Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[9ccat9]

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.

 

Not sure I get this line of reasoning...If we drop 20 4 handicaps into an LPGA event with the same access to practice rounds and a caddy, I am sure not all 20 would finish in the last 20 spots. Less than 1 percent that one of those 20 make the cut.

[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.

 

Not sure I get this line of reasoning...If we drop 20 4 handicaps into an LPGA event with the same access to practice rounds and a caddy, I am sure not all 20 would finish in the last 20 spots. Less than 1 percent that one of those 20 make the cut.

I was responding to a previous post that suggested a 4 handicapper at his home course could not travel and that he would be at least 4 shots higher than their home handicap. This is probably true mainly because an amateur would not have the time nor the resources to study, learn and analyse the course they are about to play like a full time playing pro.

 

I was just suggesting that an LPGA pro would not have this problem as they would be a lot more prepared for a new course they are about to play. Walking the course, playing practice rounds, studying the greens, best places to miss and a specific plan on how to tackle each hole. Have them play on an unfamiliar course with no local knowledge and they could also play a few shots higher.

[nsxguy]

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 those scores were from about 62-6400 yards, yes ? I mean one of the premises that this thread has (mostly(?)) revolved around (or morhped into) was that the lady would be playing from the back tees, not where they usually play.

 

So those 79, 76, 75 rounds would be ? And the scoring average ?

[Shilgy]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

[Dpavs]

I'm sure this is a revisit but if you simply look at the highest scoring average on the LPGA for 2016 is was 75.421... so imho that indicates the answer is that for all practical purposes and intents the answer is a big fat noooooooooo. Could it happen sure I guess so.... but it would not seem to be the general case.

[Shilgy]

I'm sure this is a revisit but if you simply look at the highest scoring average on the LPGA for 2016 is was 75.421... so imho that indicates the answer is that for all practical purposes and intents the answer is a big fat noooooooooo. Could it happen sure I guess so.... but it would not seem to be the general case.

The funny thing is the same consensus was pretty much reached on page 1. This thread is more about the definition of the word "CAN".

[dap]

If such a match occurred I might put my money on the 4 as long as the betting odds are reasonable and the 4 is a genuine 4 and not a vanity 4. The 4 will go into the match thinking he's got nothing lose but the low ranked pro will have the pressure of losing face.

 

If someone gave odds like 100 to one I'll put in 100 bucks.

[glk]

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.

Serena and Venus were 16 and 17 when the 203rd ranked male beat them - they said they could beat males above 200 - afterwards he said over 500 had no chance against them.

[glk]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

[Obee]

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.

let's be honest, those were almost certainly vanity handicappers. You know I love and respect you. :-) But let's not cherry pick. I played a two handicap in team play three weeks ago who kicked my a**. I had to give him for shots. I think we tied gross, or he maybe even beat me by one straight up. I played horribly and he played well.

[Dpavs]

I'm sure this is a revisit but if you simply look at the highest scoring average on the LPGA for 2016 is was 75.421... so imho that indicates the answer is that for all practical purposes and intents the answer is a big fat noooooooooo. Could it happen sure I guess so.... but it would not seem to be the general case.

The funny thing is the same consensus was pretty much reached on page 1. This thread is more about the definition of the word "CAN".

 

Ahhh, I see!

 

I think then the focus is on the wrong word or words then. I think first we need try to understand what was meant by the phrase "could outplay an LPGA pro" in the original post.

 

Was the intention for this mean a single round of golf, a 4 day tournament, or play over the long haul?

 

[nsxguy]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

I've tried several times with joking posts to KILL this thread but it will NOT die.

 

From this point onward though, provided you or someone else does NOT ask me a direct question I feel I should/must answer, I will not post on it again. (You're all welcome BTW)

 

 

Anywho, no, NOT trolling. But even at ~6500 yards they'd still be playing another 500 yards back given that the majority(?) opinion of the posters have steered the discussion to a "4" at 7000 yards and the lady back there with him.

 

Those 500 yards are worth about 3 shots per and somebody who's been posting on this thread all along comes up with high scores for Juli that would presumably be higher and saying there's only a "glimmer of hope".

 

HE is the one trolling.

 

As for the distances they play at, I don't go to many tournaments, LPGA or otherwise, but what I CAN tell you is that in Thailand the ladies played a very difficult par 4 (landing area especially) where the tees were moved up so far it became a driveable par 4 half the time and a relatively easy par 4 the rest of the time.

[Shilgy]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

I've tried several times with joking posts to KILL this thread but it will NOT die.

 

From this point onward though, provided you or someone else does NOT ask me a direct question I feel I should/must answer, I will not post on it again. (You're all welcome BTW)

 

 

Anywho, no, NOT trolling. But even at ~6500 yards they'd still be playing another 500 yards back given that the majority(?) opinion of the posters have steered the discussion to a "4" at 7000 yards and the lady back there with him.

 

Those 500 yards are worth about 3 shots per and somebody who's been posting on this thread all along comes up with high scores for Juli that would presumably be higher and saying there's only a "glimmer of hope".

 

HE is the one trolling.

 

As for the distances they play at, I don't go to many tournaments, LPGA or otherwise, but what I CAN tell you is that in Thailand the ladies played a very difficult par 4 (landing area especially) where the tees were moved up so far it became a driveable par 4 half the time and a relatively easy par 4 the rest of the time.

And Mike Davis of the USGA does that at the US Open a lot as well. Makes the players uncomfortable if done correctly. As to playing at 7000 versus 6500 I would guess a Julie Inkster would handle the extra yardage better than the typical 4. She would just accept hitting an extra club or two into some of the holes and the 4 would likely try to hit it harder instead. The handicap system really is simple imo. If we accept that the women at the back or the pack that averages 72-73 on tour is a scratch to +2 then she is 4-6 strokes better than the 4 at any yardage. Move up or move back it is still the spread.

 

PS I agree with you to let this thread die. :)

[bluedot]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

I've tried several times with joking posts to KILL this thread but it will NOT die.

 

From this point onward though, provided you or someone else does NOT ask me a direct question I feel I should/must answer, I will not post on it again. (You're all welcome BTW)

 

 

Anywho, no, NOT trolling. But even at ~6500 yards they'd still be playing another 500 yards back given that the majority(?) opinion of the posters have steered the discussion to a "4" at 7000 yards and the lady back there with him.

 

Those 500 yards are worth about 3 shots per and somebody who's been posting on this thread all along comes up with high scores for Juli that would presumably be higher and saying there's only a "glimmer of hope".

 

HE is the one trolling.

 

As for the distances they play at, I don't go to many tournaments, LPGA or otherwise, but what I CAN tell you is that in Thailand the ladies played a very difficult par 4 (landing area especially) where the tees were moved up so far it became a driveable par 4 half the time and a relatively easy par 4 the rest of the time.

And Mike Davis of the USGA does that at the US Open a lot as well. Makes the players uncomfortable if done correctly. As to playing at 7000 versus 6500 I would guess a Julie Inkster would handle the extra yardage better than the typical 4. She would just accept hitting an extra club or two into some of the holes and the 4 would likely try to hit it harder instead. The handicap system really is simple imo. If we accept that the women at the back or the pack that averages 72-73 on tour is a scratch to +2 then she is 4-6 strokes better than the 4 at any yardage. Move up or move back it is still the spread.

 

PS I agree with you to let this thread die. :)

 

You're absolutely right about how Julie Inkster or ANY better golfer handles more yardage; give the better player MORE golf course to play and the difference between them and the lesser player becomes BIGGER, not smaller.

 

Think of it this way: If I play Lydia Ko straight up in a match that consists of ONE ten foot putt, then I have a chance to beat her. (Maybe not a good chance, but a chance...) But the farther back we move the bigger her advantage becomes; by the time we get to 7000 yards, my only chance of winning is if she falls down some some steps (like THAT could ever happen to a pro golfer...) or if she's laughing so hard that she breaks a rib.

 

Pro golfers aren't better than low handicap golfers simply because they hit the ball farther, and they aren't worse if they don't hit it as far. They're better because they do EVERYTHING better, and the more golf they play, the more their numerous advantages assert themselves. They hit it straighter, they recover better when they don't hit it straight, they manage the course better, they get up and down from all over the place, and they are GREAT in the clutch relative to the rest of us.

 

So I've mentioned the LPGA pro that a buddy and I play our better ball against. A couple of months ago we're playing and she and I are both in front of the green on a par five in two, with our balls just a few feet apart and a back pin about 70' away. I say to her, "Closest to the pin for a dollar?", and her eyes absolutely light up. I bump and run a 7 iron to about 4' and feel great about it; she holes out for eagle. I miss my birdie putt and make 5, and I give her TWO dollars and tell her, "That's why YOU play professional golf on TV and I watch professional golf in my PJ's on the sofa!"

[ThinkingPlus]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

I've tried several times with joking posts to KILL this thread but it will NOT die.

 

From this point onward though, provided you or someone else does NOT ask me a direct question I feel I should/must answer, I will not post on it again. (You're all welcome BTW)

 

 

Anywho, no, NOT trolling. But even at ~6500 yards they'd still be playing another 500 yards back given that the majority(?) opinion of the posters have steered the discussion to a "4" at 7000 yards and the lady back there with him.

 

Those 500 yards are worth about 3 shots per and somebody who's been posting on this thread all along comes up with high scores for Juli that would presumably be higher and saying there's only a "glimmer of hope".

 

HE is the one trolling.

 

As for the distances they play at, I don't go to many tournaments, LPGA or otherwise, but what I CAN tell you is that in Thailand the ladies played a very difficult par 4 (landing area especially) where the tees were moved up so far it became a driveable par 4 half the time and a relatively easy par 4 the rest of the time.

And Mike Davis of the USGA does that at the US Open a lot as well. Makes the players uncomfortable if done correctly. As to playing at 7000 versus 6500 I would guess a Julie Inkster would handle the extra yardage better than the typical 4. She would just accept hitting an extra club or two into some of the holes and the 4 would likely try to hit it harder instead. The handicap system really is simple imo. If we accept that the women at the back or the pack that averages 72-73 on tour is a scratch to +2 then she is 4-6 strokes better than the 4 at any yardage. Move up or move back it is still the spread.

 

PS I agree with you to let this thread die. :)

 

You're absolutely right about how Julie Inkster or ANY better golfer handles more yardage; give the better player MORE golf course to play and the difference between them and the lesser player becomes BIGGER, not smaller.

 

Think of it this way: If I play Lydia Ko straight up in a match that consists of ONE ten foot putt, then I have a chance to beat her. (Maybe not a good chance, but a chance...) But the farther back we move the bigger her advantage becomes; by the time we get to 7000 yards, my only chance of winning is if she falls down some some steps (like THAT could ever happen to a pro golfer...) or if she's laughing so hard that she breaks a rib.

 

Pro golfers aren't better than low handicap golfers simply because they hit the ball farther, and they aren't worse if they don't hit it as far. They're better because they do EVERYTHING better, and the more golf they play, the more their numerous advantages assert themselves. They hit it straighter, they recover better when they don't hit it straight, they manage the course better, they get up and down from all over the place, and they are GREAT in the clutch relative to the rest of us.

 

So I've mentioned the LPGA pro that a buddy and I play our better ball against. A couple of months ago we're playing and she and I are both in front of the green on a par five in two, with our balls just a few feet apart and a back pin about 70' away. I say to her, "Closest to the pin for a dollar?", and her eyes absolutely light up. I bump and run a 7 iron to about 4' and feel great about it; she holes out for eagle. I miss my birdie putt and make 5, and I give her TWO dollars and tell her, "That's why YOU play professional golf on TV and I watch professional golf in my PJ's on the sofa!"

 

That is so cool getting to play with a pro like that. I am very envious.

[bluedot]

NSX, before I respond I gotta ask... You are just trolling, right? Saying they play at 6200-6400 has been asked and answered so many times. Speaking of dead horses.

 

I've tried several times with joking posts to KILL this thread but it will NOT die.

 

From this point onward though, provided you or someone else does NOT ask me a direct question I feel I should/must answer, I will not post on it again. (You're all welcome BTW)

 

 

Anywho, no, NOT trolling. But even at ~6500 yards they'd still be playing another 500 yards back given that the majority(?) opinion of the posters have steered the discussion to a "4" at 7000 yards and the lady back there with him.

 

Those 500 yards are worth about 3 shots per and somebody who's been posting on this thread all along comes up with high scores for Juli that would presumably be higher and saying there's only a "glimmer of hope".

 

HE is the one trolling.

 

As for the distances they play at, I don't go to many tournaments, LPGA or otherwise, but what I CAN tell you is that in Thailand the ladies played a very difficult par 4 (landing area especially) where the tees were moved up so far it became a driveable par 4 half the time and a relatively easy par 4 the rest of the time.

And Mike Davis of the USGA does that at the US Open a lot as well. Makes the players uncomfortable if done correctly. As to playing at 7000 versus 6500 I would guess a Julie Inkster would handle the extra yardage better than the typical 4. She would just accept hitting an extra club or two into some of the holes and the 4 would likely try to hit it harder instead. The handicap system really is simple imo. If we accept that the women at the back or the pack that averages 72-73 on tour is a scratch to +2 then she is 4-6 strokes better than the 4 at any yardage. Move up or move back it is still the spread.

 

PS I agree with you to let this thread die. :)

 

You're absolutely right about how Julie Inkster or ANY better golfer handles more yardage; give the better player MORE golf course to play and the difference between them and the lesser player becomes BIGGER, not smaller.

 

Think of it this way: If I play Lydia Ko straight up in a match that consists of ONE ten foot putt, then I have a chance to beat her. (Maybe not a good chance, but a chance...) But the farther back we move the bigger her advantage becomes; by the time we get to 7000 yards, my only chance of winning is if she falls down some some steps (like THAT could ever happen to a pro golfer...) or if she's laughing so hard that she breaks a rib.

 

Pro golfers aren't better than low handicap golfers simply because they hit the ball farther, and they aren't worse if they don't hit it as far. They're better because they do EVERYTHING better, and the more golf they play, the more their numerous advantages assert themselves. They hit it straighter, they recover better when they don't hit it straight, they manage the course better, they get up and down from all over the place, and they are GREAT in the clutch relative to the rest of us.

 

So I've mentioned the LPGA pro that a buddy and I play our better ball against. A couple of months ago we're playing and she and I are both in front of the green on a par five in two, with our balls just a few feet apart and a back pin about 70' away. I say to her, "Closest to the pin for a dollar?", and her eyes absolutely light up. I bump and run a 7 iron to about 4' and feel great about it; she holes out for eagle. I miss my birdie putt and make 5, and I give her TWO dollars and tell her, "That's why YOU play professional golf on TV and I watch professional golf in my PJ's on the sofa!"

 

That is so cool getting to play with a pro like that. I am very envious.

 

It's a lot of fun, and she's a great kid that we've known since she was playing college golf and all thru the process of working her way onto the big tour. It's been fun to watch.

[farmer]

Blue, if you and your friend win, you should demand a check and then frame it.

[juliette91]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

[juliette91]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

[juliette91]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

[tsupo]

Lpga crushes us.

I played my home.track the weekend after a major jlpga tourny in oct, the tees were just shy of the blue tees so say 6400 ish.

The winning score was -12 They left the tees out for us to play exactly the same course as the last day with same green speeds.

 

Caddie said the girls wud easily beaT us bec of consistency .

They just dont miss greens.

 

-3every day to 4over is a no brainer even given the length disadvantage.

 

Ill take the gals everyday !.

[Yuck]

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).

 

 

 

 

 

Gausse was a dummy

 

 

I am guessing that was unintentional irony.

 

 

It was irony alright. Just checking on who was sleeping during Stats class.

 

I am more of an Edward Witten fan.

[dap]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

A good 4 is not necessarily just based on tournament scores. He would be playing reasonably difficult courses at least 6700 yards and using all 50% of his best scores to calculate his handicap, not cherry picking all the lowest ones and not handing in the higher ones. He should be able to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds. His anticap should be fairly low too. That would be the definition of a genuine 4. A vanity 4 would have little hope to shoot his handicap. When he does it's a fluke and his anticap would be high. Could shoot 110 on a bad day :)

[bluedot]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

A good 4 is not necessarily just based on tournament scores. He would be playing reasonably difficult courses at least 6700 yards and using all 50% of his best scores to calculate his handicap, not cherry picking all the lowest ones and not handing in the higher ones. He should be able to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds. His anticap should be fairly low too. That would be the definition of a genuine 4. A vanity 4 would have little hope to shoot his handicap. When he does it's a fluke and his anticap would be high. Could shoot 110 on a bad day :)

 

I think you have misunderstood several things about the handicap system, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a 4 or a 24.

 

First of all, the difficulty of the course and the course yardage aren't relevant, despite what so many here think. Handicap is based on differentials, not par, and course ratings take those things into account. So over time and a lot of rounds, a 4 is a 4 is a 4 at whatever yardage and on whatever course they are playing. That of course doesn't mean that the 4 will score as well for his one round at Pine Valley as he does on his home course, but if he is truly a 4 and played Pine Valley a lot, he'd still be a 4.

 

But the statement that "He should be able to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds", if you really meant that, is the real misunderstanding. Mathematically, a player of ANY index could be expected to match or better his index only about 1 round out of 4. It is not possible mathematically in a system that uses the 10 best of the last 20 rounds "to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds"; An index for ANY player is an expression of potential, and the USGA estimates that players AVERAGE about 3 shots above their index. That gets bigger as indexes go up, and smaller as indexes go down, but the idea is the same.

 

Simply put, if a 4 has differentials of 4 or less 10 times in 20 rounds, he won't be a 4 the next time handicaps come out; he'll be lower, and maybe a LOT lower; it doesn't matter how high the other 10 rounds are. It's just math.

[dap]

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Dan of the dan plan played down to 3-4 for athe last few years of his plan. He didnt fare well in tourneys often shooting 80s with a personal best of 75. Doubt that he would have fared well against an LPGA player too.

 

Since everyone's chipping in with their golf war stories, I thought I'd throw in mine to support the idea that handicap is not a very good predictor of tournament scoring.

Many have commented on it and then some have said, "well I'm talking about a really good 4 handicap, tournament tested. (I think lower scores in tournaments count more than non tournaments? so it'd be harder to be a really good tournament tested 4 because that'd mean his handicap would be lower than that.)

 

So a couple years ago I got down to a 0.6 and thought wow I should really play in some tournaments. And I did. And I don't think I broke 80 in any of the 3 or 4 tournaments I entered. That was a humbling experience (and if I hadn't been meditating it could have been humiliating, but that doesn't happen anymore no matter what I shoot.)

 

Best to all.

A good 4 is not necessarily just based on tournament scores. He would be playing reasonably difficult courses at least 6700 yards and using all 50% of his best scores to calculate his handicap, not cherry picking all the lowest ones and not handing in the higher ones. He should be able to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds. His anticap should be fairly low too. That would be the definition of a genuine 4. A vanity 4 would have little hope to shoot his handicap. When he does it's a fluke and his anticap would be high. Could shoot 110 on a bad day :)

 

I think you have misunderstood several things about the handicap system, and it doesn't matter whether you are talking about a 4 or a 24.

 

First of all, the difficulty of the course and the course yardage aren't relevant, despite what so many here think. Handicap is based on differentials, not par, and course ratings take those things into account. So over time and a lot of rounds, a 4 is a 4 is a 4 at whatever yardage and on whatever course they are playing. That of course doesn't mean that the 4 will score as well for his one round at Pine Valley as he does on his home course, but if he is truly a 4 and played Pine Valley a lot, he'd still be a 4.

 

But the statement that "He should be able to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds", if you really meant that, is the real misunderstanding. Mathematically, a player of ANY index could be expected to match or better his index only about 1 round out of 4. It is not possible mathematically in a system that uses the 10 best of the last 20 rounds "to shoot his handicap or better 50% of all his rounds"; An index for ANY player is an expression of potential, and the USGA estimates that players AVERAGE about 3 shots above their index. That gets bigger as indexes go up, and smaller as indexes go down, but the idea is the same.

 

Simply put, if a 4 has differentials of 4 or less 10 times in 20 rounds, he won't be a 4 the next time handicaps come out; he'll be lower, and maybe a LOT lower; it doesn't matter how high the other 10 rounds are. It's just math.

I agree if he shoots 4 or less 10 out of 20 times then he would be lower than a 4, but his 10 best scores could be 0,4,8,0,4,8,0,4,8,7 and he would still be a 4.

 

A solid 4's anticap or his 10 worst rounds shouldn't be very high either.

 

My point in saying all this is that not all 4's are the same quality.

[dap]

There's also another explanation why a "4" would suddenly shoot 100 in competition. During their casual rounds, they could be taking mulligans, incorrect drops and 5 foot gimmes. They get a rude awakening when they enter a comp.

[dap]

If a genuine 4 can shoot his handicap or lower 1 out of 4 times and he catches the LPGA player on a bad day then it's possible. The 100th ranked LPGA player has shot over par 5 of her last 16 rounds including a 78 and 80.

 

Lower ranked LPGA players are not immune to high scores otherwise they wouldn't be low ranked.

[bluedot]

If a genuine 4 can shoot his handicap or lower 1 out of 4 times and he catches the LPGA player on a bad day then it's possible. The 100th ranked LPGA player has shot over par 5 of her last 16 rounds including a 78 and 80.

 

Lower ranked LPGA players are not immune to high scores otherwise they wouldn't be low ranked.

 

"...his 10 best scores could be 0,4,8,0,4,8,0,4,8,7 and he would still be a 4. My point in saying all this is that not all 4's are the same quality."

 

Actually, all 4's ARE the same quality; that's why they are 4's. (The issue of vanity handicaps, sandbagging, and all of that is something completely different.) Different 4's have different strengths and weaknesses, of course, but a 4 is a 4 is a 4 over the course of time and many rounds.

 

What we know about indexes is that as they get lower, we are talking about golfers who have smaller and smaller variations in their most recent 20 scores. A scratch golfer will have a 78 once every couple of months; he won't have three or four of them; that's why he's scratch. A 4, on the other hand, MIGHT have differential of zero every now and then, but it won't be often; that's why he's a 4 and not a 1 or 2.

 

I have NEVER seen the hypothetical 4 that you have created in your post above. This guy has THREE differentials of zero in his last twenty rounds, and that just isn't the way golf works. If a player has the ability to shoot a number like that three times in 20 rounds, they are NOT carrying a 4 index because their other 7 differentials are NOT going to be 4 or higher. They are going to have some ones and twos and threes in there as well, and they are NOT going to have almost half of their 10 rounds that count carrying differentials of 7 or 8. You've essentially created a guy who is either great or very ordinary; never just "good".

 

And btw, even if such a guy DID exist, he still has to have one of his three BEST days out of his last 20 rounds on the EXACT same day an LPGA player has her worst day to have a chance to win. In a way, your guy would be worse off because his other 17 scores pretty much suck.

[bluedot]

If a genuine 4 can shoot his handicap or lower 1 out of 4 times and he catches the LPGA player on a bad day then it's possible. The 100th ranked LPGA player has shot over par 5 of her last 16 rounds including a 78 and 80.

 

Lower ranked LPGA players are not immune to high scores otherwise they wouldn't be low ranked.

 

What were the conditions on the days that LPGA player shot 78 and 80? And what would the 4 index have shot under those same conditions on that exact same course setup?

 

You are doing a ton of mathematical gymnastics to make this work. Keep it simple.

[bluedot]

There's also another explanation why a "4" would suddenly shoot 100 in competition. During their casual rounds, they could be taking mulligans, incorrect drops and 5 foot gimmes. They get a rude awakening when they enter a comp.

 

The issue of vanity handicaps is another issue entirely. The issue of the effect of competition on differentials is more important, but still a different issue, and very difficult to quantify.

 

Just keep it simple, and assume that the LPGA is a scratch or slightly better index, vs. a legit 4 index. Now refer to post #1925 a couple of pages back. It's just math, and pretty straightforward, really.