Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[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.

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.

 

No. They aren't human. That's what I'm saying. Pro golfers are not human - male or female. There is nobody as good at golf as they are. You almost have to have a screw loose to play as good as they play. A 4 handicap would have difficulty making it through his bucket of balls on the range in front of that crowd. He'd be lucky to even make contact with his first tee shot. He'd be lucky to not miss every 1 foot putt he had the whole day. Sure maybe after a few tries at it he'd cool down and start shooting 78-82, but for the purposes of this little experiment, he has no chance. And if you reduce it to a casual round, then the LPGA player is probably more likely to shoot 67 than her average of 72.18 or whatever, so it is still equally unlikely outside of the tournament scenario.

[dap]

I agree the top ranked women players aren't human but it's a well known fact that the depth of talent in the women's game is not that deep. There are plenty of YouTube videos of Mark Crossfield and Rick Shiels playing against women pros and they more than hold their own. Crossfield and Shiels don't shoot lights out either from what I have seen. They are more teaching pros similar to 4 handicappers.

[TheGeekGolfer]

 

 

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 think of that as more a GUIDELINE, rather than a definition for a scratch golfer. Plus, it's not that they average 250, it's that they CAN hit tee shots that average 250. That's the low end of the USGA definition.

 

It's really to differentiate the players that score par or better on short or executive courses. Not really scratch, since it won't travel to longer courses if you can't hit some forced carries and long par 4s. Also helps to differentiate between 'women scratch', 'senior scratch', and just plain 'scratch', with no qualifier.

 

 

[Bad9]

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 think of that as more a GUIDELINE, rather than a definition for a scratch golfer. Plus, it's not that they average 250, it's that they CAN hit tee shots that average 250. That's the low end of the USGA definition.

 

It's really to differentiate the players that score par or better on short or executive courses. Not really scratch, since it won't travel to longer courses if you can't hit some forced carries and long par 4s. Also helps to differentiate between 'women scratch', 'senior scratch', and just plain 'scratch', with no qualifier.

 

?

[TheGeekGolfer]

 

 

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 think of that as more a GUIDELINE, rather than a definition for a scratch golfer. Plus, it's not that they average 250, it's that they CAN hit tee shots that average 250. That's the low end of the USGA definition.

 

It's really to differentiate the players that score par or better on short or executive courses. Not really scratch, since it won't travel to longer courses if you can't hit some forced carries and long par 4s. Also helps to differentiate between 'women scratch', 'senior scratch', and just plain 'scratch', with no qualifier.

 

?

???

 

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

[Bad9]

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 think of that as more a GUIDELINE, rather than a definition for a scratch golfer. Plus, it's not that they average 250, it's that they CAN hit tee shots that average 250. That's the low end of the USGA definition.

 

It's really to differentiate the players that score par or better on short or executive courses. Not really scratch, since it won't travel to longer courses if you can't hit some forced carries and long par 4s. Also helps to differentiate between 'women scratch', 'senior scratch', and just plain 'scratch', with no qualifier.

 

?

???

 

Thanks for adding to the discussion.

 

You added a whole bunch of terminology and ideas I had never heard of before. Therefore ?.

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

 

 

 

No. They aren't human. That's what I'm saying. Pro golfers are not human - male or female. There is nobody as good at golf as they are. You almost have to have a screw loose to play as good as they play. A 4 handicap would have difficulty making it through his bucket of balls on the range in front of that crowd. He'd be lucky to even make contact with his first tee shot. He'd be lucky to not miss every 1 foot putt he had the whole day. Sure maybe after a few tries at it he'd cool down and start shooting 78-82, but for the purposes of this little experiment, he has no chance. And if you reduce it to a casual round, then the LPGA player is probably more likely to shoot 67 than her average of 72.18 or whatever, so it is still equally unlikely outside of the tournament scenario.

 

Little over the top there maybe? Lucky to make it through a bucket of balls? Miss every one foot putt? C'mon be at least a little realistic.

[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.

 

Bluedot,

 

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

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

[ThinkingPlus]

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?

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

[North Texas]

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?

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

 

That's exactly what I was thinking :derisive:

[Yuck]

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?

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

 

That's exactly what I was thinking :derisive:

 

 

Gausse was a dummy

[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.

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.

 

 

 

No. They aren't human. That's what I'm saying. Pro golfers are not human - male or female. There is nobody as good at golf as they are. You almost have to have a screw loose to play as good as they play. A 4 handicap would have difficulty making it through his bucket of balls on the range in front of that crowd. He'd be lucky to even make contact with his first tee shot. He'd be lucky to not miss every 1 foot putt he had the whole day. Sure maybe after a few tries at it he'd cool down and start shooting 78-82, but for the purposes of this little experiment, he has no chance. And if you reduce it to a casual round, then the LPGA player is probably more likely to shoot 67 than her average of 72.18 or whatever, so it is still equally unlikely outside of the tournament scenario.

 

Little over the top there maybe? Lucky to make it through a bucket of balls? Miss every one foot putt? C'mon be at least a little realistic.

 

I played in a tournament the other day where the two people I was grouped with (a 2 and 4) shot a combined 75 over par for 18 holes. This was in the scratch division of a city golf association on a 6,500 yard setup. I'm entitled to my opinions.

[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.

 

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

Yes I did. At my home course in a fun round. Rating 71.6 so probably about what the ladies play most weeks. That said the conditions were perfect-not too windy-not too hot. So as many have said, including myself by the way, yes it could/would happen. Very very rarely. How rarely is usually the point of contention.

[deadsolid...shank]

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.

 

 

 

No. They aren't human. That's what I'm saying. Pro golfers are not human - male or female. There is nobody as good at golf as they are. You almost have to have a screw loose to play as good as they play. A 4 handicap would have difficulty making it through his bucket of balls on the range in front of that crowd. He'd be lucky to even make contact with his first tee shot. He'd be lucky to not miss every 1 foot putt he had the whole day. Sure maybe after a few tries at it he'd cool down and start shooting 78-82, but for the purposes of this little experiment, he has no chance. And if you reduce it to a casual round, then the LPGA player is probably more likely to shoot 67 than her average of 72.18 or whatever, so it is still equally unlikely outside of the tournament scenario.

 

Little over the top there maybe? Lucky to make it through a bucket of balls? Miss every one foot putt? C'mon be at least a little realistic.

 

I played in a tournament the other day where the two people I was grouped with (a 2 and 4) shot a combined 75 over par for 18 holes. This was in the scratch division of a city golf association on a 6,500 yard setup. I'm entitled to my opinions.

 

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. And mine is that your statements were bordering on the edge of ridiculous.

 

And if the 2 and 4 were a combined 75 over then they're not legit handicaps. Plain and simple.

[ThinkingPlus]

 

Bluedot,

 

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

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

 

That's exactly what I was thinking :derisive:

 

 

Gausse was a dummy

 

I am guessing that was unintentional irony.

[CallawayLefty]

 

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. And mine is that your statements were bordering on the edge of ridiculous.

 

And if the 2 and 4 were a combined 75 over then they're not legit handicaps. Plain and simple.

 

Do you play in amateur tournaments? Who do you think are the guys that litter the board in the 74-78 range. They're typically all scratch or better. Tournaments are hard, and 4 handicap is actually right about the threshold where a player starts to suck far worse than their handicap when playing a legit event. I'm making generalizations. But they're pretty accurate ones, from my experience playing in and watching the leaderboards in a lot of tournaments.

[deadsolid...shank]

 

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. And mine is that your statements were bordering on the edge of ridiculous.

 

And if the 2 and 4 were a combined 75 over then they're not legit handicaps. Plain and simple.

 

Do you play in amateur tournaments? Who do you think are the guys that litter the board in the 74-78 range. They're typically all scratch or better. Tournaments are hard, and 4 handicap is actually right about the threshold where a player starts to suck far worse than their handicap when playing a legit event. I'm making generalizations. But they're pretty accurate ones, from my experience playing in and watching the leaderboards in a lot of tournaments.

 

Yes I do. A lot of them over the years. And apparently we play in two very different areas. Because the tournaments I've played in, if you're not bettering your handicap, you're not placing. Now these are far from championship caliber courses, but it would still take an awfully tough combination of course and conditions for any LEGITIMATE low single (2-4) to post the numbers you're saying. 75 over par! That's averaging 37 over par, almost 110. That's a vanity handicap.

 

And in fairness Callaway, I'm from a fairly rural area, so almost everybody that enters a stroke play event knows most of the other players, and is doing it because they think they have a legimate chance. I would believe in a larger area, the anonymity might lead more of those vanity caps to enter into these tournaments. Purely speculation on my part.

[farmer]

I think Lefty was joking on the 75 over. I have been that 74-78 player many, many times. The term "thumped" comes to mind. Who sits around thinking about Gaussian distribution? Hard to stay out of this damn thread.

[deadsolid...shank]

I think Lefty was joking on the 75 over. I have been that 74-78 player many, many times. The term "thumped" comes to mind. Who sits around thinking about Gaussian distribution? Hard to stay out of this damn thread.

 

Could be. It certainly didn't read that way to me. But it wouldn't be the first time I've missed the tone or intent of a post.

 

It is hard to stay out of. I managed for a while, then it sucks you back in!?

[ThinkingPlus]

I think Lefty was joking on the 75 over. I have been that 74-78 player many, many times. The term "thumped" comes to mind. Who sits around thinking about Gaussian distribution? Hard to stay out of this damn thread.

 

Occupational hazard. Plus I thought it was obvious that this thread was about probability and statistics. Silly me, huh.

[glk]

I think Lefty was joking on the 75 over. I have been that 74-78 player many, many times. The term "thumped" comes to mind. Who sits around thinking about Gaussian distribution? Hard to stay out of this damn thread.

 

Occupational hazard. Plus I thought it was obvious that this thread was about probability and statistics. Silly me, huh.

Distribution is more Amazonian prime. Not silly you, silly thread - just need to take a break from the green and give the red some love.

[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.

 

Bluedot,

 

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

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

 

I would say that what you have written here indicates that you, sir, are the "better math guy" that I suspected was out there somewhere. Reading your post was almost exactly like being back in math class 40 years ago; I have NO idea what you are talking about! The only difference is that I'm not going to fail a test tomorrow.

[Shilgy]

 

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. And mine is that your statements were bordering on the edge of ridiculous.

 

And if the 2 and 4 were a combined 75 over then they're not legit handicaps. Plain and simple.

 

Do you play in amateur tournaments? Who do you think are the guys that litter the board in the 74-78 range. They're typically all scratch or better. Tournaments are hard, and 4 handicap is actually right about the threshold where a player starts to suck far worse than their handicap when playing a legit event. I'm making generalizations. But they're pretty accurate ones, from my experience playing in and watching the leaderboards in a lot of tournaments.

 

Yes I do. A lot of them over the years. And apparently we play in two very different areas. Because the tournaments I've played in, if you're not bettering your handicap, you're not placing. Now these are far from championship caliber courses, but it would still take an awfully tough combination of course and conditions for any LEGITIMATE low single (2-4) to post the numbers you're saying. 75 over par! That's averaging 37 over par, almost 110. That's a vanity handicap.

 

And in fairness Callaway, I'm from a fairly rural area, so almost everybody that enters a stroke play event knows most of the other players, and is doing it because they think they have a legimate chance. I would believe in a larger area, the anonymity might lead more of those vanity caps to enter into these tournaments. Purely speculation on my part.

I would agree with you that to place you need to better your handicap. And or be plus to scratch in the first place. But Lefty is correct in that many players will shoot well over there cap in events.

[9ccat9]

Yes a 4 can beat a LPGA pro. Last place was 14 over for 2 rounds in the last event a 4 cap can shoot that for 2 rounds. Can a 4 beat a top LPGA pro...I would say much less than 1 percent.

[dap]

Yes a 4 can beat a LPGA pro. Last place was 14 over for 2 rounds in the last event a 4 cap can shoot that for 2 rounds. Can a 4 beat a top LPGA pro...I would say much less than 1 percent.

What?? Please no facts.

 

All I keep hearing is how LPGA pros drop 67's without breaking a sweat and 4's shooting 110.

[ThinkingPlus]

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?

 

I'm sure the odds are out there somewhere for how often this might happen, but I'll guess and say that I'd beat a true scratch maybe once out of 50 or more rounds? I have a buddy whose current index is +0.9, and his WORST differential in the last 20 rounds was a 6.9, with the next worst being 3.5. I had 7 differentials under 5, with the best being three rounds that were each 2.8. So on one of my three best days, I'd have had to catch him on one of his two worst, on that exact day.

 

And it might be even worse than it looks; for all I know, his two bad rounds were on terrible weather days on which I would have fared as bad or worse. The fact of the matter is that the lower the index, the more consistent the player is, and scratch players are VERY consistent; their BAD days aren't very bad.

 

It'll take a lot better math guy than me to figure the odds on this stuff, but we could play every day for quite awhile before my best day and his worst day happen on the same day. So if we're equating the scratch/+1 male to the LPGA pro, I'm not betting a dime on me on ANY given day.

 

A rough calculation based on the information you provided would be: odds on you shooting a good enough differential to beat the +0.9 on his worst days is 3/20. Odds on the +0.9 having his worst day is 2/20. Odds on both occurring are independent so I think you simple multiply the probabilities to get 3/20 x 2/20 = 6/400 or you win 3 times in 200 rounds. The better way to do this is to construct actual probability distributions for each player based on how differentials get calculated and some of the nuances of ESC using normal statistics (would be surprised if the distribution was significantly different than Gaussian).

 

I would say that what you have written here indicates that you, sir, are the "better math guy" that I suspected was out there somewhere. Reading your post was almost exactly like being back in math class 40 years ago; I have NO idea what you are talking about! The only difference is that I'm not going to fail a test tomorrow.

 

That would be "better math girl" and thank you. It has been many years since I took prob and stat, but I still remember a bit and use it periodically at work.

[CallawayLefty]

I think Lefty was joking on the 75 over. I have been that 74-78 player many, many times. The term "thumped" comes to mind. Who sits around thinking about Gaussian distribution? Hard to stay out of this damn thread.

 

Could be. It certainly didn't read that way to me. But it wouldn't be the first time I've missed the tone or intent of a post.

 

It is hard to stay out of. I managed for a while, then it sucks you back in!

 

Sadly, my dear WRX friends, I am in no way exaggerating the combined score I quoted. I'm willing to concede it's perhaps juuusssssttt a bit of an outlier :D

[CallawayLefty]

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Everyone is. And mine is that your statements were bordering on the edge of ridiculous.

 

And if the 2 and 4 were a combined 75 over then they're not legit handicaps. Plain and simple.

 

Do you play in amateur tournaments? Who do you think are the guys that litter the board in the 74-78 range. They're typically all scratch or better. Tournaments are hard, and 4 handicap is actually right about the threshold where a player starts to suck far worse than their handicap when playing a legit event. I'm making generalizations. But they're pretty accurate ones, from my experience playing in and watching the leaderboards in a lot of tournaments.

 

Yes I do. A lot of them over the years. And apparently we play in two very different areas. Because the tournaments I've played in, if you're not bettering your handicap, you're not placing. Now these are far from championship caliber courses, but it would still take an awfully tough combination of course and conditions for any LEGITIMATE low single (2-4) to post the numbers you're saying. 75 over par! That's averaging 37 over par, almost 110. That's a vanity handicap.

 

And in fairness Callaway, I'm from a fairly rural area, so almost everybody that enters a stroke play event knows most of the other players, and is doing it because they think they have a legimate chance. I would believe in a larger area, the anonymity might lead more of those vanity caps to enter into these tournaments. Purely speculation on my part.

I would agree with you that to place you need to better your handicap. And or be plus to scratch in the first place. But Lefty is correct in that many players will shoot well over there cap in events.

 

I think shooting well over your cap is the rule, not the exception. I feel like most people who play in tournaments would agree that your "traveling" tournament handicap is a good 2 to 4 strokes higher than your "home" handicap - and that's for plus, scratch, and low handicap players. It's probably worse for higher handicaps. I would exclude tournaments played at your home course, but even then you tend to see people playing a little worse than their handicaps. I just think people who don't do it themselves (and I'm not referring to anyone in this thread in particular) have no idea how hard it is to just show up to random tournament courses in tournament conditions under tournament pressure and shoot scores in the mid to low 70s. I don't know too many 4 handicaps that do it. Scratch that - I don't know any 4 handicaps that do it.

[Shilgy]

Yes a 4 can beat a LPGA pro. Last place was 14 over for 2 rounds in the last event a 4 cap can shoot that for 2 rounds. Can a 4 beat a top LPGA pro...I would say much less than 1 percent.

Yes yes yes a 4 cap CAN shoot 14 over for the first two rounds. Not sure how likely it really is though. Many of us, actually pretty much all of us, have said it COULD happen on a rare occasion where the 4 can beat the lady. Assuming par is about the course rating for the 4 to shoot 14 over for two rounds he needs to shoot, in tournament conditions on a strange course, about what his average score is over the USGA. Two rounds at three over his cap each. Most 4's would not be able to do so.

[dap]

LPGA players know the courses they play on better than you think. They walk the course and play practice rounds not to mention their caddies providing local knowledge that they glean in particular about the greens. They do it full time and rely on it for a living so they better do their homework.

 

Most amatuers on the other just turn up 5 minutes before tee off, have a few putts and straight to the first.