Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

Generally course ratings in the 70-72 range.

I think this was for the women playing generally in the 6400 yard range, yes? Is that the men's rating or the women's rating?

The men's rating of course. Since we are comparing differentials of boys form similar yardage. Apples to apples comparison.

LOL!! Apples to apples.

Don't know what's funny. The debate was them playing from the same tees on the same golf course. So you use the same rating. The 100th ranked LPGA player is about the same as a male with a tournament average differential of 1 counting all scores. And the 50th ranked junior in FL is considerably better than that. The top juniors in FL and it wouldn't even be close. The top junior in FL could give the 100th ranked LPGA tour player 2-3 strokes a side playing from the same tees.

Last time I played with the player currently 102nd on the money list and 88th in scoring average I shot 4-5 shots better than she did and the top junior in FL is definitely better than me

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Generally course ratings in the 70-72 range.

I think this was for the women playing generally in the 6400 yard range, yes? Is that the men's rating or the women's rating?

The men's rating of course. Since we are comparing differentials of boys form similar yardage. Apples to apples comparison.

LOL!! Apples to apples.

Don't know what's funny. The debate was them playing from the same tees on the same golf course. So you use the same rating. The 100th ranked LPGA player is about the same as a male with a tournament average differential of 1 counting all scores. And the 50th ranked junior in FL is considerably better than that. The top juniors in FL and it wouldn't even be close. The top junior in FL could give the 100th ranked LPGA tour player 2-3 strokes a side playing from the same tees.

I agree with everything you wrote here. No problem.

But using course ratings that are designed for men that hit the ball an average distance and using that same rating for women who hit the ball in many cases 75 or more yards shorter off the tee is hardly apples to apples and is not factual evidence of anything.

They have ratings for men and for women for a reason. I know you know that so I'm not going to belabor the point, but it's is not apples to apples, not even close.

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

2bGood · August 23, 2016

The disrespect to me comes from comparing the two games. Women sports will never be as deep as the men's side for various / obvious reasons. I could beat the hell out of some guys in a fight just as they would me. I would however say as a female , playing any sport with guys makes you better. It is just how it is. That being said , many men are sexist still when it comes to these things. I see it everywhere we go. I honestly see it worse on the club level.

I think it actually worse the other way around that the women are sexist. There are far more "mens" leagues in all sports that allow women to play in them then there are women's leagues that allow men to play in them.

For instance I am sure there are many men who can not make it to the US (Mens) Open who would love to play in the US Women's Open and would be good enough to do so, but this would never be allowed. However the Men's event allows women to compete and cause the potential exclusion of male player who does not have other options they can pursue. The Open Championship is the same.

The PGA tour does exclude women, however the LPGA tour excludes men. You find the this much more often in junior athletics.

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

I think this was for the women playing generally in the 6400 yard range, yes? Is that the men's rating or the women's rating?

The men's rating of course. Since we are comparing differentials of boys form similar yardage. Apples to apples comparison.

LOL!! Apples to apples.

Don't know what's funny. The debate was them playing from the same tees on the same golf course. So you use the same rating. The 100th ranked LPGA player is about the same as a male with a tournament average differential of 1 counting all scores. And the 50th ranked junior in FL is considerably better than that. The top juniors in FL and it wouldn't even be close. The top junior in FL could give the 100th ranked LPGA tour player 2-3 strokes a side playing from the same tees.

I agree with everything you wrote here. No problem.

But using course ratings that are designed for men that hit the ball an average distance and using that same rating for women who hit the ball in many cases 75 or more yards shorter off the tee is hardly apples to apples and is not factual evidence of anything.

They have ratings for men and for women for a reason. I know you know that so I'm not going to belabor the point, but it's is not apples to apples, not even close.

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

chocolate_rehab · August 23, 2016

I think it actually worse the other way around that the women are sexist. There are far more "mens" leagues in all sports that allow women to play in them then there are women's leagues that allow men to play in them.

For instance I am sure there are many men who can not make it to the US (Mens) Open who would love to play in the US Women's Open and would be good enough to do so, but this would never be allowed. However the Men's event allows women to compete and cause the potential exclusion of male player who does not have other options they can pursue. The Open Championship is the same.

The PGA tour does exclude women, however the LPGA tour excludes men. You find the this much more often in junior athletics.

LOL. I...just....this probably the dumbest, most hilarious thing I've read all day, and I work in Hollywood. I'd thank you if I thought you were trolling, but I fear you're serious. Wow. Good god, can't wait to see some try and defend/agree with this position.

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

Again, I agree with your conclusion. The point is that you can't compare men/boys-that-are-almost men to women. That's why there is a men's rating and a women's rating. Because there is literally no comparison. Apples to apples or otherwise. Of course a boy that hits the ball 300 yards and is tournament tested is going to beat a woman that hits it 60 yards (being generous) shorter. The real head scratcher is why you even feel the compulsive need to defend that stance.

chocolate_rehab · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

It's not level from the same tee. This is very simple.

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

They

Don't

Compare

at all

period

Hawkeye77 · August 23, 2016

When all is flushed out these are the elite high schoolers, not your average "good" high school player, so the original claim was overstated. Having said that, there are clearly some high school boys playing at a very high level in Florida and elsewhere who could beat many lower ranked LPGA players and maybe some better players any given day. Not sure that's too surprising and I can't figure out why it matters.

chocolate_rehab · August 23, 2016

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

Again, I agree with your conclusion. The point is that you can't compare men/boys-that-are-almost men to women. That's why there is a men's rating and a women's rating. Because there is literally no comparison. Apples to apples or otherwise. Of course a boy that hits the ball 300 yards and is tournament tested is going to beat a woman that hits it 60 yards (being generous) shorter. The real head scratcher is why you even feel the compulsive need to defend that stance.

THIS. Why on earth is it necessary to find the argument/line/distance where a boy/man would beat a professional female golfer? I don't understand at all what someone gains from this other than denigrating women, consciously or not. I would high five you if I could.

bogey_bakes · August 23, 2016

I am a 4 handicap. No way I could compete with an LPGA golfer--none of them. Not even close.

Their short games and overall accuracy are incredible.

Stina was 100% right and she is very dignified in her explanation--a quality that is sorely lacking in this discussion.

Krt22 · August 23, 2016

The disrespect to me comes from comparing the two games. Women sports will never be as deep as the men's side for various / obvious reasons. I could beat the hell out of some guys in a fight just as they would me. I would however say as a female , playing any sport with guys makes you better. It is just how it is. That being said , many men are sexist still when it comes to these things. I see it everywhere we go. I honestly see it worse on the club level.

I think it actually worse the other way around that the women are sexist. There are far more "mens" leagues in all sports that allow women to play in them then there are women's leagues that allow men to play in them.

For instance I am sure there are many men who can not make it to the US (Mens) Open who would love to play in the US Women's Open and would be good enough to do so, but this would never be allowed. However the Men's event allows women to compete and cause the potential exclusion of male player who does not have other options they can pursue. The Open Championship is the same.

The PGA tour does exclude women, however the LPGA tour excludes men. You find the this much more often in junior athletics.

Man I REALLY hope you are being facetious with this post.

If you are being serious you are really out of touch with reality and how/why the gender gap exists.

PixlPutterman · August 23, 2016

I was a 3 in college and our best player was actually on the women's team, she would play from the men's tee with us, using a Sunday bag with 7 clubs and EMBARASS US

2bGood · August 23, 2016

I think it actually worse the other way around that the women are sexist. There are far more "mens" leagues in all sports that allow women to play in them then there are women's leagues that allow men to play in them.

For instance I am sure there are many men who can not make it to the US (Mens) Open who would love to play in the US Women's Open and would be good enough to do so, but this would never be allowed. However the Men's event allows women to compete and cause the potential exclusion of male player who does not have other options they can pursue. The Open Championship is the same.

The PGA tour does exclude women, however the LPGA tour excludes men. You find the this much more often in junior athletics.

LOL. I...just....this probably the dumbest, most hilarious thing I've read all day, and I work in Hollywood. I'd thank you if I thought you were trolling, but I fear you're serious. Wow. Good god, can't wait to see some try and defend/agree with this position.

Dead serous! but smiling as I know it is a silly discussion. You see it in lots of things. Girls are allowed to be Boy Scouts, but boys aren't allowed to be Girl Guides. Women only gyms, but no men only gyms. There is push back on the men only golf clubs, but no push back on the (few) women only golf clubs.

As for the US Open, it is somewhat unfair the women could take away a spot from a man, but the men do not have a similar option. On a micro level I have seen high level girl take the 20th spot out of 20 away from a boy on a soccer team, and continue to play on the girls team at the high school level. The boy that was the 21st best didn't get to play high school soccer. Was this far to him? He was the the 20th best boy player in the school and in the top 21 players of any gender.

Sexism is discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The men/boys in this case are not being given equal rights - 40 spots on the soccer team for girls to compete for and 20 spots for the boys.

It is a silly discussion now as in most sports the men are far superior athletically to women, making these issue rare, but if the gap closes it won't be such a silly discussion.

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

Again, I agree with your conclusion. The point is that you can't compare men/boys-that-are-almost men to women. That's why there is a men's rating and a women's rating. Because there is literally no comparison. Apples to apples or otherwise. Of course a boy that hits the ball 300 yards and is tournament tested is going to beat a woman that hits it 60 yards (being generous) shorter. The real head scratcher is why you even feel the compulsive need to defend that stance.

What are you talking about? One most don't get it anywhere near 300 yards and two a lot of people are arguing that the 100th ranked LPGA player is better than the top junior in FL let alone the 50th. One of my players who finished t28th in said event only hits it 250 and weighs 125lbs.

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

They
Don't
Compare

at all
period

Then why are you here? The whole point of the thread is to compare them. If you don't wanna do that leave. A bunch of people seem to think a middle of the road LPGA tour player can beat tournament tested +2 men. You saying they don't compare and can't is agreeing with me. So move on

carrera · August 23, 2016

I was a 3 in college and our best player was actually on the women's team, she would play from the men's tee with us, using a Sunday bag with 7 clubs and EMBARASS US

You played college golf as a 3?

gunmetal · August 23, 2016

A good high school golfer in FL is about the same as an LPGA tour player fighting to keep her card, say 75-100 on money list. The LPGA player would finish around 30-40th in the boys junior, maybe.

I respect what you do immensely but I have never read such an ignorant comment. I really hope this is laced with sarcasm that I'm missing.

I'd like to see stats to back this up. Not even being snarky, it just didn't sound right to me, having witnessed a high school state tournament and an LPGA tournament, though obviously my sample size is small.

I just checked the 2015-16 FHSAA State Series Golf Results and the 40th ranked boys junior scored a +16 (84 & 76) and the #100 ranked LPGA player, Celine Herbin, has these recent rounds:

Didn't say high school championship, as there are many levels of high schools from A to AAAAA. I'm talking Florida State Boys Junior.

Michael Mattiace has a tournament average close to the 100th ranked LPGA tour player, from courses 600-700 yards longer and is ranked 438th in the US and outside the top 50 in FL

Wonder how he'd fare with large galleries, cameras, oh and playing for his livelihood. Just as a round with your buddies is different than your individual club championship on a massive level, high school golf and the LPGA are completely different.

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

They
Don't
Compare

at all
period

Then why are you here? The whole point of the thread is to compare them. If you don't wanna do that leave. A bunch of people seem to think a middle of the road LPGA tour player can beat tournament tested +2 men. You saying they don't compare and can't is agreeing with me. So move on

You, of all people here, should be familiar with taking something that is ridiculous, and raging against it.

I just use a lot less vitriol.

iteachgolf · August 23, 2016

When all is flushed out these are the elite high schoolers, not your average "good" high school player, so the original claim was overstated. Having said that, there are clearly some high school boys playing at a very high level in Florida and elsewhere who could beat many lower ranked LPGA players and maybe some better players any given day. Not sure that's too surprising and I can't figure out why it matters.

Average isn't good. And I didn't overstate anything. I made it clear what I considered good, 30-40th in state junior is good. Certainly not great. There are kids who finish top 10 who don't get any scholarship offers and end up playing D3 golf. There are kids that finish 30-40th that won't play college golf at all. The top junior in FL could beat Lydia Ko and make cuts in PGA Tour events.

PepsiDuck · August 23, 2016

Dead serous! but smiling as I know it is a silly discussion. You see it in lots of things. Girls are allowed to be Boy Scouts, but boys aren't allowed to be Girl Guides. Women only gyms, but no men only gyms. There is push back on the men only golf clubs, but no push back on the (few) women only golf clubs.

As for the US Open, it is somewhat unfair the women could take away a spot from a man, but the men do not have a similar option. On a micro level I have seen high level girl take the 20th spot out of 20 away from a boy on a soccer team, and continue to play on the girls team at the high school level. The boy that was the 21st best didn't get to play high school soccer. Was this far to him? He was the the 20th best boy player in the school and in the top 21 players of any gender.

Sexism is discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The men/boys in this case are not being given equal rights - 40 spots on the soccer team for girls to compete for and 20 spots for the boys.

It is a silly discussion now as in most sports the men are far superior athletically to women, making these issue rare, but if the gap closes it won't be such a silly discussion.

Welcome to America in 2016. The more impressive thing is that the most vocal individuals and groups are those who have absolutely no vested interest in [insert cause here].

b.helts · August 23, 2016

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

Again, I agree with your conclusion. The point is that you can't compare men/boys-that-are-almost men to women. That's why there is a men's rating and a women's rating. Because there is literally no comparison. Apples to apples or otherwise. Of course a boy that hits the ball 300 yards and is tournament tested is going to beat a woman that hits it 60 yards (being generous) shorter. The real head scratcher is why you even feel the compulsive need to defend that stance.

What are you talking about? One most don't get it anywhere near 300 yards and two a lot of people are arguing that the 100th ranked LPGA player is better than the top junior in FL let alone the 50th. One of my players who finished t28th in said event only hits it 250 and weighs 125lbs.

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player

A whole bunch of people? LOL

What, 2? 3?

iteachgolf · August 24, 2016

A good high school golfer in FL is about the same as an LPGA tour player fighting to keep her card, say 75-100 on money list. The LPGA player would finish around 30-40th in the boys junior, maybe.

I respect what you do immensely but I have never read such an ignorant comment. I really hope this is laced with sarcasm that I'm missing.

I'd like to see stats to back this up. Not even being snarky, it just didn't sound right to me, having witnessed a high school state tournament and an LPGA tournament, though obviously my sample size is small.

I just checked the 2015-16 FHSAA State Series Golf Results and the 40th ranked boys junior scored a +16 (84 & 76) and the #100 ranked LPGA player, Celine Herbin, has these recent rounds:

Didn't say high school championship, as there are many levels of high schools from A to AAAAA. I'm talking Florida State Boys Junior.

Michael Mattiace has a tournament average close to the 100th ranked LPGA tour player, from courses 600-700 yards longer and is ranked 438th in the US and outside the top 50 in FL

Wonder how he'd fare with large galleries, cameras, oh and playing for his livelihood. Just as a round with your buddies is different than your individual club championship on a massive level, high school golf and the LPGA are completely different.

Again it's not a high school event. It's a nationally ranked event with big galleries and over 50 college coaches in attendance. These kids are playing for their future. They're playing to get scholarship offers and opportunities. Mattiace played in the US Junior where there are plenty of cameras and galleries.

Btw he was ranked 223rd in the state

http://www.unfospreys.com/news/2016/4/27/mens-golf-ospreymgolf-adds-local-product-michael-mattiace-for-2016-17.aspx

iteachgolf · August 24, 2016

Your obviously missing the point. To judge whether two players form the same tee have similar you use the same rating. I could use the women's rating for the high school kid. It doesn't matter. You are relating them to each other on a level playing field. Literally the entire point is to translate how good an LPGA player would be in relation to a man. To do that you apply her numbers to the men's rating since you are comparing her skill to a mans. I can't believe this is that complicated for you to understand.

If we use the men's course rating, which is based on a male scratch golfer, and she has a rating above 0 that'd mean she's not as good as a male scratch golfer. It's extremely simple. Now since her scores are tournament scores we use a males tournament scores. It's absolutely is an apples to apples comparison since we are comparing her skill to a mans, which is why you use the men's course rating.

The whole point is a kid who averages 73 from 6900-7200 yards is better than a woman who averages 73 from 6400. You put them both on the same tee box and the kid wins

Again, I agree with your conclusion. The point is that you can't compare men/boys-that-are-almost men to women. That's why there is a men's rating and a women's rating. Because there is literally no comparison. Apples to apples or otherwise. Of course a boy that hits the ball 300 yards and is tournament tested is going to beat a woman that hits it 60 yards (being generous) shorter. The real head scratcher is why you even feel the compulsive need to defend that stance.

What are you talking about? One most don't get it anywhere near 300 yards and two a lot of people are arguing that the 100th ranked LPGA player is better than the top junior in FL let alone the 50th. One of my players who finished t28th in said event only hits it 250 and weighs 125lbs.

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player

A whole bunch of people? LOL

What, 2? 3?

Lot more than 2 or 3. Again the point of the thread is to compare the two together. If you don't want to do that you don't have to participate.

chocolate_rehab · August 24, 2016

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player.

No, the whole point of the argument was whether a 4HCP could beat an LPGA player. The resounding answer was HELL NO.

Then you started throwing out "well, but this young boy could beat this LPGA player" type arguments for no apparent reason other than to prove male players are superior. Which is really not necessary.

And comparing males hitting from women's tees, or women hitting from men's tees is not, and will never be "apples to apples."

BMC · August 24, 2016

I was a 3 in college and our best player was actually on the women's team, she would play from the men's tee with us, using a Sunday bag with 7 clubs and EMBARASS US

You played college golf as a 3?

There are many small college players with a 3 cap. Not unusual.

iteachgolf · August 24, 2016

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player.

No, the whole point of the argument was whether a 4HCP could beat an LPGA player. The resounding answer was HELL NO.

Then you started throwing out "well, but this young boy could beat this LPGA player" type arguments for no apparent reason other than to prove male players are superior. Which is really not necessary.

Actually I didn't say that at all. I said the middle of the road LPGA player is of a similar level to a good male high school golfer in FL.

You're the one trying to make it sexist and turn into something I never said or did. You're trying to be a white night and be a hero when nobody is being sexist at all.

wobgon · August 24, 2016

Let's try this another way:

If the course rating for men is relevant to the conversation, why isn't the course rating for women relevant?

It is. If you want to compare the ability for both players playing the same tees you could use the women's rating to calculate the boys handicap based on the women's index. So he'd go from a +3 to a +12. It doesn't matter which rating you choose as long as it's the same for both of them. Either way the boy junior golfer has a bigger differential and is the better golfer. Which is the entire point. Again the point of the discussion is how they compare on a level playing field. Which means the same rating. This is very simple.

It's not level from the same tee. This is very simple.

So you

The whole point of the argument is a bunch of people don't believe a kid who barely makes the cut at the state junior could beat an LPGA tour player.

No, the whole point of the argument was whether a 4HCP could beat an LPGA player. The resounding answer was HELL NO.

Then you started throwing out "well, but this young boy could beat this LPGA player" type arguments for no apparent reason other than to prove male players are superior. Which is really not necessary.

And comparing males hitting from women's tees, or women hitting from men's tees is not, and will never be "apples to apples."

This is a golf forum......Many topics discussed within a thread......You seem to have a problem with men.....Read your posts...It's quite obvious.