Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[flog2]

this thread is the epitome of perpetual motion

[Shilgy]

I've written this every 20 pages or so on this thread; we're now on page 63, so it's about time to tell this story again.

 

I get to play quite a bit with an LPGA pro (first full year on Tour) when she's in town; good player who has made 3 of 5 cuts so far this year, and a great kid. A friend who is also a single digit index and I play a stroke play match against her with our better ball. We each give her $20 on the first tee, and she keeps the money if she beats us, we get it back if we win. Both of us, btw, play a fair amount of tournament golf.

 

I'll repeat that in case you weren't reading carefully: two single digit men playing their better ball against an LPGA player...

 

We have gotten our money back exactly twice in approx. 25 rounds. Twice.

 

So guess how many times either one of us would have beaten her if we were playing our own ball?

 

Those of you that think that a 4 index guy could beat an LPGA pro just have dead zero idea how good LPGA pros really are.

 

We do know how good they are. They are about +1-2 men's caps. Would get annihilated by every college D1 starter, the best 16 year old kids, and every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living. Doesn't mean they aren't great, but don't see the point in turning these middling lpga players into 2000 Tiger. They are good, very good, but would get absolutely annihilated by any high ranked male amateur, as well as all pros, as well as all the top kids 16 and up.

And the other side gets carried away as well. There are D1 starters averaging over 75-76. Yes at a longer yardage. But the women is most certainly not getting "annihilated" by "every". As you stated the ladies are about +1 to +2. Which is why a 4 has little or no chance. But another +1 to +2 is not going to destroy them every time out.

[juliette91]

I've written this every 20 pages or so on this thread; we're now on page 63, so it's about time to tell this story again.

 

I get to play quite a bit with an LPGA pro (first full year on Tour) when she's in town; good player who has made 3 of 5 cuts so far this year, and a great kid. A friend who is also a single digit index and I play a stroke play match against her with our better ball. We each give her $20 on the first tee, and she keeps the money if she beats us, we get it back if we win. Both of us, btw, play a fair amount of tournament golf.

 

I'll repeat that in case you weren't reading carefully: two single digit men playing their better ball against an LPGA player...

 

We have gotten our money back exactly twice in approx. 25 rounds. Twice.

 

So guess how many times either one of us would have beaten her if we were playing our own ball?

 

Those of you that think that a 4 index guy could beat an LPGA pro just have dead zero idea how good LPGA pros really are.

 

We do know how good they are. They are about +1-2 men's caps. Would get annihilated by every college D1 starter, the best 16 year old kids, and every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living. Doesn't mean they aren't great, but don't see the point in turning these middling lpga players into 2000 Tiger. They are good, very good, but would get absolutely annihilated by any high ranked male amateur, as well as all pros, as well as all the top kids 16 and up.

 

I agree except for the hyperbole. But it sounds like you're upset that enough deference is not being paid to male amateur golfers, whether they're 16 y/o top kids or the annihilators of D1 male golf programs. No need to be, I think almost all on this thread would mostly agree with you. But your post as a response to the post about experience as a single digit male handicapper (they didn't give their handicaps and there is a HUGE range between a 9 and a 1, both "single digits") isn't on point. Nope, I'm not the decorum monitor for this thread or I wouldn't have time to do anything else in my life, but don't you think your posts should be relevant? After all, this is a thread, loose as it is, about 4 handicap male golfers vs. LPGA tour players. What do you think?

[bluedot]

I've written this every 20 pages or so on this thread; we're now on page 63, so it's about time to tell this story again.

 

I get to play quite a bit with an LPGA pro (first full year on Tour) when she's in town; good player who has made 3 of 5 cuts so far this year, and a great kid. A friend who is also a single digit index and I play a stroke play match against her with our better ball. We each give her $20 on the first tee, and she keeps the money if she beats us, we get it back if we win. Both of us, btw, play a fair amount of tournament golf.

 

I'll repeat that in case you weren't reading carefully: two single digit men playing their better ball against an LPGA player...

 

We have gotten our money back exactly twice in approx. 25 rounds. Twice.

 

So guess how many times either one of us would have beaten her if we were playing our own ball?

 

Those of you that think that a 4 index guy could beat an LPGA pro just have dead zero idea how good LPGA pros really are.

 

We do know how good they are. They are about +1-2 men's caps. Would get annihilated by every college D1 starter, the best 16 year old kids, and every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living. Doesn't mean they aren't great, but don't see the point in turning these middling lpga players into 2000 Tiger. They are good, very good, but would get absolutely annihilated by any high ranked male amateur, as well as all pros, as well as all the top kids 16 and up.

 

I don't think I wrote anything about "+1-2 men's caps, college D1 starters, the best 16 year old kids, every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living, high ranked male amateurs, or 2000 Tiger".

 

Of course, the reason that I didn't write anything about any of those was because that wasn't the question at hand, and all of those players are far, far better than a 4 index, I think you would agree. And I'll go one step farther; the LPGA pro would fare better against any of the red herrings you threw in than the 4 index. Just fwiw...

[Shilgy]

I've written this every 20 pages or so on this thread; we're now on page 63, so it's about time to tell this story again.

 

I get to play quite a bit with an LPGA pro (first full year on Tour) when she's in town; good player who has made 3 of 5 cuts so far this year, and a great kid. A friend who is also a single digit index and I play a stroke play match against her with our better ball. We each give her $20 on the first tee, and she keeps the money if she beats us, we get it back if we win. Both of us, btw, play a fair amount of tournament golf.

 

I'll repeat that in case you weren't reading carefully: two single digit men playing their better ball against an LPGA player...

 

We have gotten our money back exactly twice in approx. 25 rounds. Twice.

 

So guess how many times either one of us would have beaten her if we were playing our own ball?

 

Those of you that think that a 4 index guy could beat an LPGA pro just have dead zero idea how good LPGA pros really are.

 

We do know how good they are. They are about +1-2 men's caps. Would get annihilated by every college D1 starter, the best 16 year old kids, and every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living. Doesn't mean they aren't great, but don't see the point in turning these middling lpga players into 2000 Tiger. They are good, very good, but would get absolutely annihilated by any high ranked male amateur, as well as all pros, as well as all the top kids 16 and up.

 

I don't think I wrote anything about "+1-2 men's caps, college D1 starters, the best 16 year old kids, every pro male golfer who makes any kind of a living, high ranked male amateurs, or 2000 Tiger".

 

Of course, the reason that I didn't write anything about any of those was because that wasn't the question at hand, and all of those players are far, far better than a 4 index, I think you would agree. And I'll go one step farther; the LPGA pro would fare better against any of the red herrings you threw in than the 4 index. Just fwiw...

Good point Bdot. Guess that answers the question about the 4 and the lady. Now we need to start a thread about the lady versus "any" D1 starter.

[farmer]

The goal posts have now moved from the superb ball striking, Boo Weekly long, 4 hdcp who chips and putts with oven mitts on, to comparing LPGA players to elite men ams and pros. Although I doubt there are many 16 year old kids who could hang over 4 rounds of tournament play.

[Yuck]

Data exists already to answer this question. Look at US AM, Mid AM, Publinx Qualifiers with fields including college players well under 4 Handicaps. What is the average score of the qualifier field relative to the course rating. Do the same math with LPGA. I think you will find your answer. The average score of a field of elite amateurs might surprise you. (Not in a good way)

[Shilgy]

Data exists already to answer this question. Look at US AM, Mid AM, Publinx Qualifiers with fields including college players well under 4 Handicaps. What is the average score of the qualifier field relative to the course rating. Do the same math with LPGA. I think you will find your answer. The average score of a field of elite amateurs might surprise you. (Not in a good way)

Elite ams would not surprise me at all. They would beat the lady most of the time. My only contention from bph was the "all D1 starters" would kick a**.

[CallawayLefty]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

[dap]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

Are you serious?? A 4 handicap man averages 72.18 from 6500?? This guy would be a plus handicapper.

 

And LPGA courses are not 5000 yards. They are around 6400.

 

 

[CallawayLefty]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

Are you serious?? A 4 handicap man averages 72.18 from 6500?? This guy would be a plus handicapper.

 

And LPGA courses are not 5000 yards. They are around 6400.

 

Hey man, whatever it takes to help you sleep at night.

[farmer]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

This is documentary stuff here. 60 Minutes, 20/20 will be all over it.

[PowderedToastMan]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

Are you serious?? A 4 handicap man averages 72.18 from 6500?? This guy would be a plus handicapper.

 

And LPGA courses are not 5000 yards. They are around 6400.

I have a feeling dap is a robot becoming self aware, but hasn't learned sarcasm yet.

[dap]

Wait, this thread is about a 4 handicap MAN playing a WOMAN pro? Haha - is this serious? The 4 handicap man is going to hit it like 290, or a good 70 yards past the woman pro. The only reason the LPGA players can even get it under par is because their courses are like 5,000 yards long. 4 handicap men average around 72.18 or better from 6,500, but who knows how low they'd go if they played those hokey LPGA courses.

Are you serious?? A 4 handicap man averages 72.18 from 6500?? This guy would be a plus handicapper.

 

And LPGA courses are not 5000 yards. They are around 6400.

I have a feeling dap is a robot becoming self aware, but hasn't learned sarcasm yet.

LOL you might be right! I'm only programmed to detect sarcasm by facial expressions and tone of voice.

[dhc1]

I've written this every 20 pages or so on this thread; we're now on page 63, so it's about time to tell this story again.

 

I get to play quite a bit with an LPGA pro (first full year on Tour) when she's in town; good player who has made 3 of 5 cuts so far this year, and a great kid. A friend who is also a single digit index and I play a stroke play match against her with our better ball. We each give her $20 on the first tee, and she keeps the money if she beats us, we get it back if we win. Both of us, btw, play a fair amount of tournament golf.

 

I'll repeat that in case you weren't reading carefully: two single digit men playing their better ball against an LPGA player...

 

We have gotten our money back exactly twice in approx. 25 rounds. Twice.

 

So guess how many times either one of us would have beaten her if we were playing our own ball?

 

Those of you that think that a 4 index guy could beat an LPGA pro just have dead zero idea how good LPGA pros really are.

 

Bluedot,

 

How often would you estimate that you beat a scratch player heads up? or a +1?

[golfer07840]

this thread is the epitome of perpetual motion

 

I just saw something that the PGA of America is doing a Senior LPGA event in French Lick, Indiana this year.

 

So of course this begs the question... can a 4 beat one of the senior Pros? The Michelle McGanns, the Julie Inksters of the world...

 

I'm kidding, I'm kidding....

[Yuck]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

[ThinkingPlus]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

[Argonne69]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

 

She's played in 4 events, and made the cut in each. It hasn't been a great season, with 24T being her best finish. She does have rounds of 79, 76, and 75, so I guess there is a glimmer of hope for the 4 HC. However, given that her scoring average is 71.44, the glimmer is pretty weak.

[Shilgy]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

 

She's played in 4 events, and made the cut in each. It hasn't been a great season, with 24T being her best finish. She does have rounds of 79, 76, and 75, so I guess there is a glimmer of hope for the 4 HC. However, given that her scoring average is 71.44, the glimmer is pretty weak.

and the 4's average is about 7 higher than that-in sh**s and giggles rounds.

[Argonne69]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

 

She's played in 4 events, and made the cut in each. It hasn't been a great season, with 24T being her best finish. She does have rounds of 79, 76, and 75, so I guess there is a glimmer of hope for the 4 HC. However, given that her scoring average is 71.44, the glimmer is pretty weak.

and the 4's average is about 7 higher than that-in sh**s and giggles rounds.

 

Yeah, but remember that the 4 gets totally serious in competition. He has the eye of the tiger. Eats rusty nails for breakfast.

[dap]

People seem to be rubbishing male 4 handicappers but a genuine 4 is usually a relatively long hitter and longer than the average LPGA player. He is also capable of shooting par and maybe once in a blue moon under par. A low ranked LPGA player is low ranked usually because she shoots a lot more over par rounds than a high ranked player. Based on this a 4 handicapper has a chance to beat a low ranked LPGA player albeit maybe once every 30 rounds( wild guess). I'm sure a maths guy could do the stats and get a more accurate prediction.

[deadsolid...shank]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

 

She's played in 4 events, and made the cut in each. It hasn't been a great season, with 24T being her best finish. She does have rounds of 79, 76, and 75, so I guess there is a glimmer of hope for the 4 HC. However, given that her scoring average is 71.44, the glimmer is pretty weak.

and the 4's average is about 7 higher than that-in sh**s and giggles rounds.

 

Nobody disputes the 4's "average" round is going to be a lot higher. That's a given. It also has nothing to do with the topic.

 

You shot 69 off a six. You think that wouldn't have beaten 1 single player. Granted, if you played 100 (or 50, which I think is a better number), she wins the vast majority of the remaining ones, but that one round.......

 

There just needs to be more criteria on the type of competition for this to be more viable. It's too general. People like me can always fall back on that one round "catch lightening in a bottle" scenario?

[Argonne69]

People seem to be rubbishing male 4 handicappers but a genuine 4 is usually a relatively long hitter and longer than the average LPGA player. He is also capable of shooting par and maybe once in a blue moon under par. A low ranked LPGA player is low ranked usually because she shoots a lot more over par rounds than a high ranked player. Based on this a 4 handicapper has a chance to beat a low ranked LPGA player albeit maybe once every 30 rounds( wild guess). I'm sure a maths guy could do the stats and get a more accurate prediction.

 

I guess if you keep repeating something often enough people will begin to believe it. Why is a 4 a long hitter? By definition, a scratch golfer averages 250 off the tee. A 4 could very easily be shorter than 250.

[CallawayLefty]

I would bet the 4 Handicapper would lose to Julie Inkster more than half the time.

 

Change "half" to "all" and you will be much closer to correct.

 

She's played in 4 events, and made the cut in each. It hasn't been a great season, with 24T being her best finish. She does have rounds of 79, 76, and 75, so I guess there is a glimmer of hope for the 4 HC. However, given that her scoring average is 71.44, the glimmer is pretty weak.

and the 4's average is about 7 higher than that-in sh**s and giggles rounds.

 

Nobody disputes the 4's "average" round is going to be a lot higher. That's a given. It also has nothing to do with the topic.

 

You shot 69 off a six. You think that wouldn't have beaten 1 single player. Granted, if you played 100 (or 50, which I think is a better number), she wins the vast majority of the remaining ones, but that one round.......

 

There just needs to be more criteria on the type of competition for this to be more viable. It's too general. People like me can always fall back on that one round "catch lightening in a bottle" scenario

 

Yeah. For example, Julie Inkster could fall into a sinkhole mid-round, never to be seen again. If the 4 presses on and finishes his 85, that darn sure beats Julie's DNF. Great discussion topic. Honestly.

[deadsolid...shank]

Not all fours shoot 85.

[dap]

People seem to be rubbishing male 4 handicappers but a genuine 4 is usually a relatively long hitter and longer than the average LPGA player. He is also capable of shooting par and maybe once in a blue moon under par. A low ranked LPGA player is low ranked usually because she shoots a lot more over par rounds than a high ranked player. Based on this a 4 handicapper has a chance to beat a low ranked LPGA player albeit maybe once every 30 rounds( wild guess). I'm sure a maths guy could do the stats and get a more accurate prediction.

 

I guess if you keep repeating something often enough people will begin to believe it. Why is a 4 a long hitter? By definition, a scratch golfer averages 250 off the tee. A 4 could very easily be shorter than 250.

I didn't say all 4's are long hitters but I they aren't going to be short knockers either. I'm saying this relative to LPGA players, not PGA. Genuine 4's are capable of shooting par and you won't be able to do that averaging 210 on a 6500 yard course.

 

250 yards is just a definition of a scratch player. The vast majority of scratch players are going to be longer than 250.

[dap]

If a 4 shoots 85 often, how is he a 4? His high scores might be 85 or more but his scoring potential could be anywhere from par to 6 over and he should be able to do it almost half of his rounds.

[CallawayLefty]

People who play to 4s in tournament conditions are usually scratch outside of tournament conditions. I'm basing this on having played in a bunch of tournaments, both as a 4 and a scratch and all the stops in between, with lots of other players with handicaps in the range of scratch (or better) to 4. When real 4s play real tournaments, they have trouble breaking 80. And all of the scores cited for the LPGA players are tournament scores, with the ability to pay their house payment riding on the line.

[dap]

People who play to 4s in tournament conditions are usually scratch outside of tournament conditions. I'm basing this on having played in a bunch of tournaments, both as a 4 and a scratch and all the stops in between, with lots of other players with handicaps in the range of scratch (or better) to 4. When real 4s play real tournaments, they have trouble breaking 80. And all of the scores cited for the LPGA players are tournament scores, with the ability to pay their house payment riding on the line.

No one has ever said a 4 is as good as a low ranked LPGA but he does have the potential to beat her if he plays to his potential and she has an off day. If you look at the leaderboard at an LPGA tournament you might see a few 80's thrown in there. They are human too.