Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[golfer07840]

She does have a killer smile...

This thread is starting to get.....weird.

Starting? Really? Have you been following this thread? :)

It went off the rails awhile ago.

 

But I feel it's getting to the "Killed a bug on the green" level.

[dhc1]

What hole has the longest forced carry in the US? Other than a situation where there's hole where the carry is over 250 yards, I just can't see where a 4 could reasonably compete.

 

It would be interesting to have a group of 4 handicaps and a group of scratch players do a modified version of Golf Digest's US Open Challenge right before a women's event to see if any of the 4-handicappers beat anyone in the field in the first two days, (each 4 handicap amateur would effectively have 300 individual bets, assuming 150 players playing twice) and if any of the scratch players make the cut if they doubled their score (I think there would be a reasonable chance this happens). I'd pay to watch this Bobby Riggs-esque event.

[ThinkingPlus]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

[CallawayLefty]

Just thought a little more about this - does the LPGA player have to mark all of her 1 foot putts and put the ball exactly back where it was before? I think if we factor in a few 4 stroke penalties for the LPGA player, this thing could get really interesting!

[oikos1]

Just thought a little more about this - does the LPGA player have to mark all of her 1 foot putts and put the ball exactly back where it was before? I think if we factor in a few 4 stroke penalties for the LPGA player, this thing could get really interesting!

 

Aren't all putts inside 5 feet gimmes?

[CallawayLefty]

Just thought a little more about this - does the LPGA player have to mark all of her 1 foot putts and put the ball exactly back where it was before? I think if we factor in a few 4 stroke penalties for the LPGA player, this thing could get really interesting!

 

Aren't all putts inside 5 feet gimmes?

 

If they were, the 4 handicap would be a +9. If you take their 1954 Ben Hogan ballstriking and cancel out 5 footers (which are their nemesis due to work and family obligations), who knows what they would shoot!

[TheGeekGolfer]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

This adds to the credibility that a 4 hdcp could (emphasize could) hold their own and possibly beat the lower LPGA player. You are still calculating a different course rating and slope based on the fact they are women players.The women are playing from the blue or white tees (most commonly used by male players), the course and slope rating WOULD NOT CHANGE! It would be the same as when the members, male or female, play from those tees. If the women play from those tees and are talented enough (firmly believe they are) then they are playing to the same set of skills as a male playing those tees and would have the same handicap/slope/course rating to calculate.

 

Course rating and slope doesn't change based on pin positions and if a tee is moved up or back a bit. If you play in a tournament at your local club and it seems most pins are harder, they don't change your handicap calculations for that day. The course and slope rating is there to accommodate varying conditions and pin/tee placements.

[Shilgy]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

This adds to the credibility that a 4 hdcp could (emphasize could) hold their own and possibly beat the lower LPGA player. You are still calculating a different course rating and slope based on the fact they are women players.The women are playing from the blue or white tees (most commonly used by male players), the course and slope rating WOULD NOT CHANGE! It would be the same as when the members, male or female, play from those tees. If the women play from those tees and are talented enough (firmly believe they are) then they are playing to the same set of skills as a male playing those tees and would have the same handicap/slope/course rating to calculate.

 

Course rating and slope doesn't change based on pin positions and if a tee is moved up or back a bit. If you play in a tournament at your local club and it seems most pins are harder, they don't change your handicap calculations for that day. The course and slope rating is there to accommodate varying conditions and pin/tee placements.

So you agree the women pros are essentially playing a more difficult course than the typical 4 but the rating/slope we are using in this thread does not account for that? So the ladies average score and the 4 are actually FURTHER apart than has been most frequently noted?

[TheGeekGolfer]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

This adds to the credibility that a 4 hdcp could (emphasize could) hold their own and possibly beat the lower LPGA player. You are still calculating a different course rating and slope based on the fact they are women players.The women are playing from the blue or white tees (most commonly used by male players), the course and slope rating WOULD NOT CHANGE! It would be the same as when the members, male or female, play from those tees. If the women play from those tees and are talented enough (firmly believe they are) then they are playing to the same set of skills as a male playing those tees and would have the same handicap/slope/course rating to calculate.

 

Course rating and slope doesn't change based on pin positions and if a tee is moved up or back a bit. If you play in a tournament at your local club and it seems most pins are harder, they don't change your handicap calculations for that day. The course and slope rating is there to accommodate varying conditions and pin/tee placements.

So you agree the women pros are essentially playing a more difficult course than the typical 4 but the rating/slope we are using in this thread does not account for that? So the ladies average score and the 4 are actually FURTHER apart than has been most frequently noted?

No, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. The women are NOT playing a more difficult course than the typical 4. One day of the tournament, the course may play easier, the other harder. The course/slope rating stays the same. When a woman posts an 80 from the blue tees for a tournament is no different than a male member posting an 80 from those same tees. The only thing different is she 'might' be doing it with some tournament pressure and fans. However, that lower ranked woman probably isn't really playing in front of that many fans (sorry to say). I've been to a few (not as many as others, I'm sure) and most fans are following the top ranked players. I'll give her that she does have the pressure of "playing for her next paycheck", so that does add to the pressure.

 

The members may play the course on a day where the conditions are tough and some of the pins are tucked and they are playing more back tees than normal for that tee box. The course yardage varies each time you play a course. Yet, the course rating and slope do NOT change.

 

You (or the OP of this comment) seem to be saying that when the women play it, it's a harder course rating/slope for them, because they are women? If I'm reading that wrong, my apologies. My point or argument is that if the women are playing the same tees (usually mid to back blues) as the male plays (for lower hdcp) then they would have the same slope/course rating applied to their handicap calculations. And, that is the normal course/slope rating that is listed on the scorecard for those tees or if they have it, a combo tee (blue/white) course/slope rating.

[dhc1]

Enough of the hypotheticals.

 

Any 4 handicaps on here willing to put real money up vs. an LPGA pro? What odds would you need? I should be able to get a gal or two when they're in the NYC region for the US Women's Open. Lots of good courses nearby - not worried about finding a challenging venue. I'd be willing to act as principal and market maker.....Should be fun if someone actually is interested.

[ThinkingPlus]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

This adds to the credibility that a 4 hdcp could (emphasize could) hold their own and possibly beat the lower LPGA player. You are still calculating a different course rating and slope based on the fact they are women players.The women are playing from the blue or white tees (most commonly used by male players), the course and slope rating WOULD NOT CHANGE! It would be the same as when the members, male or female, play from those tees. If the women play from those tees and are talented enough (firmly believe they are) then they are playing to the same set of skills as a male playing those tees and would have the same handicap/slope/course rating to calculate.

 

Course rating and slope doesn't change based on pin positions and if a tee is moved up or back a bit. If you play in a tournament at your local club and it seems most pins are harder, they don't change your handicap calculations for that day. The course and slope rating is there to accommodate varying conditions and pin/tee placements.

So you agree the women pros are essentially playing a more difficult course than the typical 4 but the rating/slope we are using in this thread does not account for that? So the ladies average score and the 4 are actually FURTHER apart than has been most frequently noted?

No, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. The women are NOT playing a more difficult course than the typical 4. One day of the tournament, the course may play easier, the other harder. The course/slope rating stays the same. When a woman posts an 80 from the blue tees for a tournament is no different than a male member posting an 80 from those same tees. The only thing different is she 'might' be doing it with some tournament pressure and fans. However, that lower ranked woman probably isn't really playing in front of that many fans (sorry to say). I've been to a few (not as many as others, I'm sure) and most fans are following the top ranked players. I'll give her that she does have the pressure of "playing for her next paycheck", so that does add to the pressure.

 

The members may play the course on a day where the conditions are tough and some of the pins are tucked and they are playing more back tees than normal for that tee box. The course yardage varies each time you play a course. Yet, the course rating and slope do NOT change.

 

You (or the OP of this comment) seem to be saying that when the women play it, it's a harder course rating/slope for them, because they are women? If I'm reading that wrong, my apologies. My point or argument is that if the women are playing the same tees (usually mid to back blues) as the male plays (for lower hdcp) then they would have the same slope/course rating applied to their handicap calculations. And, that is the normal course/slope rating that is listed on the scorecard for those tees or if they have it, a combo tee (blue/white) course/slope rating.

 

For any set of tees there is a men's rating/slope and a women's rating/slope. They are different by an average of 5.5 to 6.5 strokes and between 10 and 12 slope points. Obviously for any given course it varies, but those values are based on averages I have compiled for courses in CA and NM. Those averages are appropriate for courses between 6200 and 6800 yards for the most part since those are primarily the length tees I play. What I did to get the rating/slope for the ANA tournament tees was take the closest tees rated for women (white) and use the yardage difference (about 400 yards) to calculate (using the USGA womens rating/slope lookup table vs. yardage) the delta rating/slope which I then added to the white tee rating/slope. You can do similar adjustments if you want to get men's ratings from the forward tees. The lookup table changes and you would subtract the delta rating/slope calculated since the forward tees would be shorter than the closest men's rated tees. This is per USGA handicap rules.

[TheGeekGolfer]

For any set of tees there is a men's rating/slope and a women's rating/slope. They are different by an average of 5.5 to 6.5 strokes and between 10 and 12 slope points. Obviously for any given course it varies, but those values are based on averages I have compiled for courses in CA and NM. Those averages are appropriate for courses between 6200 and 6800 yards for the most part since those are primarily the length tees I play. What I did to get the rating/slope for the ANA tournament tees was take the closest tees rated for women (white) and use the yardage difference (about 400 yards) to calculate (using the USGA womens rating/slope lookup table vs. yardage) the delta rating/slope which I then added to the white tee rating/slope. You can do similar adjustments if you want to get men's ratings from the forward tees. The lookup table changes and you would subtract the delta rating/slope calculated since the forward tees would be shorter than the closest men's rated tees. This is per USGA handicap rules.

I understand that they have different course/slope ratings for men vs women. That's because "generally", women are not as good and can't hit it as far as the male players. My point, again, is this. I'm saying the women we are talking about are professionals and always play from that length and tee boxes. They can hit it as far or farther than most men. So, length isn't an issue. Basically, for the purpose of this discussion, the women's course/slope rating does NOT apply to them.

[farmer]

Enough of the hypotheticals.

 

Any 4 handicaps on here willing to put real money up vs. an LPGA pro? What odds would you need? I should be able to get a gal or two when they're in the NYC region for the US Women's Open. Lots of good courses nearby - not worried about finding a challenging venue. I'd be willing to act as principal and market maker.....Should be fun if someone actually is interested.

This won't work. If your player has qualified for the US Open, then they are not likely to be a very low ranked player. This thread has morphed into "Lowest LPGA player vs superb ballstriking 4.".

[dhc1]

Enough of the hypotheticals.

 

Any 4 handicaps on here willing to put real money up vs. an LPGA pro? What odds would you need? I should be able to get a gal or two when they're in the NYC region for the US Women's Open. Lots of good courses nearby - not worried about finding a challenging venue. I'd be willing to act as principal and market maker.....Should be fun if someone actually is interested.

This won't work. If your player has qualified for the US Open, then they are not likely to be a very low ranked player. This thread has morphed into "Lowest LPGA player vs superb ballstriking 4.".

 

Farmer,

 

Aren't there 150 contestants? wouldn't most of the ladies between 75-150 make it?

[deathbymuffin]

This thread is pretty funny. My friend and I (3 and 5 handicaps) were recently paired with one of the top local 13 year old girls and she shot even par and killed us from the blue tees. We hit it further, but that's where our superior skills ended.

 

I happened to hit balls at lunch today next to two top-100 LPGA pros. Again, they don't hit it long, but they hit the exact same tight baby draw swing after swing after swing. At my best I've posted a few even par rounds on courses in the 6800-7000 range, but they occur about as often as getting struck by lightning. If me and the LPGA girl both went out and shot our average round, I'd lose by 8-12 strokes.

 

So the answer to the question is yes, but it is so statistically unlikely as to be virtually impossible.

[farmer]

Enough of the hypotheticals.

 

Any 4 handicaps on here willing to put real money up vs. an LPGA pro? What odds would you need? I should be able to get a gal or two when they're in the NYC region for the US Women's Open. Lots of good courses nearby - not worried about finding a challenging venue. I'd be willing to act as principal and market maker.....Should be fun if someone actually is interested.

This won't work. If your player has qualified for the US Open, then they are not likely to be a very low ranked player. This thread has morphed into "Lowest LPGA player vs superb ballstriking 4.".

 

Farmer,

 

Aren't there 150 contestants? wouldn't most of the ladies between 75-150 make it?

Point. 156 last time, not sure a low enough rated player would qualify for this match.

[dhc1]

Enough of the hypotheticals.

 

Any 4 handicaps on here willing to put real money up vs. an LPGA pro? What odds would you need? I should be able to get a gal or two when they're in the NYC region for the US Women's Open. Lots of good courses nearby - not worried about finding a challenging venue. I'd be willing to act as principal and market maker.....Should be fun if someone actually is interested.

This won't work. If your player has qualified for the US Open, then they are not likely to be a very low ranked player. This thread has morphed into "Lowest LPGA player vs superb ballstriking 4.".

 

Farmer,

 

Aren't there 150 contestants? wouldn't most of the ladies between 75-150 make it?

Point. 156 last time, not sure a low enough rated player would qualify for this match.

 

Apologies, Farmer, but I don't understand what you mean here. I think we could get a couple LPGA pros ranked from 75-125 to participate. If not at the US Women's Open, then we can do it near the Shoprite as there are some great course in the South Jersey shore.

 

Anyone interested?

[Shilgy]

How about 14 year-old Lucy Li?

 

Lucy Li is tied at -1 (2 birdies & 1 bogey) with the likes of Stacy Lewis and Gerina Pillar on par 72 6,763 yard course that is probably playing a slope rating of 135-140+ for the women players.

Did a quick and dirty calc. Women's rating/slope would be ~80/145.

This adds to the credibility that a 4 hdcp could (emphasize could) hold their own and possibly beat the lower LPGA player. You are still calculating a different course rating and slope based on the fact they are women players.The women are playing from the blue or white tees (most commonly used by male players), the course and slope rating WOULD NOT CHANGE! It would be the same as when the members, male or female, play from those tees. If the women play from those tees and are talented enough (firmly believe they are) then they are playing to the same set of skills as a male playing those tees and would have the same handicap/slope/course rating to calculate.

 

Course rating and slope doesn't change based on pin positions and if a tee is moved up or back a bit. If you play in a tournament at your local club and it seems most pins are harder, they don't change your handicap calculations for that day. The course and slope rating is there to accommodate varying conditions and pin/tee placements.

So you agree the women pros are essentially playing a more difficult course than the typical 4 but the rating/slope we are using in this thread does not account for that? So the ladies average score and the 4 are actually FURTHER apart than has been most frequently noted?

No, I'm actually saying the exact opposite. The women are NOT playing a more difficult course than the typical 4. One day of the tournament, the course may play easier, the other harder. The course/slope rating stays the same. When a woman posts an 80 from the blue tees for a tournament is no different than a male member posting an 80 from those same tees. The only thing different is she 'might' be doing it with some tournament pressure and fans. However, that lower ranked woman probably isn't really playing in front of that many fans (sorry to say). I've been to a few (not as many as others, I'm sure) and most fans are following the top ranked players. I'll give her that she does have the pressure of "playing for her next paycheck", so that does add to the pressure.

 

The members may play the course on a day where the conditions are tough and some of the pins are tucked and they are playing more back tees than normal for that tee box. The course yardage varies each time you play a course. Yet, the course rating and slope do NOT change.

 

You (or the OP of this comment) seem to be saying that when the women play it, it's a harder course rating/slope for them, because they are women? If I'm reading that wrong, my apologies. My point or argument is that if the women are playing the same tees (usually mid to back blues) as the male plays (for lower hdcp) then they would have the same slope/course rating applied to their handicap calculations. And, that is the normal course/slope rating that is listed on the scorecard for those tees or if they have it, a combo tee (blue/white) course/slope rating.

yes-we are miscommunicating. :) I am saying the set up on the LPGA tour is more difficult that the average 4 faces. Greens are faster and the pin positions are generally much more difficult on a whole than the set up at the local course than is trying to speed up play.

 

ThinkingPlus keeps bringing up the women's course ratings-not me. IMO that is not germane to this conversation. If the lady pro would have a women's handicap of +7 that most assuredly does not mean that she is 11 strokes better than the mens 4 cap. This whole thread is comparing the mens 4 to the lady pro and, again, imo using the womens course rating versus the mens distorts the conversation.

[ThinkingPlus]

Shilgy and TheGeekGolfer,

 

I tried to post this yesterday and the system mangled it and it never posted.

 

I agree. Since the purpose of this thread is to compare an LPGA player to a 4 H.I. man then only the men's rating/slope needs to be considered. Here is a slightly old rating/slope for men since it is for the KNC course (M-72.6/133) rather than this year's ANA course. The course played a little longer this year (75 - 100 yards), but that is a nit relative to men's ratings/slope.

 

I we assume that the LPGA pro shoots 72 (plenty did for this tournament, but that would certainly not be the worst score) that works out to a differential against the men's rating/slope of -0.5. Thus a men's 4 H.I. would be shooting 4.5 strokes better than index to shoot 72 (a tie). Per the USGA Exceptional Tournament Score PROBABILITY TABLE this tie would occur 1 in 151 chances. You can use the table for any score to assign to the LPGA pro. The likelihood does not become significant until the LPGA pro shoots 76 where the odds become 1 in 5 chances that the 4 cap ties the pro.

 

Sorry this did not post yesterday.

[TheGeekGolfer]

 

 

Shilgy and TheGeekGolfer,

 

I tried to post this yesterday and the system mangled it and it never posted.

 

I agree. Since the purpose of this thread is to compare an LPGA player to a 4 H.I. man then only the men's rating/slope needs to be considered. Here is a slightly old rating/slope for men since it is for the KNC course (M-72.6/133) rather than this year's ANA course. The course played a little longer this year (75 - 100 yards), but that is a nit relative to men's ratings/slope.

 

I we assume that the LPGA pro shoots 72 (plenty did for this tournament, but that would certainly not be the worst score) that works out to a differential against the men's rating/slope of -0.5. Thus a men's 4 H.I. would be shooting 4.5 strokes better than index to shoot 72 (a tie). Per the USGA Exceptional Tournament Score PROBABILITY TABLE this tie would occur 1 in 151 chances. You can use the table for any score to assign to the LPGA pro. The likelihood does not become significant until the LPGA pro shoots 76 where the odds become 1 in 5 chances that the 4 cap ties the pro.

 

Sorry this did not post yesterday.

 

You can assign whatever probability score to it you want. In my book, if two players are within 4-5 strokes as suggested, then their is a pretty good chance of a 2 stroke swing on both parts. I'm positive the 4 hdcp shoots a couple of shots better and the LPGA shoots a couple of shots worse, on a fairly regular basis.. Add in that the lower LPGA player probably doesn't avg 72, anyway.

 

Now, I guess they have to do it heads up. So, that adds to the equation also.

[Argonne69]

The 128th ranked LPGA player is still averaging under 73 this season. The 140th ranked player is averaging 74. Again, in tournament conditions.

 

Is this so-called match going to be on a typical muni where they'd shoot even lower scores, or a tournament set up where the 4 gets his a** handed to him?

[Shilgy]

Shilgy and TheGeekGolfer,

 

I tried to post this yesterday and the system mangled it and it never posted.

 

I agree. Since the purpose of this thread is to compare an LPGA player to a 4 H.I. man then only the men's rating/slope needs to be considered. Here is a slightly old rating/slope for men since it is for the KNC course (M-72.6/133) rather than this year's ANA course. The course played a little longer this year (75 - 100 yards), but that is a nit relative to men's ratings/slope.

 

I we assume that the LPGA pro shoots 72 (plenty did for this tournament, but that would certainly not be the worst score) that works out to a differential against the men's rating/slope of -0.5. Thus a men's 4 H.I. would be shooting 4.5 strokes better than index to shoot 72 (a tie). Per the USGA Exceptional Tournament Score PROBABILITY TABLE this tie would occur 1 in 151 chances. You can use the table for any score to assign to the LPGA pro. The likelihood does not become significant until the LPGA pro shoots 76 where the odds become 1 in 5 chances that the 4 cap ties the pro.

 

Sorry this did not post yesterday.

 

You can assign whatever probability score to it you want. In my book, if two players are within 4-5 strokes as suggested, then their is a pretty good chance of a 2 stroke swing on both parts. I'm positive the 4 hdcp shoots a couple of shots better and the LPGA shoots a couple of shots worse, on a fairly regular basis.. Add in that the lower LPGA player probably doesn't avg 72, anyway.

 

Now, I guess they have to do it heads up. So, that adds to the equation also.

True-however the conditions that cause the LPGA score to go up-wind or rough etc-would likely cause the 4's score to go up even more.

[ThinkingPlus]

Shilgy and TheGeekGolfer,

 

I tried to post this yesterday and the system mangled it and it never posted.

 

I agree. Since the purpose of this thread is to compare an LPGA player to a 4 H.I. man then only the men's rating/slope needs to be considered. Here is a slightly old rating/slope for men since it is for the KNC course (M-72.6/133) rather than this year's ANA course. The course played a little longer this year (75 - 100 yards), but that is a nit relative to men's ratings/slope.

 

I we assume that the LPGA pro shoots 72 (plenty did for this tournament, but that would certainly not be the worst score) that works out to a differential against the men's rating/slope of -0.5. Thus a men's 4 H.I. would be shooting 4.5 strokes better than index to shoot 72 (a tie). Per the USGA Exceptional Tournament Score PROBABILITY TABLE this tie would occur 1 in 151 chances. You can use the table for any score to assign to the LPGA pro. The likelihood does not become significant until the LPGA pro shoots 76 where the odds become 1 in 5 chances that the 4 cap ties the pro.

 

Sorry this did not post yesterday.

 

You can assign whatever probability score to it you want. In my book, if two players are within 4-5 strokes as suggested, then their is a pretty good chance of a 2 stroke swing on both parts. I'm positive the 4 hdcp shoots a couple of shots better and the LPGA shoots a couple of shots worse, on a fairly regular basis.. Add in that the lower LPGA player probably doesn't avg 72, anyway.

 

Now, I guess they have to do it heads up. So, that adds to the equation also.

 

Understand that I did not assign a probability of shooting a particular score. I simply used what the USGA has already calculated. Since we are basing the male players H.I. on the USGA handicap system then it seemed appropriate to quote their calculated probabilities. Here is the link. I also clearly stated that the score shot by the LPGA pro in my example would not necessarily indicate what would be shot by the average LPGA pro or the worst LPGA pro (whatever that would mean). I try (although I admit I occasionally miss) to clearly indicate when I am offering opinion vs. when I am providing facts from trusted sources.

[deadsolid...shank]

The 128th ranked LPGA player is still averaging under 73 this season. The 140th ranked player is averaging 74. Again, in tournament conditions.

 

Is this so-called match going to be on a typical muni where they'd shoot even lower scores, or a tournament set up where the 4 gets his a** handed to him?

 

You mean the muni with slow, bumpy greens where the LPGA'ers best advantage (being a much better putter) is not going to be as great!?

 

 

[Argonne69]

The 128th ranked LPGA player is still averaging under 73 this season. The 140th ranked player is averaging 74. Again, in tournament conditions.

 

Is this so-called match going to be on a typical muni where they'd shoot even lower scores, or a tournament set up where the 4 gets his a** handed to him?

 

You mean the muni with slow, bumpy greens where the LPGA'ers best advantage (being a much better putter) is not going to be as great!?��

 

The 4 HC will still be lucky to hit 10 or 11 GIRs. The LPGA pro is likely to hit 15 or 16. They can both 2 putt all day long on the crappy greens, but the pro is still going to beat them by 4 strokes easy.

[Shilgy]

The 128th ranked LPGA player is still averaging under 73 this season. The 140th ranked player is averaging 74. Again, in tournament conditions.

 

Is this so-called match going to be on a typical muni where they'd shoot even lower scores, or a tournament set up where the 4 gets his a** handed to him?

 

You mean the muni with slow, bumpy greens where the LPGA'ers best advantage (being a much better putter) is not going to be as great!?��

 

The 4 HC will still be lucky to hit 10 or 11 GIRs. The LPGA pro is likely to hit 15 or 16. They can both 2 putt all day long on the crappy greens, but the pro is still going to beat them by 4 strokes easy.

The lady pro will still be a better ball striker AND have a better short game, including putting, than the 4.

[2bGood]

Lets get "real world"

 

I am a 4 and I have played with Christie Kerr, Michelle Wie and few lesser knowns when I have been a 3-6. If I was playing them for money I would want strokes or would lose most of the time, but not all of the time.

 

I was longer than Kerr by a club or two, Wie was closer to me, but both were way more accurate than I am and better games around the green. I **might** argue that I was better putter than Wie though.

 

I am a 'soft 4' though as my top 10 score can be pretty ugly, but when I get hot I can shoot par.

[Shilgy]

I will add, since Deadsolid brought up the greens, that even back in the day there were good putters on tour. Even when the greens were much slower and bumpier than today. The better the player rolls the ball the less the poor green will affect the putt. On slow greens a good putter can gun for everything without the risk of going more than a couple feet by.

[deadsolid...shank]

I will add, since Deadsolid brought up the greens, that even back in the day there were good putters on tour. Even when the greens were much slower and bumpier than today. The better the player rolls the ball the less the poor green will affect the putt. On slow greens a good putter can gun for everything without the risk of going more than a couple feet by.

 

That comment was meant more tongue in cheek than anything.

 

Although there is some truth to it that true, bad muni geeens are going to have adverse effect. Someone is accustomed to putting on perfectly manicured greens that are normally in that 10-11 range are going to struggle on bumpy, 5-6 greens.

[Shilgy]

I will add, since Deadsolid brought up the greens, that even back in the day there were good putters on tour. Even when the greens were much slower and bumpier than today. The better the player rolls the ball the less the poor green will affect the putt. On slow greens a good putter can gun for everything without the risk of going more than a couple feet by.

 

That comment was meant more tongue in cheek than anything.

 

Although there is some truth to it that true, bad muni geeens are going to have adverse effect. Someone is accustomed to putting on perfectly manicured greens that are normally in that 10-11 range are going to struggle on bumpy, 5-6 greens.

They would not putt as well as normal, granted. But they would handle the crap much better than the 4.