Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[dap]

I watched this years HSBC women's championship and on the 15th par 3 the sign read 183 yards. Inbee Park who is not a long hitter was using 7 iron. Her playing partner was using an 8 iron. No way that hole is playing 183 yards. Probably 140 or 150 at the most. There was no tailwind judging from how the flag was blowing. Park is average in distance and her 7 iron should carry 140, 150 max.

[nsxguy]

Blue dot, I think your bias has blinded you. The article says the SCORECARD yardages may be 6600 but they are rarely set up that long.

 

"Every course except one on the LPGA schedule so far this year featured scorecard yardages of 6,600 yards or better, and the one exception (Kia) was 6,593 yards, but rarely do they seem to be set up that long, according to Golf Channel staff who are there week to week."

 

Um, no the article does NOT say that. The article, written by a guy that I've never heard of in my life, cites unnamed Golf Channel staff who apparently did zero measuring and simply say that the courses "seem" shorter. In a courtroom, that's called hearsay, and it ain't evidence. The opinions of Stupples are much more germane, but even she doesn't offer yardages, and the fact that players are hitting shorter clubs into greens than they did nearly 15 years ago is in keeping with what we see on the men's tour. Honestly, I could go either way on her comments; they smack of the sort of "good old days" stuff that you hear from male players about how much tougher it was way back when. But I don't know, so I'll take her at her word.

 

But I absolutely, 100% DO agree with you that I have a bias here. My bias is based on pretty simple stuff, like regularly getting my a** kicked by an LPGA player, and not even on my own ball, but on a better ball with another mid-single digit male as my partner against her. And what I know about the courses the women play is sort of first-hand, too; my son is an assistant superintendent of the very course that the Symetra Tour is playing NEXT WEEKEND, on which I've never broken 80 from the yardage the women will be playing and on which -8 for three rounds won last year.

 

So, yeah, I'm biased. I have this thing about facts and numbers and reality that I can't shake. You caught me...

 

Speaking about "facts and numbers",,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and in reality, even forgetting about the very difficult par 4 in Thailand that they chopped down into a driveable/"easy" par 4,,,,,,,,,

 

THIS Symetra Tour ???

• Format: 54 holes
  
• Purse: $150,000
  
• Par: 72
  
• History: This event started in 2009.
  
• Yardage: 6,229
  

[bluedot]

Here's another piece of hearsay for ya.

 

http://www.theobserv...ga-tour-courses

 

A three year old article about Tigerproofing; impressive research. FWIW, I think the consensus is that scores on Tour have gone up by about .3 of a stroke since 1997, so maybe we have that to look forward to on the LPGA Tour when you become the commish.

 

Also, if I take your point correctly, if I can just play more golf on LPGA courses, I can get my index down and be more competitive with LPGA players. 'Cause they're easier courses, and the scores the women shoot are therefore deceptively low, so a 4 index would shoot the lights out there and beat the women. Am I understanding you correctly?

[bluedot]

Here's another piece of hearsay for ya.

 

http://www.theobserv...ga-tour-courses

Here's a question for you. That article you supplied was from three years ago. They cite the PGA tours 500 yard par 4's as three iron seconds shots. Not for very many of the players I am guessing. And most tour stops do not have 500 yard par​ 4's anyway. The ladies are already playing at a yardage most weeks longer than the men's tour using equivalent yardages. If they women hit it 250 and the men 285 then the women's 6500 yard course, to be conservative, plays the equivalent to the men's 7647 yards. Not long enough?

What did occur to me the other day thinking about this thread is that, as we all know, the women do not have the resources or courses in general of the men's tour. Not many of the ladies courses have the time, inclination or finances to groom the course properly to host a tour event. Playing so many public/resort courses the hosts do not want too difficult a setup leading up to the event as it causes pace of play problems.

So what to do to stem the tide of low scores is the question? I do not believe the course setups is to protect the lower ranked player. I believe it is more of a finance issue. But even with the money how would they setup the course? Narrow fairways and rough? Might help a bit but the women are straighter than the men. More tucked pins? Perhaps though I contend this is not as lacking as you seem to think.

Time to end this from me but I do not see an easy answer. The top courses do not want to give up their course for the ladie's tour. The courses they play would need to be really tricked up to present a bigger challenge.

 

It appears LPGA courses are not 6500 yards. The scorecard yardages may say 6500 or 6600 but they are obviously moving the tees forward. Karen Stupples might be exaggerating but she is saying the ladies are going in to greens with wedges on the par 4s. The courses can't be too long for that to happen or they could be mowing the fairways very short to get more run as well as shortening the courses.

 

"It appears..."

 

I love it.

[North Texas]

Here's another piece of hearsay for ya.

 

http://www.theobserv...ga-tour-courses

Here's a question for you. That article you supplied was from three years ago. They cite the PGA tours 500 yard par 4's as three iron seconds shots. Not for very many of the players I am guessing. And most tour stops do not have 500 yard par​ 4's anyway. The ladies are already playing at a yardage most weeks longer than the men's tour using equivalent yardages. If they women hit it 250 and the men 285 then the women's 6500 yard course, to be conservative, plays the equivalent to the men's 7647 yards. Not long enough?

What did occur to me the other day thinking about this thread is that, as we all know, the women do not have the resources or courses in general of the men's tour. Not many of the ladies courses have the time, inclination or finances to groom the course properly to host a tour event. Playing so many public/resort courses the hosts do not want too difficult a setup leading up to the event as it causes pace of play problems.

So what to do to stem the tide of low scores is the question? I do not believe the course setups is to protect the lower ranked player. I believe it is more of a finance issue. But even with the money how would they setup the course? Narrow fairways and rough? Might help a bit but the women are straighter than the men. More tucked pins? Perhaps though I contend this is not as lacking as you seem to think.

Time to end this from me but I do not see an easy answer. The top courses do not want to give up their course for the ladie's tour. The courses they play would need to be really tricked up to present a bigger challenge.

 

It appears LPGA courses are not 6500 yards. The scorecard yardages may say 6500 or 6600 but they are obviously moving the tees forward. Karen Stupples might be exaggerating but she is saying the ladies are going in to greens with wedges on the par 4s. The courses can't be too long for that to happen or they could be mowing the fairways very short to get more run as well as shortening the courses.

 

If Karen means that they are hitting wedges to all, or even most of the par 4's, then she is exaggerating or embellishing things.

 

Bottom line, LPGA players don't hit any shorter clubs into the green than their PGA counterparts. If they are shortening courses, then they are just getting them more comparable to the PGA instead of playing longer courses in comparison.

[Argonne69]

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they dumb down courses to suit the lower ranked players. Generally speaking, the harder the course the harder it is for a less skilled player to score. That is why they have slope ratings. The LPGA needs viewers and sponsors to survive. They want closer competition and lower scores to make it attractive to viewers. It won't look good for the ladies that don't make the cut to be 20 over par.

 

 

The LPGA, like the PGA, is in the entertainment business. The comments made about the length and difficulty of the courses apply equally to both. CareerBuilder Challenge (-20)? Sony Open (-27)? Waste Management Open (-17)? Pitch and putts.

 

One reason the courses are playing shorter is that they're generally moving the tee up on one par 4 to make it a driveable hole. Both tours are doing this regularly.

 

Using Madelene as an example if pretty lame. Yeah, she shot 80-77 to miss the cut. However, it was her first LPGA event as a card holder. I'm sure there were a few butterflies in her stomach. At the time of the event, she was not the 100th player on the LPGA.

[Shilgy]

Hey Dap. The LPGA-at least here in Phoenix-is playing quite firm greens. If a player hits 7 iron on a 175 yard hole and it carries 155 and get a kick up to the hole how long does she hit her 7 iron?

 

Shall we have this same conversation about the PGA tour? How many wedges are being hit on that tour do you reckon? Are the tees often moved up? Are players hitting less that the total yardage in carry distance?

It seems like you have really latched onto the Stupples comments as "proof" . Do you watch the LPGA? Did you know this is the same woman that started the final round of her Ladies British Open win Double eagle-eagle? And now she claims courses are shorter and easier?

The ladies are getting a bit longer and so are their courses. Do they move the tees and pins? Of course they do as do all courses/tours. As I mentioned a few pages ago at this years Phoenix event they used a tee the day we were there that was about 25-30 yards LONGER than the tee cited. Is that ok? Did Stupples mention that in her narrative? (the answer is no she did not btw)

 

Bottom line(and hopefully my last post in this thread-he promised again...) the lady is somewhere between a scratch and a +2. And that is playing for the roof over her head. That part cannot be underestimated. The 4 is a 4 playing mostly friendly rounds but even if competition rounds they are not the same as playing for a living. Could/would the 4 catch lightning in a bottle and beat the lady pro on a rare occasion? Yes, as posted by pretty much everyone a million times yes. But to imply that the two are anywhere near similar is folly.

 

:wave:

[dap]

Hey Dap. The LPGA-at least here in Phoenix-is playing quite firm greens. If a player hits 7 iron on a 175 yard hole and it carries 155 and get a kick up to the hole how long does she hit her 7 iron?

 

Shall we have this same conversation about the PGA tour? How many wedges are being hit on that tour do you reckon? Are the tees often moved up? Are players hitting less that the total yardage in carry distance?

It seems like you have really latched onto the Stupples comments as "proof" . Do you watch the LPGA? Did you know this is the same woman that started the final round of her Ladies British Open win Double eagle-eagle? And now she claims courses are shorter and easier?

The ladies are getting a bit longer and so are their courses. Do they move the tees and pins? Of course they do as do all courses/tours. As I mentioned a few pages ago at this years Phoenix event they used a tee the day we were there that was about 25-30 yards LONGER than the tee cited. Is that ok? Did Stupples mention that in her narrative? (the answer is no she did not btw)

 

Bottom line(and hopefully my last post in this thread-he promised again...) the lady is somewhere between a scratch and a +2. And that is playing for the roof over her head. That part cannot be underestimated. The 4 is a 4 playing mostly friendly rounds but even if competition rounds they are not the same as playing for a living. Could/would the 4 catch lightning in a bottle and beat the lady pro on a rare occasion? Yes, as posted by pretty much everyone a million times yes. But to imply that the two are anywhere near similar is folly.

 

:wave:

Well I keep reading article after article about LPGA courses getting shorter and softer. Here is another one by Stace Lewis.

 

Who am I suppose to believe? Karen Stupples and Stacey Lewis or anonymous posters on a golf forum?

 

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2017/3/29/stacy-lewis-pushing-for-firmer-faster-lpga-courses.html

[Shilgy]

Hey Dap. The LPGA-at least here in Phoenix-is playing quite firm greens. If a player hits 7 iron on a 175 yard hole and it carries 155 and get a kick up to the hole how long does she hit her 7 iron?

 

Shall we have this same conversation about the PGA tour? How many wedges are being hit on that tour do you reckon? Are the tees often moved up? Are players hitting less that the total yardage in carry distance?

It seems like you have really latched onto the Stupples comments as "proof" . Do you watch the LPGA? Did you know this is the same woman that started the final round of her Ladies British Open win Double eagle-eagle? And now she claims courses are shorter and easier?

The ladies are getting a bit longer and so are their courses. Do they move the tees and pins? Of course they do as do all courses/tours. As I mentioned a few pages ago at this years Phoenix event they used a tee the day we were there that was about 25-30 yards LONGER than the tee cited. Is that ok? Did Stupples mention that in her narrative? (the answer is no she did not btw)

 

Bottom line(and hopefully my last post in this thread-he promised again...) the lady is somewhere between a scratch and a +2. And that is playing for the roof over her head. That part cannot be underestimated. The 4 is a 4 playing mostly friendly rounds but even if competition rounds they are not the same as playing for a living. Could/would the 4 catch lightning in a bottle and beat the lady pro on a rare occasion? Yes, as posted by pretty much everyone a million times yes. But to imply that the two are anywhere near similar is folly.

 

:wave:

Well I keep reading article after article about LPGA courses getting shorter and softer. Here is another one by Stace Lewis.

 

Who am I suppose to believe? Karen Stupples and Stacey Lewis or anonymous posters on a golf forum?

 

http://www.geoffshac...ga-courses.html

Stacy just said softer-not shorter. Which goes hand in hand about what I posted earlier about the LPGA and finances and the courses they play on.

[dap]

Hey Dap. The LPGA-at least here in Phoenix-is playing quite firm greens. If a player hits 7 iron on a 175 yard hole and it carries 155 and get a kick up to the hole how long does she hit her 7 iron?

 

Shall we have this same conversation about the PGA tour? How many wedges are being hit on that tour do you reckon? Are the tees often moved up? Are players hitting less that the total yardage in carry distance?

It seems like you have really latched onto the Stupples comments as "proof" . Do you watch the LPGA? Did you know this is the same woman that started the final round of her Ladies British Open win Double eagle-eagle? And now she claims courses are shorter and easier?

The ladies are getting a bit longer and so are their courses. Do they move the tees and pins? Of course they do as do all courses/tours. As I mentioned a few pages ago at this years Phoenix event they used a tee the day we were there that was about 25-30 yards LONGER than the tee cited. Is that ok? Did Stupples mention that in her narrative? (the answer is no she did not btw)

 

Bottom line(and hopefully my last post in this thread-he promised again...) the lady is somewhere between a scratch and a +2. And that is playing for the roof over her head. That part cannot be underestimated. The 4 is a 4 playing mostly friendly rounds but even if competition rounds they are not the same as playing for a living. Could/would the 4 catch lightning in a bottle and beat the lady pro on a rare occasion? Yes, as posted by pretty much everyone a million times yes. But to imply that the two are anywhere near similar is folly.

 

:wave:

Well I keep reading article after article about LPGA courses getting shorter and softer. Here is another one by Stace Lewis.

 

Who am I suppose to believe? Karen Stupples and Stacey Lewis or anonymous posters on a golf forum?

 

http://www.geoffshac...ga-courses.html

Stacy just said softer-not shorter. Which goes hand in hand about what I posted earlier about the LPGA and finances and the courses they play on.

Stupples said they were shorter and if you read the comments posted in the Stacey Lewis article, one poster said he has been to these tournaments and thought they were too short as well.

[Argonne69]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

[bluedot]

Hey Dap. The LPGA-at least here in Phoenix-is playing quite firm greens. If a player hits 7 iron on a 175 yard hole and it carries 155 and get a kick up to the hole how long does she hit her 7 iron?

 

Shall we have this same conversation about the PGA tour? How many wedges are being hit on that tour do you reckon? Are the tees often moved up? Are players hitting less that the total yardage in carry distance?

It seems like you have really latched onto the Stupples comments as "proof" . Do you watch the LPGA? Did you know this is the same woman that started the final round of her Ladies British Open win Double eagle-eagle? And now she claims courses are shorter and easier?

The ladies are getting a bit longer and so are their courses. Do they move the tees and pins? Of course they do as do all courses/tours. As I mentioned a few pages ago at this years Phoenix event they used a tee the day we were there that was about 25-30 yards LONGER than the tee cited. Is that ok? Did Stupples mention that in her narrative? (the answer is no she did not btw)

 

Bottom line(and hopefully my last post in this thread-he promised again...) the lady is somewhere between a scratch and a +2. And that is playing for the roof over her head. That part cannot be underestimated. The 4 is a 4 playing mostly friendly rounds but even if competition rounds they are not the same as playing for a living. Could/would the 4 catch lightning in a bottle and beat the lady pro on a rare occasion? Yes, as posted by pretty much everyone a million times yes. But to imply that the two are anywhere near similar is folly.

 

:wave:

Well I keep reading article after article about LPGA courses getting shorter and softer. Here is another one by Stace Lewis.

 

Who am I suppose to believe? Karen Stupples and Stacey Lewis or anonymous posters on a golf forum?

 

http://www.geoffshac...ga-courses.html

Stacy just said softer-not shorter. Which goes hand in hand about what I posted earlier about the LPGA and finances and the courses they play on.

Stupples said they were shorter and if you read the comments posted in the Stacey Lewis article, one poster said he has been to these tournaments and thought they were too short as well.

 

Which, of course, has dead zero to do with whether or not a 4 handicap man can beat an LPGA pro.

 

Your implication with these articles is that LPGA pros aren't as good as we think because they are shooting inflated scores on short, soft courses with easy pin positions. So at this point, why don't you go ahead and make up yet another hypothetical 4 handicap and tell us what HE would shoot on these short, soft courses with easy pins? For me, it would be a dream come true; I've never been able to get to scratch, and now I know that all I have to do is play LPGA courses with a tournament setup! Who knew?

 

Also, while you're at it, could you write something up for me that I can show the LPGA pro that I play against on a "regular" course (where she plays from one set of tees BEHIND us against our better ball) to explain why I don't owe her $20 when she shoots 68 and we combine for a 71 and lose yet again? She thinks she's better than us and just whipped our butts (again), and I could use the help in explaining to her why she isn't and didn't. Much appreciated, and I'll cut you in on the $20 for EXACTLY what your reasoning is worth!

[golfer07840]

Are we talking about a 4 straight up? Or someone with a course handicap of 4? Either way, if the 4 plays a course that's has a rating of say 71, if they play to their handicap, they are shooting 75. You would need the LPGA Player to have a bad day to shoot 75.

 

I know the OP posted this back in 2009, but I can't believe this is now at page 68 LOL

[dhc1]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

 

First, you know that I agree with you on the premise of a 4 vs. an LPGA player.

 

But, c'mon. The concept here of comparing the PGA to the LPGA doesn't hold water. The PGA is right up against the limit on course length given how far the men hit the ball, they generally push the green speeds to the limit as well and they've narrowed the fairways dramatically. There's very little they can do other than change the ball at this point and I guess grow the rough to 5 inches.

 

Conversely, there is a reasonable argument that LPGA set-ups are shorter and perhaps with an easier set-up (pin-placement, roughs, etc.) than they are rated, particularly if the course is a well-regarded private course (like many PGA spots) and not a public course. It does appear to me that the LPGA goes out of its way to have lower scores and, IMO, also tries to hide the fact that ladies don't hit it that far (look at how they use trackman but refuse to show distances). I think the latter is a huge mistake as their distances are right on top of what good amateur males likely hit it (not here on WRX, of course) and they should be marketing the heck out of that.

[Argonne69]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

 

First, you know that I agree with you on the premise of a 4 vs. an LPGA player.

 

But, c'mon. The concept here of comparing the PGA to the LPGA doesn't hold water. The PGA is right up against the limit on course length given how far the men hit the ball, they generally push the green speeds to the limit as well and they've narrowed the fairways dramatically. There's very little they can do other than change the ball at this point and I guess grow the rough to 5 inches.

 

Conversely, there is a reasonable argument that LPGA set-ups are shorter and perhaps with an easier set-up (pin-placement, roughs, etc.) than they are rated, particularly if the course is a well-regarded private course (like many PGA spots) and not a public course. It does appear to me that the LPGA goes out of its way to have lower scores and, IMO, also tries to hide the fact that ladies don't hit it that far (look at how they use trackman but refuse to show distances). I think the latter is a huge mistake as their distances are right on top of what good amateur males likely hit it (not here on WRX, of course) and they should be marketing the heck out of that.

 

It's not just the long PGA hitters that are going low. If the mid-pack players are shooting crazy low scores, then the course is set up too easy. Sure, grow the rough. It's nice to see them struggle at Torrey Pines. Otherwise the courses are too short. Personally, I'd have no issue with changing the ball. It should have been done years ago. How about if they stop manicuring the greens? I'd like to see them putt on the same shaggy, bumpy carpet we play on. I got a thrill seeing them kvetch about the greens at Chambers Bay.

 

You think the PGA plays with tough pin positions? Sure, some holes. However, how many times have you seen a player hit the ball 10 yards over the flag and use the slope to bring it back to within inches? The side slopes are used as well. For ever pin tucked in a tough spot they have one that it easily accessible.

 

That said, it's still about the entertainment factor. It seems quite clear that both tours cater to the casual fan, and birdie fests sell tickets. At the end of the day, the course length and difficulty really don't matter, as the players are competing against each other, and not the course.

 

The LPGA publishes their driving distance stats. Yeah, I agree it would be nice to see more Trackman data, but they ladies' distances are no secret. Irons included. If you watch the broadcasts regularly, you know the on-course reporter, e.g. Jerry, is often relaying the distance and club selection.

[juliette91]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

 

First, you know that I agree with you on the premise of a 4 vs. an LPGA player.

 

But, c'mon. The concept here of comparing the PGA to the LPGA doesn't hold water. The PGA is right up against the limit on course length given how far the men hit the ball, they generally push the green speeds to the limit as well and they've narrowed the fairways dramatically. There's very little they can do other than change the ball at this point and I guess grow the rough to 5 inches.

 

Conversely, there is a reasonable argument that LPGA set-ups are shorter and perhaps with an easier set-up (pin-placement, roughs, etc.) than they are rated, particularly if the course is a well-regarded private course (like many PGA spots) and not a public course. It does appear to me that the LPGA goes out of its way to have lower scores and, IMO, also tries to hide the fact that ladies don't hit it that far (look at how they use trackman but refuse to show distances). I think the latter is a huge mistake as their distances are right on top of what good amateur males likely hit it (not here on WRX, of course) and they should be marketing the heck out of that.

 

But I don't see how this is relevant to the OP? If the women are shooting -20s half the time does that mean their handicaps are artificially too low? The USGA says you lose .1 (1/10) in your stroke rating for every 100 yards shorter the course is from the normal tee rating you're using. So this just means that the course rating would be lower than normal. If you're calculating a pro's handicap based upon only these LPGA tour courses, what does that mean? Just means that the easier course ratings have to be taken into account when calculating stroke differentials in scoring. Doesn't mean that an LPGA +2 handicap is suddenly only scratch or a 1. If you're saying that the LPGA player isn't really a +2 because the courses are phonied up then you're not understanding the stroke index system of handicap calculation.

[dap]

How do the top amateur women players calculate their handicap anyway? Do they play from the 5600 yard ladies tees or the 6600 yard blues?

[ThinkingPlus]

How do the top amateur women players calculate their handicap anyway? Do they play from the 5600 yard ladies tees or the 6600 yard blues?

 

I can tell you what I do. I play a variety of tees for both pleasure and the tees bounce around a bit for competitions as well depending upon whether they are local or state. Local comps with our women's group are played from the forward tees (roughly 5000 yards). State comps usually play out on tees around 6000 yards here. For pleasure I play out to 6750 yards or so, but have played courses out to 7000 yards. For the shorter courses they already have women's ratings which I use when posting my scores. When I play fun rounds though, the tees are typically not rated for women. I derive a rating/slope for these instances using the USGA provided lookup table and the nearest rated tees. I keep these in a spreadsheet so I don't have to repeat the mathematical gymnastics over and over. My GHIN list of scores/differentials looks weird because I have course ratings that go from 69 - 78. It all comes out in the wash though per the USGA system. In general because of the strengths and weaknesses of my game I tend to shoot lower differentials at the longer courses.

[dap]

How do the top amateur women players calculate their handicap anyway? Do they play from the 5600 yard ladies tees or the 6600 yard blues?

 

I can tell you what I do. I play a variety of tees for both pleasure and the tees bounce around a bit for competitions as well depending upon whether they are local or state. Local comps with our women's group are played from the forward tees (roughly 5000 yards). State comps usually play out on tees around 6000 yards here. For pleasure I play out to 6750 yards or so, but have played courses out to 7000 yards. For the shorter courses they already have women's ratings which I use when posting my scores. When I play fun rounds though, the tees are typically not rated for women. I derive a rating/slope for these instances using the USGA provided lookup table and the nearest rated tees. I keep these in a spreadsheet so I don't have to repeat the mathematical gymnastics over and over. My GHIN list of scores/differentials looks weird because I have course ratings that go from 69 - 78. It all comes out in the wash though per the USGA system. In general because of the strengths and weaknesses of my game I tend to shoot lower differentials at the longer courses.

Thanks for that information.

 

I would imagine the course rating of 78 for you would be played from the blue tees or the tips. Typically how would that compare to a scratch male rating? 78 for a scratch woman and 73 for a scratch male? I didn't know they had a way to calculate this.

[ThinkingPlus]

How do the top amateur women players calculate their handicap anyway? Do they play from the 5600 yard ladies tees or the 6600 yard blues?

 

I can tell you what I do. I play a variety of tees for both pleasure and the tees bounce around a bit for competitions as well depending upon whether they are local or state. Local comps with our women's group are played from the forward tees (roughly 5000 yards). State comps usually play out on tees around 6000 yards here. For pleasure I play out to 6750 yards or so, but have played courses out to 7000 yards. For the shorter courses they already have women's ratings which I use when posting my scores. When I play fun rounds though, the tees are typically not rated for women. I derive a rating/slope for these instances using the USGA provided lookup table and the nearest rated tees. I keep these in a spreadsheet so I don't have to repeat the mathematical gymnastics over and over. My GHIN list of scores/differentials looks weird because I have course ratings that go from 69 - 78. It all comes out in the wash though per the USGA system. In general because of the strengths and weaknesses of my game I tend to shoot lower differentials at the longer courses.

Thanks for that information.

 

I would imagine the course rating of 78 for you would be played from the blue tees or the tips. Typically how would that compare to a scratch male rating? 78 for a scratch woman and 73 for a scratch male? I didn't know they had a way to calculate this.

 

Well I have compiled some information on that very topic. Since I keep a spreadsheet with the ratings/slope I compute it was easy to fill in the men's ratings/slope for the same tees. I got the following for CA and NM:

 

CA Avg. Delta Rating/Slope - 6.1/10.4

NM Avg. Delta Rating/Slope - 5.6/11.1

 

So in general I would say that the difference between men's and women's ratings from tees roughly between 6250 - 7000 yards is about 5.5 - 6.5 strokes and 10 - 11 slope points. For longer course this would increase a small amount. for shorter courses this would decrease a small amount. BTW, I based these numbers on ~20ish courses in each state so the statistical significance is not bad, but not great.

[dhc1]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

 

First, you know that I agree with you on the premise of a 4 vs. an LPGA player.

 

But, c'mon. The concept here of comparing the PGA to the LPGA doesn't hold water. The PGA is right up against the limit on course length given how far the men hit the ball, they generally push the green speeds to the limit as well and they've narrowed the fairways dramatically. There's very little they can do other than change the ball at this point and I guess grow the rough to 5 inches.

 

Conversely, there is a reasonable argument that LPGA set-ups are shorter and perhaps with an easier set-up (pin-placement, roughs, etc.) than they are rated, particularly if the course is a well-regarded private course (like many PGA spots) and not a public course. It does appear to me that the LPGA goes out of its way to have lower scores and, IMO, also tries to hide the fact that ladies don't hit it that far (look at how they use trackman but refuse to show distances). I think the latter is a huge mistake as their distances are right on top of what good amateur males likely hit it (not here on WRX, of course) and they should be marketing the heck out of that.

 

But I don't see how this is relevant to the OP? If the women are shooting -20s half the time does that mean their handicaps are artificially too low? The USGA says you lose .1 (1/10) in your stroke rating for every 100 yards shorter the course is from the normal tee rating you're using. So this just means that the course rating would be lower than normal. If you're calculating a pro's handicap based upon only these LPGA tour courses, what does that mean? Just means that the easier course ratings have to be taken into account when calculating stroke differentials in scoring. Doesn't mean that an LPGA +2 handicap is suddenly only scratch or a 1. If you're saying that the LPGA player isn't really a +2 because the courses are phonied up then you're not understanding the stroke index system of handicap calculation.

 

I could be wrong but Section 5-2g of the USGA Handicap Manual shows that 0.1 is for 10 yards, not 100 (which is 0.6 strokes). A 2 stroke drop in course rating would be about 300 yards. For example, the black tees at pacific dunes is 6633 yards and 73.0 rating and the green tees are 6142 yards and 70.7 so for every 100 yards, it's about half a stroke

 

Perhaps next time, you should check your facts before claiming that others are unaware of the stroke index system.

[juliette91]

The Evian was an anomaly. It rained for four days, and it was lift clean and place. The rough was thick and wet, but for the better ballstrikers they could attack the course. In Gee had an incredible week putting, which had zero to do with the soft conditions. I watched the final round yesterday, and she scrambled like crazy.

 

Let's see, in the 2016-17 season the PGA has had winning scores of -18, -23, -20, -20, -21, -17, -22, -27, -20, -13, -17, -19, -17, -12, -14, -14, -11, -20, -20, -9, -13, and -12. Funny, but I see nearly half the tournaments having winning scores of -20 or better.

 

First, you know that I agree with you on the premise of a 4 vs. an LPGA player.

 

But, c'mon. The concept here of comparing the PGA to the LPGA doesn't hold water. The PGA is right up against the limit on course length given how far the men hit the ball, they generally push the green speeds to the limit as well and they've narrowed the fairways dramatically. There's very little they can do other than change the ball at this point and I guess grow the rough to 5 inches.

 

Conversely, there is a reasonable argument that LPGA set-ups are shorter and perhaps with an easier set-up (pin-placement, roughs, etc.) than they are rated, particularly if the course is a well-regarded private course (like many PGA spots) and not a public course. It does appear to me that the LPGA goes out of its way to have lower scores and, IMO, also tries to hide the fact that ladies don't hit it that far (look at how they use trackman but refuse to show distances). I think the latter is a huge mistake as their distances are right on top of what good amateur males likely hit it (not here on WRX, of course) and they should be marketing the heck out of that.

 

But I don't see how this is relevant to the OP? If the women are shooting -20s half the time does that mean their handicaps are artificially too low? The USGA says you lose .1 (1/10) in your stroke rating for every 100 yards shorter the course is from the normal tee rating you're using. So this just means that the course rating would be lower than normal. If you're calculating a pro's handicap based upon only these LPGA tour courses, what does that mean? Just means that the easier course ratings have to be taken into account when calculating stroke differentials in scoring. Doesn't mean that an LPGA +2 handicap is suddenly only scratch or a 1. If you're saying that the LPGA player isn't really a +2 because the courses are phonied up then you're not understanding the stroke index system of handicap calculation.

 

I could be wrong but Section 5-2g of the USGA Handicap Manual shows that 0.1 is for 10 yards, not 100 (which is 0.6 strokes). A 2 stroke drop in course rating would be about 300 yards. For example, the black tees at pacific dunes is 6633 yards and 73.0 rating and the green tees are 6142 yards and 70.7 so for every 100 yards, it's about half a stroke

 

Perhaps next time, you should check your facts before claiming that others are unaware of the stroke index system.

 

Yes, my mistake.

[duffer987]

http://www.scoring.r2it.com/golf/acc/Leaderboard.aspx

[jt2gt]

http://www.scoring.r...eaderboard.aspx

 

Looks like Blair T12 and Paige finished 14th....would they be considered a bottom tier LPGA players or are they both even below that at this point. Course 72/6709. John Elway even finished ahead of them.

[glk]

http://www.scoring.r...eaderboard.aspx

 

Looks like Blair T12 and Paige finished 14th....would they be considered a bottom tier LPGA players or are they both even below that at this point. Course 72/6709. John Elway even finished ahead of them.

O'neal teed it up in 2 lpga events in 2011 and missed the cut in both.

Spirinac has never even made the cut in an lpga qualifier. She appears to have given up on trying.

 

Elway is a 1.7. He shot 226. O'Neal 226. Spirinac 227.

 

Yet they hung with the guys that are scratch or better. Pretty much say these guys would have little chance against real lpga players.

Timberlake is listed as a 4.2 handicap and has been as low as a .2 and he got waxed.

 

 

please let this thread die.

[dap]

Timberlake shot 84,82,85. How is he a legit 4 handicap? Celebrity vanity cap? Can't take mulligans,gimmes and free drops in tournaments? He's probably more like an 8 or 10 based on those scores.

[sekrah]

I suspect most of these celebrities have vanity caps.

[bluedot]

I suspect most of these celebrities have vanity caps.

 

The USGA estimates that there are approximately 5 vanity handicaps for every sandbagger, so it isn't just celebs; it's endemic to the system. Which hurts nobody except the golfer carrying the vanity handicap...

[Bingo1976]

Going by that leaderboard, I think it's more pertinent to ask if Charles Barkley could beat Ian Baker Finch.

[dap]

Aaron Rodgers who carries an official 3.4 handicap appears legit. He shot around his handicap all 3 rounds and smoked the ladies. Is that proof a 4 handicap male can beat a low ranked LPGA player. Spiranic shot 80 in the second round. Where are these 69's I keep hearing these ladies shoot without breaking a sweat?