Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[iteachgolf]

Iteach

 

Sure I guess but at my home course from the back tee a 4 handicap will only break 80 1 in 3 times at best. Put a little wind or tough pins or tournament conditions and he's having trouble breaking 85. The course is rated 75.6.

 

Using Morgan Pressel as an example. Her handicap on all of the rounds posted (assuming using men's rating's of around 71/130 from 6400 would be close to +4. So she's 8-10 shots better than a 4.

 

I think anyone can beat anyone on a one-off day but the stars would have to line up perfectly.

 

To me, the thread should be more about "over a period of time" what handicap man could compete at the LPGA Level. I think it's pretty established the number would be a traveling +2 guy could be competitive at the 75-100 level. A 4 wouldn't crack the top 50 in my club championship. Hell, a 1.4 didn't make the championship flight!!

 

And Morgan Pressel shot in the 80s multiple times from 6300-6400 yards. It happens. On many courses I play she couldn't reach the fairway on some holes. She'd shoot high 70s pretty often and would shoot in the 80s. There are plenty of 4s who shoot 75 1/6 rounds on these courses. Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance. A few years ago Morgan's driver carry was like 212 yards. She's one of the ones literally couldn't reach a couple par 4s on a 7,000 yard course. It would depend on the player, both the male and the female. There are 4s who hit it short and struggle on long golf courses. And there are 4s who hit it 290 who hit 10 greens and stay out of trouble for the most part with mediocre short games. I didn't say a 4 would be competitive. I said the guy who is a 3 who has shot 69 multiple times from the back tees would have about a 5% chance of beating many players in that 75-100 range. Especially the short ones. Remember 218 yards is the AVERAGE carry with driver, meaning there are quite a few who fly it much shorter. You have girls that'd have to hit driver on long par 3s with forced carries. Like I said it wouldn't affect all LPGA players the same and not all low single digits are created equally. And even then I'm only giving the guy in the perfect situation a 5% chance but he certainly has a chance and would win occasionally

 

Not exactly: "Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance." You're forgetting that in statistical probability calculations you multiply the two probabilities together to obtain the probability of both happening. So if the 4 handicapper shoots 77 (assuming his stroke index is 4 and the course rating makes him a 5 at that course, very often the case for a 4 handicapper from even the second to hardest tees) one out of 6.4 times (I think that's the exact USGA website number) and she shoots 77 once every 15 rounds, the answer is not that he beats her once every 6 or so times. The answer is he beats her once every 90 or so times, 1/6x1/15.

 

Now some have pointed out the yardage difference as a considerable factor that I and others have not been taking into account. I think there is some validity to that idea. For example, years ago when Annika played in a pga tournament that had 7000 as the yardage she did not make the cut and was hitting 4 woods into greens that the men were hitting 6 irons into. So I totally get it that yardage is a factor to consider. But it has to be considered for both the male and the female golfer.

 

And that brings me to the point of who exactly is this mythical 4 capper. If he is a long hitter (say 265 carry or more) and a straight hitter too, he'd have to be a very mediocre putter or chipper or iron player to only have a 4 handicap. If so then his advantage off the tee doesn't really create a whole lot of change in the probabilities I calculated. And she would have to be the shorter hitting lpga pro too.

 

So what it all boils down to, methinks, is this: that the average 4 male handicap player against the average lpga tour player (say there are 125 who play each tournament so the average player would be number 63) would likely yield a high probability that the woman would beat the man. I'd say, giving due to the yardage factor, that instead of 1/90 times the man beats the lpga player, maybe more like 1 out of 10 times. Does that make it a slam dunk that the long male hitter who is a 4 will beat the average lpga player. No.

 

Someone said it here and I echo it, that it would likely take a male +2 or better, tournament tested, on a course that is at least 6850 yards, for there to be what I would consider a toss up stroke play match.

 

Maybe you should read what I actually posted. Didn't leave anything out math wise. I said from the back tees a player fighting to keep her card would shoot upper 70s about 20% of the time. And you should shoot your handicap 1/4 which works out that the low single digit would have about a 5% chance of beating her. 0.25 x 0.2 = 0.05 or 5%. Before you go claiming someone can't do math it might be best to make sure you can understand what they wrote.

[juliette91]

Iteach

 

Sure I guess but at my home course from the back tee a 4 handicap will only break 80 1 in 3 times at best. Put a little wind or tough pins or tournament conditions and he's having trouble breaking 85. The course is rated 75.6.

 

Using Morgan Pressel as an example. Her handicap on all of the rounds posted (assuming using men's rating's of around 71/130 from 6400 would be close to +4. So she's 8-10 shots better than a 4.

 

I think anyone can beat anyone on a one-off day but the stars would have to line up perfectly.

 

To me, the thread should be more about "over a period of time" what handicap man could compete at the LPGA Level. I think it's pretty established the number would be a traveling +2 guy could be competitive at the 75-100 level. A 4 wouldn't crack the top 50 in my club championship. Hell, a 1.4 didn't make the championship flight!!

 

And Morgan Pressel shot in the 80s multiple times from 6300-6400 yards. It happens. On many courses I play she couldn't reach the fairway on some holes. She'd shoot high 70s pretty often and would shoot in the 80s. There are plenty of 4s who shoot 75 1/6 rounds on these courses. Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance. A few years ago Morgan's driver carry was like 212 yards. She's one of the ones literally couldn't reach a couple par 4s on a 7,000 yard course. It would depend on the player, both the male and the female. There are 4s who hit it short and struggle on long golf courses. And there are 4s who hit it 290 who hit 10 greens and stay out of trouble for the most part with mediocre short games. I didn't say a 4 would be competitive. I said the guy who is a 3 who has shot 69 multiple times from the back tees would have about a 5% chance of beating many players in that 75-100 range. Especially the short ones. Remember 218 yards is the AVERAGE carry with driver, meaning there are quite a few who fly it much shorter. You have girls that'd have to hit driver on long par 3s with forced carries. Like I said it wouldn't affect all LPGA players the same and not all low single digits are created equally. And even then I'm only giving the guy in the perfect situation a 5% chance but he certainly has a chance and would win occasionally

 

Not exactly: "Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance." You're forgetting that in statistical probability calculations you multiply the two probabilities together to obtain the probability of both happening. So if the 4 handicapper shoots 77 (assuming his stroke index is 4 and the course rating makes him a 5 at that course, very often the case for a 4 handicapper from even the second to hardest tees) one out of 6.4 times (I think that's the exact USGA website number) and she shoots 77 once every 15 rounds, the answer is not that he beats her once every 6 or so times. The answer is he beats her once every 90 or so times, 1/6x1/15.

 

Now some have pointed out the yardage difference as a considerable factor that I and others have not been taking into account. I think there is some validity to that idea. For example, years ago when Annika played in a pga tournament that had 7000 as the yardage she did not make the cut and was hitting 4 woods into greens that the men were hitting 6 irons into. So I totally get it that yardage is a factor to consider. But it has to be considered for both the male and the female golfer.

 

And that brings me to the point of who exactly is this mythical 4 capper. If he is a long hitter (say 265 carry or more) and a straight hitter too, he'd have to be a very mediocre putter or chipper or iron player to only have a 4 handicap. If so then his advantage off the tee doesn't really create a whole lot of change in the probabilities I calculated. And she would have to be the shorter hitting lpga pro too.

 

So what it all boils down to, methinks, is this: that the average 4 male handicap player against the average lpga tour player (say there are 125 who play each tournament so the average player would be number 63) would likely yield a high probability that the woman would beat the man. I'd say, giving due to the yardage factor, that instead of 1/90 times the man beats the lpga player, maybe more like 1 out of 10 times. Does that make it a slam dunk that the long male hitter who is a 4 will beat the average lpga player. No.

 

Someone said it here and I echo it, that it would likely take a male +2 or better, tournament tested, on a course that is at least 6850 yards, for there to be what I would consider a toss up stroke play match.

 

Maybe you should read what I actually posted. Didn't leave anything out math wise. I said from the back tees a player fighting to keep her card would shoot upper 70s about 20% of the time. And you should shoot your handicap 1/4 which works out that the low single digit would have about a 5% chance of beating her. 0.25 x 0.2 = 0.05 or 5%. Before you go claiming someone can't do math it might be best to make sure you can understand what they wrote.

 

Actually I did read what you wrote but picked out the phrase that I thought needed some response. Did I completely overlook the big idea of what you wrote? No, I agree that yardage (not admit as someone said) is a huge deal and wrote a paragraph about how the very best woman golfer (arguable ever) found herself at a big distance disadvantage against the men. Then I guessed at how that would play out and reduced my 1 out of 90 times to 1 out of 10 times.

 

You're at 5%, 1 out of 20 times so I think I've given it even more deference than you. Pick your spots.

[iteachgolf]

Iteach

 

Sure I guess but at my home course from the back tee a 4 handicap will only break 80 1 in 3 times at best. Put a little wind or tough pins or tournament conditions and he's having trouble breaking 85. The course is rated 75.6.

 

Using Morgan Pressel as an example. Her handicap on all of the rounds posted (assuming using men's rating's of around 71/130 from 6400 would be close to +4. So she's 8-10 shots better than a 4.

 

I think anyone can beat anyone on a one-off day but the stars would have to line up perfectly.

 

To me, the thread should be more about "over a period of time" what handicap man could compete at the LPGA Level. I think it's pretty established the number would be a traveling +2 guy could be competitive at the 75-100 level. A 4 wouldn't crack the top 50 in my club championship. Hell, a 1.4 didn't make the championship flight!!

 

And Morgan Pressel shot in the 80s multiple times from 6300-6400 yards. It happens. On many courses I play she couldn't reach the fairway on some holes. She'd shoot high 70s pretty often and would shoot in the 80s. There are plenty of 4s who shoot 75 1/6 rounds on these courses. Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance. A few years ago Morgan's driver carry was like 212 yards. She's one of the ones literally couldn't reach a couple par 4s on a 7,000 yard course. It would depend on the player, both the male and the female. There are 4s who hit it short and struggle on long golf courses. And there are 4s who hit it 290 who hit 10 greens and stay out of trouble for the most part with mediocre short games. I didn't say a 4 would be competitive. I said the guy who is a 3 who has shot 69 multiple times from the back tees would have about a 5% chance of beating many players in that 75-100 range. Especially the short ones. Remember 218 yards is the AVERAGE carry with driver, meaning there are quite a few who fly it much shorter. You have girls that'd have to hit driver on long par 3s with forced carries. Like I said it wouldn't affect all LPGA players the same and not all low single digits are created equally. And even then I'm only giving the guy in the perfect situation a 5% chance but he certainly has a chance and would win occasionally

 

Not exactly: "Every round they shoot in the mid 70s they'd have a chance." You're forgetting that in statistical probability calculations you multiply the two probabilities together to obtain the probability of both happening. So if the 4 handicapper shoots 77 (assuming his stroke index is 4 and the course rating makes him a 5 at that course, very often the case for a 4 handicapper from even the second to hardest tees) one out of 6.4 times (I think that's the exact USGA website number) and she shoots 77 once every 15 rounds, the answer is not that he beats her once every 6 or so times. The answer is he beats her once every 90 or so times, 1/6x1/15.

 

Now some have pointed out the yardage difference as a considerable factor that I and others have not been taking into account. I think there is some validity to that idea. For example, years ago when Annika played in a pga tournament that had 7000 as the yardage she did not make the cut and was hitting 4 woods into greens that the men were hitting 6 irons into. So I totally get it that yardage is a factor to consider. But it has to be considered for both the male and the female golfer.

 

And that brings me to the point of who exactly is this mythical 4 capper. If he is a long hitter (say 265 carry or more) and a straight hitter too, he'd have to be a very mediocre putter or chipper or iron player to only have a 4 handicap. If so then his advantage off the tee doesn't really create a whole lot of change in the probabilities I calculated. And she would have to be the shorter hitting lpga pro too.

 

So what it all boils down to, methinks, is this: that the average 4 male handicap player against the average lpga tour player (say there are 125 who play each tournament so the average player would be number 63) would likely yield a high probability that the woman would beat the man. I'd say, giving due to the yardage factor, that instead of 1/90 times the man beats the lpga player, maybe more like 1 out of 10 times. Does that make it a slam dunk that the long male hitter who is a 4 will beat the average lpga player. No.

 

Someone said it here and I echo it, that it would likely take a male +2 or better, tournament tested, on a course that is at least 6850 yards, for there to be what I would consider a toss up stroke play match.

 

Maybe you should read what I actually posted. Didn't leave anything out math wise. I said from the back tees a player fighting to keep her card would shoot upper 70s about 20% of the time. And you should shoot your handicap 1/4 which works out that the low single digit would have about a 5% chance of beating her. 0.25 x 0.2 = 0.05 or 5%. Before you go claiming someone can't do math it might be best to make sure you can understand what they wrote.

 

Actually I did read what you wrote but picked out the phrase that I thought needed some response. Did I completely overlook the big idea of what you wrote? No, I agree that yardage (not admit as someone said) is a huge deal and wrote a paragraph about how the very best woman golfer (arguable ever) found herself at a big distance disadvantage against the men. Then I guessed at how that would play out and reduced my 1 out of 90 times to 1 out of 10 times.

 

You're at 5%, 1 out of 20 times so I think I've given it even more deference than you. Pick your spots.

 

Obviously you didn't read it or you wouldn't claim I did math wrong or don't understand probability. As I literally did the math in my post on how I came up with 5%. Actually did so more than once. Your entire post is flawed calling me out for things I clearly covered and you didn't read and you just quoted a reply multiple responses after I did all the math and explained the 5%.

 

You chose a quote without context claiming I made mistakes I didn't. Obviously didn't read or comprehend what I wrote or you wouldn't have made your post. Don't know how you can claim otherwise.

[ghill85]

It's not even close. I play to about a +1 and having played with a number of the girls from the tour they beat me from the same tees often.

[PowderedToastMan]

Juliette, don't argue with iTeach. He literally said earlier in the thread that what he says is correct and he wouldn't say it if it wasn't. You can't debate with someone who carries that attitude.

[farmer]

The 63rd ranked player on the LPGA is Lindy Duncan and has a scoring avg of about 71.74 over 58 tournament rounds. Avg 253 off the tee, 65% fairways hit, 68% GIR. There is no 4 hdcp who will match her numbers. Iteach brings up how many rounds in the 80's an LPGA player might shoot, but how many 80's does this 4 shoot? Ms. Duncan has shot 13 rounds in the 60's this year. How many has the 4 hdcp man shot? Ever, at any length? How many national tournaments has the 4 played in? Again, the hdcp is not figured on an every round basis, Ms. Duncan's avg is actual tournament rounds. It's possible a 4 hdcp man beats Ms. Duncan, but someone always wins the Powerball as well. As the poster above said, Dan, you have become pedantic and argumentative.

[thekru]

Ego maniac for no reason...do some research.

[PowderedToastMan]

Ego maniac for no reason...do some research.

I've had the privilege of learning from and befriending many PhD's in many different fields during the past decade. Many of them certainly have ego's, big ones, but not one of them believed they knew everything in their chosen field. They understand the scientific method. iTeach is using statistics that he himself has stated are prone to sampling error. If he's admitting the sampling of driving distance and SS are flawed, why are these numbers the basis of his argument, which is 100% correct?

 

iTeach has an accomplished teaching record, and his results speak for themselves. However, it's a turn off when he comes on this board, usually quite arrogant, putting other people's opinions down, and demeaning others on this board. If he were just more cordial, and even just pretended to respect the opinion of others, it would go a long way for him and his career.

 

Honestly, he would have us believe that his ideas about the swing are 100% correct. Question them, and you are an idiot. If you think I'm being harsh, read his posts. I'd love to take iTeach back in time to the GolfDigest schools when Jim Flick, Jim Hardy, Bob Toski, Davis Love Jr., Sam Snead etc. when these guys would get together to cordially discuss the golf swing and learn together.

 

There, I've attacked a legend on the forum. Crucify me.

[bdcava]

I'll tell you one thing, I'd tune in to watch it. Almost nobody watches the LPGA anyway so maybe it would be a good thing to put on the golf channel: LPGA players against low handicap male amateurs. It might give me a reason to turn on the Golf Channel a little more than I usually do.

[iteachgolf]

Ego maniac for no reason...do some research.

I've had the privilege of learning from and befriending many PhD's in many different fields during the past decade. Many of them certainly have ego's, big ones, but not one of them believed they knew everything in their chosen field. They understand the scientific method. iTeach is using statistics that he himself has stated are prone to sampling error. If he's admitting the sampling of driving distance and SS are flawed, why are these numbers the basis of his argument, which is 100% correct?

 

iTeach has an accomplished teaching record, and his results speak for themselves. However, it's a turn off when he comes on this board, usually quite arrogant, putting other people's opinions down, and demeaning others on this board. If he were just more cordial, and even just pretended to respect the opinion of others, it would go a long way for him and his career.

 

Honestly, he would have us believe that his ideas about the swing are 100% correct. Question them, and you are an idiot. If you think I'm being harsh, read his posts. I'd love to take iTeach back in time to the GolfDigest schools when Jim Flick, Jim Hardy, Bob Toski, Davis Love Jr., Sam Snead etc. when these guys would get together to cordially discuss the golf swing and learn together.

 

There, I've attacked a legend on the forum. Crucify me.

 

Where did I say I'm 100% right about everything? I'm continuously learning and far from perfect. I don't believe I know even close to everything and have never said anything close to that. You take a quote completely out of context.

 

 

I said I was 100% right or I wouldn't have said it about multiple players shooting multiple rounds in the 80s. And I knew I was right because I looked it up before making the statement. My response about being 100% right was about THAT statement and that statement only. Go reread what I actually wrote instead of the BS you are claiming I said. It was in response to someone saying that I was wrong and players around 100th in scoring average do not shoot in the 80s. After which I posted many examples where they had. It was a statement attached to a vey specific post. Not some global statement like you're trying to make it out to be.

 

I respect plenty of people's opinion and it's why I continually ask questions of others I respect. There are plenty in the golf industry that are far more knowledgable than me about many subjects. You know nothing about me. I don't go after other people and don't start fights, I do stand up for myself and often finish them. You treat me with respect you get it. Simple as that.

 

At the early teaching summits there were borderline fights on stage. Acting like all the top teachers have always been cordial, especially when discussion golf swings simply isn't true.

[Shilgy]

Based on the usga numbers a 4 handicap will average 2-3 over their handicap so about 6-7 over the course rating. Does not matter if you play at 6000 yards or 7000 yards the amount over the course rating is relatively static. The LPGA at number 100 is averaging, in tournament conditions and playing for her livelihood, about 1.5 over the rating. She will lose to the 4 about as often as a 1 loses straight up to a 6. At any yardage.

[juliette91]

The discussion has veered from the original statement by Sherri Steinhauer: "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 up."

 

If you get to pick your topic question and then respond to it you're going to marshall your facts a lot better than if you actually respond to the original statement by Steinhauer. I'm bowing out of this discussion now, primarily because pretty much all of the important points have been covered and debated. I applaud everyone for responding and not making this discussion personal or attack dog style. We all benefit far more from civil discourse.

 

What is the answer to Steinhauer's original statement? I mean is it true what she said? No doubt the 4 can beat the number 152 given some star alignment/ course set up/distance, pin setup, and a particular player style of this 4, but almost everyone who posted would agree that even with giving as much course/particular kind of 4/ and tee/pin setup advantage the 4 would not be a 1:1 match with the LPGA #152. What would that actual ratio be? Who knows. The rest of the discussion posts are mostly very interesting even when they veer away from being on point with the original Steinhauer statement. I like the research some did on the actual stats of the LPGA players and also those who dug into the likely form for a 4 handicapper too. Anyway, enjoyed the interchange!

[Forged4ever]

Ego maniac for no reason...do some research.

I've had the privilege of learning from and befriending many PhD's in many different fields during the past decade. Many of them certainly have ego's, big ones, but not one of them believed they knew everything in their chosen field. They understand the scientific method. iTeach is using statistics that he himself has stated are prone to sampling error. If he's admitting the sampling of driving distance and SS are flawed, why are these numbers the basis of his argument, which is 100% correct?

 

iTeach has an accomplished teaching record, and his results speak for themselves. However, it's a turn off when he comes on this board, usually quite arrogant, putting other people's opinions down, and demeaning others on this board. If he were just more cordial, and even just pretended to respect the opinion of others, it would go a long way for him and his career.

 

Honestly, he would have us believe that his ideas about the swing are 100% correct. Question them, and you are an idiot. If you think I'm being harsh, read his posts. I'd love to take iTeach back in time to the GolfDigest schools when Jim Flick, Jim Hardy, Bob Toski, Davis Love Jr., Sam Snead etc. when these guys would get together to cordially discuss the golf swing and learn together.

 

There, I've attacked a legend on the forum. Crucify me.

Bro, I'm not crucifying you for anything because I respect you, your opinions and thoughts alot however regarding the summits, Sam used to get so pissed, and it was usually at McLean, that he would have to get up and leave the room because he thought McLean was one, making things mmuch more complicated than they had to be regarding the swing and two, McLean had a new swing theory every time that they got together and often there were conflicting point(s) from one theory to the other and Sam thought that McLean's stuff was gimmicky/faddish and wouldn't stand up to the pressures of high level competitive golf.

 

True, Bob Toski was one of Sam's closest friends and he thought a lot of Davis Jr. though he went around with Flick however not to the extent that he did with McLean.

 

Anyhoo, I hope that you're well and having a nice season :)

 

All the Best,

RP

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen.

 

But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

[Shilgy]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen.

 

But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

IMO definitely scratch or better in this case. More likely +1 to +2. And, as Richard likes to point out, a tournament cap-not a home club casual round capper.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen.

 

But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

IMO definitely scratch or better in this case. More likely +1 to +2. And, as Richard likes to point out, a tournament cap-not a home club casual round capper.

 

Yeah, I agree too. It just seems to go on so much about the hypothetical "one time round" which everyone knows could happen. Just seems a better discussion if it's a more of a realistic situation.

[nsxguy]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen.

 

But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

IMO definitely scratch or better in this case. More likely +1 to +2. And, as Richard likes to point out, a tournament cap-not a home club casual round capper.

 

Yeah, I agree too. It just seems to go on so much about the hypothetical "one time round" which everyone knows could happen. Just seems a better discussion if it's a more of a realistic situation.

 

It just seems to go on and on because everybody is applying their own parameters to the match.

 

In point of fact, even the OP, with the very generic title "Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?" is about as clear as mud. And the very first post helps not at all.

 

I suppose that was to encourage debate ? :dntknw:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it worked !!! :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen.

 

But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

IMO definitely scratch or better in this case. More likely +1 to +2. And, as Richard likes to point out, a tournament cap-not a home club casual round capper.

 

Yeah, I agree too. It just seems to go on so much about the hypothetical "one time round" which everyone knows could happen. Just seems a better discussion if it's a more of a realistic situation.

 

It just seems to go on and on because everybody is applying their own parameters to the match.

 

In point of fact, even the OP, with the very generic title "Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?" is about as clear as mud. And the very first post helps not at all.

 

I suppose that was to encourage debate ? :dntknw:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, it worked !!! :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

 

It did. There has certainly been a lot of debate! Fun to read.

[chrismikayla]

I think Issac had the best point. The theoretical contest has to have much more specific conditions. Obviously a 4 "could" defeat an LPGA player if the perfect storm of conditions was present. He could shoot that statistical anomaly and be way under his cap while she shoots that once ina while high 70's or low 80's round. It can happen. But to make it a more plausible scenario I like the question someone posed of "what level'of player would it take to compete over four rounds with the LPGA player" question. That seems more likely to eliminate the "one time " situation.

IMO definitely scratch or better in this case. More likely +1 to +2. And, as Richard likes to point out, a tournament cap-not a home club casual round capper.

Yeah, I agree too. It just seems to go on so much about the hypothetical "one time round" which everyone knows could happen. Just seems a better discussion if it's a more of a realistic situation.

It just seems to go on and on because everybody is applying their own parameters to the match. In point of fact, even the OP, with the very generic title "Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?" is about as clear as mud. And the very first post helps not at all. I suppose that was to encourage debate ? :dntknw: Well, it worked !!! :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

 

LOL I honestly thought a few posters would agree with me and that the thread would get pushed down after a day or so and forgotten about. Oops.

[heavy_hitter]

A good high school golfer in FL is about the same as an LPGA tour player fighting to keep her card, say 75-100 on money list. The LPGA player would finish around 30-40th in the boys junior, maybe.

 

I respect what you do immensely but I have never read such an ignorant comment. I really hope this is laced with sarcasm that I'm missing.

 

Please explain how it is ignorant. The cut line in 13-15 age group was +1 from 6700 yards. The 16-18 year old kids played from 7100 yards and the winner was -12. The LPGA player ranked 75-100 using the scoring averages (averages over 72 but less than 73) from the shorter and easier courses they play would have missed the cut in both age groups. If we account for the yardage differences there's no chance the 75th-100th ranked woman would have made the cut.

 

I know a LPGA player that is ranked right in that range and have played with her and seen her play plenty of times. She's played with me and some mini tour players from 6900 yards and she shoots respectable scores. But the high school team that practices at that same course, who had all 5 players shoot par or better in multiple tournaments, would have the same or better averages out there. My statement is the opposite of ignorant. It's based of real world experience and factual stats.

 

Please stop saying high school teams. There are very very few high school teams that will come close to sniffing par. A great high school team will be in the 295 range. Use the phrase junior golfers. There has only been 3 teams the past 5 years that have broken 288 in the state finals. For the most part, High School Boy's golf is a bunch of recreational golfer, even in the state of Florida. Our high school team is top 5 in the state and we will not come close to breaking par as a team.

 

The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. A 10 handicap in high school golf is a good high school golfer for boy's.

 

Use the term junior golfers.

 

I will agree that you are correct. The best of the best junior male golfers in the state of Florida will beat the LPGA players playing from the same tees. That is a fact.

 

Just don't say high school... LOL... there is a big difference.

[iteachgolf]

A good high school golfer in FL is about the same as an LPGA tour player fighting to keep her card, say 75-100 on money list. The LPGA player would finish around 30-40th in the boys junior, maybe.

 

I respect what you do immensely but I have never read such an ignorant comment. I really hope this is laced with sarcasm that I'm missing.

 

Please explain how it is ignorant. The cut line in 13-15 age group was +1 from 6700 yards. The 16-18 year old kids played from 7100 yards and the winner was -12. The LPGA player ranked 75-100 using the scoring averages (averages over 72 but less than 73) from the shorter and easier courses they play would have missed the cut in both age groups. If we account for the yardage differences there's no chance the 75th-100th ranked woman would have made the cut.

 

I know a LPGA player that is ranked right in that range and have played with her and seen her play plenty of times. She's played with me and some mini tour players from 6900 yards and she shoots respectable scores. But the high school team that practices at that same course, who had all 5 players shoot par or better in multiple tournaments, would have the same or better averages out there. My statement is the opposite of ignorant. It's based of real world experience and factual stats.

 

Please stop saying high school teams. There are very very few high school teams that will come close to sniffing par. A great high school team will be in the 295 range. Use the phrase junior golfers. There has only been 3 teams the past 5 years that have broken 288 in the state finals. For the most part, High School Boy's golf is a bunch of recreational golfer, even in the state of Florida. Our high school team is top 5 in the state and we will not come close to breaking par as a team.

 

The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. A 10 handicap in high school golf is a good high school golfer for boy's.

 

Use the term junior golfers.

 

I will agree that you are correct. The best of the best junior male golfers in the state of Florida will beat the LPGA players playing from the same tees. That is a fact.

 

Just don't say high school... LOL... there is a big difference.

 

I said high school golfer because they are high school golfers who play in high school golf. One of the students who is a high school golfer just broke he conference record and shot 63 at the conference championships. He's ranked just outside top 50 in the state. And the team I mentioned absolutely shot under par as a team multiple times. I taught all but one player on that team. At the time they were the only public high school to qualify for states 4 years in a row. They threw out a 73 in events. These are high school players in high school events

[heavy_hitter]

I know this player personally. Of course I'm right or I wouldn't have said it. She's ranked 102nd in scoring average and 105th in money.

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

98th ranked

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

97th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

95th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

And here's Morgan Pressel who is 77th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

 

I could go on and on showing players with multiple rounds in the 80s and a lot in the high 70s. On that same day from the back tee they'd have shot considerably higher.

 

Like iTeach has touched on, the distance factor is being grossly under-valued here by many in my opinion like I suggested before.

 

Throw me on the course from 6,300 with a solid LPGA card holder and I don't think I stand a chance 95% percent of the time. Roll is back to 7,000 plus where she is hitting a bunch of fairway woods and hybrids against my irons... I think it's a significantly different ball game

 

You don't stand a chance. These women routinely play from 6700 yards. 7000 is not that significant of a difference.

[nsxguy]

I know this player personally. Of course I'm right or I wouldn't have said it. She's ranked 102nd in scoring average and 105th in money.

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

98th ranked

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

97th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

95th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

And here's Morgan Pressel who is 77th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

 

I could go on and on showing players with multiple rounds in the 80s and a lot in the high 70s. On that same day from the back tee they'd have shot considerably higher.

 

Like iTeach has touched on, the distance factor is being grossly under-valued here by many in my opinion like I suggested before.

 

Throw me on the course from 6,300 with a solid LPGA card holder and I don't think I stand a chance 95% percent of the time. Roll is back to 7,000 plus where she is hitting a bunch of fairway woods and hybrids against my irons... I think it's a significantly different ball game

 

You don't stand a chance. These women routinely play from 6700 yards. 7000 is not that significant of a difference.

 

Is that true ? Routinely ?

 

Seem to be a distinct lack of emphasis on the total yardage at LPGA tournaments that I watch.

 

I was under the impression the ladies routinely played from around 6300,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that makes about 700 yards in difference. If true, I'd say that's "significant".

[heavy_hitter]

A good high school golfer in FL is about the same as an LPGA tour player fighting to keep her card, say 75-100 on money list. The LPGA player would finish around 30-40th in the boys junior, maybe.

 

I respect what you do immensely but I have never read such an ignorant comment. I really hope this is laced with sarcasm that I'm missing.

 

Please explain how it is ignorant. The cut line in 13-15 age group was +1 from 6700 yards. The 16-18 year old kids played from 7100 yards and the winner was -12. The LPGA player ranked 75-100 using the scoring averages (averages over 72 but less than 73) from the shorter and easier courses they play would have missed the cut in both age groups. If we account for the yardage differences there's no chance the 75th-100th ranked woman would have made the cut.

 

I know a LPGA player that is ranked right in that range and have played with her and seen her play plenty of times. She's played with me and some mini tour players from 6900 yards and she shoots respectable scores. But the high school team that practices at that same course, who had all 5 players shoot par or better in multiple tournaments, would have the same or better averages out there. My statement is the opposite of ignorant. It's based of real world experience and factual stats.

 

Please stop saying high school teams. There are very very few high school teams that will come close to sniffing par. A great high school team will be in the 295 range. Use the phrase junior golfers. There has only been 3 teams the past 5 years that have broken 288 in the state finals. For the most part, High School Boy's golf is a bunch of recreational golfer, even in the state of Florida. Our high school team is top 5 in the state and we will not come close to breaking par as a team.

 

The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. A 10 handicap in high school golf is a good high school golfer for boy's.

 

Use the term junior golfers.

 

I will agree that you are correct. The best of the best junior male golfers in the state of Florida will beat the LPGA players playing from the same tees. That is a fact.

 

Just don't say high school... LOL... there is a big difference.

 

I said high school golfer because they are high school golfers who play in high school golf. One of the students who is a high school golfer just broke he conference record and shot 63 at the conference championships. He's ranked just outside top 50 in the state. And the team I mentioned absolutely shot under par as a team multiple times. I taught all but one player on that team. At the time they were the only public high school to qualify for states 4 years in a row. They threw out a 73 in events. These are high school players in high school events

 

That is an exception to the rule. In the high school state tournament the past five years 288 has only been broken 3 times. That is roughly over 400 teams participating. You are talking about 5 kids on one High school team. The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. That is being generous.

 

Conference, District, Regional, matches are from shorter distances.

[heavy_hitter]

I know this player personally. Of course I'm right or I wouldn't have said it. She's ranked 102nd in scoring average and 105th in money.

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

98th ranked

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

97th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

95th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

And here's Morgan Pressel who is 77th

 

http://www.lpga.com/...rTabOptions_top

 

 

I could go on and on showing players with multiple rounds in the 80s and a lot in the high 70s. On that same day from the back tee they'd have shot considerably higher.

 

Like iTeach has touched on, the distance factor is being grossly under-valued here by many in my opinion like I suggested before.

 

Throw me on the course from 6,300 with a solid LPGA card holder and I don't think I stand a chance 95% percent of the time. Roll is back to 7,000 plus where she is hitting a bunch of fairway woods and hybrids against my irons... I think it's a significantly different ball game

 

You don't stand a chance. These women routinely play from 6700 yards. 7000 is not that significant of a difference.

 

Is that true ? Routinely ?

 

Seem to be a distinct lack of emphasis on the total yardage at LPGA tournaments that I watch.

 

I was under the impression the ladies routinely played from around 6300,,,,,,,,,,,,,, that makes about 700 yards in difference. If true, I'd say that's "significant".

 

Let me change that. They generally play 6300 to 6700 yards. 6300 yards is short. The USGA Girl's Junior Championship plays 6300+ yards. My daughter is 17 and has no problem shooting mid 70's from 6500 yards and she is scratch. These women on the LPGA will beat you from 7000.

[thekru]

http://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/orig_uploads/sports/golf/archives/2015-16/state/boys_3a_team_final_resuilts.pdf

 

http://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/orig_uploads/sports/golf/archives/2015-16/state/boys_3a_ind_final_results.pdf

 

More BS by the BS'er

[nsxguy]

 

Please explain how it is ignorant. The cut line in 13-15 age group was +1 from 6700 yards. The 16-18 year old kids played from 7100 yards and the winner was -12. The LPGA player ranked 75-100 using the scoring averages (averages over 72 but less than 73) from the shorter and easier courses they play would have missed the cut in both age groups. If we account for the yardage differences there's no chance the 75th-100th ranked woman would have made the cut.

 

I know a LPGA player that is ranked right in that range and have played with her and seen her play plenty of times. She's played with me and some mini tour players from 6900 yards and she shoots respectable scores. But the high school team that practices at that same course, who had all 5 players shoot par or better in multiple tournaments, would have the same or better averages out there. My statement is the opposite of ignorant. It's based of real world experience and factual stats.

 

Please stop saying high school teams. There are very very few high school teams that will come close to sniffing par. A great high school team will be in the 295 range. Use the phrase junior golfers. There has only been 3 teams the past 5 years that have broken 288 in the state finals. For the most part, High School Boy's golf is a bunch of recreational golfer, even in the state of Florida. Our high school team is top 5 in the state and we will not come close to breaking par as a team.

 

The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. A 10 handicap in high school golf is a good high school golfer for boy's.

 

Use the term junior golfers.

 

I will agree that you are correct. The best of the best junior male golfers in the state of Florida will beat the LPGA players playing from the same tees. That is a fact.

 

Just don't say high school... LOL... there is a big difference.

 

I said high school golfer because they are high school golfers who play in high school golf. One of the students who is a high school golfer just broke he conference record and shot 63 at the conference championships. He's ranked just outside top 50 in the state. And the team I mentioned absolutely shot under par as a team multiple times. I taught all but one player on that team. At the time they were the only public high school to qualify for states 4 years in a row. They threw out a 73 in events. These are high school players in high school events

 

That is an exception to the rue. In the high school state tournament the past five years 288 has only been broken 3 times. That is roughly over 400 teams participating. You are talking about 5 kids on one High school team. The average high school golfer is a 10+ handicap. That is being generous.

 

Conference, District, Regional, matches are from shorter distances.

 

He wasn't generalizing in the first place. He was citing a specific school and citing specific tournaments in which the middle of the road LPGA player would not compete (in his opinion).

 

He also referred to a specific LPGA player who, through personal experience, would be waxed by a specific high school team.

 

He is being very specific. You are "fighting back" with generalizations.

 

Please don't refute specifics with generalizations,,,,,,,,,,, and vice versa.

[iteachgolf]

http://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/orig_uploads/sports/golf/archives/2015-16/state/boys_3a_team_final_resuilts.pdf

 

http://www.fhsaa.org/sites/default/files/orig_uploads/sports/golf/archives/2015-16/state/boys_3a_ind_final_results.pdf

 

More BS by the BS'er

 

What BS? Didn't say it was this year. I said at the time the whole team shot under par. The team that had 3 of starting 5 had offers from top 20 schools and all 5 had college golf offers. And the kid who shot 63 did so less than 2 weeks ago. Would you like to me to send you the newspaper article or photos of the scorecard or scoreboard?

[PowderedToastMan]

http://www.fhsaa.org...al_resuilts.pdf

 

http://www.fhsaa.org...nal_results.pdf

 

More BS by the BS'er

 

What BS? Didn't say it was this year. I said at the time the whole team shot under par. The team that had 3 of starting 5 had offers from top 20 schools and all 5 had college golf offers. And the kid who shot 63 did so less than 2 weeks ago. Would you like to me to send you the newspaper article or photos of the scorecard or scoreboard?

I think it would be a good idea for you to go back to giving golf advice on this forum rather than argue with and demean potential paying students.

[iteachgolf]

http://www.fhsaa.org...al_resuilts.pdf

 

http://www.fhsaa.org...nal_results.pdf

 

More BS by the BS'er

 

What BS? Didn't say it was this year. I said at the time the whole team shot under par. The team that had 3 of starting 5 had offers from top 20 schools and all 5 had college golf offers. And the kid who shot 63 did so less than 2 weeks ago. Would you like to me to send you the newspaper article or photos of the scorecard or scoreboard?

I think it would be a good idea for you to go back to giving golf advice on this forum rather than argue with and demean potential paying students.

 

Are you kidding me? One I give a ton of advice. And I'm not demeaning a potential student. I'm responding to a personal attack by a troll. You can worry about you rather than following me around and telling me how to act. I have parents and you aren't one of them.