Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[nsxguy]

Here's an example: http://www.lpga.com/tournaments/cme-group-tour-championship/results

 

No cut, they played at tiburon gold with a listed yardage of 6540. Looking at the card, the blue men's tees are listed at 6522, so we'll assume that's where they played. Men's rating/slope from there is 71.6/130. Taking the two best rounds of anyone who finished T51, you get 69 69 (Kris Tamulis). Her differentials for those two rounds would be ((69-71.6)*113/130)*.96=-2.1. So a plus 2 in tourney conditions picking the top 2 rounds out of 4. Others who finished T51 would be worse.

 

So for the week, those who finished T51 were plus 2 at best. If you took all four rounds for those at T51, they are basically right at men's scratch.

 

Thanks BPH. IMO, they usually don't play close to the listed yardage in order to incorporate shorter risk/reward holes so perhaps the rating would be even more skewed.

 

Seldom go to an LPGA event. And watching on TV it's very difficult to discern exactly where they're playing from.

 

I suppose if someone were very familiar with the course they could tell where the ladies are playing from. Then, if they documented each hole, maybe we'd have a better idea.

 

Now perhaps this is a "1 off" but your post made me think of it. I have played the Siam Old Course (Thailand) about a half dozen times. The Par 4 14th (I believe it's 14) plays 372 from the men's tees (whites). Slight dogleg right and there is a creek crossing the fairway at about 240. Carrying the creek is a disaster waiting to happen as there is a lot of trouble either side of the very narrow fairway.

 

So guys lay up and have anywhere between 150 to 190 in to an uphill green.

 

The ladies play it as a driveable par 4, about 260 IIRC.

 

So it goes from a difficult par to a definite birdie hole - I expect most ladies making 4 there are rather disappointed.

 

I expect this is somewhat of an anomaly and perhaps done simply to infuse some excitement but,,,,,,,,

[dhc1]

Here's an example: http://www.lpga.com/tournaments/cme-group-tour-championship/results

 

No cut, they played at tiburon gold with a listed yardage of 6540. Looking at the card, the blue men's tees are listed at 6522, so we'll assume that's where they played. Men's rating/slope from there is 71.6/130. Taking the two best rounds of anyone who finished T51, you get 69 69 (Kris Tamulis). Her differentials for those two rounds would be ((69-71.6)*113/130)*.96=-2.1. So a plus 2 in tourney conditions picking the top 2 rounds out of 4. Others who finished T51 would be worse.

 

So for the week, those who finished T51 were plus 2 at best. If you took all four rounds for those at T51, they are basically right at men's scratch.

 

Thanks BPH. IMO, they usually don't play close to the listed yardage in order to incorporate shorter risk/reward holes so perhaps the rating would be even more skewed.

 

Seldom go to an LPGA event. And watching on TV it's very difficult to discern exactly where they're playing from.

 

I suppose if someone were very familiar with the course they could tell where the ladies are playing from. Then, if they documented each hole, maybe we'd have a better idea.

 

Now perhaps this is a "1 off" but your post made me think of it. I have played the Siam Old Course (Thailand) about a half dozen times. The Par 4 14th (I believe it's 14) plays 372 from the men's tees (whites). Slight dogleg right and there is a creek crossing the fairway at about 240. Carrying the creek is a disaster waiting to happen as there is a lot of trouble either side of the very narrow fairway.

 

So guys lay up and have anywhere between 150 to 190 in to an uphill green.

 

The ladies play it as a driveable par 4, about 260 IIRC.

 

So it goes from a difficult par to a definite birdie hole - I expect most ladies making 4 there are rather disappointed.

 

I expect this is somewhat of an anomaly and perhaps done simply to infuse some excitement but,,,,,,,,

 

i think most tournaments (rightly and irrespective of gender) do this more frequently than one thinks.

[juliette91]

Here's an example: http://www.lpga.com/tournaments/cme-group-tour-championship/results

 

No cut, they played at tiburon gold with a listed yardage of 6540. Looking at the card, the blue men's tees are listed at 6522, so we'll assume that's where they played. Men's rating/slope from there is 71.6/130. Taking the two best rounds of anyone who finished T51, you get 69 69 (Kris Tamulis). Her differentials for those two rounds would be ((69-71.6)*113/130)*.96=-2.1. So a plus 2 in tourney conditions picking the top 2 rounds out of 4. Others who finished T51 would be worse.

 

So for the week, those who finished T51 were plus 2 at best. If you took all four rounds for those at T51, they are basically right at men's scratch.

 

Thanks BPH. IMO, they usually don't play close to the listed yardage in order to incorporate shorter risk/reward holes so perhaps the rating would be even more skewed.

 

Just curious. Is that just your opinion or do you have factual information to support your thought that they don't play close to the the listed yardage or even the senior tees as you suggested in a previous post?

 

North Texas,

 

It's really from watching a good amount of LPGA and looking at the tee boxes they play from. I often see that they list a holes distance but it doesn't correlate to the right tee box. It certainly is more opinion that fact and have asked several times on the LPGA tour talk forum if anyone has specific knowledge (i.e., someone who's at the tournament and knows the course).

 

There is an LPGA tournament within driving distance to where I live and I go there for one or two rounds each year. And on more than one occasion I've asked the members who volunteer there just what tees are being played. It's a mix of the blue and black tees, mostly the blue tees but no hole had a white tee position. That said, I don't really think this is germane to the discussion because any course can be prepped to play quite differently from its course rating at any yardage. We all know that. And while the women play the same courses year in year out it's really not like a 4 handicapper playing at his course all the time---in terms of comfort and confidence that comes from familiarity (or as we know too in reverse, making the same mistake at the same hole every time.)

 

I like this discussion because for the most part it promotes the skills and prowess of women golfers. Even the adamant naysayers who are convinced that under the perfect set of circumstances the male golfer will beat the LPGA pro are learning something about the women's game. Sure it's not the same, sure the men can and most of the time do hit it farther, but go watch an LPGA tournament----better yet, stand at the driving range and watch the amazingly consistent strikes. And since it's happening at a speed you can actually see, you might learn something.

[Obee]

Here's an example: http://www.lpga.com/tournaments/cme-group-tour-championship/results

 

No cut, they played at tiburon gold with a listed yardage of 6540. Looking at the card, the blue men's tees are listed at 6522, so we'll assume that's where they played. Men's rating/slope from there is 71.6/130. Taking the two best rounds of anyone who finished T51, you get 69 69 (Kris Tamulis). Her differentials for those two rounds would be ((69-71.6)*113/130)*.96=-2.1. So a plus 2 in tourney conditions picking the top 2 rounds out of 4. Others who finished T51 would be worse.

 

So for the week, those who finished T51 were plus 2 at best. If you took all four rounds for those at T51, they are basically right at men's scratch.

 

Thanks BPH. IMO, they usually don't play close to the listed yardage in order to incorporate shorter risk/reward holes so perhaps the rating would be even more skewed.

 

Just curious. Is that just your opinion or do you have factual information to support your thought that they don't play close to the the listed yardage or even the senior tees as you suggested in a previous post?

 

North Texas,

 

It's really from watching a good amount of LPGA and looking at the tee boxes they play from. I often see that they list a holes distance but it doesn't correlate to the right tee box. It certainly is more opinion that fact and have asked several times on the LPGA tour talk forum if anyone has specific knowledge (i.e., someone who's at the tournament and knows the course).

 

I've only played one course that the LPGA plays and that was Mission Hills CC where they play the Kraft Nabisco/Dinah Shore/ANA or whatever you want to call it. They have white tees at 6315 and blue tees at 6907. In between they have the KNC Tournament tees at 6671. From what I can tell on TV, the ladies pretty much play the KNC tournament tees or slightly up. There may be a hole or two where they make a significant adjustment in a given round but I would be greatly surprised if they ever played it at less than 6500. For sure, I'm going to watch it closer this year.

 

Playing it again 3 weeks from today and I think we're going to play the KNC tournaments tees. The 4 of us all get it there about 240ish with average handicap around 10. Wish us luck. We're going to need it.

 

Keep in mind that's a Major Championship for the ladies.

[dhc1]

Here's an example: http://www.lpga.com/tournaments/cme-group-tour-championship/results

 

No cut, they played at tiburon gold with a listed yardage of 6540. Looking at the card, the blue men's tees are listed at 6522, so we'll assume that's where they played. Men's rating/slope from there is 71.6/130. Taking the two best rounds of anyone who finished T51, you get 69 69 (Kris Tamulis). Her differentials for those two rounds would be ((69-71.6)*113/130)*.96=-2.1. So a plus 2 in tourney conditions picking the top 2 rounds out of 4. Others who finished T51 would be worse.

 

So for the week, those who finished T51 were plus 2 at best. If you took all four rounds for those at T51, they are basically right at men's scratch.

 

Thanks BPH. IMO, they usually don't play close to the listed yardage in order to incorporate shorter risk/reward holes so perhaps the rating would be even more skewed.

 

Just curious. Is that just your opinion or do you have factual information to support your thought that they don't play close to the the listed yardage or even the senior tees as you suggested in a previous post?

 

North Texas,

 

It's really from watching a good amount of LPGA and looking at the tee boxes they play from. I often see that they list a holes distance but it doesn't correlate to the right tee box. It certainly is more opinion that fact and have asked several times on the LPGA tour talk forum if anyone has specific knowledge (i.e., someone who's at the tournament and knows the course).

 

There is an LPGA tournament within driving distance to where I live and I go there for one or two rounds each year. And on more than one occasion I've asked the members who volunteer there just what tees are being played. It's a mix of the blue and black tees, mostly the blue tees but no hole had a white tee position. That said, I don't really think this is germane to the discussion because any course can be prepped to play quite differently from its course rating at any yardage. We all know that. And while the women play the same courses year in year out it's really not like a 4 handicapper playing at his course all the time---in terms of comfort and confidence that comes from familiarity (or as we know too in reverse, making the same mistake at the same hole every time.)

 

I like this discussion because for the most part it promotes the skills and prowess of women golfers. Even the adamant naysayers who are convinced that under the perfect set of circumstances the male golfer will beat the LPGA pro are learning something about the women's game. Sure it's not the same, sure the men can and most of the time do hit it farther, but go watch an LPGA tournament----better yet, stand at the driving range and watch the amazingly consistent strikes. And since it's happening at a speed you can actually see, you might learn something.

 

Juliette,

 

Thanks for the reply. I'd be grateful if you could get the specifics for the course next time you go and respectfully disagree that it's not germane.

 

It's data and we can use it as it's what the handicap system is made for. Is it perfect? Nope but it's a pretty good bench mark.

[bph7]

IMO, this "debate" on whether they play the "true" yardage isn't that big of a deal. EVERY card, from the local muni to PGA tour, lists the "max" yardage as the yardage. The tees from day to day rarely play completely at the max. But I think it's close enough that the course rating isn't going to be drastically lower than the one listed.

 

Also, in my analysis, I'm trying to resolve every assumption in favor of the lpga players in order to get the "lowest" possible handicap estimates, so I think using the listed course rating/slope is most appropriate.

[Peanut191]

IMO, this "debate" on whether they play the "true" yardage isn't that big of a deal. EVERY card, from the local muni to PGA tour, lists the "max" yardage as the yardage. The tees from day to day rarely play completely at the max. But I think it's close enough that the course rating isn't going to be drastically lower than the one listed.

 

Also, in my analysis, I'm trying to resolve every assumption in favor of the lpga players in order to get the "lowest" possible handicap estimates, so I think using the listed course rating/slope is most appropriate.

 

Good call on the card listing "max" yardage. It seems that most courses I've played list close to the back of the tee box to the middle of the green as the yardage on the card.

[dhc1]

IMO, this "debate" on whether they play the "true" yardage isn't that big of a deal. EVERY card, from the local muni to PGA tour, lists the "max" yardage as the yardage. The tees from day to day rarely play completely at the max. But I think it's close enough that the course rating isn't going to be drastically lower than the one listed.

 

Also, in my analysis, I'm trying to resolve every assumption in favor of the lpga players in order to get the "lowest" possible handicap estimates, so I think using the listed course rating/slope is most appropriate.

 

Fair point on the listed yardages - my point is more that they may be 200-300 yards shorter than listed distances which goes well beyond to 50-75 one may see in daily play. Besides, when raters rate courses to determine slope/rating, they use middle of tee box, from what i've been told by the local MGA.

[Bad9]

Pardon me if I missed it but I have seen lots of comments about guys saying that tees are moved up but none about pins being moved to the back. Typically in that scenario the yardage gain may end up negligible at best given the size of many of the greens.

[KBong]

IMO, this "debate" on whether they play the "true" yardage isn't that big of a deal. EVERY card, from the local muni to PGA tour, lists the "max" yardage as the yardage. The tees from day to day rarely play completely at the max. But I think it's close enough that the course rating isn't going to be drastically lower than the one listed.

 

Also, in my analysis, I'm trying to resolve every assumption in favor of the lpga players in order to get the "lowest" possible handicap estimates, so I think using the listed course rating/slope is most appropriate.

 

Fair point on the listed yardages - my point is more that they may be 200-300 yards shorter than listed distances which goes well beyond to 50-75 one may see in daily play. Besides, when raters rate courses to determine slope/rating, they use middle of tee box, from what i've been told by the local MGA.

I've been to several LPGA events....I think they play it anywhere from 75-150 yards shortr each day vs. the posted yardage they post on the tournament site on lpga.com.

 

But sometimes it can be 200-300 yds shorter that day if they do something stupid on a specific day and make a regular par 4 into a driveable par 4 playing 250-290 yds....I hate this.....one hole alone shaves 125-150 yards off....duh.

[bluedot]

Just curious. Is that just your opinion or do you have factual information to support your thought that they don't play close to the the listed yardage or even the senior tees as you suggested in a previous post?

They don't play the exact listed yardage every day, they sometimes move the tee boxes a bit day to day, just as they change flag positions, just to change things up, and present different challenges. That doesn't mean they are playing substantially less than the announced yardage, overall. They aren't playing the tips, and they aren't playing the senior tees. Typically it's a combination of the Men's back tees and intermediate tees.

 

At Tiburon, I know there was one short par 4 that played at 350 yards the first two days, that they moved the tees up to the front on day three, to have an easily drivable par 4, just for a little excitement.

 

Thing is, Tiburon is the season finale, only the top 65 players get in there, so while I'd guess our hypothetical scratch male can probably keep a tour card, he probably wouldn't make it into that field. The Tips on the Gold Course are listed at 7271 yards (74.9 CR), the back Men's tees at 6598 (71.6 CR), the White tees at 6098 (69.7 CR). Even if they are sometimes playing a little less yardage than they list, I think it's still got to be a CR of around 71.

 

And I think a scratch male must average at least a couple of strokes above the CR. Lets say he averages 73.5 per round. That would have him shooting 294, finishing ahead of four players in that field. But that's just four who happened to have a bad tournament.

 

I'd guess that a true scratch tournament player though might be able to play on that tour, and I'm sure would make some cuts and occasionally finish in the money especially in some events that are a little less packed with talent.

 

Thanks for the response.

 

Couple of questions:

 

1. Any specific info on actual course length the LPGA play? Looks like our bid/ask is a couple hundred yards as you (not unreasonably) think it's fairly close to stated yardage of about 6500 while I think it's under 6200 yards on average.

 

2. Do scratch players only shoot the course rating one out of every seven rounds (which is what higher handicap players are supposed to do)? I think that scratch players are supposed to shoot the course rating about half the time and certainly don't average a couple shots over. Slope is mainly for bogey players and the .96 doesn't impact that much either given the small base.

 

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer anyway.

 

6400 is a number that you could keep in mind as a "typical" LPGA yardage, though obviously there are wide variations.

 

As to what a scratch player averages, the USGA would expect him/her to have an average score somewhat over the course rating during a 20 round period, and to shoot the course rating or below one round out of every 4 or 5; in that regard the scratch player is no different than the rest of us. What IS different is that the range of scores, especially of the ten rounds out of 20 that don't count, tends to tighten as handicaps reduce, and the range of scores that a scratch player shoots will be ON AVERAGE smaller than the range of a 5, whose range will be smaller than a 10, and so on. So when the USGA says that the AVERAGE is two shots OVER the index for ALL golfers, that's going to mean that a 20 index is likely to average more than two shots over his index, while the scratch golfer averages much closer to his index. I may not have done a good job explaining that; hope it helps.

 

thanks, Bluedot. It is helpful and makes sense. I was playing around with my handicap spreadsheet though and it seems pretty clear to me that the top 10 of 20 have to average the course rating to get a scratch rating and that the top 10 average can't be over that definitionally (i.e., the 96% multiplier and slope vs. 113 have no impact). Now what their anti-cap is and how that changes their all-20 average is another story for which one's handicap doesn't account. The challenge of getting to scratch is asymptotic, which is why I think it's silly for people to argue that a 4 could reasonably compete with a scratch player (semantics on the definition of "could" aside). IMO, those four strokes are very different from a 4 to an 8.

 

I'd take the under at 6400 yards for a sea-level LPGA tourney but don't think your premise is unreasonable. Let's see if we can get someone to check out the yardages played at an actual tournament! Why guess when it's actually factual data?....

 

I have a feeling that your math skills far exceed mine. That said, we agree 100% on the definition of "scratch", namely an index of zero for the ten best of the last 20 rounds, which means that we'd expect, ON AVERAGE, to see five scores out of 20 at or below the course rating, and five other scores out of the last 20 that are at or slightly above the course rating. We don't care about the other 10 scores for purposes of the index, but we would expect to see a very tight range for most scratch golfers among those 10 scores, at least relative to higher index players. The key point is that the scratch player is the same as the rest of us in that he isn't expected to have a differential below the course rating but once out of every 4 rounds. He is NOT the same as the rest of us in terms of what we can expect the 10 scores that do NOT count to be.

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the 4 shot difference between a scratch golfer and a 4 is MUCH bigger than the 4 shots between a 4 and an 8, and MY math, which may be bad, bears this out. A 4 index is 50% smaller than an 8 index; a zero index is effectively several hundred percent smaller than a 4 index! And in real life, it pretty much works that way; an 8 might beat a 4 straight up once or twice out of 20 rounds; a 4 would almost never beat a scratch golfer straight up. Which brings us back to the original question of the thread...

[dhc1]

@AdamSecrest informed me that the USGA provides distances for each day of its tournaments. http://www.usga.org/...statistics.html

 

Looking at Days 1 and 2 of the 2016 Cordevalle event (assuming that's where the ladies ranking 75-100 would play and not the weekend), here are some stats:

• Course played about 6740 yards (wow!) which relates to a little over a 74.0 course rating for men (course ratings are 6810 and 6440 yard tee boxes are 74.5 and 72.3 respectively)
  
• The average score for the first two days was 74.8 or almost a stroke over the rating and 2.5 over par (consistent with +5 missing the cut).
  

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

[dhc1]

Another corroborating perspective:

 

According to this GolfWRX article, PGA tour pros are about +5.5 http://www.golfwrx.c...ga-tour-player/

 

If you look at most scorecards that have ratings for both mens and women, the gap for the exact same set of tees is 5.5 to 6.0. Here's Cordevalle with a 5.8 gap. https://course.blueg...legc/actual.htm

 

This would indicate that LPGA pros are about 5.5 strokes lower than PGA pros or about a scratch.

 

 

 

 

Personal aside: the primary reason i've posted so much on this is that I'm quite cranky today and looking to distract myself from work and other things.

[jt2gt]

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Hmmm...based on this and going back to the original post I am not so sure that according to Stina ""As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up."

 

Guess it really depends on the type of 4 (sandbagger). Or am I missing something?

[dhc1]

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Hmmm...based on this and going back to the original post I am not so sure that according to Stina ""As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up."

 

Guess it really depends on the type of 4 (sandbagger). Or am I missing something?

 

I think the thread has been moved well beyond whether a four could (NFW! except for people arguing the semantics of what "could" means) and morphed into where would a male amateur have to be to be competitive with the bottom half of the LPGA tour. Number seems to be between +2 and scratch IMO

[jt2gt]

What's interesting is that you ju

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Hmmm...based on this and going back to the original post I am not so sure that according to Stina ""As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up."

 

Guess it really depends on the type of 4 (sandbagger). Or am I missing something?

 

I think the thread has been moved well beyond whether a four could (NFW! except for people arguing the semantics of what "could" means) and morphed into where would a male amateur have to be to be competitive with the bottom half of the LPGA tour. Number seems to be between +2 and scratch IMO

 

I know the title of the thread is can a 4 beat an LPGAer...but the post actually says that Stina thinks the bottom of the barrel LPGAer would beat a 4 so badly he would have trouble getting back up. Based on your analysis -- you just said scratch or 1 cap...that's 3 strokes off a 4. Im not so sure the beating would be that bad. That's really the issue, not whether the 4 could beat the bottom LPGAer. So the whole thread has been off for 37 pages and 1000plus posts. :taunt: :taunt:

[dhc1]

What's interesting is that you ju

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Hmmm...based on this and going back to the original post I am not so sure that according to Stina ""As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up."

 

Guess it really depends on the type of 4 (sandbagger). Or am I missing something?

 

I think the thread has been moved well beyond whether a four could (NFW! except for people arguing the semantics of what "could" means) and morphed into where would a male amateur have to be to be competitive with the bottom half of the LPGA tour. Number seems to be between +2 and scratch IMO

 

I know the title of the thread is can a 4 beat an LPGAer...but the post actually says that Stina thinks the bottom of the barrel LPGAer would beat a 4 so badly he would have trouble getting back up. Based on your analysis -- you just said scratch or 1 cap...that's 3 strokes off a 4. Im not so sure the beating would be that bad. That's really the issue, not whether the 4 could beat the bottom LPGAer. So the whole thread has been off for 37 pages and 1000plus posts. :taunt: :taunt:

 

As stated previously, I think the gap between a scratch and a four is far higher than the gap between a 4 and an 8. From what I understand (second hand, unfortunately) it's much harder to go from a 1 to a scratch than a 5 to a 1....

[Shilgy]

@AdamSecrest informed me that the USGA provides distances for each day of its tournaments. http://www.usga.org/...statistics.html

 

Looking at Days 1 and 2 of the 2016 Cordevalle event (assuming that's where the ladies ranking 75-100 would play and not the weekend), here are some stats:

• Course played about 6740 yards (wow!) which relates to a little over a 74.0 course rating for men (course ratings are 6810 and 6440 yard tee boxes are 74.5 and 72.3 respectively)
  
• The average score for the first two days was 74.8 or almost a stroke over the rating and 2.5 over par (consistent with +5 missing the cut).
  

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

Yes, I believe you are missing something. The cut line was +5. Which considering conditions was about exactly two rounds exactly on the course rating. Considering a players average score per the USGA is two to three strokes above their handicap this would make the cut line a +2. Of course given the small sample size of two rounds it could go a bit either way. Personally I would lean towards the 75-100 player being about a +2 male cap. So a 4 cap little to no chance imo. A scratch would win probably 3 of 10 rounds. Maybe 4 of 10 at best. But, that is one round. IMO the scratch would lose the 4 round event to the lady by 10 strokes or so on average. Rarely if ever would defeat her over 4 rounds.

 

 

 

 

[BrianB]

1. Any specific info on actual course length the LPGA play? Looks like our bid/ask is a couple hundred yards as you (not unreasonably) think it's fairly close to stated yardage of about 6500 while I think it's under 6200 yards on average.

 

No, I was just using the listed yardages. I did have a little spreadsheet covering 15 tournaments from 1/28/2015-6/11/2015, and the listed yardages averaged 6530, my estimated course ratings averaged 71.9 (extrapolating from the nearest rated tees, based on yardage), and the cut line averaged 1.9 strokes over CR (or .95 per round).

 

As to what a scratch player averages, the USGA would expect him/her to have an average score somewhat over the course rating during a 20 round period, and to shoot the course rating or below one round out of every 4 or 5; in that regard the scratch player is no different than the rest of us. What IS different is that the range of scores, especially of the ten rounds out of 20 that don't count, tends to tighten as handicaps reduce, and the range of scores that a scratch player shoots will be ON AVERAGE smaller than the range of a 5, whose range will be smaller than a 10, and so on. So when the USGA says that the AVERAGE is two shots OVER the index for ALL golfers, that's going to mean that a 20 index is likely to average more than two shots over his index, while the scratch golfer averages much closer to his index. I may not have done a good job explaining that; hope it helps.

 

This is a good point. I think the USGA says average scores are usually 3 over the handicap. I used 2.5, but that's probably still too high for those very low handicaps. If we use 2, our scratch golfer moves up to 292, 58th out of 65. If we use 1.5, that puts him at 290, T55.

 

Still think he misses the cut most of the time, unless he can really average only 1 over his index, but I think he'd make enough cuts and do well enough overall to keep a tour card. Big if here is, if he's really a tournament tested scratch, he has to actually play to that level in competitive tournament play. I wonder what percentage of the over 20,000 scratch or better golfers listed in the GHIN database that really would apply to?

[dhc1]

@AdamSecrest informed me that the USGA provides distances for each day of its tournaments. http://www.usga.org/...statistics.html

 

Looking at Days 1 and 2 of the 2016 Cordevalle event (assuming that's where the ladies ranking 75-100 would play and not the weekend), here are some stats:

• Course played about 6740 yards (wow!) which relates to a little over a 74.0 course rating for men (course ratings are 6810 and 6440 yard tee boxes are 74.5 and 72.3 respectively)
  
• The average score for the first two days was 74.8 or almost a stroke over the rating and 2.5 over par (consistent with +5 missing the cut).
  

Based on the math, it seems that it's about equivalent to a tournament tested scratch or a one.

 

Granted, this was the US Open which could be set up a lot harder than it usually plays (a la the Golf Digest challenge that a ten couldn't break 100 at the US Open) so this may not be apples to oranges. I've never played there and would love some color. Given the single data point, it would be great to have more data on other tournaments.

 

Am I missing something?

Yes, I believe you are missing something. The cut line was +5. Which considering conditions was about exactly two rounds exactly on the course rating. Considering a players average score per the USGA is two to three strokes above their handicap this would make the cut line a +2. Of course given the small sample size of two rounds it could go a bit either way. Personally I would lean towards the 75-100 player being about a +2 male cap. So a 4 cap little to no chance imo. A scratch would win probably 3 of 10 rounds. Maybe 4 of 10 at best. But, that is one round. IMO the scratch would lose the 4 round event to the lady by 10 strokes or so on average. Rarely if ever would defeat her over 4 rounds.

 

Thanks for the response.

 

I don't believe that a scratch player averages 2-3 strokes over course ratings as by definition, at least half of them have to be average scratch. That would mean that his anti-cap is 4-6 over the rating which is too big IMO. I believe that the 2-3 number the USGA references is for all players and primarily those around body golf where the 0.96 multiplier and slope differential have a fairly large impact. However, as I mentioned previously, getting to 0 is asymptotic in that you get no benefit from the differentials at that level. I'd guess that the anti cap for a legit scratch would be a 2, consistent with how the US Women's Open played. It would be interesting to get the data.

 

Given that the cut line was half a stroke per day over the course rating, this appears to be what one would expect from a pool of 150 scratch players (they roughly average slightly above the rating and half do better than the average and half don't). Also, I'd note that the average score was a stroke over the course rating but that may be skewed by one of the 35 LPGA players who shot in the 80s (which happens to even scratch players)

 

Next, I'd be interested to understand your basis for +2. Is there any data that we can discuss or is it opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)? Do you play with a lot of +2s and scratch players?

 

Thanks.

[Shilgy]

 

Thanks for the response.

 

I don't believe that a scratch player averages 2-3 strokes over course ratings as by definition, at least half of them have to be average scratch. That would mean that his anti-cap is 4-6 over the rating which is too big IMO. I believe that the 2-3 number the USGA references is for all players and primarily those around body golf where the 0.96 multiplier and slope differential have a fairly large impact. However, as I mentioned previously, getting to 0 is asymptotic in that you get no benefit from the differentials at that level. I'd guess that the anti cap for a legit scratch would be a 2, consistent with how the US Women's Open played. It would be interesting to get the data.

 

Given that the cut line was half a stroke per day over the course rating, this appears to be what one would expect from a pool of 150 scratch players (they roughly average slightly above the rating and half do better than the average and half don't). Also, I'd note that the average score was a stroke over the course rating but that may be skewed by one of the 35 LPGA players who shot in the 80s (which happens to even scratch players)

 

Next, I'd be interested to understand your basis for +2. Is there any data that we can discuss or is it opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)? Do you play with a lot of +2s and scratch players?

 

Thanks.

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

[North Texas]

Thanks for the response.

 

I don't believe that a scratch player averages 2-3 strokes over course ratings as by definition, at least half of them have to be average scratch. That would mean that his anti-cap is 4-6 over the rating which is too big IMO. I believe that the 2-3 number the USGA references is for all players and primarily those around body golf where the 0.96 multiplier and slope differential have a fairly large impact. However, as I mentioned previously, getting to 0 is asymptotic in that you get no benefit from the differentials at that level. I'd guess that the anti cap for a legit scratch would be a 2, consistent with how the US Women's Open played. It would be interesting to get the data.

 

Given that the cut line was half a stroke per day over the course rating, this appears to be what one would expect from a pool of 150 scratch players (they roughly average slightly above the rating and half do better than the average and half don't). Also, I'd note that the average score was a stroke over the course rating but that may be skewed by one of the 35 LPGA players who shot in the 80s (which happens to even scratch players)

 

Next, I'd be interested to understand your basis for +2. Is there any data that we can discuss or is it opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)? Do you play with a lot of +2s and scratch players?

 

Thanks.

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

 

Take a look at Ariya Jutanargan's (spelling?) last 20 scores.

Scoring average for those 20 scores was 69.1.

Scoring average for the lowest 10 was 67.1.

And she shot better than 67 4 times.

[dhc1]

Thanks for the response.

 

I don't believe that a scratch player averages 2-3 strokes over course ratings as by definition, at least half of them have to be average scratch. That would mean that his anti-cap is 4-6 over the rating which is too big IMO. I believe that the 2-3 number the USGA references is for all players and primarily those around body golf where the 0.96 multiplier and slope differential have a fairly large impact. However, as I mentioned previously, getting to 0 is asymptotic in that you get no benefit from the differentials at that level. I'd guess that the anti cap for a legit scratch would be a 2, consistent with how the US Women's Open played. It would be interesting to get the data.

 

Given that the cut line was half a stroke per day over the course rating, this appears to be what one would expect from a pool of 150 scratch players (they roughly average slightly above the rating and half do better than the average and half don't). Also, I'd note that the average score was a stroke over the course rating but that may be skewed by one of the 35 LPGA players who shot in the 80s (which happens to even scratch players)

 

Next, I'd be interested to understand your basis for +2. Is there any data that we can discuss or is it opinion (to which you are certainly entitled)? Do you play with a lot of +2s and scratch players?

 

Thanks.

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

 

Shilgy,

 

Respectfully, you keep using broad usga statements and assume that they apply to the tail of the bell curve (scratch or better players are less than 1% of the total) . I think the 20% number is low and even so, if only 20% of a player's scores are at or below the rating then the average of these 20% must be below the course rating and the next 30% must be barely above the rating so that the combine figure balances out to zero. Furthermore, any scores under the course rating get hurt by the handicapping rules which are set to bring scores closer to the rating in both directions!

 

More specifically, I think the 20% figure you cited is for golfers with normal handicaps where their handicaps are lowered by the 0.96 and slope differentials. For example, if I shoot 10 over the course rating at my home course, it gets adjusted to 7.7 for my index purposes (10*96%*113/140) for a drop of over two strokes. Neither of these differentials adjustments have a real impact on scratch golfers as taking 20% off a one or a two doesn't help that much (thus asymptotic). Hope my math wasn't too confusing.

 

The average score of a scratch isn't 2-3 above the rating unless you think that the average for the anti cap is up to six strokes above their handicap (which I find to be highly unlikely particularly if you think that only 20% are at or below the rating and the next 30% definitionally have to be very close to par to balance out. Players who are that consistent are doubtful to have the next bunching of scores to be way off IMO). I'd guess a scratch's average would be probably half that at 1-2 over. We can ask around here as it's data that should be available.

 

The cut was a half stroke per round above par and the 100th player was 1.5 strokes per round over the rating (7 over). That's right in line with what the average for a scratch would be and certainly not in line with a +2.

[SurfDuffer]

I posted early on that I've played with about 24 LPGA and Symetra tour players over the years in pro-am rounds on a local course. I've played with players who were unbelievable and players who really weren't that great. The spread between the elite LPGA players and the struggling to keep their card players on the LPGA tour is enormous. Its not that way on the PGA and Web.com.

 

Looking at the full leaderboard on the event at the local course this year, among the players who missed the cut was a player who went 82-88 and there were 4 other rounds of 80 and a ton in the 78 to 79 range. The winner of the event went 64-68-64.

 

Playing it down and by the rules on this course my best round is 75 and a round over 82 is a bad day for me on this course. This is not a long course from any set of tees and only plays 6200 from the tips. If its not windy and you stay out of the tall grass its pretty easy to score on with two reachable par 5s that are driver iron for me and two reachable par 4s. On the flip side if you are having a bad day off the tee it can eat you up.

 

So is it possible for me to beat a few players if my good day coincides with their bad day? Of course it is. Based on my experience the elite players I would never stand a chance.....ever. Against some of the lower ranked players perhaps 1 out of 50 rounds. Against some of the Symetra players they bring in for the pro-am perhaps 1 out of 3 rounds.

[dhc1]

I posted early on that I've played with about 24 LPGA and Symetra tour players over the years in pro-am rounds on a local course. I've played with players who were unbelievable and players who really weren't that great. The spread between the elite LPGA players and the struggling to keep their card players on the LPGA tour is enormous. Its not that way on the PGA and Web.com.

 

Looking at the full leaderboard on the event at the local course this year, among the players who missed the cut was a player who went 82-88 and there were 4 other rounds of 80 and a ton in the 78 to 79 range. The winner of the event went 64-68-64.

 

Playing it down and by the rules on this course my best round is 75 and a round over 82 is a bad day for me on this course. This is not a long course from any set of tees and only plays 6200 from the tips. If its not windy and you stay out of the tall grass its pretty easy to score on with two reachable par 5s that are driver iron for me and two reachable par 4s. On the flip side if you are having a bad day off the tee it can eat you up.

 

So is it possible for me to beat a few players if my good day coincides with their bad day? Of course it is. Based on my experience the elite players I would never stand a chance.....ever. Against some of the lower ranked players perhaps 1 out of 50 rounds. Against some of the Symetra players they bring in for the pro-am perhaps 1 out of 3 rounds.

 

SurferDuffer.

 

What's your index? Thanks.

[BrianB]

The cut was a half stroke per round above par and the 100th player was 1.5 strokes per round over the rating (7 over). That's right in line with what the average for a scratch would be and certainly not in line with a +2.

 

Well the CR was about 74, and you had to shoot 148 to make the cut. That's equal to 2 consecutive rounds at CR. The spread of scores may be less for a scratch, but the 20% rule should still apply. A 20% event happening back to back is a 4% probability. Granted you can get to a 148 with a 73 and 75, or 72 and 76, etc. But I still think a scratch makes that cut not more than maybe 10% of the time.

 

But this is also a major. I think a scratch golfer would still make enough cuts throughout the year to survive.

[dhc1]

The cut was a half stroke per round above par and the 100th player was 1.5 strokes per round over the rating (7 over). That's right in line with what the average for a scratch would be and certainly not in line with a +2.

 

Well the CR was about 74, and you had to shoot 148 to make the cut. That's equal to 2 consecutive rounds at CR. The spread of scores may be less for a scratch, but the 20% rule should still apply. A 20% event happening back to back is a 4% probability. Granted you can get to a 148 with a 73 and 75, or 72 and 76, etc. But I still think a scratch makes that cut not more than maybe 10% of the time.

 

But this is also a major. I think a scratch golfer would still make enough cuts throughout the year to survive.

 

Brian,

 

let's do a little math around a theoretical scratch player.

 

Out of 20 posted rounds, if only four are at or below the course rating, then the next best six have to equal the amount that the first four are under par. Let's say that the next six are average one over the course rating for six over total (which has to be six rounds of exactly one over any round better would fall into the 20% bucket. That means that the first four round have to average 1.5 under par. Therefore the 4% probability is actually for shooting about three under the course rating, not the actual course rating and you calculated.

 

If the next best six rounds averaged 1.5 over, the first four rounds would have to average slightly better than 2 under the CR for each round! therefore there would be a 4% chance that they shoot four under the rating.

 

Next, this discussion has primarily focused on the players in the back half of the pool (ranked 75-125) and therefore, we should really be looking at what the 100th lady scored, which was 3.5 over the CR per day. When inputting this score into GHIN, it would spit out about a 3 differential while the 76th lady would have about a 1. Again, seems consistent with a scratch and pretty far from a +2. Shilgy is correct that it's a small sample size but it's all we have for now. - ler's hope we have more data.

 

Richie3Jack is a statistician and at least a scratch golfer - I wonder if he'd provide his insight as to the probability that a scratch golfer shoots a cumulative three over of the course rating on two consecutive rounds as my entry level grad statistics recall is fraying at the edges

[BrianB]

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

 

Agreed. Dean Knuth says "you should average about three shots above your handicap." I think it's possible that gets a little lower for scratch golfers, but doubt it could get lower than two. We can see even pros aren't that consistent.

 

And the 20% should apply to everyone:

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

 

For a 0-5 handicap, he has 5:1 odds of a net differential of 0, 10:1 odds of a net differential of -1, and 23:1 odds of a net differential of -2.

[dhc1]

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

 

Agreed. Dean Knuth says "you should average about three shots above your handicap." I think it's possible that gets a little lower for scratch golfers, but doubt it could get lower than two. We can see even pros aren't that consistent.

 

And the 20% should apply to everyone:

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

 

For a 0-5 handicap, he has 5:1 odds of a net differential of 0, 10:1 odds of a net differential of -1, and 23:1 odds of a net differential of -2.

 

Nice find, Brian! Even if we assume that they're reflective of scratch golfers, I don't think we can use the tables to extrapolate what the odds are of shooting three over the CR over two rounds which is what the 100th ranked lady shot.

 

Any stat gurus able to help?

[bph7]

Problem is, like I stated, we're using two scores to determine the handicap. If the scratch shot two days the same score he essentially shot right to his cap both days. Considering a player only shoots to his handicap a quarter of the time (USGA says 20% I recall) to give him credit for shooting to his cap both days is a stretch. Like I said too small a sample size.

But that is why a player, even a scratch player, averages two to three over his cap. Half his scores do not count in his calculation. A player would have to have a very narrow range of scores to not have his average to to three over. Even the pros have a high range of scores.

 

Agreed. Dean Knuth says "you should average about three shots above your handicap." I think it's possible that gets a little lower for scratch golfers, but doubt it could get lower than two. We can see even pros aren't that consistent.

 

And the 20% should apply to everyone:

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/odds.html

 

For a 0-5 handicap, he has 5:1 odds of a net differential of 0, 10:1 odds of a net differential of -1, and 23:1 odds of a net differential of -2.

 

Nice find, Brian! Even if we assume that they're reflective of scratch golfers, I don't think we can use the tables to extrapolate what the odds are of shooting three over the CR over two rounds which is what the 100th ranked lady shot.

 

Any stat gurus able to help?

 

Using the info from the table, the odds of a scratch shooting consecutive rounds with a differential of zero is 2.5%. IMO, given that 3 strokes isnt much, my totally off the top of my head guess is that the odds of shooting three over CR over 2 rounds would be 10-15%. I can't see the odds being much better than that.