Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[ThinkingPlus]

13 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

What does smoke mean? Let's say it's rated the tees are 72, +1 is probably going to shoot between 71-78. What do you think the LPGA woman would shoot? What do you think their handicap would be in men's system? 

 

A tee with a mens rating of 73 would probably be among the hardest courses they'd play all year from a rating standpoint.  

Typically the difference in rating between men's tees and women's tees is 5 - 7 strokes depending on length and regional rating differences which implies roughly the same difference in handicap indices.  Top LPGA players would have a woman's index of +7 - +9 or so.   Even the lowest ranked LPGA tour player would be a tournament tough +5.  The LPGA plays courses with men's ratings of 71 - 73 regularly.  The high end is usually at majors.  Here is a pertinent example.

 

[Qwiklap]

28 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

LPGA woman is ABSOLUTELY better than mens +2 or 3. These are handicap index’s for LPGA players (all +) and based on tournament rounds. Not casual Sunday scores. I don’t think you understand just how good they are. 

 

** pointing at this post and applauding **
 

By smoke I mean that your +1 Am wins 1 in 10 matches (maybe).

 

And if your am shoots a 71 - 78, she will shoot 68-71

Edited September 4, 2020 by Qwiklap

[Shilgy]

20 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Typically the difference in rating between men's tees and women's tees is 5 - 7 strokes depending on length and regional rating differences which implies roughly the same difference in handicap indices.  Top LPGA players would have a woman's index of +7 - +9 or so.   Even the lowest ranked LPGA tour player would be a tournament tough +5.  The LPGA plays courses with men's ratings of 71 - 73 regularly.  The high end is usually at majors.  Here is a pertinent example.

 

Love your posts TP but let’s not confuse the issue. The handicaps being suggested are male handicaps for the lady pros. 

[ThinkingPlus]

21 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Love your posts TP but let’s not confuse the issue. The handicaps being suggested are male handicaps for the lady pros. 

Wasn't trying to confuse things.  A question about comparative ratings and handicaps between men and women was asked and I tried to provide an answer.

[pinhigh27]

5 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Wasn't trying to confuse things.  A question about comparative ratings and handicaps between men and women was asked and I tried to provide an answer.

That wasn't the question at all. Again as I said, something rated 73 for men would be among the hardest set ups they play all year. 

[pinhigh27]

6 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

LPGA woman is ABSOLUTELY better than mens +2 or 3. These are handicap index’s for LPGA players (all +) and based on tournament rounds. Not casual Sunday scores. I don’t think you understand just how good they are. 

 

 

I assume these are supposed to be + and mens handicaps, right? If so the average is right around 3 . I don't see how that is significantly better than a mens +2 to +3, and these are the best LPGA tour players. 

[xmanhockey7]

2 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

 

I assume these are supposed to be + and mens handicaps, right? If so the average is right around 3 . I don't see how that is significantly better than a mens +2 to +3, and these are the best LPGA tour players. 

As noted in the post, yes all + handicap. How many male +2 or +3 have every score in the system from a tournament round on a top tier professional golf tour? I’m not saying a +3 could never beat a LPGA player over the course of 18, but the odds are heavily in that LPGA player’s favor. When this came up on Twitter and everyone made fun of it there was one guy who I think was a +4 or 5 basically say he’d have no chance of making cuts on the LPGA and wouldn’t want to have to take on LPGA players as he’d lose often. 

[Obee]

2 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

As noted in the post, yes all + handicap. How many male +2 or +3 have every score in the system from a tournament round on a top tier professional golf tour? I’m not saying a +3 could never beat a LPGA player over the course of 18, but the odds are heavily in that LPGA player’s favor. When this came up on Twitter and everyone made fun of it there was one guy who I think was a +4 or 5 basically say he’d have no chance of making cuts on the LPGA and wouldn’t want to have to take on LPGA players as he’d lose often. 

And he's not living in the world of reality.

 

Yes, he'd lose often to the best players. He would absolutely make cuts.

[pinhigh27]

3 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

As noted in the post, yes all + handicap. How many male +2 or +3 have every score in the system from a tournament round on a top tier professional golf tour? I’m not saying a +3 could never beat a LPGA player over the course of 18, but the odds are heavily in that LPGA player’s favor. When this came up on Twitter and everyone made fun of it there was one guy who I think was a +4 or 5 basically say he’d have no chance of making cuts on the LPGA and wouldn’t want to have to take on LPGA players as he’d lose often. 

 Most people +2 and better take it very seriously so their scores and cap are going to be legit. 
 

you just posted a thing that said the average men’s  handicap for the top lpga players is +3ish but that a +4 or +5 wouldn’t make cuts ? They would do very well. 
 

I don’t think you understand how good a +4 or +5 guy is. Those are very rare that are either nationally competitive amateurs, top level college players or professionals. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by pinhigh27

[xmanhockey7]

2 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

 Most people +2 and better take it very seriously so their scores and cap are going to be legit. 
 

you just posted a thing that said the avg handicap for the top lpga players is +3ish but that a +4 or +5 wouldn’t make cuts ? They would do very well. 
 

I don’t think you understand how good a +4 or +5 guy is. Those are very rare that are either nationally competitive amateurs, top level college players or professionals. 

How are we getting their handicaps though? Are they based on scores shot playing Saturday mornings at their home club with the boys or are they playing in professional golf tournaments and getting those scores? A +4 can make some cuts and in head to head matches win some, but LPGA players are far better than many realize. I understand women’s golf doesn’t have the depth of males, but I predict it’s stronger in the next 5, 10, 15 years. From a future stand point Women’s golf is changing and I bet you see a lot more depth and talent in the coming years. 

[pinhigh27]

I don’t think there are many +4s hanging out at their country club playing with their friends on the weekend. They’re going to be traveling nationally and competing in major events. At the absolute minimum they are going to have a plethora of competitive experience. I have never seen a +4 handicap golfer who hadn’t played in tons of tournaments. 
 

You keep saying I’m underestimating how good an LPGA tour player is. I think you’re underestimating how good a +4 or +5 is. The data provided above shows they’re probably better than the average lpga tour players and at minimum as good as it better than lots of the better lpga tour players. 
 

a 4 handicap (original topic) and a +4 handicap are worlds apart. Not even the same game. 

[farmer]

This has strayed far away from the original topic.  A 4 hdcp man is shooting something around 80 on a regular basis and about once every four rounds, he dips to 76-77, and his bad rounds are dropped.  LPGA players shooting 80 would be horrified and be on the phone to their coach.  LPGA season scoring averages are based on every round, good or bad, in big time tournament play.

[xmanhockey7]

57 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

I don’t think there are many +4s hanging out at their country club playing with their friends on the weekend. They’re going to be traveling nationally and competing in major events. At the absolute minimum they are going to have a plethora of competitive experience. I have never seen a +4 handicap golfer who hadn’t played in tons of tournaments. 
 

You keep saying I’m underestimating how good an LPGA tour player is. I think you’re underestimating how good a +4 or +5 is. The data provided above shows they’re probably better than the average lpga tour players and at minimum as good as it better than lots of the better lpga tour players. 
 

a 4 handicap (original topic) and a +4 handicap are worlds apart. Not even the same game. 

Not doubt big difference in +4 and 4. But what tournaments and how many are played do play a factor. There are guys on the PGA Tour who based on tournament scores are +6, 7 whatever, but’s it’s not adjusted for PGA Tour conditions which makes them even better.

[Justsomeguy]

Unpopular but obvious opinion: it all depends on distance. If this is an exec course, the lpga pro runs away with it. If it's 8,000 yards, every yard adds to the male am's expectation.

Make it a 7,000 yard course, and at that point you're getting some odds.

[indianagolf2]

Lpga would have stellar short games and putting 

[farmer]

JSG, at 8000 yds, the LPGA player beats the snot out of  4 hdcp.  The harder the course, the more the skill differential shows.

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

I don’t think there are many +4s hanging out at their country club playing with their friends on the weekend. They’re going to be traveling nationally and competing in major events. At the absolute minimum they are going to have a plethora of competitive experience. I have never seen a +4 handicap golfer who hadn’t played in tons of tournaments. 
 

You keep saying I’m underestimating how good an LPGA tour player is. I think you’re underestimating how good a +4 or +5 is. The data provided above shows they’re probably better than the average lpga tour players and at minimum as good as it better than lots of the better lpga tour players. 
 

a 4 handicap (original topic) and a +4 handicap are worlds apart. Not even the same game. 

Incorrect on the +4 theory. At least here in Phoenix there are many +4’s at club level golf.  I guess that would depend on your definition of “many” but our small club alone has three or more that hardly even play state level events. Much less national.

[Shilgy]

20 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Wasn't trying to confuse things.  A question about comparative ratings and handicaps between men and women was asked and I tried to provide an answer.

Putting Womens handicaps on the lady pros is like trying to apply male handicaps to the PGA Tour boys. The women hit the ball as far, actually further, than the mythical 250 yard scratch player used to rate courses for men. 
 

Edited to add, the 4 handicap could not make a Symetra tour cut, much less having a chance on the LPGA.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Shilgy

[ThinkingPlus]

34 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Putting Womens handicaps on the lady pros is like trying to apply male handicaps to the PGA Tour boys. The women hit the ball as far, actually further, than the mythical 250 yard scratch player used to rate courses for men. 
w

Edited to add, the 4 handicap could not make a Symetra tour cut, much less having a chance on the LPGA.

Actually I think I have decided that a far more interesting question is not whether a 4 'cap can beat an LPGA player, but rather could a 4 'cap beat me. LOL!  We can call it the old fat lady challenge.

[goaliedad30]

39 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually I think I have decided that a far more interesting question is not whether a 4 'cap can beat an LPGA player, but rather could a 4 'cap beat me. LOL!  We can call it the old fat lady challenge.

This 4-handicapper thinks "absolutely not .... you win every time!". But if you're in Northern California, let me know, and we'll tee it up for fun! #ifyouplaygolfyouaremyfriend

[North Texas]

23 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Love your posts TP but let’s not confuse the issue. The handicaps being suggested are male handicaps for the lady pros. 

 

Took a look at the last 5 years scores in the ANA Inspiration. In a field of of 150+ players the worst scores of the players that did not make the cut were in the 76-78 range playing tees with a 78.3 course rating, i.e. the ANA Inspiration Tees (section in pink). 

 

So here's my question as it relates to this discussion. In a field of 150+ men, all with 4 handicaps, what would the best scores look like playing 36 holes from the same tees where their course rating would be 72.6 with the same course setup and conditions?

[Gsea]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually I think I have decided that a far more interesting question is not whether a 4 'cap can beat an LPGA player, but rather could a 4 'cap beat me. LOL!  We can call it the old fat lady challenge.

Hell the 4 cap couldn't beat me half the time I'm a 5

[Soloman1]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Actually I think I have decided that a far more interesting question is not whether a 4 'cap can beat an LPGA player, but rather could a 4 'cap beat me. LOL!  We can call it the old fat lady challenge.

Agree!

I think it would be a great challenge and more interesting than a tour event for GolfWRX folks.

 

Hell, a 4 couldn't beat this 67 year old. slightly chubby from covid geezer. They probable couldn't even out drive me.

"So, do you feel lucky, punk?" Haha

Heck. I'd play with you and we could take on any two amateurs.

 

Here's my geezer swing. Come get some...

 

 

[dhc1]

22 hours ago, xmanhockey7 said:

How are we getting their handicaps though? Are they based on scores shot playing Saturday mornings at their home club with the boys or are they playing in professional golf tournaments and getting those scores? A +4 can make some cuts and in head to head matches win some, but LPGA players are far better than many realize. I understand women’s golf doesn’t have the depth of males, but I predict it’s stronger in the next 5, 10, 15 years. From a future stand point Women’s golf is changing and I bet you see a lot more depth and talent in the coming years. 

we’ve done the math here and the 100th ranked lpga player has a men’s index of around scratch based upon course setups that are similar to everyday play at good courses. This is nowhere close to a +4 men’s. 

[dhc1]

On 9/3/2020 at 11:09 PM, Qwiklap said:

** pointing at this post and applauding **
 

By smoke I mean that your +1 Am wins 1 in 10 matches (maybe).

 

And if your am shoots a 71 - 78, she will shoot 68-71

Against an lpga player ranked between 75-125? I’d say the odds are much closer to 50/50. It’s wrong to look at the best lpga players due to the lack of depth on the tour. 
 

again, we have the actual scores of these players and they’re right in line with men’s scratch (somewhere between +2 to over scratch). Given that there’s no ESC in these numbers, I’d lean toward being more biased towards the pros however. 

[dhc1]

22 hours ago, farmer said:

This has strayed far away from the original topic.  A 4 hdcp man is shooting something around 80 on a regular basis and about once every four rounds, he dips to 76-77, and his bad rounds are dropped.  LPGA players shooting 80 would be horrified and be on the phone to their coach.  LPGA season scoring averages are based on every round, good or bad, in big time tournament play.

farmer,

 

the original topic is ludicrously stupid as NFW on it happening with any semblance of probability. 
 

the topic has shifted (and is a fair question IMO) to whether a men’s +2 to scratch would be competitive vs an LPGA player (not a top earner) and I think we’ve seen Iteach, Obee and thinkingplus argue that it’s about right. 
 

doesn’t mean the lpga ladies aren’t great but rather that it’s hard to be a tourney tested men’s scratch, as opposed to a vanity one.

Edited September 5, 2020 by dhc1

[dhc1]

On 9/3/2020 at 10:44 PM, xmanhockey7 said:

LPGA woman is ABSOLUTELY better than mens +2 or 3. These are handicap index’s for LPGA players (all +) and based on tournament rounds. Not casual Sunday scores. I don’t think you understand just how good they are. 

 

Lol. Keeping going down the list for LPGA players and it’ll quickly drop off to men’s scratch around the 100th best player. 
 

your argument seems to be built solely around the best lpga playerS and I don’t see many people making the counter-argument.
 

Of course, that’s not what the current discussion is about (back-end LPGA vs tourney tested men’s scratch). 

[North Texas]

45 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

Lol. Keeping going down the list for LPGA players and it’ll quickly drop off to men’s scratch around the 100th best player. 
 

your argument seems to be built solely around the best lpga playerS and I don’t see many people making the counter-argument.
 

Of course, that’s not what the current discussion is about (back-end LPGA vs tourney tested men’s scratch). 

 

In my post above, I did bring up the back-end LPGA players using scores from the last 5 ANA Inspiration tournaments.

 

The worst scores averaged in the 76-78 range on a course where the men's rating is 72.6. So what would the equivalent handicap for those players be using the men's rating? And what would a 4 handicapper shoot on a course with that rating?

Edited September 5, 2020 by North Texas

[dhc1]

32 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

In my post above, I did bring up the back-end LPGA players using scores from the last 5 ANA Inspiration tournaments.

 

The worst scores averaged in the 76-78 range on a course where the men's rating is 72.6. So what would the equivalent handicap for those players be using the men's rating? And what would a 4 handicapper shoot on a course with that rating?

As I’ve previously stated, the 4 handicap issue is dead - it’s just not a reasonable number to expect to beat an LPGA player. 
 

Switching to a better comparison (legit men’s scratch), Players are expected to shoot about 3-4 strokes above their handicap on average so a men’s scratch would average about 76-78 on that course. This is obviously right in line with the LPGA scores....
 

FWIW, the 4 handicap would shoot about 80-82 on average but is far more likely to have a blow up hole where ESC is invoked (Max score rather than actual) than either an LPGA player or a legit men’s scratch. 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

we’ve done the math here and the 100th ranked lpga player has a men’s index of around scratch based upon course setups that are similar to everyday play at good courses. This is nowhere close to a +4 men’s. 

Who did this math? The 100th best scoring average last year was 72.00. A conservative estimate would put the average course rating at 71.0. Agree? That makes #100 approximately a male +2 based on the USGA estimate that the handicap will be about 3 strokes under their average score.

 

edited to add...you said essentially the same in the post just above this. You think the average course rating they play is about 69 then? Cmon man.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Shilgy