Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[Shilgy]

On 9/6/2020 at 5:26 AM, dhc1 said:

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

3.7

 

On 9/6/2020 at 6:29 AM, 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.

 

 

 

Maybe maybe not. The amateur we are using actual numbers. The pro we typically are using scoring average. Many ower ranked pros are more erratic than the top pros(makes sense-that is part of why they are lower ranked!). However, using just 8 of last 20 the lower ranked pro may have as low a handicap.  Just more high scores that drive the average up.

[Red4282]

6 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

It really doesn’t change. It doesn’t matter what distance you set the course up at. The average female LPGA tour player will beat on them. 4 handicap is a 4 for a reason. Let’s say they do gain some shots OTT compared to the LPGA player because they hit it so far...they’re just going to lose shots in other places like approach shots and short game. Honestly, the harder the course becomes the easier it becomes for that LPGA player to win. They will hit the center of the face with way more consistency, hit it straighter, and do far better around the green. Here are the shortest men and longest women. Certainly not the fairest comparison from a statistics stand point as to truly see the difference you need them to all hit from the same spot on the same course. Still...it’s something. 

By that logic you are saying distance doesnt matter and all the strokes gained stuff that shows how important distance really is, is a sham..

Edited September 7, 2020 by Red4282

[setter02]

^ Really no point in bringing up Men's Tour distance vs. women's.  Who in their right mind would ever take those LPGA players against the those men?  It's as stupid an argument as those who bring them up in regular posts stating that the pro's only avg 112 mph chs so they can't believe others can be substantially more...

[setter02]

^ Really no point in bringing up Men's Tour distance vs. women's.  Who in their right mind would ever take those LPGA players against the those men?  It's as stupid an argument as those who bring them up in regular posts stating that the pro's only avg 112 mph chs so they can't believe others can be substantially more...

[Shilgy]

On 9/6/2020 at 8:53 AM, dhc1 said:

PGA courses vs average play is night and day. I understand that’s not the case for LPGA stops; for example, trump bedminster members have stated that the 2017 US Open was set up easier than daily play (length, rough height and tee positions)

Good point...although Oakmont and a few others say the same about the men’s US Open.  Seems like members are always trying to justify their higher scores.

[Shilgy]

40 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

So what if ur a 4 cap used to playing 7400???? ?

He still shoots about 7 OVER THE COURSE RATING.  Not over par. Let’s say the course is fairly easy and the course rating from the tips is 74.0.   He will average about 81 and shoot 78 about 20% of the time.  Do you really think the lady pro shoots that high just because the course longer? 
Granted she is not a run of the mill LPGA player but during the break Anna Nordqvist shot 64- 8 under- from 7250 yards on the Outlaw tour. Just a one off perhaps but the other ladies are not that far behind. As many have said the amateur 4, or even scratch, is what they are from any tees in relation to the course rating. Moving them back is not going to help.

Also please remember that the driving “average” is just that. Not as far as they can hit it. So to say the lady can “only hit it 250” is incorrect. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Shilgy

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

Those dont translate to 7000+ courses. Thats my whole point. Michele wie had success because if anyones game was setup to compete with men it was her. She had speed. Annikas putter let her down u say... yea always something huh. Im not saying the women arent good. They would absolutely tear a 4 capper apart at 6400 yards. But it changes the longer you make it. Just the way the world works, men have a physical advantage, period. Golf is one sport where skill can offset it to a degree. But its still a factor.

I assume you either didn't read my post back a dozen or so or didn't understand it or didn't believe me.  The difference is ~1 stroke per the USGA.

[Soloman1]

I agree that it's possible for a 4 to beat a middle-of-the pack LPGA Tour player . . . if she played one of her worst rounds and the 4 played one of the best rounds of his life.

On the same day at the same course in the same group by chance.

So, not only do you have to look at the odds of him playing that exceptional round (379:1), you have to add the odds of the Tour player shooting her worst round.

But, he still has a statistically better chance of dying from a heart attack within a year. (265:1)

 

It's math.

 

If you knew that you had a one in 379 chance of surviving a jump off a bridge, would you jump because "it's possible" and today is your lucky day?

 

"Hold my beer and watch this!"

 

[ThinkingPlus]

50 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

Very late to this thread, and it's been an interesting read.  My take still goes back to course ratings and set ups and how much they favor decent female players vs. the men.  When I was a club pro, I would play with a couple of the D1 girls who were a +1ish while never breaking par.  I was a 5 (who 2 years previous was a 28 yr old 12-14 capper before entering the industry) and would hover, but didn't break par.  We were basically equals most of the time, while they would do nothing but golf and I would be working 6 days a week and usually 10ish hour days.  

 

We see this in most sports when we try to do a gender cross comparison and for almost all sports (unless judged), I feel that highschool males (top talent) could beat, and very badly beat in some sports, the very best females in the world, it wouldn't even be close in team sports.  

 

From the original question of a 4 beating an LPGA player, yes it could happen often, not likely, but 100% could happen.  People are trying too hard to make the argument of it having to be a top tier LPGA player vs. the reality of just saying 'an LPGA player/pro', which could mean anything.  Hell, Paige played on the LPGA and I don't think anyone can honestly say they felt she was of that caliber.

 

Having seen LPGA set ups, I don't find them overly hard and honestly wouldn't even peg them as more difficult than many of the Men's field day set ups at top tier private clubs here in Southern Ontario.  Having played the day after the Canadian Open, I think I farted in the direction of my ball once and it rolled off the green...

Were those D1 girls +1 women's index or men's?  If men's index they would likely have been top ten collegiates in the nation and you wouldn't have had a snowballs  chance to beat them from any tee as a men's 5.  I am pretty sure they were women's +1 which would be roughly a men's 5 index.

Edited September 7, 2020 by ThinkingPlus

[setter02]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Were those D1 girls +1 women's index or men's?  If men's index they would likely have been top ten collegiates in the nation and you wouldn't have had a snowballs  chance to beat them from any tee as a men's 5.  I am pretty sure they were women's +1 which would be roughly a men's 5 index.

 

Likely women's, but just find it embarrassing.  One went to Kentucky (for what that's really worth), the other a mid/bottom D1 school.  I also find its more likely that the 'lower calibre player' will likely play above themselves with a better player than the better player playing really well.  I've had more 30 cappers have the round of their lives with me than me having the round of my life with them.

Edited September 7, 2020 by setter02

[ThinkingPlus]

3 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

Likely women's, but just find it embarrassing.  One went to Kentucky (for what that's really worth), the other a mid/bottom D1 school.  

Then they were definitely women's indices.  Most of the recent discussion in this thread is speaking about LPGA tour players with scratch to +2 men's handicaps.

[xmanhockey7]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

By that logic you are saying distance doesnt matter and all the strokes gained stuff that shows how important distance really is, is a sham..

Did you just not even read what I said? 
 

“Let’s say they do gain some shots OTT compared to the LPGA player because they hit it so far...they’re just going to lose shots in other places like approach shots and short game.”

A 4 is a 4 is a 4. Find the longest 4 you can. They’re still a 4 handicap. They’re losing shots relative to a 0 SOMEWHERE. Relative to an LPGA player they’re losing a lot of shots SOMEWHERE. 
 

My point is there are women who on the LPGA are fairly long. They’re going to have no problem playing long courses if necessary. Heck, even the short hitters on tour can handle long courses against a freaking 4 handicap. 

[setter02]

2 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Then they were definitely women's indices.  Most of the recent discussion in this thread is speaking about LPGA tour players with scratch to +2 men's handicaps.

 

I know, but its interesting how all the sides are going.  Is it a +2 home course, how difficult is that home course.  Is it a traveling mini Tour player that is +2.  Again, personal opinion is that we don't give the top tier ladies the credit due to how good they are, but way over value the rest.  The world is full of million dollar swings and $2 brains, such is golf

2 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Did you just not even read what I said? 
 

“Let’s say they do gain some shots OTT compared to the LPGA player because they hit it so far...they’re just going to lose shots in other places like approach shots and short game.”

A 4 is a 4 is a 4. Find the longest 4 you can. They’re still a 4 handicap. They’re losing shots relative to a 0 SOMEWHERE. Relative to an LPGA player they’re losing a lot of shots SOMEWHERE. 
 

My point is there are women who on the LPGA are fairly long. They’re going to have no problem playing long courses if necessary. Heck, even the short hitters on tour can handle long courses against a freaking 4 handicap. 

 

But that's just isn't true at all.  Not all 4's are equal.  Is an Oakmont member that is a 4 the same as your dirt track muni?  They may be losing strokes somewhere, but when length is involved, shorter hitters either have to play lights out or are taking more strokes.  No one can scramble for 18 holes and score well consistently.

[xmanhockey7]

12 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

I know, but its interesting how all the sides are going.  Is it a +2 home course, how difficult is that home course.  Is it a traveling mini Tour player that is +2.  Again, personal opinion is that we don't give the top tier ladies the credit due to how good they are, but way over value the rest.  The world is full of million dollar swings and $2 brains, such is golf

 

But that's just isn't true at all.  Not all 4's are equal.  Is an Oakmont member that is a 4 the same as your dirt track muni?  They may be losing strokes somewhere, but when length is involved, shorter hitters either have to play lights out or are taking more strokes.  No one can scramble for 18 holes and score well consistently.

Take the players handicap. Take the course rating. Add 3. That’s going to be close to the players scoring average. Handicap index is handicap index. While I believe some courses are poorly rated course ratings and index scores take care of it. Still! I don’t care how far a 4 handicap hits the golf ball. They’re not beating an LPGA tour player. 
 

ETA: Still not apples to apples with an LPGA tour player who is literally playing for their paycheck. That 4 handicap plays casual rounds of golf more often than that. HUGE difference between playing on Saturday morning with the boys and playing on a high level professional golf tour. 
 

I suppose there is a chance a 4 handicap beats an LPGA player. I wrestled in high school. I an ok varsity wrestler, but nothing special at all. One time I beat a kid ranked in the top 10 or 15 in the state. Great wrestler. I won. I mean, we went down awkwardly at one point and he broke his arm. He couldn’t finish the match. But I did technically win. So if the LPGA player goes all Tony Finau and celebrates a hole out and twists her ankle and is unable to finish then yes, the 4 could win. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by xmanhockey7

[hanfrac]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

So what if ur a 4 cap used to playing 7400???? ?

I think you are imagining some mythical 4 handicapper who can shoot 76 on a 7400 yard course.  That guy is probably a +2.  

[setter02]

3 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Take the players handicap. Take the course rating. Add 3. That’s going to be close to the players scoring average. Handicap index is handicap index. While I believe some courses are poorly rated course ratings and index scores take care of it. Still! I don’t care how far a 4 handicap hits the golf ball. They’re not beating an LPGA tour player. 

 

Really need to truly define what an LPGA Tour player is.  Is it a vet who has years of tournament play under her belt? is it a Monday qualifier?  is it a sponsorship exempt player who played an LPGA event and can call herself an LPGA Tour player and will also have a bio and stats in Tour history?

 

You are way over valuing the bottom end players and completely dismissing the 4 capper playing well.  The length that that 4 capper also has can't be dismissed as that is a clear advantage on longer courses, more so as the courses get longer.  To think that way isn't even being disingenuous, it's moronic.  A 4 capper who can hit it 300+ on a 7k+ yd course against someone who bunts it out there 220ish is at a MASSIVE disadvantage, regardless of their ability from the same tees.

[Soloman1]

Sigh . . .

[b.helts]

Just popping in to say I love this thread. 
 

It is painfully clear that a couple of you don’t understand how the handicap system works and that colors your opinion in such a way that your flawed conclusions are laughable. 
 

 

[xmanhockey7]

2 minutes ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

Really need to truly define what an LPGA Tour player is.  Is it a vet who has years of tournament play under her belt? is it a Monday qualifier?  is it a sponsorship exempt player who played an LPGA event and can call herself an LPGA Tour player and will also have a bio and stats in Tour history?

 

You are way over valuing the bottom end players and completely dismissing the 4 capper playing well.  The length that that 4 capper also has can't be dismissed as that is a clear advantage on longer courses, more so as the courses get longer.  To think that way isn't even being disingenuous, it's moronic.  A 4 capper who can hit it 300+ on a 7k+ yd course against someone who bunts it out there 220ish is at a MASSIVE disadvantage, regardless of their ability from the same tees.

Average LPGA player. Anne van Dam is #100 in scoring average on the LPGA. Use her. Still, I don’t think you realize what issues a 4 handicap that hits it 300+ has in their game. How many fairways do they hit? Let’s say they’re tour quality and hit 65% of fairways. Ok. Now they’re gaining shots on a PGA tour player. What’re they doing from there? Probably nothing like what a normal 4 handicap player does. Which is where even a short LPGA player is going to destroy them on. Would that same 4 handicap have a chance at beating a good mini tour player? Because we’ve seen LPGA tour players like Lexi go on mini tours and beat just about everyone. 

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Good point...although Oakmont and a few others say the same about the men’s US Open.  Seems like members are always trying to justify their higher scores.

I think it may actually be true at oakmont. Every other course mentions how tricked out the course is for tourneys in terms of fairway width and firmness, length of rough and green speed. 
 

the US Open at Merion was nothing like what members play - same with Winged Foot, albeit not as tricked up. 

[b.helts]

On a long course, let’s say 7500 yards. 
 

A card carrying LPGA player could lay up to 100 yards on every par 4 ,to clarify, have 100 yards for birdie on every par 4, and beat a 4 handicap like a drum. I don’t care if the 4 is a short knocker or a beastly lumberjack. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by b.helts
Clarification

[setter02]

2 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

Average LPGA player. Anne van Dam is #100 in scoring average on the LPGA. Use her. Still, I don’t think you realize what issues a 4 handicap that hits it 300+ has in their game. How many fairways do they hit? Let’s say they’re tour quality and hit 65% of fairways. Ok. Now they’re gaining shots on a PGA tour player. What’re they doing from there? Probably nothing like what a normal 4 handicap player does. Which is where even a short LPGA player is going to destroy them on. Would that same 4 handicap have a chance at beating a good mini tour player? Because we’ve seen LPGA tour players like Lexi go on mini tours and beat just about everyone. 

 

You're now just jumping all over to try and prove a point...

 

To say that I don't know what that 4 capper issues could be is a bit silly, I was that 4 capper... (4.7 actually).  Can a 4 capper beat a good mini tour player, the answer is yes (but of course, you will now overly define that mini tour player to fit your narrative).  No different than bringing up Lexi and random mini tour events.  Brings nothing to your argument and is akin to a dog seeing a squirrel in your hopes...

[setter02]

4 minutes ago, b.helts said:

On a long course, let’s say 7500 yards. 
 

A card carrying LPGA player could lay up to 100 yards on every hole, to clarify, have 100 yards for birdie on every hole, and beat a 4 handicap like a drum. I don’t care if the 4 is a short knocker or a beastly lumberjack. 

 

You do realize that on a 7500 yard course you will be having multiple 480+ yard par 4's and likely 575ish yard par 5's right?  Not to mention 230+ yd par 3's...

[xmanhockey7]

1 minute ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

You're now just jumping all over to try and prove a point...

 

To say that I don't know what that 4 capper issues could be is a bit silly, I was that 4 capper... (4.7 actually).  Can a 4 capper beat a good mini tour player, the answer is yes (but of course, you will now overly define that mini tour player to fit your narrative).  No different than bringing up Lexi and random mini tour events.  Brings nothing to your argument and is akin to a dog seeing a squirrel in your hopes...

I don’t think you have any idea how good LPGA tour players are or how good a lot of mini tour players are. Or how bad a 4 handicap is in the grand scheme of things. 

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, gwelfgulfer said:

 

You do realize that on a 7500 yard course you will be having multiple 480+ yard par 4's and likely 575ish yard par 5's right?  Not to mention 230+ yd par 3's...

Did you even read what I wrote?

[Red4282]

10 minutes ago, b.helts said:

On a long course, let’s say 7500 yards. 
 

A card carrying LPGA player could lay up to 100 yards on every hole, to clarify, have 100 yards for birdie on every hole, and beat a 4 handicap like a drum. I don’t care if the 4 is a short knocker or a beastly lumberjack. 

Except they would be trying to get up and down for par from 100 out... ?

[setter02]

3 minutes ago, b.helts said:

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

I'm not sure you know what you wrote.

[b.helts]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Except they would be trying to get up and down for par from 100 out... ?

 

I know! That’s the point. 

[b.helts]

Just now, gwelfgulfer said:

 

I'm not sure you know what you wrote.

Regardless of whether I know what I wrote or not, your response reflected an understanding seemingly similar to your understanding of the handicap system. 

[setter02]

5 minutes ago, xmanhockey7 said:

I don’t think you have any idea how good LPGA tour players are or how good a lot of mini tour players are. Or how bad a 4 handicap is in the grand scheme of things. 

 

I haven't played with an LPGA player, can 100% admit that.  I did play against a former PGA Tour winner for dinner and for 15 holes was pretty well even, so I got that going for me, which is nice...  I've also played with 2 World Golf Hall of Famers (Am's, 1 male, 1 female), so have an idea.