Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Nitefisher11]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

I hover between 0 and +2 depending on how much I play/practice. It travels and I've played in lot's different stuff, not just casual rounds. I've seen a couple of posts that says the lpga players might struggle on longer courses. I watch a decent amount of the lpga golf on TV and sometimes wonder how I'd do playing the courses and distance set ups they play. I'd have to think any male player similar to me would be competitive, ie make some cuts but the scores the top players shoot are phenomenal. Not sure what the rating/slope they really play at but the kicker would be the par 5 distances, they are short enough where all these course are playing to about a par of 68 or 69. Just my opinion...

[heavy_hitter]

The kid that won is a +3.8. Darn close to elite in my book. And yes, that is better than the last lady fighting to keep her card. His team shot 295 so the other players on his team averaged a bit over 77. And they finished second in the team result you posted.

And you're right, you did not say run of the mill, you said good. Clearly your definition of good is different than mine.

 

From your post

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.

 

Do you have a link to the Floor boys junior? I could only find the latest result just completed and would like to view the scores. Thanks.

 

Been posted multiple times including at least top of this very page. I clearly qualified my definition of good as finishing between 30-40th in the boys junior (which only had one player ranked in the top 25 actually playing in the event). To finish 30-40th you would have had to average 75 over 3 rounds on two courses over 7,000 yards.

 

The kid who won's team shot way worse than that. They absolutely did not finish second.

 

https://instagram.com/p/BKTxBmEgXG9/

No worries if you clarified. In the post I referred to you very clearly said good high schooler. Not the top juniors in Florida. What percentage would you think of the top Florida juniors are actually from Florida? Meaning not just students that attend one of the many academies based there and are from other states and countries.

 

Yes, he very clearly stated high schoolers several times.

 

The term is junior golfers. As I have said, the average high school player is a +10 at best, and that is being generous.

 

No the term is high school golfer. Any high school golfer is also a junior golfer. The term junior golfer is infinitely less descriptive. A 6 year old is a junior golfer. Or a 3 year old. Or a 10 year old. Which wasn't what I was talking about. The description I 100% meant was high school aged golfers.

 

And I never said average high schooler. I very clearly said good high school golfer and then qualified what I considered good. It couldn't have been more clear or specific

 

You are wrong in so many ways. You never said "High School Aged Golfers". You said "High School Golfers". Your terminology is wrong.

 

I have two junior golfers and one is in High School. Could care less about high school golf and she plays high school golf. College Coaches couldn't care less about High School Golfers. They do, however, care about Junior golfers.

 

You even said it yourself, the best junior golfers don't play play high school golf.

 

A High School Golfer is a High School Golfer. A junior golfer can be a High School Golfer. A Junior golfer is a golfer that plays outside of High School Golf Events. The majority of High School golfers do not play golf outside of High School Golf.

 

The high school team you are referring to are made up of JUNIOR TOURNAMENT GOLFERS!!!

[iteachgolf]

 

 

Been posted multiple times including at least top of this very page. I clearly qualified my definition of good as finishing between 30-40th in the boys junior (which only had one player ranked in the top 25 actually playing in the event). To finish 30-40th you would have had to average 75 over 3 rounds on two courses over 7,000 yards.

 

The kid who won's team shot way worse than that. They absolutely did not finish second.

 

https://instagram.com/p/BKTxBmEgXG9/

No worries if you clarified. In the post I referred to you very clearly said good high schooler. Not the top juniors in Florida. What percentage would you think of the top Florida juniors are actually from Florida? Meaning not just students that attend one of the many academies based there and are from other states and countries.

 

Yes, he very clearly stated high schoolers several times.

 

The term is junior golfers. As I have said, the average high school player is a +10 at best, and that is being generous.

 

No the term is high school golfer. Any high school golfer is also a junior golfer. The term junior golfer is infinitely less descriptive. A 6 year old is a junior golfer. Or a 3 year old. Or a 10 year old. Which wasn't what I was talking about. The description I 100% meant was high school aged golfers.

 

And I never said average high schooler. I very clearly said good high school golfer and then qualified what I considered good. It couldn't have been more clear or specific

 

You are wrong in so many ways. You never said "High School Aged Golfers". You said "High School Golfers". Your terminology is wrong.

 

I have two junior golfers and one is in High School. Could care less about high school golf and she plays high school golf. College Coaches couldn't care less about High School Golfers. They do, however, care about Junior golfers.

 

You even said it yourself, the best junior golfers don't play play high school golf.

 

A High School Golfer is a High School Golfer. A junior golfer can be a High School Golfer. A Junior golfer is a golfer that plays outside of High School Golf Events. The majority of High School golfers do not play golf outside of High School Golf.

 

The high school team you are referring to are made up of JUNIOR TOURNAMENT GOLFERS!!!

 

How am I wrong. A junior golfer is anyone under 19 who plays golf. Plenty of 3 year old junior golfers. Didn't mean them. You're tying to make up your own definition of a junior golfer, which isn't close to factual or common. I'm going to stick with the UsGA definition of a junior golfer, which is anyone less than 19 years old, and has played even a single round of golf would be a junior golfer. So anyone who has every played a single round of golf and is younger than 19 is a junior golfer, period. Every kid that plays in high school is a junior golfer.

 

Any one who plays golf and is in high school is a high school golfer. Whether they play high school golf or not, they are a high school golfer.

 

PS I've had multiple players who's families couldn't afford tournaments and played maybe one or two FJT events EVER and yet got scholarships to play D1 college golf based on how they played in high school golf. College coaches absolutely look at high school golf.

[bph7]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

[Shilgy]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

I may have missed a post but do not recall anyone stating the lower level lady is better than +2. IMO your analysis is spot on.

[heavy_hitter]

 

How am I wrong. A junior golfer is anyone under 19 who plays golf. Plenty of 3 year old junior golfers. Didn't mean them. You're tying to make up your own definition of a junior golfer, which isn't close to factual or common. I'm going to stick with the UsGA definition of a junior golfer, which is anyone less than 19 years old, and has played even a single round of golf would be a junior golfer. So anyone who has every played a single round of golf and is younger than 19 is a junior golfer, period. Every kid that plays in high school is a junior golfer.

 

Any one who plays golf and is in high school is a high school golfer. Whether they play high school golf or not, they are a high school golfer.

 

PS I've had multiple players who's families couldn't afford tournaments and played maybe one or two FJT events EVER and yet got scholarships to play D1 college golf based on how they played in high school golf. College coaches absolutely look at high school golf.

 

You are a hoot.

 

I have been through the process of recruiting this year. Not to hijack a thread, but colleges do no care about high school golf unless they play in huge events like the Crutchfield Hawkins, Kings Invitational, and other events of this magnitude. They do not care about 9 hole weekday matches. They do not care about conference, district, regional, or most state tournaments.

 

I guarantee that your so called kids did not get a D1 scholarship. If they did, it consisted of them getting books paid for or a walk on to the team. There are 4.5 scholarships for a 10-12 man D1 team for boy's. They aren't getting an of that money unless they are playing in real tournaments. Playing on the team and getting scholarship money are two different things.

 

You are still wrong on the junior golfer. You are reciting the politically correct terminology. That doesn't make it correct. High school golf in the junior golf world is a derogatory term to those kids that are playing junior tournament golf. Many high school golfers do it for a resume builder or because their parents make them. This is especially true on the female side of golf. Spin it, twist it, say what you want, you are are wrong.

[nsxguy]

Been posted multiple times including at least top of this very page. I clearly qualified my definition of good as finishing between 30-40th in the boys junior (which only had one player ranked in the top 25 actually playing in the event). To finish 30-40th you would have had to average 75 over 3 rounds on two courses over 7,000 yards.

 

The kid who won's team shot way worse than that. They absolutely did not finish second.

 

https://instagram.com/p/BKTxBmEgXG9/

No worries if you clarified. In the post I referred to you very clearly said good high schooler. Not the top juniors in Florida. What percentage would you think of the top Florida juniors are actually from Florida? Meaning not just students that attend one of the many academies based there and are from other states and countries.

 

Yes, he very clearly stated high schoolers several times.

 

The term is junior golfers. As I have said, the average high school player is a +10 at best, and that is being generous.

 

No the term is high school golfer. Any high school golfer is also a junior golfer. The term junior golfer is infinitely less descriptive. A 6 year old is a junior golfer. Or a 3 year old. Or a 10 year old. Which wasn't what I was talking about. The description I 100% meant was high school aged golfers.

 

And I never said average high schooler. I very clearly said good high school golfer and then qualified what I considered good. It couldn't have been more clear or specific

You have definitely defined your statement quite eloquently by now. The original post of "good high schooler" is where I personally found confusion.

 

May I suggest that one could have read that statement 2 different ways ?

 

As A (single) good high school golfer

 

or

 

As ANY good high school golfer.

 

After a while I figured he meant the first one.

 

And now, as you can see, some of us can't figure out the difference between a "high school golfer" and a "junior golfer". :dntknw: :help:

[iteachgolf]

 

How am I wrong. A junior golfer is anyone under 19 who plays golf. Plenty of 3 year old junior golfers. Didn't mean them. You're tying to make up your own definition of a junior golfer, which isn't close to factual or common. I'm going to stick with the UsGA definition of a junior golfer, which is anyone less than 19 years old, and has played even a single round of golf would be a junior golfer. So anyone who has every played a single round of golf and is younger than 19 is a junior golfer, period. Every kid that plays in high school is a junior golfer.

 

Any one who plays golf and is in high school is a high school golfer. Whether they play high school golf or not, they are a high school golfer.

 

PS I've had multiple players who's families couldn't afford tournaments and played maybe one or two FJT events EVER and yet got scholarships to play D1 college golf based on how they played in high school golf. College coaches absolutely look at high school golf.

 

You are a hoot.

 

I have been through the process of recruiting this year. Not to hijack a thread, but colleges do no care about high school golf unless they play in huge events like the Crutchfield Hawkins, Kings Invitational, and other events of this magnitude. They do not care about 9 hole weekday matches. They do not care about conference, district, regional, or most state tournaments.

 

I guarantee that your so called kids did not get a D1 scholarship. If they did, it consisted of them getting books paid for or a walk on to the team. There are 4.5 scholarships for a 10-12 man D1 team for boy's. They aren't getting an of that money unless they are playing in real tournaments. Playing on the team and getting scholarship money are two different things.

 

You are still wrong on the junior golfer. You are reciting the politically correct terminology. That doesn't make it correct. High school golf in the junior golf world is a derogatory term to those kids that are playing junior tournament golf. Many high school golfers do it for a resume builder or because their parents make them. This is especially true on the female side of golf. Spin it, twist it, say what you want, you are are wrong.

 

Actually you're the hoot. You honestly don't think I know how D1 golf works? I've sent a ton of kids to scholarships in college golf, including multiple national champions. You think your one year of experience with recruiting you daughter trumps my over a decade of experience? They absolutely got a D1 scholarship and wasn't a book scholarship. One shot mid 60s in local and high school events and never played AJGA or any other big junior events. Ended up 2 time All A Sun conference player in college and played in 6 USGA events while in college making the match play in ALL of them. He now has multiple professional wins and has played on Web.com tour the last 2 years.

[nsxguy]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

[bph7]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

 

Handicap indexes are based on course rating/slope which are at least partially based on distance. They are universal. There is no +2 from "x yards". There is +2. If one guy plays a 6200 yard course rated 70/113 and another plays a 74/135, the former is going to have to average 68 on his best half of scores for his +2 while the latter will only need to average 72 or so on his best 10 to be a +2. They are equivalent indexes in every way tho and neither player would be giving strokes to the other no matter what length course they played. So distance doesn't matter as much as you think for the lpga because it's already factored in in calculating their hypothetical cap. So, for those of us actually analyzing this, we are taking distance directly into account.

[nsxguy]

So we've established that a 4 is at best unlikely to defeat the struggling pro. And that the best, or good, Florida juniors can beat her. What level of player would you call an even bet? +1? 0? +2?

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

 

Handicap indexes are based on course rating/slope which are at least partially based on distance. They are universal. There is no +2 from "x yards". There is +2. If one guy plays a 6200 yard course rated 70/113 and another plays a 74/135, the former is going to have to average 68 on his best half of scores for his +2 while the latter will only need to average 72 or so on his best 10 to be a +2. They are equivalent indexes in every way tho and neither player would be giving strokes to the other no matter what length course they played. So distance doesn't matter as much as you think for the lpga because it's already factored in in calculating their hypothetical cap. So, for those of us actually analyzing this, we are taking distance directly into account.

 

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

[b.helts]

<snip>

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

Why not?

[nsxguy]

<snip>

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

Why not?

 

I hate to answer a question with a question (or 6) but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Would YOU shoot the same gross score from 700 yards further back ? ALL the time ? Half the time ? Once in a while ? Never ?

[thekru]

 

How am I wrong. A junior golfer is anyone under 19 who plays golf. Plenty of 3 year old junior golfers. Didn't mean them. You're tying to make up your own definition of a junior golfer, which isn't close to factual or common. I'm going to stick with the UsGA definition of a junior golfer, which is anyone less than 19 years old, and has played even a single round of golf would be a junior golfer. So anyone who has every played a single round of golf and is younger than 19 is a junior golfer, period. Every kid that plays in high school is a junior golfer.

 

Any one who plays golf and is in high school is a high school golfer. Whether they play high school golf or not, they are a high school golfer.

 

PS I've had multiple players who's families couldn't afford tournaments and played maybe one or two FJT events EVER and yet got scholarships to play D1 college golf based on how they played in high school golf. College coaches absolutely look at high school golf.

 

You are a hoot.

 

I have been through the process of recruiting this year. Not to hijack a thread, but colleges do no care about high school golf unless they play in huge events like the Crutchfield Hawkins, Kings Invitational, and other events of this magnitude. They do not care about 9 hole weekday matches. They do not care about conference, district, regional, or most state tournaments.

 

I guarantee that your so called kids did not get a D1 scholarship. If they did, it consisted of them getting books paid for or a walk on to the team. There are 4.5 scholarships for a 10-12 man D1 team for boy's. They aren't getting an of that money unless they are playing in real tournaments. Playing on the team and getting scholarship money are two different things.

 

You are still wrong on the junior golfer. You are reciting the politically correct terminology. That doesn't make it correct. High school golf in the junior golf world is a derogatory term to those kids that are playing junior tournament golf. Many high school golfers do it for a resume builder or because their parents make them. This is especially true on the female side of golf. Spin it, twist it, say what you want, you are are wrong.

 

Actually you're the hoot. You honestly don't think I know how D1 golf works? I've sent a ton of kids to scholarships in college golf, including multiple national champions. You think your one year of experience with recruiting you daughter trumps my over a decade of experience? They absolutely got a D1 scholarship and wasn't a book scholarship. One shot mid 60s in local and high school events and never played AJGA or any other big junior events. Ended up 2 time All A Sun conference player in college and played in 6 USGA events while in college making the match play in ALL of them. He now has multiple professional wins and has played on Web.com tour the last 2 years.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?...As George Costanza said, "it's not a lie Jerry, if you believe it's true". This is making for great comedy. Please keep them coming!!

[iteachgolf]

 

How am I wrong. A junior golfer is anyone under 19 who plays golf. Plenty of 3 year old junior golfers. Didn't mean them. You're tying to make up your own definition of a junior golfer, which isn't close to factual or common. I'm going to stick with the UsGA definition of a junior golfer, which is anyone less than 19 years old, and has played even a single round of golf would be a junior golfer. So anyone who has every played a single round of golf and is younger than 19 is a junior golfer, period. Every kid that plays in high school is a junior golfer.

 

Any one who plays golf and is in high school is a high school golfer. Whether they play high school golf or not, they are a high school golfer.

 

PS I've had multiple players who's families couldn't afford tournaments and played maybe one or two FJT events EVER and yet got scholarships to play D1 college golf based on how they played in high school golf. College coaches absolutely look at high school golf.

 

You are a hoot.

 

I have been through the process of recruiting this year. Not to hijack a thread, but colleges do no care about high school golf unless they play in huge events like the Crutchfield Hawkins, Kings Invitational, and other events of this magnitude. They do not care about 9 hole weekday matches. They do not care about conference, district, regional, or most state tournaments.

 

I guarantee that your so called kids did not get a D1 scholarship. If they did, it consisted of them getting books paid for or a walk on to the team. There are 4.5 scholarships for a 10-12 man D1 team for boy's. They aren't getting an of that money unless they are playing in real tournaments. Playing on the team and getting scholarship money are two different things.

 

You are still wrong on the junior golfer. You are reciting the politically correct terminology. That doesn't make it correct. High school golf in the junior golf world is a derogatory term to those kids that are playing junior tournament golf. Many high school golfers do it for a resume builder or because their parents make them. This is especially true on the female side of golf. Spin it, twist it, say what you want, you are are wrong.

 

Actually you're the hoot. You honestly don't think I know how D1 golf works? I've sent a ton of kids to scholarships in college golf, including multiple national champions. You think your one year of experience with recruiting you daughter trumps my over a decade of experience? They absolutely got a D1 scholarship and wasn't a book scholarship. One shot mid 60s in local and high school events and never played AJGA or any other big junior events. Ended up 2 time All A Sun conference player in college and played in 6 USGA events while in college making the match play in ALL of them. He now has multiple professional wins and has played on Web.com tour the last 2 years.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?...As George Costanza said, "it's not a lie Jerry, if you believe it's true". This is making for great comedy. Please keep them coming!!

 

Because it's true and a fact? I've worked with multiple D2 national Champions and a NAIA National champion. It's funny every time you try to call me a liar it seems to blow up in your face and you look completely foolish.

[b.helts]

<snip>

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

Why not?

 

I hate to answer a question with a question (or 6) but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Would YOU shoot the same gross score from 700 yards further back ? ALL the time ? Half the time ? Once in a while ? Never ?

 

No. But the +2 that plays at 6300 and the +2 that plays at 7000 will absolutely not have the same scoring average.

 

When it comes to handicap, the course rating matters, in fact it is the primary factor.

[bph7]

 

 

No, "we" haven't established any such thing.

 

You and some others have "established" that.

 

There are WAY too many "ifs" and "buts" to think that "we" have established anything but a myriad of different opinions.

 

Meanwhile there are several who think the 4 HDCP (with some stipulations of course) has an excellent chance.

 

Probably better if we let the whole thing drop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

+2 would be about even IMO. There's nothing to suggest mid level and lower lpga players are any better than that. There's been no reasoned analysts suggesting otherwise. I calculated caps using the 10 best scores of the year for the number 50 player and she was still only +2. The only "evidence" to the contrary are anecdotes from people saying "these women can play". They sure can, a +2 men's can play really well too. The logs players just aren't close to top high schoolers, amateurs, or college players. That's been pretty much undisputed.

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

 

Handicap indexes are based on course rating/slope which are at least partially based on distance. They are universal. There is no +2 from "x yards". There is +2. If one guy plays a 6200 yard course rated 70/113 and another plays a 74/135, the former is going to have to average 68 on his best half of scores for his +2 while the latter will only need to average 72 or so on his best 10 to be a +2. They are equivalent indexes in every way tho and neither player would be giving strokes to the other no matter what length course they played. So distance doesn't matter as much as you think for the lpga because it's already factored in in calculating their hypothetical cap. So, for those of us actually analyzing this, we are taking distance directly into account.

 

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

You are making a common mistake, and it's one of the main reasons almost no one understands handicaps. The plus 2 who plays a shorter course is going considerably lower at his course than the dude at the longer course. Course rating is what matters, it has nothing to do with par. The plus 2 at the 6300 yard course might have a different skill set than a plus two at a longer tougher course, but in the eyes of the handicap system, neither is giving the other strokes. So, while one or the other may happen to have an advantage at a given course, they are considered the same ability level based on index. The dude at the shorter course just had to shoot much lower scores to get to said index. That's what makes the handicap system so good, it's universal since courses are at least hypothetically rated consistently.

 

The short answer to your question is that in a gross competition, if the indexes are both exactly +2.0, then yes, at least in terms of the USGA view, they are of equal ability levels. The +2 at the short course has more experience going super low, and the +2 at the longer course is probably a better overall driver, but yes they are equal in terms of playing ability based on handicap index and course handicap. Those are the metrics we are using as a proxy for ability, they may not be perfect (and most don't understand them at all, most incorrectly believe it works the way you are describing), but they are the best thing we've got.

[Shilgy]

 

You are making a common mistake, and it's one of the main reasons almost no one understands handicaps. The plus 2 who plays a shorter course is going considerably lower at his course than the dude at the longer course. Course rating is what matters, it has nothing to do with par. The plus 2 at the 6300 yard course might have a different skill set than a plus two at a longer tougher course, but in the eyes of the handicap system, neither is giving the other strokes. So, while one or the other may happen to have an advantage at a given course, they are considered the same ability level based on index. The dude at the shorter course just had to shoot much lower scores to get to said index. That's what makes the handicap system so good, it's universal since courses are at least hypothetically rated consistently.

 

The short answer to your question is that in a gross competition, if the indexes are both exactly +2.0, then yes, at least in terms of the USGA view, they are of equal ability levels. The +2 at the short course has more experience going super low, and the +2 at the longer course is probably a better overall driver, but yes they are equal in terms of playing ability based on handicap index and course handicap. Those are the metrics we are using as a proxy for ability, they may not be perfect (and most don't understand them at all, most incorrectly believe it works the way you are describing), but they are the best thing we've got.

Exactly-the +2 that earns his handicap at the 6300 yard course and the +2 from the 7000 yard course should shoot the same scores when they both play the same course. No matter if at 6300 or 7000. This is not the same as a single +2 shooting the same from either yardage.

[DavePelz4]

Anything is possible. Heck, the Cubs could win the World Series and the Bear win a game.

 

 

 

 

OK...the Cubs could win the World Series.

[Shilgy]

Anything is possible. Heck, the Cubs could win the World Series and the Bear win a game.

 

 

 

 

OK...the Cubs could win the World Series.

Does seem more likely at this point. :)

[Soloman1]

If the LPGA pro had a very bad day and the amateur had a very good day, sure it could happen.

 

But I wouldn't bet on it, since they would both have to happen the same day.

 

Possibility ≠ Probability.

[isaacbm]

This thread has really gone off the rails but the exchange between nsxguy and bph7 in particular is really making my head hurt....

 

A +2 is a +2 is a +2.

 

This is part of the problem with the whole thread. People (in this case nsxguy ) don't understand the basic workings of the handicap system.

[pinhigh27]

This thread has really gone off the rails but the exchange between nsxguy and bph7 in particular is really making my head hurt....

 

A +2 is a +2 is a +2.

 

This is part of the problem with the whole thread. People (in this case nsxguy ) don't understand the basic workings of the handicap system.

se

This thread has really gone off the rails but the exchange between nsxguy and bph7 in particular is really making my head hurt....

 

A +2 is a +2 is a +2.

 

This is part of the problem with the whole thread. People (in this case nsxguy ) don't understand the basic workings of the handicap system.

 

seriously the USGA should do a campaign or something to explain how the handicap system works. It's not complex but people still struggle with it.

[deadsolid...shank]

This thread has really gone off the rails but the exchange between nsxguy and bph7 in particular is really making my head hurt....

 

A +2 is a +2 is a +2.

 

This is part of the problem with the whole thread. People (in this case nsxguy ) don't understand the basic workings of the handicap system.

se

This thread has really gone off the rails but the exchange between nsxguy and bph7 in particular is really making my head hurt....

 

A +2 is a +2 is a +2.

 

This is part of the problem with the whole thread. People (in this case nsxguy ) don't understand the basic workings of the handicap system.

 

seriously the USGA should do a campaign or something to explain how the handicap system works. It's not complex but people still struggle with it.

 

Hell,,I've been playing for 45 years, probably close to 30with a handicap, and don't understand it. I've learned a lotthe last couple of years because of a similar situation to the +2's mentioned. Playing a 73.5/125 and a 69.7/119 course on a regular basis and seeing how scores on each impact the handicap.

 

For what it's worth, my only dealing with upper level college golf is a local kid I knew from the area. Played mostly high school events in a rural state. It was good enough for a partial scholarship to a power conference D1 school.

[dpb5031]

 

You are making a common mistake, and it's one of the main reasons almost no one understands handicaps. The plus 2 who plays a shorter course is going considerably lower at his course than the dude at the longer course. Course rating is what matters, it has nothing to do with par. The plus 2 at the 6300 yard course might have a different skill set than a plus two at a longer tougher course, but in the eyes of the handicap system, neither is giving the other strokes. So, while one or the other may happen to have an advantage at a given course, they are considered the same ability level based on index. The dude at the shorter course just had to shoot much lower scores to get to said index. That's what makes the handicap system so good, it's universal since courses are at least hypothetically rated consistently.

 

The short answer to your question is that in a gross competition, if the indexes are both exactly +2.0, then yes, at least in terms of the USGA view, they are of equal ability levels. The +2 at the short course has more experience going super low, and the +2 at the longer course is probably a better overall driver, but yes they are equal in terms of playing ability based on handicap index and course handicap. Those are the metrics we are using as a proxy for ability, they may not be perfect (and most don't understand them at all, most incorrectly believe it works the way you are describing), but they are the best thing we've got.

Exactly-the +2 that earns his handicap at the 6300 yard course and the +2 from the 7000 yard course should shoot the same scores when they both play the same course. No matter if at 6300 or 7000. This is not the same as a single +2 shooting the same from either yardage.

 

Absolutely amazing how many don't understand this and have total conviction in their erroneous beliefs.

[farmer]

This thread has drifted so far OT, but an entertaining pissing match between Dan and, well, many posters. The fact remains, no, a 4 hdcp male will be spanked by a middle of the road LPGA player. The original idea had nothing to do with + players and college kids.

[nsxguy]

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

 

Handicap indexes are based on course rating/slope which are at least partially based on distance. They are universal. There is no +2 from "x yards". There is +2. If one guy plays a 6200 yard course rated 70/113 and another plays a 74/135, the former is going to have to average 68 on his best half of scores for his +2 while the latter will only need to average 72 or so on his best 10 to be a +2. They are equivalent indexes in every way tho and neither player would be giving strokes to the other no matter what length course they played. So distance doesn't matter as much as you think for the lpga because it's already factored in in calculating their hypothetical cap. So, for those of us actually analyzing this, we are taking distance directly into account.

 

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

You are making a common mistake, and it's one of the main reasons almost no one understands handicaps. The plus 2 who plays a shorter course is going considerably lower at his course than the dude at the longer course. Course rating is what matters, it has nothing to do with par. The plus 2 at the 6300 yard course might have a different skill set than a plus two at a longer tougher course, but in the eyes of the handicap system, neither is giving the other strokes. So, while one or the other may happen to have an advantage at a given course, they are considered the same ability level based on index. The dude at the shorter course just had to shoot much lower scores to get to said index. That's what makes the handicap system so good, it's universal since courses are at least hypothetically rated consistently.

 

The short answer to your question is that in a gross competition, if the indexes are both exactly +2.0, then yes, at least in terms of the USGA view, they are of equal ability levels. The +2 at the short course has more experience going super low, and the +2 at the longer course is probably a better overall driver, but yes they are equal in terms of playing ability based on handicap index and course handicap. Those are the metrics we are using as a proxy for ability, they may not be perfect (and most don't understand them at all, most incorrectly believe it works the way you are describing), but they are the best thing we've got.

 

I am not making ANY mistake. I understand a 2 (or +2 or anything else) moved back 700 yards will (generally) still be the same handicap. Based on years of experience I think the difference is more than what the course rating and slope is but that's beside the point.

 

I am not talking about handicaps,,,,,,,,, at all,,,,,, Handicaps have nothing to do with these (assumed) results. The +2 is simply a reference to the longer player's ability.

 

So forget about handicap(s).

 

The longer hitter shoots about 72 from 7000 yards.

 

The shorter hitter shoots about 72 from 6300 yards.

 

The shorter hitter, moving back 700 yards, will NOT shoot 72 at 7000 yards.

 

Neither gender nor handicaps have anything to do with this scenario.

[b.helts]

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

I am not making ANY mistake. I understand a 2 (or +2 or anything else) moved back 700 yards will (generally) still be the same handicap. Based on years of experience I think the difference is more than what the course rating and slope is but that's beside the point.

 

I am not talking about handicaps,,,,,,,,, at all,,,,,, Handicaps have nothing to do with these (assumed) results. The +2 is simply a reference to the longer player's ability.

 

So forget about handicap(s).

 

The longer hitter shoots about 72 from 7000 yards.

 

The shorter hitter shoots about 72 from 6300 yards.

 

The shorter hitter, moving back 700 yards, will NOT shoot 72 at 7000 yards.

 

Neither gender nor handicaps have anything to do with this scenario.

 

I kind of understand what you are trying to say, if I squint, but you referenced two different players that were both +2s.

 

The +2s scoring average on the 6300 yard course will likely (absolutely?) be lower than the +2 that plays a 7200 yard course.

 

So if you are comparing scoring averages, you are not comparing handicaps and thus aren't comparing similarly skilled players.

 

derp

[bph7]

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

I am not making ANY mistake. I understand a 2 (or +2 or anything else) moved back 700 yards will (generally) still be the same handicap. Based on years of experience I think the difference is more than what the course rating and slope is but that's beside the point.

 

I am not talking about handicaps,,,,,,,,, at all,,,,,, Handicaps have nothing to do with these (assumed) results. The +2 is simply a reference to the longer player's ability.

 

So forget about handicap(s).

 

The longer hitter shoots about 72 from 7000 yards.

 

The shorter hitter shoots about 72 from 6300 yards.

 

The shorter hitter, moving back 700 yards, will NOT shoot 72 at 7000 yards.

 

Neither gender nor handicaps have anything to do with this scenario.

 

I kind of understand what you are trying to say, if I squint, but you referenced two different players that were both +2s.

 

The +2s scoring average on the 6300 yard course will likely (absolutely?) be lower than the +2 that plays a 7200 yard course.

 

So if you are comparing scoring averages, you are not comparing handicaps and thus aren't comparing similarly skilled players.

 

derp

 

Yep, exactly. And the whole point of introducing handicaps into the debate was to see what relative skill levels LPGA players have compared to others. Just saying what a player shoots at a certain distance is nothing more than guessing in terms of absolute skill level. That's why the usga has course ratings and slopes. We've established that mid level LPGA players are probably in the +2 range for men. This means that it would be a fair match between karrie Webb and a +2 high schooler at any course. If they played a 7400 yard monster rated 76.6/145, they'd both struggle to break par and could beat their handicap by shooting 73. Maybe the guy would hit it further but karrie Webb would have a better short game, who knows. Overall though, they are equally skilled players and this should show in head to head results over time. Just stating the obvious that an LPGA player would have trouble at that length doesn't really move the conversation anywhere. If for some reason over time the longer hitter would systematically crush a shorter hitter on a long course when they both carried the exact same handicap, then the only conclusion is that the handicap system is totally broken. Now, I'm willing to entertain that possibility, but it has generally stood the test of time and the burden would be on the one claiming it's broken to show why.

[Shilgy]

 

To ME, much too little has been mentioned about the length difference. And secondarily, about the man's tournament experience as I believe pressure plays a factor. Thirdly, about the LPGA Pro - #1 or #100. ALL major factors IMO.

 

e.g. Is the guy a 4 (or +2) from 7,000 yards ? Or from 6300 yards ?

 

If the gentleman's comfortable distance AND he's "tournament tested" AND the lady is #50 - #100 I think the +2 wins half the time - and the 4 wins maybe 1 out of 7 or 8.

 

700 yards difference is huge !!! 40 yards per hole. One hits it 285, the other 250. One has 115 left into a 400 yard hole, the other has 150. Not only the length of the drive but the longer hitter is most likely at least 2 clubs stronger with the irons as well.

 

So the longer hitter has SW or GW into that par 4 while the shorter player is hitting 6 iron. Total mismatch.

 

And gender has nothing to do with it !

 

Handicap indexes are based on course rating/slope which are at least partially based on distance. They are universal. There is no +2 from "x yards". There is +2. If one guy plays a 6200 yard course rated 70/113 and another plays a 74/135, the former is going to have to average 68 on his best half of scores for his +2 while the latter will only need to average 72 or so on his best 10 to be a +2. They are equivalent indexes in every way tho and neither player would be giving strokes to the other no matter what length course they played. So distance doesn't matter as much as you think for the lpga because it's already factored in in calculating their hypothetical cap. So, for those of us actually analyzing this, we are taking distance directly into account.

 

We're discussing a GROSS score match between 2 players from the same distance.

 

You're suggesting that a +2, who plays from 6300 yards, and a +2 who plays from 7000 yards, is the same player ?

 

Those 2 players are both going to shoot the same GROSS score from 7000 ? From 6300 ? No, they're not.

 

You are making a common mistake, and it's one of the main reasons almost no one understands handicaps. The plus 2 who plays a shorter course is going considerably lower at his course than the dude at the longer course. Course rating is what matters, it has nothing to do with par. The plus 2 at the 6300 yard course might have a different skill set than a plus two at a longer tougher course, but in the eyes of the handicap system, neither is giving the other strokes. So, while one or the other may happen to have an advantage at a given course, they are considered the same ability level based on index. The dude at the shorter course just had to shoot much lower scores to get to said index. That's what makes the handicap system so good, it's universal since courses are at least hypothetically rated consistently.

 

The short answer to your question is that in a gross competition, if the indexes are both exactly +2.0, then yes, at least in terms of the USGA view, they are of equal ability levels. The +2 at the short course has more experience going super low, and the +2 at the longer course is probably a better overall driver, but yes they are equal in terms of playing ability based on handicap index and course handicap. Those are the metrics we are using as a proxy for ability, they may not be perfect (and most don't understand them at all, most incorrectly believe it works the way you are describing), but they are the best thing we've got.

 

I am not making ANY mistake. I understand a 2 (or +2 or anything else) moved back 700 yards will (generally) still be the same handicap. Based on years of experience I think the difference is more than what the course rating and slope is but that's beside the point.

 

I am not talking about handicaps,,,,,,,,, at all,,,,,, Handicaps have nothing to do with these (assumed) results. The +2 is simply a reference to the longer player's ability.

 

So forget about handicap(s).

 

The longer hitter shoots about 72 from 7000 yards.

 

The shorter hitter shoots about 72 from 6300 yards.

 

The shorter hitter, moving back 700 yards, will NOT shoot 72 at 7000 yards.

 

Neither gender nor handicaps have anything to do with this scenario.

in your example they are not likely to both be +2 caps. You are confusing score with handicap. The 72 from 7000 yards is likely about a +2 if played on most good courses. The 72 shot at 6300 yards is likely a 1-2 handicap. Not a plus. Does that make sense to you? Scooter in tradition to par has nothing to do with cap, at any yardage.