in various sports for quite some time. They've been under the gun. While the pressure is obviously different, I think there are a lot out there who would not vomit on themselves. I think there are plenty who would actually up the level of their game. I'm not making any comment on if the four can win, or even be competitive, just saying not all of them are going to succumb to nerves.

Bro, #1, that was Maddie's post not mine, #2, I WAS one of those Ams that you speak of, where my mental "game" was honed on a football field starting at age 7yo and running till I was 23yo. I just happened to be able to hit a golf ball a little.

 

#3, I don't think that I've underestimated lower cap Ams, it's just that with the exception of losing to Frank Fuhrer III in the quarters of the MP Championship in 2010, when he was a 1.5~ and I was a +1.8(I lost 1 down with a 70 to his 69, Par 70), I have not lost to an individual with a cap north of scratch in either medal or match since 2009, following my second shoulder recon surgery. Regarding Frankie, well, he is not your Typical 1.5~. In the '80's he was a 1st Team AA for the Tar Heels, a Walker Cupper and had his Tour Card for two years.

 

They may well have the mental game, however they don´t have the physical game or they wouldn't be a 4~. I've just never had one get "lucky" with me in a tournament, that's all.

 

I am not putting down a 4~ or 3~ however there is a reason that the Club tournamemt boards along with the WPGA(Western PA Golf Association) dropped the cap to 2~ for the top Players' Clubs Championships(Us, Oakmont, Fox Chapel GC & St. Clair CC) and the MP Championship-

 

4~'s & 3~'s weren't competitive.

 

Obviously I am not speaking for Madison, only myself

 

Take care Bro :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Sorry Richard, I see that it was Maddie's post I quoted.

 

I guess my thinking is pretty simple. If a person has a history of performing in pressurized competitive athletic situations they are capable of actually performing better in this situation. We all know people who seem to thrive as the pressure amps up.

 

No, the four is not going to win. All I'm saying is that for many of them they are going to lose simply because they're not as good, not because they've wilted under the pressure of the situation.

 

But I gotta throw it out there. That was Tiger's secret weapon.

 

This comes to mind:

 

[Forged4ever]

Here's even a better example: John Smoltz. Smoltz is a +1.7 (he's been as low as a +4) and plays from the tips at Hawks Ridge in GA, where the course rating/slope is 76.1/150. He can hit it a mile, and plays in money games, BIG money games, all the time. For many years, he lived in a home with 4 holes in the "backyard", though he has sold that home since. In other words, he is VERY serious about his golf game. Arguably one of the great clutch pitchers in MLB history, Smoltz was never afraid of the big stage, and was a great closer as well as a great starter; the ONLY pitcher in MLB history with 200 wins and 200 saves.

 

In 2011, playing on a sponsor's exemption in a Buy.com (then Nationwide) event at Kinderlou Forest in Valdosta, GA, Smoltz shot 84-87 to miss the cut by 27 shots and finish 9 shots behind the nest-highest score in the field.

 

There is a Bobby Jones quote that I think applies here: "There is golf, and then there is tournament golf." Like Jones, I don't think we should mistake one for the other.

 

Not sure what your point is here, but here's a counter example: A good friend played in the Nationwide Tour "Mark Christopher Charity Classic" in 2003 as the lone amateur qualifier. At the time he was 45 and a +2ish lifelong amateur. He shot 68, 75 and missed the cut by three.

 

John Smoltz's example is trotted out quite frequently, but it's really not a good one IMHO. The scores he put up were clearly not representative of his game. My guess is he was either injured or ridiculously nervous (it can happen to anyone). I can give you dozens of examples of amateurs playing in Nationwide and Web.com events who did just fine and were "competitive" (somewhere at or near the cut line) with the professionals they played with. The pros are significantly better than a +2, but it's measurable, and it's not as many as some would make it out to be.

 

To make it truly even with an elite pro, it's probably about six shots for a tourney-tested +2. Pros are playing to indexes in the +4.5 to +6.5 range, which convert to course handicaps (on difficult, high slope golf courses) of +6 to +10. Give any legit, tourney-tested +2 amateur, six shots, and he will, without a doubt, beat a Phil Mickelson a few times out of 10. Now, add on pressure and galleries and such, and that's another factor. Some ams would handle it fine, others would wilt and shoot way outside their range. But that's not really the question. Given enough times, that pressure would lessen and then it would be game-vs-game. And six shots is enough to even things out.

 

Of course that's just if we're talking about +2's. That limits things. If we're talking about elite ams, then the margin is much, much tighter for a match to be competitive. Tim Hogarth is a 50 year old SoCal amateur, and he wouldn't need more than a stroke or two (if that) to be competitive with the best senior players in the world.

 

The Champions Tour is changing the bar a bit, but I think it's a better comparison due to how amateur men's lives change as they get older and their kids grow up and move away and they have more time to devote to their games. To really see what the margin is, you only need to go over the list of the U.S. Senior Open every year and see how many amateurs qualify (beating out tourney-tested professional veterans in the qualifying process) and then how many actually make the cut. It's not a lot, but there are usually a few every year, and quite a few more that are certainly "competitive" by being near the cut line.

 

Finally, do not take this post the wrong way: In no way am I saying that plus-handicap amateurs are "as good as" professionals. I'm saying there's a definite gap, but trotting out Smoltz's scores don't really help at all. It's cherry-picking literally one of the worst flops in amateur qualifier history (though he didn't even actually qualify!) LOL!

 

Finally, if you want to know what a scratch to +1, fat, but tournament-test, 48 year old amateur would do against Phil Mickelson straight-up but with a 700-yard advantage (7,100 yards for Phil, vs. 6400 yards for the amateur), just ask me.... :happy:

An example of an elite Am in a Web.com event would be Nathan in the Mylan Classic(2010-2013) here in Pgh. In on a SE, he was 1/4 in cuts made, his widest miss mark being 5 and he was 2 inside the line when he made the field. He was anywhere from a +4.4 to +4.8.

 

His game reminds me of what Obe's might be like. No matter who he Plays against, he Plays HIS game, the way he's always Played it and regardless of who you are, how far you hit the ball or how good you are, he Plays his game, his way and lets the ball land where it lands.

 

Pressure is easily learned from, adapted to and overcome with repetition and experience.

 

Especially if someone is elite.

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Comparing me to Nathan Smith is a slap in the face to Nathan Smith!! LOL

 

As I've gotten older, though, I do try to play "my game" and only my game. The shorter you get, though, the more impossible it is to do anything but that!!

HaHa, when Richard has talked about guys on the board, he has compared you to Nathan from a personality standpoint. Nathan is just so cerebral. Not that Richard is not. What am I saying, lol?? Richard is not. Sometimes up to 2012, Richard would occasionaly try to "turn back the clock" to say 1993-1996, when he skirted with elite, though his commitments to his business prevented him from just taking off and Playing "the curcuit" of events. In 2012, and it was after a talk with Nathan that a sort of calmness came over Richard, and as he's said, from May on he never pulled that "Hit the shot that I know I can hit, not the shot that I think I can hit" card out of his back right pocket. He just thinks that you are similar to Nathan in that way and he really admires that. He's wrapped kind of tight, lol, and has a hard time accepting the natural aging process, lol. Have a nice day Obes :) Fondly, Maddie.

#1, I could be cerebral if I wanted to be, #2, I AM NOT wrapped tightly and please remember the cheese twists.

 

Lovingly,

Me

[nikegal]

Just for the heck of it, I looked at the average scoring stats on the Symetra Tour.

 

Kathleen Ekey sits 72nd out of 143 players with a 73.692 scoring average. I looked at her last 20 scores and the 10 best of those averaged exactly 70.00. I'm guessing that would put her (men's) handicap around 0 at best and around 3 at worst?

 

So how would she, being average on the Symetra Tour, fare against a 4 handicap man?

I don't believe that it is an apples to apples comparison to take a tour pros tourney rounds and compare them to some Am's handicap rounds for a myriad of reasons,the least of which the average 4- am standing on a Symmetra tee with two pros and a gallery around him, regardless how small, would be fortunate not to vomit on himself. I am speaking to the "normal" 4~ Am, not guys who have been elite or Pros and got on with life. Have a nice day :) Maddie

 

I think though that at times you underestimate some Ams Richard. A lot of guys who get to that level (lower single, i.e. Our "4") are people who have competed in various sports for quite some time. They've been under the gun. While the pressure is obviously different, I think there are a lot out there who would not vomit on themselves. I think there are plenty who would actually up the level of their game. I'm not making any comment on if the four can win, or even be competitive, just saying not all of them are going to succumb to nerves.

Bro, #1, that was Maddie's post not mine, #2, I WAS one of those Ams that you speak of, where my mental "game" was honed on a football field starting at age 7yo and running till I was 23yo. I just happened to be able to hit a golf ball a little.

 

#3, I don't think that I've underestimated lower cap Ams, it's just that with the exception of losing to Frank Fuhrer III in the quarters of the MP Championship in 2010, when he was a 1.5~ and I was a +1.8(I lost 1 down with a 70 to his 69, Par 70), I have not lost to an individual with a cap north of scratch in either medal or match since 2009, following my second shoulder recon surgery. Regarding Frankie, well, he is not your Typical 1.5~. In the '80's he was a 1st Team AA for the Tar Heels, a Walker Cupper and had his Tour Card for two years.

 

They may well have the mental game, however they don´t have the physical game or they wouldn't be a 4~. I've just never had one get "lucky" with me in a tournament, that's all.

 

I am not putting down a 4~ or 3~ however there is a reason that the Club tournamemt boards along with the WPGA(Western PA Golf Association) dropped the cap to 2~ for the top Players' Clubs Championships(Us, Oakmont, Fox Chapel GC & St. Clair CC) and the MP Championship-

 

4~'s & 3~'s weren't competitive.

 

Obviously I am not speaking for Madison, only myself

 

Take care Bro :)

 

All the Best,

RP

 

Sorry Richard, I see that it was Maddie's post I quoted.

 

I guess my thinking is pretty simple. If a person has a history of performing in pressurized competitive athletic situations they are capable of actually performing better in this situation. We all know people who seem to thrive as the pressure amps up.

 

No, the four is not going to win. All I'm saying is that for many of them they are going to lose simply because they're not as good, not because they've wilted under the pressure of the situation.

Hi! I agree with you 100% on retired/former athletes, whether they be a Professional or successful college athlete regarding their mentality, focus and ability to adapt to the pressure or whateber scenario or situation that they are in, given enough reps/practice to be comfortable with the physical side. I am of the same opinion as Richard regarding our definition of "average," with that being 80-85% of the indivi!uals involved in whatever activity, arena or endeavour that you are speaking of. A successful former athlete is usually not in this group. I have a former Stiller as a student and he is a 5~, hits a long ball, 292yd dr ave/187 7i, and he has committed himself to working on his 100yds and in and putting. There is not a doubt in my mimd that he will get to Plus because of his drive, discipline and focus.

 

Richard will sit there and all of a sudden blast a tune from his iPod with a speaker and he can be in address, his backswing or his transition/downswing and it doesn't matter, he does not break down mentally nor does his swing. This just adds to the confidence factor under pressure. He is indeed representative of your thoughts because he will usually not beat himself. So, Richard and I are on the same side of the table as you regarding our thoughts on athletes and what they bring to the table. Richard takes it to the point that the majority of individuals that he has hired professionally, first with his orthopedic implant distributorship and then with his consulting company, were athletes, and not football Players though there might have been a few. Basketball Players, hockey, Womens' field hockey, mens' and womens' soccer, swimming and tennis Players though I do know that all things being equal, he prefers a team sport background or retired service men and women. Well, have a nice week :) Maddie

[iteachgolf]

At this weeks LPGA event in Canada at a course that comes in at 6600 yds, the leader is -17 and last place is in the +2 to +4 range. So, you need to put up a score somewhere in that range for 3 rounds in a row.

 

It's not playing 6600. More like 6300-6400.

[Shilgy]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

83-76(par 71)

 

He was "happy" with the 76, lmao

 

Actually that 76 us solid with a triple and a double.

 

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/jerry-rice-misses-cut-nationwide-tour-event

 

Have a great week Bro :)

 

My Best,

RP

 

Jerry as a .7 shooting a 76 on a tour setup might give an idea of what type of handicap player it would take to compete with the average LPGA pro.

 

I'm just guessing here (and I'm sure I'll get "corrected"), but I doubt the average (roughly 75th rated I believe is the number that has been used) LPGA pro does any better than 76 on a Web.com setup.

I'm gonna wait for the Stats Bois to chime in because I've never Played with one in that category, lol.

 

I would think that she too would be "happy" with a 76.

 

All the Best,

RP

I would think based on"her" current tour average and the difference in course difficulty she would average 76 or so.

[Forged4ever]

I'll have to look it up but I believe Jerry Rice was a +2 or so when he played a couple events on the Nationwide Tour but wasn't that competitive.

 

EDIT: He was listed as a 0.7 back the. I wonder why he thought he would be competitive LOL.

83-76(par 71)

 

He was "happy" with the 76, lmao

 

Actually that 76 us solid with a triple and a double.

 

http://www.golf.com/ap-news/jerry-rice-misses-cut-nationwide-tour-event

 

Have a great week Bro :)

 

My Best,

RP

 

Jerry as a .7 shooting a 76 on a tour setup might give an idea of what type of handicap player it would take to compete with the average LPGA pro.

 

I'm just guessing here (and I'm sure I'll get "corrected"), but I doubt the average (roughly 75th rated I believe is the number that has been used) LPGA pro does any better than 76 on a Web.com setup.

I'm gonna wait for the Stats Bois to chime in because I've never Played with one in that category, lol.

 

I would think that she too would be "happy" with a 76.

 

All the Best,

RP

I would think based on"her" current tour average and the difference in course difficulty she would average 76 or so.

Yea, I was figuring 74-78

 

All the Best,

RP

[deadsolid...shank]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

[PJ72]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

[Shilgy]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

[northgolf]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

 

I've never seen a gender specific yardstick, though I have been told by women what men call a foot is closer to 6".

[isaacbm]

At this weeks LPGA event in Canada at a course that comes in at 6600 yds, the leader is -17 and last place is in the +2 to +4 range. So, you need to put up a score somewhere in that range for 3 rounds in a row.

 

It's not playing 6600. More like 6300-6400.

 

More like 6000 at sea level

[tareatingrat]

Not sure how I contradicted myself.

 

My point was it doesn't matter. They're pros, you're (whomever) not. They get paid to play.

 

Your odds of beating them are incredibly slim. Most people have no idea how good a professional actually is at their sport.

 

I get that it's hypothetical, but this one is especially goofy. To me, anyway.

 

Even if the stars align and you beat them as a 4-handicap, can you really say you're a better golfer? Can you beat them consistently? No.

[pinhigh27]

Not sure how I contradicted myself.

 

My point was it doesn't matter. They're pros, you're (whomever) not. They get paid to play.

 

Your odds of beating them are incredibly slim. Most people have no idea how good a professional actually is at their sport.

 

I get that it's hypothetical, but this one is especially goofy. To me, anyway.

 

Even if the stars align and you beat them as a 4-handicap, can you really say you're a better golfer? Can you beat them consistently? No.

 

being pro doesn't magically make you insane. quite a few college kids who woop on the pga tour when they play on it. again, jordan spieth at 16 years old was in the top 10 in a tour event through saturday and finished t16. high school kids play in us open every year and one was even leading a few years ago after a couple rounds. college kid was leading british last year through 3 rounds

[northgolf]

Not sure how I contradicted myself.

 

My point was it doesn't matter. They're pros, you're (whomever) not. They get paid to play.

 

Your odds of beating them are incredibly slim. Most people have no idea how good a professional actually is at their sport.

 

I get that it's hypothetical, but this one is especially goofy. To me, anyway.

 

Even if the stars align and you beat them as a 4-handicap, can you really say you're a better golfer? Can you beat them consistently? No.

 

being pro doesn't magically make you insane. quite a few college kids who woop on the pga tour when they play on it. again, jordan spieth at 16 years old was in the top 10 in a tour event through saturday and finished t16. high school kids play in us open every year and one was even leading a few years ago after a couple rounds. college kid was leading british last year through 3 rounds

 

The amateurs all flail and fall over in the end. Honestly, who cares who led, it's all about who won.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bobby Jones. Look up his win percentage and number of seconds.

[bph7]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

 

Course rating already takes this into account, there is no "relatively" needed. If you can get a men's course rating/slope for the courses they play, you can pretty easily compare them to men's scores on any course where there is a men's rating and slope. Also, I'm not sure how them being shorter makes anything better, length correlates to scoring better than anything. We are trying to compare apples to apples as best we can. The fact that it might be "relatively longer" because they only drive it 250just obfuscates things IMO. If a buddy of yours averaged 250 and another buddy averaged 294, and they shot similar scores from the same tees, would the 250 guy ever say "yeh well I'm doing it on a relatively longer course so my score is better"?

[notsohard]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

 

Course rating already takes this into account, there is no "relatively" needed. If you can get a men's course rating/slope for the courses they play, you can pretty easily compare them to men's scores on any course where there is a men's rating and slope. Also, I'm not sure how them being shorter makes anything better, length correlates to scoring better than anything. We are trying to compare apples to apples as best we can. The fact that it might be "relatively longer" because they only drive it 250just obfuscates things IMO. If a buddy of yours averaged 250 and another buddy averaged 294, and they shot similar scores from the same tees, would the 250 guy ever say "yeh well I'm doing it on a relatively longer course so my score is better"?

 

All your analogies are a waste of time to the original question.

Put a male 4 capper with a female from the LPGA on any course, any condition, any tee and he will get beat...simple.

[Shilgy]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

 

Course rating already takes this into account, there is no "relatively" needed. If you can get a men's course rating/slope for the courses they play, you can pretty easily compare them to men's scores on any course where there is a men's rating and slope. Also, I'm not sure how them being shorter makes anything better, length correlates to scoring better than anything. We are trying to compare apples to apples as best we can. The fact that it might be "relatively longer" because they only drive it 250just obfuscates things IMO. If a buddy of yours averaged 250 and another buddy averaged 294, and they shot similar scores from the same tees, would the 250 guy ever say "yeh well I'm doing it on a relatively longer course so my score is better"?

Which is what I said in my post. Impressive nonetheless imo. No I am not saying the shorter player is better.

[bph7]

Currently 75 the on the LPGA money list is In-Kyung Kim. Her scoring average is listed at 71.64.

 

How much more difficult does a men's tour stop play?

 

I'm not sure if the women's courses are adjusted to make them easier - i.e. slower greens, shorter rough etc., but playing a course that is 6300 yards and playing one nearly 1000 yards longer is not even the same game.

Agree, not the same. In all fairness to the women, not as regards this thread, if the average drive is 250 versus 294, the women's 6300 is the equivalent of 7411.

 

Before I get flamed...I am not saying they are better or the same as a +4 or whatever number male pro. Just saying the women's average score is relatively on a longer course than the men's.

 

Course rating already takes this into account, there is no "relatively" needed. If you can get a men's course rating/slope for the courses they play, you can pretty easily compare them to men's scores on any course where there is a men's rating and slope. Also, I'm not sure how them being shorter makes anything better, length correlates to scoring better than anything. We are trying to compare apples to apples as best we can. The fact that it might be "relatively longer" because they only drive it 250just obfuscates things IMO. If a buddy of yours averaged 250 and another buddy averaged 294, and they shot similar scores from the same tees, would the 250 guy ever say "yeh well I'm doing it on a relatively longer course so my score is better"?

 

All your analogies are a waste of time to the original question.

Put a male 4 capper with a female from the LPGA on any course, any condition, any tee and he will get beat...simple.

 

I know, not a single person has disagreed with that. The thread "pivoted" to a discussion of what level male capper it would take to compete. Seems like a plus 2 to plus 4 is the range, so yes, a regular 4 has no shot, but again, no one had seriously argued that a 4 would have had a shot.

[jaydro]

Again, given the same environment they would catch up on all aspects except power. I get where your coming from except the top female amateurs i play with have plenty of 'hand' strength and speed to spin the ball. They're no flowers. I don't think biceps won any majors, though. Tiger never kissed his guns but he did talk about driving straight and his putter. Hand strength is not that important a distinguishing factor. Distance, of course, I agree. I'm hitting 6i to some of their rescue clubs. But, they'll also hit 14/14 fairways.

 

How so? Top fairways hit on lpga is martin at %82 so if she played a more difficult setup somehow it gets better? And your baseless assumptions about them just adapting and improving in tougher conditions are ridiculous. This entire argument is ridiculous. Men and women are different, wow who knew? and that shouldn't be offensive or mean one is lesser than another to anyone.

[Pworld]

Most hilarious read of the day.

 

Original Topic was a 4 handicap cannot beat a LPGA tour player. Unanimous agreement.

 

Then....... the parameters changed to show who would defeat a LPGA player, but that wasn't even in the question right? LOL!!

 

 

 

But still some interesting info in here. These high school players are scary good these days. I might have to check out one of these state tournaments. This discussion has me wanting to witness in person all different levels of great golf *thumbs up*

[baloo]

What's the point of this thread right now? Seems incredibly disrespectful. A 4 would probably have about a %1 chance of beating an LPGA tour pro.

I also don't get the point in trying to expand the topic to juniors, +3s, etc... Seriously, what's the point?

[MaccaRayDudley]

<p>In her August "Ask Stina" column, Senior Editor Stina Sternberg responded to the question of whether a 4-handicap male player could outplay an LPGA pro. A reader had a friend who thought he could. Stina called the man "delusional." "As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up." The question, and Stina's response, generated a lot of (mostly male) mail. </p><p>

<strong>

Dear Stina,

I am glad the viewer listed a 4-handicapper in the question because if you go to a 2-handicapper and provide him with the conditions the ladies play on he will be a scratch or better. I would take him over two-thirds of the field at most ladies tournaments, maybe more if played from the tips. Consider: Watered-down bunkers pristinely raked; rolled greens that are fast and smooth (most good golfers prefer fast greens, but the course can't keep greens alive cut that low all the time). Most good courses have bunkers in front of all par 5s and I don't see that at many women's venues. I will probably go to the Women's U.S. Open at Pinehurst for one day just to see where the ladies play from. I have played that course several times. It can be a challenge if the greens are hard and fast and the tees are back. I've posted a 74 and a few 76's from the men's tees.</p><p>Brad

by email

</strong></p><p><strong>

Dear Stina,

Good day. A previous writer said his 4-handicap friend believed he (hitting the ball 300 yards plus) could beat the average LPGA tour pro on 18 holes. I believe it would depend greatly on the course. If course conditions are like those at Congressional or Oakmont for a PGA Tour event I may give the edge to the big hitter. First, because the big hitter can spin the ball and hold the greens and the closer you are to the green the better off you are on such courses. In addition, courses with par 3s in excess of 240 yards (Congressional #2) will not help the average LPGA member as I do not believe they have a club that would hold those greens. </p><p>Now, for the dose of reality to the amateur. Amateurs in golf lack the mental aspect (unless they have played a professional sport like Tony Romo or John Elway) and when confronted with playing with a pro would perform in ways foreign to them because of being nervous. Now if I could take Mr. Romo (2) or Elway (1) in the same bet it would be a no brain-er for me as they should triumph given their abilities to perform under pressure and their physical prowess in given situations.</p><p>I do agree with you about the percentages in driving, etc., but I also submit that a course set up to PGA Tour standards would also not benefit the average (not the best) LPGA tour pro as it would be tougher than a Women's U.S. Open.</p><p>Let me know the time and place this takes place and I will bring my wallet depending on: the course, setup, and who is playing as well as their sports resume.</p><p>

Cheers,

Roger Wiskavitch

by email

</strong></p><p><strong>

Dear Stina,

Not only are you spot on about a 4-handicap player getting waxed by any LPGA pro, but I would say the top AJGA junior girl would kill the guy as well. I have played squash at a very high level for most of my adult life and have played against the top women squash players and when younger, I could kind of hold my own. But I lost to most of them. And squash is a fairly minor unknown game. Guys don't get it: Venus Williams, Dinara Safina would kill all but the top men's college players in tennis. The top women softball pitchers would routinely strike out all but the best men baseball players. I could go on. I am a 8-handicap golfer who took up the game at age 38 and what I have seen is it would take a country club player with at least a +2 to even stand a chance and then not much of one. Being a father of three daughters who all played competetive sports I have seen it. Give me the name of the number 100-ranked LPGA player and I would bet paychecks on her against a 4 on ANY course.</p><p>Fred Duboc

by email

</strong></p>

<strong>Dear Stina,I want to comment on your recent column in Golf Digest discussing the 4-handicapper that thinks he can beat most LPGA players. Clearly this guy is out of touch. The women of the LPGA, Duramed and college ranks are real athletes’ many of whom maintain a workout schedule equal to that of the best athletes’ in the world regardless of sport or gender. All one needs to do is watch the re-runs of Big Break to see some great women golfers. Kim Welsh and Gerina Mendoza both drive the ball around 300 yards consistently. I’m a 6-handicap and I would never think to play any plus 3 handicapper even-up on any course regardless of length. The big issue here isn’t length or gender. These women are just plain better golfers than a 4- or 6-handicapper. Guys like “Mister 4-handicap” give the rest of us(men) a bad name. <p>Matthew Geier

Saint Charles, Ill</strong>

</p><p>Let's set aside the talent level for a moment. Nerves would do the man in. A couple days after our U.S. Open Challenge amateur winner, Larry Giebelhausen, shot 101 at Bethpage, we played at another Long Island course. Granted, the set-up was nowhere near as difficult, but it was not an easy golf course. Larry shot even par on the front nine, three or four over on the back. It was not his talent, but rather the pressurized situation at the Challenge, the fact that he was totally out of his element, that had been the issue at Bethpage. And it would be, too, for our 4-handicapper against the LPGA players </p><p>But it would be fun to see, wouldn't it?</p><p>--Bob Carney

</p>

 

View the full article

 

The 4 handicap would have no chance whatsoever. The average length of an LPGA course is 6400 yards. The blue tees on a typical course are set from 6600 to 6800 yards, so not a big distance difference. Arguments about the tees the gals play off don't make a lot of sense. An LPGA pro will have a handicap of at least +4. If both players played to their potential the LPGA pro would end up more than 30 shots ahead of the 4 handicap across a 4 day tournament. Not even close. There is a huge difference between a tournament player and a low handicap amateur. It's like comparing a butcher to a brain surgeon.

[Jacob Mac]

What's the point of this thread right now? Seems incredibly disrespectful. A 4 would probably have about a %1 chance of beating an LPGA tour pro.

I also don't get the point in trying to expand the topic to juniors, +3s, etc... Seriously, what's the point?

 

Disrespectful? Come on. People are comparing athletes. If it offends your delicate sensibilities to suss out how good an lpga golfer is compared to other golfers, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Also, I would avoid any conversation about hcp. Because that's all a hcp does is compare golfers.

 

 

Edits

 

Also, if you follow the natural implications of this thread, everyone agrees that the 75-100 lpga golfer is better than 99.99% of male golfers. Hardly disrespectful.