Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Shilgy]

13 hours ago, North Texas said:

 

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?

This year there are playing the course at 6769 yards-yes 18 will likely be moved up a day or two- and those tees are rated at 73.1 136 for men. So approximately 20% of the time the 4 capper would shoot the same as the worst scores the women shoot. Note the worst scores are likely on days where conditions were most difficult. 

[dhc1]

27 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

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.

i think the equivalent number is a men’s +2 to scratch so if your point is that it’s closer to +2 than scratch, I won’t argue much.
 

I do think the courses are set up a bit easier than normal play just to provide more risk/return with a couple holes offering the ability to drive the green but I haven’t watched much pro golf (either men’s or women’s recently). ANA score reflect about a scratch (scores around 76-78) but perhaps it was set up a bit harder. 
 

I think Argonne and I looked at the scores about 4-5 years ago and it was higher than 72 then. 

[dhc1]

32 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by dhc1
Double post

[xmanhockey7]

Get the 100th best LPGA player and a mens 0 handicap. I know who I'm putting money on every day of the week.

[pinhigh27]

17 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Get the 100th best LPGA player and a mens 0 handicap. I know who I'm putting money on every day of the week.

Ok and give me a +4 and the 100th best lpga player and I will bet everything I own on the +4 

I think an average lpga player is probably similar to scratch man maybe slightly better. Around +1 to +2 I’d expect it to be around 50/50 who wins. A +4 will crush them. 

 

[oiler45]

Put your +4 and the 100th best Lpga pro in real tournament conditions and pressure and I'll take your bet any day of the week and twice on Sunday  ....

[xmanhockey7]

I’d still take LPGA over a normal +4. If you’re a +4 playing on KFT or PGA that’s one thing. Again, I don’t think people realize the different between posting scores from casual or even club level tournaments and playing on the LPGA or PGA tour. +4 certainly can win a random 18 hole match, but the odds would not be in their favor. A 0 IMO would have basically no chance. 

[pinhigh27]

There aren’t normal +4s. That’s not a thing. There’s no reason to be that good at the game if you aren’t going to play competitively. 
 

This is an insane argument. So now you think a +4 isn’t good enough. So a +5? We’re going to get into professional men’s golfers and elite college players here who would absolutely decimate an average lpga tour player. They’d be 80 yards longer off the tee , better ball strikers, better short game and better putters. 
 

if you had a legit +6 man vs an average lpga tour player from the same tees  the match would be over in 13 holes or less. 
 

do you honestly think if we put cole hammer vs an average lpga tour player that it would be even close to a match ? 
 

I get the sentiment of an average lpga tour player is really good and ya it’s stupid for a 4 handicap to think they can beat one. I would say it’s also very stupid to think a +4 man wouldn’t. 

[pinhigh27]

Or to extend the argument to show its absurdity , you think a +4 wouldn’t beat an average lpga tour player, who are 3 shots worse than the lpga studs. So you think a +7 guy wouldn’t beat Danielle Kang ? Aka a KFT/ pga tour golfer

[North Texas]

2 hours ago, pinhigh27 said:

Ok and give me a +4 and the 100th best lpga player and I will bet everything I own on the +4 

I think an average lpga player is probably similar to scratch man maybe slightly better. Around +1 to +2 I’d expect it to be around 50/50 who wins. A +4 will crush them. 

 

 

What did I miss? When did a male +4 enter the discussion? And why?

[xmanhockey7]

8 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

Or to extend the argument to show its absurdity , you think a +4 wouldn’t beat an average lpga tour player, who are 3 shots worse than the lpga studs. So you think a +7 guy wouldn’t beat Danielle Kang ? Aka a KFT/ pga tour golfer

Again, where are they a +4? Are they a +4 based on PGA Tour scores with tour conditions or are they a +4 on a typical course not tour conditions? Can a +4 beat an LPGA player? Yes, they can. If you had to bet who would you put your money on? I bet you’d pick the man. If I had to pick I’d choose the LPGA player. Maybe I’m dead wrong and the LPGA player wins 0/100, but I bet she wins more than 50% of the time. If it’s a male tour player I’ll take them over her. 

[pinhigh27]

Again you're talking about +4 handicaps like they are club golfers who don't play in tournaments. That is not the case in a vast majority. You see vanity scratches who play their home course and suck everywhere else. That isn't going to happen as much when you start getting deep into plus because the only people who want to do that are people who want to be seriously competitive. There is no point in getting that good and spending the time and effort required if you're just playing on the weekend with your buddies. It's why there is nobody grinding at the YMCA for 5 hours a day shooting 3s to be the best pickup 3 point shooter in the world, because it doesn't mean anything, ie there is no motivation to do it. If you spend the time required to be a +4 ( ie probably 20+ hours a week of practice for most people) you're doing it with a goal in mind, ie winning tournaments, probably not taking money off your buddies. 

 

A male player on any tour that you recognize wouldn't be a +4. The point is that by nature of being a +4 you are likely legit. 

 

Cole hammer was a +5 when he was 15 and playing in the US open. I'm pretty sure if you can qualify for a US open you can crush an average LPGA tour player, otherwise they would play in the US open, instead of playing in random 1500 dollar prize mens events. 

[Shilgy]

48 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

What did I miss? When did a male +4 enter the discussion? And why?

Because some don’t want the lady pro to win? That’s the only reason I can think of. 
 

Here is a +4 scores from our club. Seems similar to a 75-100 LPGA pro.

66  71.4   127. Except where noted those are the ratings

66

70

69

76

69. 72.9. 147

69.  72.9. 147

80  75.9 149

71  75.9 149

70

76

75

72

69

68

67

72

76

77

So yeah,  a +4 would be great competition. Of course that’s only 8 strokes better than the original question!

 

edited to add. That is a 71.47 scoring average. A half stroke better than the pro. But...most of those are friendly rounds, not playing for a living on a different course every week rounds.

Don't get me wrong, the guy can flat out play. But he is not going to crush the ladies...or play in the US Open.

Edited September 5, 2020 by Shilgy

[xmanhockey7]

Okay, well I don’t know what the cut off is then. At what handicap does one beat an LPGA player more than 50% of the time? Based on anecdotal evidence of a male +2 I know he has yet to beat a friend who recently got her LPGA card. I dated a girl who was a good D2 player. Never went pro. Playing from same tees with a course rating around 72 if we both played well I couldn’t beat her. I’d often lose by one shot, but still. Typical scores for us were in the 71-76 range. No idea my handicap at the time, but 77 was a bad round for me and I’d break par here and there. 
 

Also interesting is Joel Dahmen with a scoring average of 70.415 is estimated by Lou Stagner to be a +7.4. For a guy who average 70-71 how could he be a +7.4? Because those are tournament rounds on the PGA Tour. 
 

When Twitter took up this debate one guy said he was a +4 (I think...maybe 5) and said in a match he’d put his money on the LPGA player. 
 

Maybe I’m completely wrong. You’re 100% right. If that’s the case...oh well I guess. 

[dhc1]

12 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Okay, well I don’t know what the cut off is then. At what handicap does one beat an LPGA player more than 50% of the time? Based on anecdotal evidence of a male +2 I know he has yet to beat a friend who recently got her LPGA card. I dated a girl who was a good D2 player. Never went pro. Playing from same tees with a course rating around 72 if we both played well I couldn’t beat her. I’d often lose by one shot, but still. Typical scores for us were in the 71-76 range. No idea my handicap at the time, but 77 was a bad round for me and I’d break par here and there. 
 

Also interesting is Joel Dahmen with a scoring average of 70.415 is estimated by Lou Stagner to be a +7.4. For a guy who average 70-71 how could he be a +7.4? Because those are tournament rounds on the PGA Tour. 
 

When Twitter took up this debate one guy said he was a +4 (I think...maybe 5) and said in a match he’d put his money on the LPGA player. 
 

Maybe I’m completely wrong. You’re 100% right. If that’s the case...oh well I guess. 

The pga tour set ups aren’t comparable to any normal course while the lpga setups are actually easier than regular play at elite courses so you can’t compare Pga vs lpga. You put an average lpga player on the PGA tour and she’s got a good chance to shoot 80 or over given length and typical course set up of greens and rough. 

[dhc1]

29 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Because some don’t want the lady pro to win? That’s the only reason I can think of. 
 

Here is a +4 scores from our club. Seems similar to a 75-100 LPGA pro.

66  71.4   127. Except where noted those are the ratings

66

70

69

76

69. 72.9. 147

69.  72.9. 147

80  75.9 149

71  75.9 149

70

76

75

72

69

68

67

72

76

77

So yeah,  a +4 would be great competition. Of course that’s only 8 strokes better than the original question!

 

edited to add. That is a 71.47 scoring average. A half stroke better than the pro. But...most of those are friendly rounds, not playing for a living on a different course every week rounds.

Don't get me wrong, the guy can flat out play. But he is not going to crush the ladies...or play in the US Open.

your course has a slope of 147/149? Wow.
 

I don’t think the lpga tour plays on anything close to that number.  Your course is significantly harder than what the lpga plays on so it’s apples and organs for stroke average. 

[Shilgy]

No, the 71.4 127 is my home club...where a majority of his scores are from. Yes, he’s giving them a great game. Might even be 50-50 who wins. Or even a bit in his favor as he has the length to go very low. But again, that is a +4...not the scratch or +2 you have mentioned and certainly not the 4 cap from the original premise.

[dhc1]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

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.

Heres the numbers for this year:

 

75th ranked: 72.0 Scoring average

100th: 72.5

125th: 73.1

150th: 73.7 

176th: 75.2

 

Here’s Karen Stupples from a few years ago: 

 

“I do see a trend in how the LPGA are setting up courses, even from when I played, which wasn’t that long ago,” said Golf Channel analyst Karen Stupples, the 2004 Women’s British Open champ. “I've played on the same courses, and I played them longer when I played three, four years ago. So, they’re setting the courses up shorter. It’s very rare now that you have a golf course that requires much more than a wedge into a par 4. It’s very easy to be aggressive and go for a flag if you’ve got a wedge in your hand. It would be nice to see, every once in a while, a bit more of challenge.”

Edited September 5, 2020 by dhc1
Added stupples commentary

[pinhigh27]

30 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

No, the 71.4 127 is my home club...where a majority of his scores are from. Yes, he’s giving them a great game. Might even be 50-50 who wins. Or even a bit in his favor as he has the length to go very low. But again, that is a +4...not the scratch or +2 you have mentioned and certainly not the 4 cap from the original premise.

 

so the ones without rating and slope listed are the home course with the 71.4 127? 

 

This guy crushes the average player in my opinion, his good scores could win the events which are from similar tees. If par is 72, he has a stretch where he is 12 under in 4 rounds and other where he is 13 under. Those are all within his last 20 scores, ie 5 events. So if a full season is 20 events, he's going to have at least 8 outings of double digit under par over 4 days from those tees.The 100th person is not putting up those numbers. 

 

Using 2019 data because there are limited 2020 events. The 100th ranked player in 2019, Allison Lee has a best 4 round performance of -19, which is quite a bit of an outlier(-19 finished t23 so I'm gonna guess the course was playing really easy). Her next best 4 day finishes are -11 and a -9. She also has multiple +10s after 2 rounds, which your buddy doesn't have in his latest 20, including places that are significantly harder than what they'd ever play. 

 

If he wasn't playing tee sets up rated 73 and 76 which are not common for the LPGA tour, his average would be even lower and he'd likely have more impressive stretches as well which would further skew the comparison. 

Edited September 5, 2020 by pinhigh27

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, dhc1 said:

Heres the numbers for this year:

 

75th ranked: 72.0 Scoring average

100th: 72.5

125th: 73.1

150th: 73.7 

176th: 75.2

 

 

You don’t think a full years worth of numbers are more valid? Okey donkey then...

 

2 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

 

so the ones without rating and slope listed are the home course with the 71.4 127? 

 

This guy crushes the average player in my opinion, his good scores could win the events which are from similar tees. If par is 72, he has a stretch where he is 12 under in 4 rounds and other where he is 13 under. I really don't think the 100th person is putting up those numbers. 

 

Using 2019 data because there are limited 2020 events. The 100th ranked player in 2019, Allison Lee has a best 4 round performance of -19, which is quite a bit of an outlier(-19 finished t23 so I'm gonna guess the course was playing really easy). Her next best 4 day finishes are -11 and a -9. She also has multiple +10s after 2 rounds, which your buddy doesn't have in his latest 20, including places that are significantly harder than what they'd ever play. 

 

If he wasn't playing tee sets up rated 73 and 76 which are not common for the LPGA tour, his average would be even lower and he'd likely have more impressive stretches as well which would further skew the comparison. 

And some of the tour courses are definitely more difficult than his home course. The ANA this week is almost two full shots harder, and 150 yards longer.  Oh , and that pesky tournament ..playing for a living...new course every week thing rather than sh!ts and giggle weekend rounds.

[xmanhockey7]

4 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You don’t think a full years worth of numbers are more valid? Okey donkey then...

 

And some of the tour courses are definitely more difficult than his home course. The ANA this week is almost two full shots harder, and 150 yards longer.  Oh , and that pesky tournament ..playing for a living...new course every week thing rather than sh!ts and giggle weekend rounds.

I really keep trying to just move on. With that +4s scores and his ability to put 4 great rounds together he should be out on the KFT making 6 figures. Right? ?

[pinhigh27]

No. Who has said that? Do you really think competing on the LPGA tour and KFT are similar levels of difficulty or player ability? 

[xmanhockey7]

7 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

No. Who has said that? Do you really think competing on the LPGA tour and KFT are similar levels of difficulty or player ability? 

Well he’s a +4 and +5 plays in US Opens...so I don’t know why he couldn’t play KFT...

[North Texas]

1 hour ago, dhc1 said:

Heres the numbers for this year:

 

75th ranked: 72.0 Scoring average

100th: 72.5

125th: 73.1

150th: 73.7 

176th: 75.2

 

Here’s Karen Stupples from a few years ago: 

 

“I do see a trend in how the LPGA are setting up courses, even from when I played, which wasn’t that long ago,” said Golf Channel analyst Karen Stupples, the 2004 Women’s British Open champ. “I've played on the same courses, and I played them longer when I played three, four years ago. So, they’re setting the courses up shorter. It’s very rare now that you have a golf course that requires much more than a wedge into a par 4. It’s very easy to be aggressive and go for a flag if you’ve got a wedge in your hand. It would be nice to see, every once in a while, a bit more of challenge.”

 

I could be wrong but I'm am extremely skeptical of Karen's claim that they rarely have much more than wedge into a par 4. 

[ThinkingPlus]

33 minutes ago, North Texas said:

 

I could be wrong but I'm am extremely skeptical of Karen's claim that they rarely have much more than wedge into a par 4. 

At least on paper, the LPGA plays longer courses today than 10 - 15 years ago.  They do tend to setup the courses very firm so lots of run in the fairways.  Very similar to the PGA tour in that respect.  Of course, big difference in fairway width and depth of rough between the tours.  The depth of rough difference is reasonable because of relative strength issues, however, fairway width on the LPGA is usually pretty generous except for majors.  JMO

[dhc1]

12 hours ago, Shilgy said:

No, the 71.4 127 is my home club...where a majority of his scores are from. Yes, he’s giving them a great game. Might even be 50-50 who wins. Or even a bit in his favor as he has the length to go very low. But again, that is a +4...not the scratch or +2 you have mentioned and certainly not the 4 cap from the original premise.

let’s be clear, you think the 100th ranked  lpga player is equivalent to at least a men’s +4? 
 

fwiw, I look at your colleagues scores and get an index of +3.0 but I guess you’re using slope adjusted handicap

[dhc1]

12 hours ago, Shilgy said:

You don’t think a full years worth of numbers are more valid? Okey donkey then...

 

And some of the tour courses are definitely more difficult than his home course. The ANA this week is almost two full shots harder, and 150 yards longer.  Oh , and that pesky tournament ..playing for a living...new course every week thing rather than sh!ts and giggle weekend rounds.

 The ANA (72.6 men’s rating) had a cut line of 5 over last year so I’m not sure that’s the best example for you to use. 
 

assuming normal course conditions, a men’s scratch golfer would average about 7 over for two days, in line with the 3rd quartile of the best lpga players. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by dhc1
Notes scores were from last year

[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. 

 

 

Where did you get this interesting information from? it actually can answer our question if it goes down to the full list of LPGA players.

 

If we don't have any additional info and assuming this info is correct, the way I look at this is the 25th best LPGA player has a season long index of around +2.5 to 2.9 (bottom five are 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6 but let's round up a bit as this is ranked by low point during the season rather than average season long index).

 

The scoring average of the 25th ranked players in 2019 (shilgy suggestion) is 70.7

50th ranked: 71.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: 71.6 (0.9 difference)

100th: 72.0 (1.3 difference)

125th: 72.5 (1.8 difference)

150th: 73.5 (2.8 difference)

 

adjusting off of the +2.7 (average of 2.5 and 2.9 from the chart above), here's what I get:

 

50th ranked: +2.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: +1.8 (0.9 difference)

100th: +1.4 (1.3 difference)

125th: +0.9 (1.8 difference)

150th: scratch (2.8 difference)

 

Still looks like the back end of the LPGA is between a +2 and a scratch.

 

 

 

[xmanhockey7]

28 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

Where did you get this interesting information from? it actually can answer our question if it goes down to the full list of LPGA players.

 

If we don't have any additional info and assuming this info is correct, the way I look at this is the 25th best LPGA player has a season long index of around +2.5 to 2.9 (bottom five are 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6 but let's round up a bit as this is ranked by low point during the season rather than average season long index).

 

The scoring average of the 25th ranked players in 2019 (shilgy suggestion) is 70.7

50th ranked: 71.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: 71.6 (0.9 difference)

100th: 72.0 (1.3 difference)

125th: 72.5 (1.8 difference)

150th: 73.5 (2.8 difference)

 

adjusting off of the +2.7 (average of 2.5 and 2.9 from the chart above), here's what I get:

 

50th ranked: +2.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: +1.8 (0.9 difference)

100th: +1.4 (1.3 difference)

125th: +0.9 (1.8 difference)

150th: scratch (2.8 difference)

 

Still looks like the back end of the LPGA is between a +2 and a scratch.

 

 

 

If you’re putting dead last as a scratch then women on the Symetra tour are obviously low single digits maybe even higher than that. Yet after 3 rounds the leader this week is -8. I don’t know many 0.0 caps capable of that. Also if dead last is a scratch then a 4 handicap could indeed beat an LPGA player sometimes. 
 

Also, Lou Stagner made it. Follow him on Twitter. 

[Lincoln_Arcadia]

27 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

Where did you get this interesting information from? it actually can answer our question if it goes down to the full list of LPGA players.

 

If we don't have any additional info and assuming this info is correct, the way I look at this is the 25th best LPGA player has a season long index of around +2.5 to 2.9 (bottom five are 2.5, 2.5, 2.6, 2.6, 2.6 but let's round up a bit as this is ranked by low point during the season rather than average season long index).

 

The scoring average of the 25th ranked players in 2019 (shilgy suggestion) is 70.7

50th ranked: 71.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: 71.6 (0.9 difference)

100th: 72.0 (1.3 difference)

125th: 72.5 (1.8 difference)

150th: 73.5 (2.8 difference)

 

adjusting off of the +2.7 (average of 2.5 and 2.9 from the chart above), here's what I get:

 

50th ranked: +2.2 (0.5 stroke difference from 25th ranked)

75th: +1.8 (0.9 difference)

100th: +1.4 (1.3 difference)

125th: +0.9 (1.8 difference)

150th: scratch (2.8 difference)

 

Still looks like the back end of the LPGA is between a +2 and a scratch.

 

Not sure if it’s really that simple?