Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Guia]

I believe that is what I just pointed out. Example: If you were playing Beth Page Black, the slope would be very high and you might be a 0 or plus 1 when averaging a 76. However, not many courses have a rating that high. An average of 76 on most courses you will not be a 0 or plus golfer.

 

From the tees I play at my course with a rating of 69.X I average 83 with an index of 9.6. I have never played with anyone who averages 78 who is a 0 HC. Nor have I ever played with a 4 HC who average score is 82, of course if he or her shoots a round or so of par, it could happen.

[Shilgy]

These last few posts just prove there are still many that do not understand the handicap system.

Per the USGA a player will average about 3 strokes over their cap. Which is not related to par in the least. A +1 like Obee would average about two strokes over the course rating. Based on his main two courses his average score is about that.

[Guia]

I believe Obee is correct. I don't buy that a 4 HC will average 82, unless the course rating is very high, most are not sufficiently high for a 4 HC to average 82. Like I said I am a 9, and average 83, I have a couple of scores at 76 and 78.

 

I presume that Obee is at Riverside by Edwards AFB. I have played that course several times but not local courses.

[aliikane]

The average LPGA player will beat the 4-handicapper virtually all the time by just keep wearing them down from how efficient their games are in terms of accuracy, and saving strokes around the greens. The 4 handicapper's game is far less solid and efficient than the LPGA pro. The average LPGA pros shoot in the 60s regularly at 6200-6500 yard courses. However, the 4-handicap may beat the average LPGA pro once in a blue moon if he is much longer than the LPGA player and playing from the same tees and is much shorter tees than the 4-handicapper is used to. I don't think all 4-handicappers are equal. If the 4-handicapper plays long hard golf courses with lots of trouble (7000+ yards), he is probably one darn good player. Distance is an advantage. To me, the course rating system doesn't always rate courses and golfers correctly.

[nsxguy]

The golf course and conditions aside---Many if not most 4 hdcp to scratch male amateurs play their home courses much if not most of the time with almost the same groups. There is a comfort level there that would put them at a disadvantage vs a LPGA player who plays virtually every day, on different courses for competition for $$, standings, endorsements, etc.etc and against other LPGAers who are presumably just as talented and hungry--pressure. There is also the discipline self instilled and learned over the season and the role of the caddy with continuous common sense risk/reward advice base on knowing the LPGAers strengths/weaknesses and go to shots.

 

On balance I would bet on the LPGA player.

 

So would EVERYBODY on the thread, myself included. :)

 

Bu then, that wasn't the "argument". ;)

[Shilgy]

I believe Obee is correct. I don't buy that a 4 HC will average 82, unless the course rating is very high, most are not sufficiently high for a 4 HC to average 82. Like I said I am a 9, and average 83, I have a couple of scores at 76 and 78.

 

I presume that Obee is at Riverside by Edwards AFB. I have played that course several times but not local courses.

It would take a course rating of about 75 for the 4 to average 82. Not absurdly high at all really. You average 83 at a 69. something rated course. Sounds about right for a 9.6 index as the norm is two to three strokes over your handicap for an average. You are averaging one stroke higher than the 4 that averages 82 at a 75 rated course. Do the math-it's the same amount over cap for an average score. I am trying to say the same thing a few different ways so you understand. Look at it this way. Your cap is about 6 strokes higher than this mythical 4. Your course rating is 5+ strokes lower that the 75 rated course. That is why you average score is just one stroke higher than his is. Does that make sense now? If he played at your course he would average a little over 5 strokes less than he does now and carry the same cap.

[Guia]

Yes, I understand. But he never said what his course is rated.

[Shilgy]

This part of the conversation about handicaps brings to mind something else I have wondered occasionally. The usual comment about the 4 playing the lady is that the guy that typically plays a long difficult course would have the best chance of winning. Flip side is that everyone says to get better and used to shooting lower scores you should play the up tees. So this 4 we are currently discussing should have a harder time winning because he is not used to shooting the scores necessary with his 82 average. Perhaps a 4 from Guia's course would have a better chance as his scores are often better-albeit on a easier course. My guess is the best chance would be a player that plays a wide variety of courses and is both used to shooting a low number AND grinding it out on more difficult tracks.

[SurfDuffer]

T Flip side is that everyone says to get better and used to shooting lower scores you should play the up tees.

 

This makes no sense to me. What good does playing 100 yards or less into every hole do me? To me its boring to play up and from a mental game standpoint it is more damaging to the psyche to make a mess from 60 yards than 160 yards.

[Shilgy]

T Flip side is that everyone says to get better and used to shooting lower scores you should play the up tees.

 

This makes no sense to me. What good does playing 100 yards or less into every hole do me? To me its boring to play up and from a mental game standpoint it is more damaging to the psyche to make a mess from 60 yards than 160 yards.

I'm just repeating what is often said. But if you have issues from 60 I would suggest working on that.

[CallawayLefty]

Agree with others that say there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the handicap system works in this thread. I say I average 76 as a scratch and people don't get it. What would you think I would average? If I averaged 72, I'd be a +3. Scratch golfers don't shoot even par every time they tee it up. They average in their 10 best of 20 rounds a score that is equal to the course rating with the slope/.96 factors included. My 10 best on my most current cap range from -3.0 to 3.5. The -3.0 was a 71 on a 74.7/138. The 3.5 was a 79 on the same course (for an average of 75 just on those two rounds - which are both in my BEST 10). My 10 best cover courses rated 73.1/136 up to 76.2/138. I don't play a lot of really low rated courses, which might shield my handicap a little, but probably not much.

 

True scratch players that I know typically shoot in the 70s the vast majority of the time - but ranging from 70 to 79. Golf is hard. If you can shoot in the 70s the vast majority of the time, you're pretty good. I played a random resort course that I'd never seen yesterday. I joined a group of 3 other guys who ranged from pretty good to normal (but not bad) - maybe 4 to 12 handicaps if I had to guess. I shot 79 with a few loose shots and early season rust. The course was rated 72.0 and 135ish. I promise you none of them would have broken 90 had they even carded a real score. But like most golfers playing a course they've never seen before, they have 3-4 holes where they would have made a 10 or worse had they finished. Meanwhile I kind of hacked it around for my 79. So what's the takeaway? That I played like a 6 handicap yesterday, or that I beat a group of 4 to 12 handicaps by a minimum of 11 shots each?

 

Again - scratch does not equal shooting 72 every time. Just doesn't.

 

EDIT - and more to the point of this thread, in my opinion and based on 25 years of playing with all different types of golfers, a 4 handicap probably shoots in the mid to high 70s about half the time. Most 4 handicaps I know do not have the capability to shoot much lower than 74 or so, and would shoot par or better about once every 5 years.

[Sebmour]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

[dhc1]

T Flip side is that everyone says to get better and used to shooting lower scores you should play the up tees.

 

This makes no sense to me. What good does playing 100 yards or less into every hole do me? To me its boring to play up and from a mental game standpoint it is more damaging to the psyche to make a mess from 60 yards than 160 yards.

 

SurfDuffer,

 

The reason one should play from the up tees is to get used to / expect to shoot lower scores in order to maintain one's handicap. If a scratch traditionally play courses with high course ratings, they get used to shooting scores in the mid-70s and for them, shooting under par is a tough mental barrier that can affect them if they are a little under par during the round.

 

In contrast, by playing easier distances/course, you get used to expecting to make a lot of birdies and shooting in the 60s. That mentality is very very important (so I hear as the only time I'll shoot in the 60s is on a 15 hole course) and can translate back to your regular game when shooting a 65 isn't a big deal.

[dhc1]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

 

You realize that there is a 5-6 stroke difference between mens and women's handicaps? In other words, a scratch male would give a scratch female 6 strokes if they played from the same tees.

[bluedot]

I've mentioned this before, but since we played yesterday, It seems timely.

 

I played yesterday against an LPGA player; she's home in between a top 25 finish in Bermuda, and leaving for Australia next week. We had 6 single digit men, ranging from a 2 to an 8, including one of the assistants at the club; all play tournament golf. The 6 guys split into three two-man teams, and she plays the better ball of each of the three teams in stroke play, with each of us putting up $20.

 

Long story short, she won all three bets; two of them easily, and the final one by a shot, so she walked away with grocery money for the week until she leaves for down under. I played in the group with her, and her 69 could have been a 65 if she had made anything on the greens; she was playing a hybrid set of tees that were about 6500. My partner and I played 6300, one of the other teams played 6000, and the final team played the same tees she did. And this was our home course; had we been playing her on a course we didn't know, she would have really killed us!

 

We've done this quite a bit over the last year whenever she's in town, and I think she's lost once. And she's doing this while she works on her game, and without her husband caddying; he's a former teaching pro who now caddies for her full time.

 

FWIW...

[Shilgy]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

 

You realize that there is a 5-6 stroke difference between mens and women's handicaps? In other words, a scratch male would give a scratch female 6 strokes if they played from the same tees.

In this thread when the women pros handicaps is written it is their estimated MALE handicap.

[dhc1]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

 

You realize that there is a 5-6 stroke difference between mens and women's handicaps? In other words, a scratch male would give a scratch female 6 strokes if they played from the same tees.

In this thread when the women pros handicaps is written it is their estimated MALE handicap.

 

Respectfully, shilgy, there is no way that the average LPGA player is a men's +4 to + 5 and there's been a lot of misunderstanding as to the difference between men's and women's scratch (I know that you know the difference) so I don't think that your assertion is true.

[Shilgy]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

 

You realize that there is a 5-6 stroke difference between mens and women's handicaps? In other words, a scratch male would give a scratch female 6 strokes if they played from the same tees.

In this thread when the women pros handicaps is written it is their estimated MALE handicap.

 

Respectfully, shilgy, there is no way that the average LPGA player is a men's +4 to + 5 and there's been a lot of misunderstanding as to the difference between men's and women's scratch (I know that you know the difference) so I don't think that you're assertion is true.

Agreed. One of us misunderstood the other. They are not. As most on this thread have agreed number 100 is somewhere between scratch and +2 with the top players around +5. So the average women would be more in the +6 womens range. As I pointed out earlier though this is why assigning mens cap to PGA pros and womens cap to the LPGA is such an exercise in fultility. Neither plays the game the system is made for. The ladies rating is based on a 210 yard drive for a scratch woman and the mens is 250 yards. So comparing the LPGA and their 250 tard drives to the mens cap aligns very well.

[dhc1]

No matter what a 4 hc doesn't have the scoring ability of any pro on any tour.

 

Don't forget that touring pros are like +4, +5 handicaps. That's 8-9 shots difference. That's huge.

 

You realize that there is a 5-6 stroke difference between mens and women's handicaps? In other words, a scratch male would give a scratch female 6 strokes if they played from the same tees.

In this thread when the women pros handicaps is written it is their estimated MALE handicap.

 

Respectfully, shilgy, there is no way that the average LPGA player is a men's +4 to + 5 and there's been a lot of misunderstanding as to the difference between men's and women's scratch (I know that you know the difference) so I don't think that you're assertion is true.

Agreed. One of us misunderstood the other. They are not. As most on this thread have agreed number 100 is somewhere between scratch and +2 with the top players around +5. So the average women would be more in the +6 womens range. As I pointed out earlier though this is why assigning mens cap to PGA pros and womens cap to the LPGA is such an exercise in fultility. Neither plays the game the system is made for. The ladies rating is based on a 210 yard drive for a scratch woman and the mens is 250 yards. So comparing the LPGA and their 250 tard drives to the mens cap aligns very well.

 

Agreed. This is why I'm trying to get the actual distances because LPGA is the best proxy for the average decent male (240 yard drive).

 

I'm with you on +2 to scratch although I think we veer to different sides of that band, which is fine.

 

Finally, the assertion that has been made here a couple of times that the back half of the LPGA is a men's +5 is almost as absurd as that they are equivalent to a 4. I'm not touching the definition of "could" btw...

[BMC]

The mens/womens handicap debate should end. An LPGA pro would, for these discussions, be more in line with a men's handicap.

 

Women's handicaps are based on hitting 170 yard tee shots and 130 yard hybrids.

 

I think it's fair to use the men's ratings for an LPGA player.

[bluedot]

The mens/womens handicap debate should end. An LPGA pro would, for these discussions, be more in line with a men's handicap.

 

Women's handicaps are based on hitting 170 yard tee shots and 130 yard hybrids.

 

I think it's fair to use the men's ratings for an LPGA player.

 

This is a valid point. The USGA defines a MALE scratch golfer as one who, FOR RATING PURPOSES, can average 250 off the tee and reach a 470 hole in two shots at sea level. The top 100 in driving distance on the LPGA Tour in 2016 were at 250 or higher, with 281 leading and 230 at the bottom of the list. That fits comfortably within the USGA definition in terms of distance, and I think we could probably all agree that the approach, short games, and putting of LPGA more than comfortably exceed those of a 4 index.

[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.

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

 

Lol ok fine. A very good High school boys aau team would beat the uconn women by 30...try and argue that one!

[PJ72]

4 handicap has no chance, ever. It's the short game and in particular the putting that would eat them alive.

Ball striking would be costing them the most shots in relation to a pro woman golfer. The 4 handicap doesn't strike a ball well enough to compete, and that is reflected in the handicap. I doubt they are poor putters and chippers, with the odd exception, either, but obviously not as good as the pro lady.

 

I think the biggest difference would be in the ball striking.

[skraly]

The mens/womens handicap debate should end. An LPGA pro would, for these discussions, be more in line with a men's handicap.

 

Women's handicaps are based on hitting 170 yard tee shots and 130 yard hybrids.

 

I think it's fair to use the men's ratings for an LPGA player.

Hcp ratings for pros are all but meaningless. Pros count every round of tournament play. The way the hcp. system is set up a hcp. player only needs to play to his level about 1/3 of the time. In a given round a male 4 hcp.,and I don't care what his home course is, would have little chance to beat an lpga player. Over four rounds of a tournament he woukd have zero chance, as in no way no how not ever.

[PJ72]

The funny thing is that this is truly one of the least contentious golf boards out there...

 

Haha

 

Well, except you, of course....

 

Obee...you had a helluva 2016 and played some of your best golf recently. How would you do against a middle of the road LPGA player? Considering some of the competitors you've faced lately, there's no intimidation factor. What say you?

 

Recently played a woman ranked between 80 and 100 on the Rolex world ranking. She played one tee up from us at about 6450ish and we played 6900ish. She shot 71 to my 73. Course was playing tough and tournament ready with very firm greens.

 

If we play 100 times from the same tees, it's pretty close, though I like my odds. I'd give me a 60/40 edge.

30 yards per hole is a useful advantage. I'd imagine you'd be better than 2 shots on a course that short.

[deadsolid...shank]

I've mentioned this before, but since we played yesterday, It seems timely.

 

I played yesterday against an LPGA player; she's home in between a top 25 finish in Bermuda, and leaving for Australia next week. We had 6 single digit men, ranging from a 2 to an 8, including one of the assistants at the club; all play tournament golf. The 6 guys split into three two-man teams, and she plays the better ball of each of the three teams in stroke play, with each of us putting up $20.

 

Long story short, she won all three bets; two of them easily, and the final one by a shot, so she walked away with grocery money for the week until she leaves for down under. I played in the group with her, and her 69 could have been a 65 if she had made anything on the greens; she was playing a hybrid set of tees that were about 6500. My partner and I played 6300, one of the other teams played 6000, and the final team played the same tees she did. And this was our home course; had we been playing her on a course we didn't know, she would have really killed us!

 

We've done this quite a bit over the last year whenever she's in town, and I think she's lost once. And she's doing this while she works on her game, and without her husband caddying; he's a former teaching pro who now caddies for her full time.

 

FWIW...

 

Honestly to me, that sounds more like the men's teams didn't play very well. A three man best ball team consisting of all single digits on their own course should be able cover a 69.

[farmer]

The mens/womens handicap debate should end. An LPGA pro would, for these discussions, be more in line with a men's handicap.

 

Women's handicaps are based on hitting 170 yard tee shots and 130 yard hybrids.

 

I think it's fair to use the men's ratings for an LPGA player.

Hcp ratings for pros are all but meaningless. Pros count every round of tournament play. The way the hcp. system is set up a hcp. player only needs to play to his level about 1/3 of the time. In a given round a male 4 hcp.,and I don't care what his home course is, would have little chance to beat an lpga player. Over four rounds of a tournament he woukd have zero chance, as in no way no how not ever.

Exactly. Any pro, on any tour, every shot counts, every round counts. There s no CR-slope differential, no ESC, no LOIBIP (lost interest, ball in pocket) holes, no score thrown out, it's every single shot, played on a different course every week. In any profession, from accounting (my wife is a CPA) to welding, there is a vast difference between a highly skilled professional, doing their thing for a living, and even a highly skilled amateur. When I was young, I was a scratch welder, but a pipeline welder or the guys who weld necks on custom putters would just give me an "attaboy".

[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.

 

Lol ok fine. A very good High school boys aau team would beat the uconn women by 30...try and argue that one!

Start a thread about that then. This is completely different.

[Shilgy]

I've mentioned this before, but since we played yesterday, It seems timely.

 

I played yesterday against an LPGA player; she's home in between a top 25 finish in Bermuda, and leaving for Australia next week. We had 6 single digit men, ranging from a 2 to an 8, including one of the assistants at the club; all play tournament golf. The 6 guys split into three two-man teams, and she plays the better ball of each of the three teams in stroke play, with each of us putting up $20.

 

Long story short, she won all three bets; two of them easily, and the final one by a shot, so she walked away with grocery money for the week until she leaves for down under. I played in the group with her, and her 69 could have been a 65 if she had made anything on the greens; she was playing a hybrid set of tees that were about 6500. My partner and I played 6300, one of the other teams played 6000, and the final team played the same tees she did. And this was our home course; had we been playing her on a course we didn't know, she would have really killed us!

 

We've done this quite a bit over the last year whenever she's in town, and I think she's lost once. And she's doing this while she works on her game, and without her husband caddying; he's a former teaching pro who now caddies for her full time.

 

FWIW...

 

Honestly to me, that sounds more like the men's teams didn't play very well. A three man best ball team consisting of all single digits on their own course should be able cover a 69.

Two man teams. There were three two-man teams. I used to have the same bet with some buddies. I was scratch at the time and the two buddies were about six. I would play their best ball straight up. And I did fine. Great for the concentration as I felt any bogey would be a lost hole.

[Obee]

I've mentioned this before, but since we played yesterday, It seems timely.

 

I played yesterday against an LPGA player; she's home in between a top 25 finish in Bermuda, and leaving for Australia next week. We had 6 single digit men, ranging from a 2 to an 8, including one of the assistants at the club; all play tournament golf. The 6 guys split into three two-man teams, and she plays the better ball of each of the three teams in stroke play, with each of us putting up $20.

 

Long story short, she won all three bets; two of them easily, and the final one by a shot, so she walked away with grocery money for the week until she leaves for down under. I played in the group with her, and her 69 could have been a 65 if she had made anything on the greens; she was playing a hybrid set of tees that were about 6500. My partner and I played 6300, one of the other teams played 6000, and the final team played the same tees she did. And this was our home course; had we been playing her on a course we didn't know, she would have really killed us!

 

We've done this quite a bit over the last year whenever she's in town, and I think she's lost once. And she's doing this while she works on her game, and without her husband caddying; he's a former teaching pro who now caddies for her full time.

 

FWIW...

 

Honestly to me, that sounds more like the men's teams didn't play very well. A three man best ball team consisting of all single digits on their own course should be able cover a 69.

Two man teams. There were three two-man teams. I used to have the same bet with some buddies. I was scratch at the time and the two buddies were about six. I would play their best ball straight up. And I did fine. Great for the concentration as I felt any bogey would be a lost hole.

 

When I was playing my best about ten years ago, I would do this against two scratchish players. Definitely good for working on concentration.