Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[SurfDuffer]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

[nsxguy]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

 

If I'm reading this right then,,,,,,,,, if a male is a 4 handicap from a certain set of tees,,,,,, then the female, playing from the exact same set of tees shooting exactly the same scores,,,,,,,,,,,,, would be a +1 or +2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

That about right ?

 

If so, why is there even a discussion about whether a male 4 can beat an LPGA Pro from the same set of tees ? The answer is OBVIOUSLY "yes".

[North Texas]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

 

If I'm reading this right then,,,,,,,,, if a male is a 4 handicap from a certain set of tees,,,,,, then the female, playing from the exact same set of tees shooting exactly the same scores,,,,,,,,,,,,, would be a +1 or +2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

That about right ?

 

If so, why is there even a discussion about whether a male 4 can beat an LPGA Pro from the same set of tees ? The answer is OBVIOUSLY "yes".

 

NSXGuy,

 

I think you're off a bit. Let's assume that the average LPGA pro is about a +5.5 or +6 when using women's handicapping (which matches the +5.5 index for male PGA pros estimated by a GolfWRX article).

 

Therefore, taking away 5-6 strokes (which GHIN almost always does when comparing scratch males and females from the same tees) would make the ladies about a scratch under the men's paradigm, not a four. Another way of looking at it is that there no way an LPGA pro is only a +1 or 2 using the ladies handicapping.

 

Furthermore, the difference between a scratch and a four is much harder than the difference between a 4 and an 8 IMO.

[nsxguy]

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

 

If I'm reading this right then,,,,,,,,, if a male is a 4 handicap from a certain set of tees,,,,,, then the female, playing from the exact same set of tees shooting exactly the same scores,,,,,,,,,,,,, would be a +1 or +2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

That about right ?

 

If so, why is there even a discussion about whether a male 4 can beat an LPGA Pro from the same set of tees ? The answer is OBVIOUSLY "yes".

 

NSXGuy,

 

I think you're off a bit. Let's assume that the average LPGA pro is about a +5.5 or +6 when using women's handicapping (which matches the +5.5 index for male PGA pros estimated by a GolfWRX article).

 

Therefore, taking away 5-6 strokes (which GHIN almost always does when comparing scratch males and females from the same tees) would make the ladies about a scratch under the men's paradigm, not a four. Another way of looking at it is that there no way an LPGA pro is only a +1 or 2 using the ladies handicapping.

 

Furthermore, the difference between a scratch and a four is much harder than the difference between a 4 and an 8 IMO.

 

I'm definitely off a bit,,,,,, but what's that got to do with the discussion ?!?!?! :cheesy:

 

You and others have (just recently) been having a discussion about handicaps. This topic is whether a 4 male can beat an LPGA Pro.

 

While the TOP LPGA Pros may be +5 I seriously doubt they all are.

 

Not having paid much attention (now THERE'S an understatement) to the USGA's handicap gender differentiation I never knew about the 5-6 stroke difference between the genders that you yourself confirmed.

 

That being the case a 4 male is "the same" as the +2 female, no ?

 

That being the case the answer to the question is CLEARLY "Yes, a 4 handicap male CAN beat an LPGA Pro".

 

Maybe not half the time due to not being "tournament tested". Maybe not even 10% of the time. But certainly he "CAN".

 

/thread

[jt2gt]

 

I'm definitely off a bit,,,,,, but what's that got to do with the discussion ?!?!?! :cheesy:

 

You and others have (just recently) been having a discussion about handicaps. This topic is whether a 4 male can beat an LPGA Pro.

 

While the TOP LPGA Pros may be +5 I seriously doubt they all are.

 

Not having paid much attention (now THERE'S an understatement) to the USGA's handicap gender differentiation I never knew about the 5-6 stroke difference between the genders that you yourself confirmed.

 

That being the case a 4 male is "the same" as the +2 female, no ?

 

That being the case the answer to the question is CLEARLY "Yes, a 4 handicap male CAN beat an LPGA Pro".

 

Maybe not half the time due to not being "tournament tested". Maybe not even 10% of the time. But certainly he "CAN".

 

/thread

 

The topic may be " Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?" But the actual post quotes Stina as saying even a bottom of the barrel LPGAer would beat a 4 cap man so badly he wouldn't be able to get up off the mat. After the handicap discussion I am not so sure I agree with her on that one. This thread has been interesting though in hearing actual stories of playing with LPGAers and how good some of them really are (far more interesting than the hadicap discussion :taunt:).

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

 

This is really helpful. Can you provide the link? Her men's handicap would be dependent upon the course rating of the best 10. The closer it is to 70., the closer she is to scratch. If it's above that, she could be into the plus figures.

[North Texas]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

 

This is really helpful. Can you provide the link? Her men's handicap would be dependent upon the course rating of the best 10. The closer it is to 70., the closer she is to scratch. If it's above that, she could be into the plus figures.

 

http://www.lpga.com/statistics/scoring/scoring-average?year=2016

 

Click on their name and then results for the year and it has their round by round.

 

I'm assuming a course rating of 70-71 for the courses and tees they play.

[Shilgy]

A +4 is a +4. There's no gender differentiation. The handicap is based on rating/slope. Maybe the woman plays from the black tees and the man from the whites. The rating will compensate for yardage.

 

Huh?

 

You realize that women have different handicaps than men and that from the same tee box, a scratch woman is expected to shoot about 5-6 strokes worse than the scratch male? So a +4 women is very different from a +4 male playing from the same tees.

 

If I'm reading this right then,,,,,,,,, if a male is a 4 handicap from a certain set of tees,,,,,, then the female, playing from the exact same set of tees shooting exactly the same scores,,,,,,,,,,,,, would be a +1 or +2,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

That about right ?

 

If so, why is there even a discussion about whether a male 4 can beat an LPGA Pro from the same set of tees ? The answer is OBVIOUSLY "yes".

 

NSXGuy,

 

I think you're off a bit. Let's assume that the average LPGA pro is about a +5.5 or +6 when using women's handicapping (which matches the +5.5 index for male PGA pros estimated by a GolfWRX article).

 

Therefore, taking away 5-6 strokes (which GHIN almost always does when comparing scratch males and females from the same tees) would make the ladies about a scratch under the men's paradigm, not a four. Another way of looking at it is that there no way an LPGA pro is only a +1 or 2 using the ladies handicapping.

 

Furthermore, the difference between a scratch and a four is much harder than the difference between a 4 and an 8 IMO.

 

I'm definitely off a bit,,,,,, but what's that got to do with the discussion ?!?!?! :cheesy:

 

You and others have (just recently) been having a discussion about handicaps. This topic is whether a 4 male can beat an LPGA Pro.

 

While the TOP LPGA Pros may be +5 I seriously doubt they all are.

 

Not having paid much attention (now THERE'S an understatement) to the USGA's handicap gender differentiation I never knew about the 5-6 stroke difference between the genders that you yourself confirmed.

 

That being the case a 4 male is "the same" as the +2 female, no ?

 

That being the case the answer to the question is CLEARLY "Yes, a 4 handicap male CAN beat an LPGA Pro".

 

Maybe not half the time due to not being "tournament tested". Maybe not even 10% of the time. But certainly he "CAN".

 

/thread

I think you're getting your wires crossed. The top women are about a +4 to +5 men's cap. The #100 women is about a +1 men's cap. The whole idea of a 4 is the same as a +2 women's cap, while true, is not in the discussion.

[bph7]

I suggest someone seriously interested in continuing what I think is an interesting discussion start a thread titled "could a tournament tested +1 cap guy compete with an LPGA tour player ranked between 50 and 100?". It's getting so old having these random posts saying "thread title says 4 cap, he'd get crushed." We get it, a 4 cap would lose almost every time and usually badly. The discussion has moved on.

[Shilgy]

I suggest someone seriously interested in continuing what I think is an interesting discussion start a thread titled "could a tournament tested +1 cap guy compete with an LPGA tour player ranked between 50 and 100?". It's getting so old having these random posts saying "thread title says 4 cap, he'd get crushed." We get it, a 4 cap would lose almost every time and usually badly. The discussion has moved on.

But that would be too easy. :) The answer would be yes, they are equal-ish players. But thank you for summarizing what many of us have been saying.

[BMC]

"could a tournament tested +1 cap guy compete with an LPGA tour player ranked between 50 and 100?"

 

At what yardage? 6800+ the man would win more often.

 

But what does that prove? Nothing really.

[nsxguy]

I think you're getting your wires crossed. The top women are about a +4 to +5 men's cap. The #100 women is about a +1 men's cap. The whole idea of a 4 is the same as a +2 women's cap, while true, is not in the discussion.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. :dntknw: :cheesy:

 

I don't recall seeing real handicaps published for any pros, ladies, mens or seniors but just to be clear, you're suggesting that the +2, +4, +whatever handicaps ascribed to the ladies, by posters on this thread, are "computed" (or rather guessed at) as being gotten off of the MEN'S course ratings/slopes ?

[SurfDuffer]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

 

Again, my opinion is based on my experience playing with a variety of LPGA and Symetra tour players on tournament courses.

[iteachgolf]

I think you're getting your wires crossed. The top women are about a +4 to +5 men's cap. The #100 women is about a +1 men's cap. The whole idea of a 4 is the same as a +2 women's cap, while true, is not in the discussion.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. :dntknw: :cheesy:

 

I don't recall seeing real handicaps published for any pros, ladies, mens or seniors but just to be clear, you're suggesting that the +2, +4, +whatever handicaps ascribed to the ladies, by posters on this thread, are "computed" (or rather guessed at) as being gotten off of the MEN'S course ratings/slopes ?

 

The top women are absolutely +4s based on the men's rating. Probably better than that. But it drops off pretty quickly.

[dhc1]

 

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

 

This is really helpful. Can you provide the link? Her men's handicap would be dependent upon the course rating of the best 10. The closer it is to 70., the closer she is to scratch. If it's above that, she could be into the plus figures.

 

http://www.lpga.com/...erage?year=2016

 

Click on their name and then results for the year and it has their round by round.

 

I'm assuming a course rating of 70-71 for the courses and tees they play.

 

Based on these numbers, I'd that the 75-100th ranked LPGA pro would be about a +1. If we could get actual distances of the courses they played, the number could move around a bit but not more than 1 in either direction IMO.

[dhc1]

LPGA players play to a plus 4 or so.

 

You think that the 100th ranked LPGA pro is equivalent to a +4 male? I'd be interested in understanding your basis - the consensus here seems to be floating between +2 and scratch (and moving more towards +1 to scratch).

 

I don't think the 100th ranked would be scratch. I played with an LPGA player who had her card and played on the big tour for three seasons a few years ago. Her game was good by men's standards. I don't think scratch though and for sure not a +3 or +4. This girl washed off the tour in three seasons. I have a couple friends who play some elite am tournaments and Open qualifiers and those guys would beat most of the LPGA players I've played with (likely easily) and they are in the +3 category. Like I said before there is a Huge difference on the LPGA tour between the elite players and those who don't last........Much more so than on the men's side.

 

Holly Clyburn finished #100 in scoring average on the tour last year with a stroke average of 72.6.

Her last 20 scores averaged 72.4.

Her 10 best of those 20 averaged 70.1.

She most definitely is a scratch golfer using the men's ratings and slope.

 

 

Do this for the #150 ranked player as well and you will find that she too is a scratch golfer.

 

Again, my opinion is based on my experience playing with a variety of LPGA and Symetra tour players on tournament courses.

 

Taking a look at the scores of the 100th ranked female pro, playing approximately 6200-6500 yard courses, it's very hard to imagine her not being at least a male scratch just based on the math. The only unknown figure we have is the course rating/slope and we can estimate based on distance.

 

Also, a +3 should beat a scratch player quite handily IMO so I'm not surprised that men who compete in the Open (assuming they're at that level) would be significantly better than a bottom half LPGA player.

[Shilgy]

I think you're getting your wires crossed. The top women are about a +4 to +5 men's cap. The #100 women is about a +1 men's cap. The whole idea of a 4 is the same as a +2 women's cap, while true, is not in the discussion.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. :dntknw: :cheesy:

 

I don't recall seeing real handicaps published for any pros, ladies, mens or seniors but just to be clear, you're suggesting that the +2, +4, +whatever handicaps ascribed to the ladies, by posters on this thread, are "computed" (or rather guessed at) as being gotten off of the MEN'S course ratings/slopes ?

Yes. The 100th ranked women on the lpga last year averaged 72.6 on courses that are about 71-72 course rating. Her better half of scores would put her solidly into a +1 to +2 men's handicap.

[dhc1]

I think you're getting your wires crossed. The top women are about a +4 to +5 men's cap. The #100 women is about a +1 men's cap. The whole idea of a 4 is the same as a +2 women's cap, while true, is not in the discussion.

 

It wouldn't be the first time. :dntknw: :cheesy:

 

I don't recall seeing real handicaps published for any pros, ladies, mens or seniors but just to be clear, you're suggesting that the +2, +4, +whatever handicaps ascribed to the ladies, by posters on this thread, are "computed" (or rather guessed at) as being gotten off of the MEN'S course ratings/slopes ?

Yes. The 100th ranked women on the lpga last year averaged 72.6 on courses that are about 71-72 course rating. Her better half of scores would put her solidly into a +1 to +2 men's handicap.

 

I think plus two would be a stretch as the average of her top 10 is 70.7. but +1 seems right. We'd need to know slope and rating to get more clarity.

[BogeyBrian]

I don't get why so many people think the LPGA pros are just average golfers .

 

It's absurd and it's such a huge golf turnoff for me, I can't even tell you.

 

My girlfriend worked with a woman who I would say was an "average" LPGA player, and she wiped the floor with two guys with HCPs of 2 and 3 -- nevermind a 4 HCP. Again, 4HCP would get absolutely waxed, smoked, and embarrassed by an LPGA Tour player. I wish I had disposable millions because I swear I'd pay the money to watch it happen to anyone that was up for a beating.

 

And no s***, Sherlocks, men would/will fare better in longer courses. Physiology is at work there, which is why male and female athletics are separate to begin with. I really don't get the need to feel superior to female professional golfers.

 

It's because people see the us women's national soccer team lose to the boys u-17 team 7-2 ... this was months before they won gold at the Olympics.

[SurfDuffer]

Taking a look at the scores of the 100th ranked female pro, playing approximately 6200-6500 yard courses, it's very hard to imagine her not being at least a male scratch just based on the math. The only unknown figure we have is the course rating/slope and we can estimate based on distance.

 

Also, a +3 should beat a scratch player quite handily IMO so I'm not surprised that men who compete in the Open (assuming they're at that level) would be significantly better than a bottom half LPGA player.

 

The local course where the LPGA plays is only 6247 yards from the tips and its a par 71........and they don't play it from the tips......not even close to the tips. The official website says they play it as 6177. They basically play the middle tees on this course. Unless its windy this course is EASY especially for a guy who is long off the tee. Even playing from the tips almost any of the longer guys I play with are going to be chipping or putting their 3rd on two of the par 5s and may reach the finishing hole which is a par 5 with an iron or fairway wood. There are also two par 4s on this course that a long guy is going to at most have a short pitch for their second.

 

The LPGA Player who came in 75th shot 70 71 81 over 3 days.

 

Last place missing the cut was Katie Detlefsen who shot 82 88. Let that sink in.............. A lot of 4 handicaps are going to beat that 82 88 on this course playing the yardages they play. Most scratch guys I know are going to destroy 82 88 on this course. (If I shoot 82 on this course I'm not a happy camper unless its a day the wind is howling)

 

Meanwhile the winner of the event was -17 over 3 rounds. The spread between winner and last place place over the first 2 rounds was a whopping 38 shots. Let that sink in....... That goes back to my point about the HUGE gap between the elite players and those struggling to hold their card.

 

Again, my opinion is based on playing with LPGA players and comparing it to the low handicap guys I play with.

 

Here is the scorecard for the course.

 

[SurfDuffer]

By the way, can one of our handicap gurus explain for me why on the white tees on the score card I posted lists ratings with an L next to it and a big disparity between the other ratings?

[dhc1]

By the way, can one of our handicap gurus explain for me why on the white tees on the score card I posted lists ratings with an L next to it and a big disparity between the other ratings?

 

That's the slope/rating for women when they play the white tees.

 

What course is this btw?

[SurfDuffer]

Stockton Seaview Bay Course. Shoprite LPGA.

 

By my calculation a 4 handicap should shoot 74 on this course from the tips often.

[JustTheTips]

"could a tournament tested +1 cap guy compete with an LPGA tour player ranked between 50 and 100?"

 

At what yardage? 6800+ the man would win more often.

 

But what does that prove? Nothing really.

 

You are assuming the man is longer:) Maybe we are looking at a 260 yard LPGA player playing 6400 yard courses and a 230 yard man playing 6200 yard ones who both have +1 handicaps:). In general there is a reason why the longer player has the same handicap as the shorter player (i.e. worse accuracy, short game, putting,...) and in general you would expect the handicap to work it out out approximately. Now some people play worse as course length goes up (i.e. the long player who goes from hitting driver wedge who now has to hit some hybrids that they suck at) and some play better (they can pull driver instead of 3 wood on a bunch of holes).

 

The only reason I would favor the guy on a longer course is that they are more likely to play them on a regular basis. If you optimize your game for ~6500 yard courses, you will not feel as comfortable playing longer. Same thing in reverse. There are tons of people who talk about how their is no way they could maintain their handicap playing from 6200 and under as it exposes weakness in their game.

[Shilgy]

By the way, can one of our handicap gurus explain for me why on the white tees on the score card I posted lists ratings with an L next to it and a big disparity between the other ratings?

Women's rating? Answered also above I see.

 

The bit about the one off odd occurrence shooting 82-88 is written as of that is the norm. Far from it. At the men's Sony Open this year we had 24 shots after just 36 holes between first and last. So a fairly large spread is expected. You even mention a 4 "should shoot 74". That is incorrect. He should average about 74 for his best half of scores. His real course average would be 6-7 strokes above the course rating. As you noted the 75th finisher shot 70-71 the rest two rounds. The 4 would be thrilled with those scores. Especially in a play for your livelihood situation. And that course is exceptionally short by ladies tour standards. Similar to saying Hilton Head is the norm for the guys. Interestingly... If the average drive on tour for the men is 290 and for women it's 250 then these two courses are identical with gender considerations. By percentages the women's short course would be 6105 compared to the 7099.

[dhc1]

Stockton Seaview Bay Course. Shoprite LPGA.

 

By my calculation a 4 handicap should shoot 74 on this course from the tips often.

 

Hidden Creek is a gem near you. Galloway is also quite nice but the sand flies are deadly

[Shilgy]

I don't get why so many people think the LPGA pros are just average golfers .

 

It's absurd and it's such a huge golf turnoff for me, I can't even tell you.

 

My girlfriend worked with a woman who I would say was an "average" LPGA player, and she wiped the floor with two guys with HCPs of 2 and 3 -- nevermind a 4 HCP. Again, 4HCP would get absolutely waxed, smoked, and embarrassed by an LPGA Tour player. I wish I had disposable millions because I swear I'd pay the money to watch it happen to anyone that was up for a beating.

 

And no s***, Sherlocks, men would/will fare better in longer courses. Physiology is at work there, which is why male and female athletics are separate to begin with. I really don't get the need to feel superior to female professional golfers.

 

It's because people see the us women's national soccer team lose to the boys u-17 team 7-2 ... this was months before they won gold at the Olympics.

IIRC the dream team in basketball lost to a bunch of collegians in workouts as well. Chuck Daly the coach was thrilled.

[dhc1]

I don't get why so many people think the LPGA pros are just average golfers .

 

It's absurd and it's such a huge golf turnoff for me, I can't even tell you.

 

My girlfriend worked with a woman who I would say was an "average" LPGA player, and she wiped the floor with two guys with HCPs of 2 and 3 -- nevermind a 4 HCP. Again, 4HCP would get absolutely waxed, smoked, and embarrassed by an LPGA Tour player. I wish I had disposable millions because I swear I'd pay the money to watch it happen to anyone that was up for a beating.

 

And no s***, Sherlocks, men would/will fare better in longer courses. Physiology is at work there, which is why male and female athletics are separate to begin with. I really don't get the need to feel superior to female professional golfers.

 

It's because people see the us women's national soccer team lose to the boys u-17 team 7-2 ... this was months before they won gold at the Olympics.

IIRC the dream team in basketball lost to a bunch of collegians in workouts as well. Chuck Daly the coach was thrilled.

 

Shilgy,

 

It's clear you have a vested interest in defending women's sports but c'mon, your comparison is poor. All sports have some level of required strength and speed and the more that a sport requires these, it clearly lessens the ability of women to compete vs men. There's nothing wrong with admitting that the best women's soccer player in the world aren't as good as the best U-17 boys team - it's probably even worse in basketball or, theoretically, football/rugby.

 

Strength and speed may not have the same impact in golf as it does in soccer/basketball. The good part is that we have an established system to determine how an LPGA pro compares to top amateurs. Once we get the right data, it's pretty straightforward.

 

 

 

PS, Humorously, here's a quote from the NY Times on the Dream Team loss you mentioned:

 

The scrimmage lost to the college players was a fix, part of Coach Chuck Daly’s plan to demonstrate to a team loaded with 11 future basketball Hall of Famers that they could lose in international competition.

[BMC]

They did this in tennis. Bobby Riggs got his butt beat by Billie Jean King.