Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[deadsolid...shank]

To the last couple posts perhaps some events they shorten the course. We all know the PGA and USGA do the same most events. I can only speak of three of the venues used here in Phoenix and they they played essentially the full yardage every day. I noticed this year one tee was up a bit and another hole they used a back tee that same day that usually they did not use. All three courses played between 6600-6700 every day. Same with the pins. and greens rolled and fast and as many tucked pins as most mens tour events.

I think of this part of the discussion as being similar to a buddies comment recently that I posted earler. "No woman can outdrive me" he says. When asked how far he hits it he admits 250 on a good drive but that he can pop one 270 sometimes. When told Lexi and a couple others AVERAGE over that he doubles down with the "no woman can outdrive me" bit.

If we do not think 7200 is too short for the men why is 6300 short for the ladies? Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

Cmon Shilgy. Wasn't the cut four under there? It wasn't set up tough. They're obviously great players, but they don't all shoot lights out like that if it's legimately set up difficult. Stupples is the one who said it. She knows, she's there inside the ropes.

[Shilgy]

To the last couple posts perhaps some events they shorten the course. We all know the PGA and USGA do the same most events. I can only speak of three of the venues used here in Phoenix and they they played essentially the full yardage every day. I noticed this year one tee was up a bit and another hole they used a back tee that same day that usually they did not use. All three courses played between 6600-6700 every day. Same with the pins. and greens rolled and fast and as many tucked pins as most mens tour events.

I think of this part of the discussion as being similar to a buddies comment recently that I posted earler. "No woman can outdrive me" he says. When asked how far he hits it he admits 250 on a good drive but that he can pop one 270 sometimes. When told Lexi and a couple others AVERAGE over that he doubles down with the "no woman can outdrive me" bit.

If we do not think 7200 is too short for the men why is 6300 short for the ladies? Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

Cmon Shilgy. Wasn't the cut four under there? It wasn't set up tough. They're obviously great players, but they don't all shoot lights out like that if it's legimately set up difficult. Stupples is the one who said it. She knows, she's there inside the ropes.

We were there. There was little to no rough, not that the players care as you can look at their fairways hit stat. Greens were fast and smooth but pins were not easy. It's not the hardest course, granted. Shows that length is not everything.

[deadsolid...shank]

To the last couple posts perhaps some events they shorten the course. We all know the PGA and USGA do the same most events. I can only speak of three of the venues used here in Phoenix and they they played essentially the full yardage every day. I noticed this year one tee was up a bit and another hole they used a back tee that same day that usually they did not use. All three courses played between 6600-6700 every day. Same with the pins. and greens rolled and fast and as many tucked pins as most mens tour events.

I think of this part of the discussion as being similar to a buddies comment recently that I posted earler. "No woman can outdrive me" he says. When asked how far he hits it he admits 250 on a good drive but that he can pop one 270 sometimes. When told Lexi and a couple others AVERAGE over that he doubles down with the "no woman can outdrive me" bit.

If we do not think 7200 is too short for the men why is 6300 short for the ladies? Bottom line is a 4 is a 4 and a scratch to +2(in a nod to dhc above) is much better. We have all heard that the difference between the tour pro male and the 4 is bigger in reality than the 4 to an 18. Why do you think moving up to 6300 or back to 7000 would narrow the gap between the 4 and the lady pro a lot?

 

Cmon Shilgy. Wasn't the cut four under there? It wasn't set up tough. They're obviously great players, but they don't all shoot lights out like that if it's legimately set up difficult. Stupples is the one who said it. She knows, she's there inside the ropes.

We were there. There was little to no rough, not that the players care as you can look at their fairways hit stat. Greens were fast and smooth but pins were not easy. It's not the hardest course, granted. Shows that length is not everything.

 

I will say watching on TV some of the pins looked like pretty good ones. But in any tour, when they all go low there's a reason.

 

And again, what about what Stupples had to say? Is there anyone else commenting who knows more about what she's talking about?

[Shilgy]

Stupples random notes

2009 best score 65 at Corning Classic 6223 yards

2013 best finish at ShopRite classic. The one Surf references above. 6155 yards. Which interesting enough is just about exactly an equivalent distance to the men playing Harbor Town this week.

 

Personally I think Stupples has a bit of the "I walked miles to school, uphill both ways, in the snow" attitude. Could be I'm right as her best finishes appear to be at shorter courses and her big win, as mentioned earlier, she started the last round double eagle, eagle. Two short par 5's to start. -3 after 2 and today's courses are too easy?

She could be right though and it may be intentional. Perhaps the LPGA has decided to play courses the equivalent of the men. And still need to find a correct balance of length and difficulty. There have been a lot more 59's on the PGA tour. Too short and easy there as well?

 

At the end of the day most posters have agreed the Lpga player is quite a bit better than a 4. Even those struggling to keep a card. Personally I think the pro that is not just tournament tested but actually playing for her livelihood and averaging a bit over 72 is quite a bit better than the 4, even one that plays events for fun, that averages 76 or so on his good half of scores.

 

But hey, it's golf. The 4 does have a chance.

[nsxguy]

[EntourageLife]

Still debating this?

[farmer]

Tournament 4's and vanity 4's? Even where I live, a 4 is in 2nd flight and gets buried by the 'baggers. Bobby Jones much preferred 36 hole matches, he accepted that luck could get him for 18, but never for 36. So, it's possible a 4 could take a struggling LPGA player, but if it happened, he needs to take the money and run.

[CallawayLefty]

Was just thinking this through a little and thought I'd chime in. Has anyone considered the obvious distance gap between the 4 handicap and the LPGA player? A lot of 4 handicaps average about 290 off the tee, and LPGA players are pretty short. I know they're really good with their hybrids and stuff, but I think the distance advantage could be a huge factor here.

[Bad9]

There has been lots of discussion of the mythical, long driving 4hc in this thread.

[CallawayLefty]

There has been lots of discussion of the mythical, long driving 4hc in this thread.

 

Hmmmm. K - thx.

 

What about the 4 handicap's short game? Most 4 handicaps I know are sort of lackluster in the short game arena due to work and family obligations that prevent them from practicing. But if you moved them up to the rinky-dink tees the LPGA plays, their 290 average off the tee would probably start to outshine any short game problems they have.

 

Could start to get kind of interesting!

[Argonne69]

There has been lots of discussion of the mythical, long driving 4hc in this thread.

 

Hmmmm. K - thx.

 

What about the 4 handicap's short game? Most 4 handicaps I know are sort of lackluster in the short game arena due to work and family obligations that prevent them from practicing. But if you moved them up to the rinky-dink tees the LPGA plays, their 290 average off the tee would probably start to outshine any short game problems they have.

 

Could start to get kind of interesting!

 

Huh? Long hitters *never* compensate for a poor short game. If they did, the PGA would be filled with these unicorn long drivers. When has Jamie Sadlowski made a cut?

[Bad9]

There has been lots of discussion of the mythical, long driving 4hc in this thread.

 

Hmmmm. K - thx.

 

What about the 4 handicap's short game? Most 4 handicaps I know are sort of lackluster in the short game arena due to work and family obligations that prevent them from practicing. But if you moved them up to the rinky-dink tees the LPGA plays, their 290 average off the tee would probably start to outshine any short game problems they have.

 

Could start to get kind of interesting!

 

I have never seen(as many others in this thread have also noted) a 4hc who averages 290 off the tee with a lackluster short game. You are just retreading a number of assumptions that have already been discussed and debunked earlier.

[Shilgy]

Still debating this?

Not really-at this point it is mostly silly comments.

[PixlPutterman]

How is this still a thing? Pro's make their living 100 yards and in. 4 handicaps dont and thats why they have day jobs.

[nsxguy]

So we're back to this (for the 14th time)? So I guess you'd take the position that a 36 handicapper can beat an LPGA player. I mean sure, it will only happen about 1 in a trillion times if the LPGA player falls down and breaks her arm mid round...but it can happen. The implied topic, although imprecisely stated, was always whether a 4 handicap can more or less "keep up" with an LPGA player. Not whether in the event of a massive statistical anomaly the 4 handicap can beat an LPGA player. One is an interesting question with a simple answer (the 4 handicap loses at least 99% of the time). The other is an impossibly narrow question with a silly answer - e.g. that Lydia Ko can be beaten by a 4 handicap if she gets run over by a Ferrari mid round.

 

Was just thinking this through a little and thought I'd chime in. Has anyone considered the obvious distance gap between the 4 handicap and the LPGA player? A lot of 4 handicaps average about 290 off the tee, and LPGA players are pretty short. I know they're really good with their hybrids and stuff, but I think the distance advantage could be a huge factor here.

 

Hmmmm. K - thx.

 

What about the 4 handicap's short game? Most 4 handicaps I know are sort of lackluster in the short game arena due to work and family obligations that prevent them from practicing. But if you moved them up to the rinky-dink tees the LPGA plays, their 290 average off the tee would probably start to outshine any short game problems they have.

 

Could start to get kind of interesting!

 

I have never seen(as many others in this thread have also noted) a 4hc who averages 290 off the tee with a lackluster short game. You are just retreading a number of assumptions that have already been discussed and debunked earlier.

 

Don't get sucked in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, again,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[Bad9]

So we're back to this (for the 14th time)? So I guess you'd take the position that a 36 handicapper can beat an LPGA player. I mean sure, it will only happen about 1 in a trillion times if the LPGA player falls down and breaks her arm mid round...but it can happen. The implied topic, although imprecisely stated, was always whether a 4 handicap can more or less "keep up" with an LPGA player. Not whether in the event of a massive statistical anomaly the 4 handicap can beat an LPGA player. One is an interesting question with a simple answer (the 4 handicap loses at least 99% of the time). The other is an impossibly narrow question with a silly answer - e.g. that Lydia Ko can be beaten by a 4 handicap if she gets run over by a Ferrari mid round.

 

Was just thinking this through a little and thought I'd chime in. Has anyone considered the obvious distance gap between the 4 handicap and the LPGA player? A lot of 4 handicaps average about 290 off the tee, and LPGA players are pretty short. I know they're really good with their hybrids and stuff, but I think the distance advantage could be a huge factor here.

 

Hmmmm. K - thx.

 

What about the 4 handicap's short game? Most 4 handicaps I know are sort of lackluster in the short game arena due to work and family obligations that prevent them from practicing. But if you moved them up to the rinky-dink tees the LPGA plays, their 290 average off the tee would probably start to outshine any short game problems they have.

 

Could start to get kind of interesting!

 

I have never seen(as many others in this thread have also noted) a 4hc who averages 290 off the tee with a lackluster short game. You are just retreading a number of assumptions that have already been discussed and debunked earlier.

 

Don't get sucked in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, again,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

 

I know but I did :russian_roulette:

[moegolfer11]

"Rinky Dink" lol

[CallawayLefty]

It's just too fun not to wade back in every few days. It's a like a good "that's what she said" joke...just never going to get old.

[juststeve]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

[TheGeekGolfer]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

You might as well say... Lower ranked LPGA players that barely make the cut are lower ranked for a reason, they aren't very good, they make bogeys and doubles and aren't as consistent.

 

This is said a bit tongue in cheek. My point is this... there are 4 HC players that are trending down to scratch, they just haven't gotten there, yet(?). Just like the fact there are lower ranked LPGA players that barely made the tour but don't have the talent/drive/consistency to move up. Or they could be trending up and break into the top 20 sometime later.

 

Your HC is NOT a stagnant number, it doesn't define every round of golf you play.

[Barfolomew]

Heck a 4 cap could beat Jason Day...its golf if 4 cap has a great day and Day catches the water a couple times.

 

Thats the prob with comparing....If a 4 cap and LPGA pro have regular days the answer is in the stats so no need to play ........but the discussion is given the freaky nature of golf what are the odds of a 4 cap to beat a pro...damn it thats in the stats too so no need to play...Im going bowling!

[juststeve]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

You might as well say... Lower ranked LPGA players that barely make the cut are lower ranked for a reason, they aren't very good, they make bogeys and doubles and aren't as consistent.

 

This is said a bit tongue in cheek. My point is this... there are 4 HC players that are trending down to scratch, they just haven't gotten there, yet(?). Just like the fact there are lower ranked LPGA players that barely made the tour but don't have the talent/drive/consistency to move up. Or they could be trending up and break into the top 20 sometime later.

 

Your HC is NOT a stagnant number, it doesn't define every round of golf you play.

 

Our hero's handicap is based on his best 10 scores out of the last 20. Are you suggesting that on the magic day he ceases to be a four and becomes scratch for that day? Even were that the case he would have trouble beating an LPGA player unless you also stipulate that the random LPGA player had an unusually bad round. Perhaps the pressure of playing a 4 handicap man.

 

Just as an example, a scratch player, when he plays to his handicap, shoots around 79 at Colonial in Fort Worth. Annika shot 71, 74 to miss the cut there, playing from the championship tees, under pressure, and with the course set up for the best players in the world. That's 13 strokes better than a scratch man. What would our 4 trending down shoot out there. But...But...what if he was a 4 that averaged 290 off the tee? He'd still be a 4 and very happy to break 80. A lot of delusions of grandeur on this threads.

 

Steve

[TheGeekGolfer]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

You might as well say... Lower ranked LPGA players that barely make the cut are lower ranked for a reason, they aren't very good, they make bogeys and doubles and aren't as consistent.

 

This is said a bit tongue in cheek. My point is this... there are 4 HC players that are trending down to scratch, they just haven't gotten there, yet(?). Just like the fact there are lower ranked LPGA players that barely made the tour but don't have the talent/drive/consistency to move up. Or they could be trending up and break into the top 20 sometime later.

 

Your HC is NOT a stagnant number, it doesn't define every round of golf you play.

 

Our hero's handicap is based on his best 10 scores out of the last 20. Are you suggesting that on the magic day he ceases to be a four and becomes scratch for that day? Even were that the case he would have trouble beating an LPGA player unless you also stipulate that the random LPGA player had an unusually bad round. Perhaps the pressure of playing a 4 handicap man.

 

Just as an example, a scratch player, when he plays to his handicap, shoots around 79 at Colonial in Fort Worth. Annika shot 71, 74 to miss the cut there, playing from the championship tees, under pressure, and with the course set up for the best players in the world. That's 13 strokes better than a scratch man. What would our 4 trending down shoot out there. But...But...what if he was a 4 that averaged 290 off the tee? He'd still be a 4 and very happy to break 80. A lot of delusions of grandeur on this threads.

 

Steve

 

Oh god, not this again. Annika is/was the number ONE women's player at the time. What would the #150th ranked LPGA player shot at that course? We are NOT talking about "can a 4 hdcp beat the TOP LPGA pros", it's "can a 4 hdcp beat an (any) LPGA pro". Yes, the odds are slim. To get them closer to where there is an outside chance, you need to have a lower ranked LPGA pro and a trending downward, long hitting 4 HC.

 

And, NO, he doesn't 'become scratch', but he could shoot even, 1, or 2 over par. Just as any player can shoot better (or worse) than their HDCP. You don't 'become scratch' just because you shoot even par one time. However, it's still possible to shoot 4 strokes better than your HDCP. That's what makes a pro different, consistency. That's also what makes the lower ranked LPGA, the lower ranked player. She's NOT as consistent. She's just as likely to shoot a 78 as a 68.

 

 

I (and many others) are not saying any 4 hdcp can beat any LPGA pro, I am qualifying what it would take to make it more probable.

[Outlier]

Serena Williams is apparently the greatest tennis player of all time, and she was destroyed by some guy who was ranked 500th in the world or something.

 

I'm actually not aware of many matches between LPGA players and high-ranked male amateurs.

 

Not equivalent.

[Lime Shark]

Serena Williams is apparently the greatest tennis player of all time, and she was destroyed by some guy who was ranked 500th in the world or something.

 

I'm actually not aware of many matches between LPGA players and high-ranked male amateurs.

 

Not equivalent.

NCAA tennis serve speeds:

 

Men: 82 to 104.

Women: 64 to 89.

 

 

[95124hacker]

Any 4's out there who are willing to share their last 30 scores? I can run a statistical analysis & tell you the probability you will beat one of the lower ranked LPGA players (minus the pressure of tee-ing it up before crowds).

[DavePelz4]

It's just too fun not to wade back in every few days. It's a like a good "that's what she said" joke...just never going to get old.

 

That's what she said.

[juliette91]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

You might as well say... Lower ranked LPGA players that barely make the cut are lower ranked for a reason, they aren't very good, they make bogeys and doubles and aren't as consistent.

 

This is said a bit tongue in cheek. My point is this... there are 4 HC players that are trending down to scratch, they just haven't gotten there, yet(?). Just like the fact there are lower ranked LPGA players that barely made the tour but don't have the talent/drive/consistency to move up. Or they could be trending up and break into the top 20 sometime later.

 

Your HC is NOT a stagnant number, it doesn't define every round of golf you play.

 

Well, with that variable I guess the OP should have thought things out better, huh? When you play in a tournament do they use the trending or actual handicap? How are we to judge any competition if we have to include what might happen in the future in calculating how to handicap what is happening now? I guess you can price real estate that way but then you run up against those damn appraisers who only look at past sales. Frustrating, huh? Makes me want to hit the drive 60 yards past the LPGA players and use a lob wedge when they're hitting 5 hybrids. That way I birdie all the holes and sail past 'em!

[TheGeekGolfer]

4 handicap golfers are 4's for a reason. They don't play very well. If they could play they wouldn't be 4's. LPGA players can play and would always be a prohibitive favorite to beat a 4,no matter how manly he might be.

 

Steve

You might as well say... Lower ranked LPGA players that barely make the cut are lower ranked for a reason, they aren't very good, they make bogeys and doubles and aren't as consistent.

 

This is said a bit tongue in cheek. My point is this... there are 4 HC players that are trending down to scratch, they just haven't gotten there, yet(?). Just like the fact there are lower ranked LPGA players that barely made the tour but don't have the talent/drive/consistency to move up. Or they could be trending up and break into the top 20 sometime later.

 

Your HC is NOT a stagnant number, it doesn't define every round of golf you play.

 

Well, with that variable I guess the OP should have thought things out better, huh? When you play in a tournament do they use the trending or actual handicap? How are we to judge any competition if we have to include what might happen in the future in calculating how to handicap what is happening now? I guess you can price real estate that way but then you run up against those damn appraisers who only look at past sales. Frustrating, huh? Makes me want to hit the drive 60 yards past the LPGA players and use a lob wedge when they're hitting 5 hybrids. That way I birdie all the holes and sail past 'em!

Do you even understand sports? ;-) Players can get hot in any sport, have a good day and shoot or play better than their average, that's what sports is all about. If you are a 4 hdcp, you are more than capable of shooting a round of par or better. You have all the swing mechanics to do it. Does that mean you are automatically 'scratch' and therefore are NOT a 4 hdcp? NO! That's not how it works.

 

When I say 'trending down to scratch', I mean they are actively getting better and maybe a year ago they were an 8 hdcp. Now, you have been able to practice more, working out, etc. Figured out a way to be better putting, gained more knowledge on what shot to hit at which time. Now that 8 hdcp has dropped to a 4. Who knows, given more practice, that player might be scratch in a couple of more years.

[Shilgy]

Any 4's out there who are willing to share their last 30 scores? I can run a statistical analysis & tell you the probability you will beat one of the lower ranked LPGA players (minus the pressure of tee-ing it up before crowds).

I could share but imo the biggest variable is the weather. My high scores are mostly on windy days where the lady pro would have a higher day as well(not nearly as bothered as am I however). My good days are mostly with perfect golf weather and the pro would easily beat me then as well. That's a long way of saying you can run probabilities all you want but the graphs are largely weather related. The scores are not without cause. So the pro and I would largely go up and down scoring together.