Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Richard Choi on July 13, 2009, 10:51:19 AM
-
I just read something interesting in Golf Digest. In the "Ask Stina" section, a reader asks Stina (a former LPGA player) if a 4 handicap guy who drives 300 yards can beat an LPGA player on a 7000+ yard course.
Stina answers that not only the top LPGA players would beat that long hitter (which I agree), but ANY LPGA player PLUS alternates would beat that guy on a long course.
To me, that last statement makes very little sense to me. A guy who drives 300 yards will have a fairly easy time playing a 7200 yard course, hitting mid to short irons on almost every par 4 and able to reach the par 5's at least half the time. There are many LPGA players who can barely drive 230 yards. For them, almost all par 4's will be par 5's and par 5's will be barely reachable in 3. Some par 3's may even be a par 4 for them. For those short hitters, a par 72, 7200 yards course will really be a par 78 or par 80 which negates any advantage that they may had.
A prime example against Stina's argument would be Golf Digest Challenge. Rothlisberger (3 handicap) scored 81 on Bethpage Black (albeit with wet and receptive greens). Does anyone think that a majority of LPGA players could have beaten that score? I don't think so.
So, what are the effects of distance on short, but accurate players with very good short game versus long hitters who are not quite as accurate? How much does distance affect one's game? How much advantage do you have when you can drive 25% longer than your opponent?
What about the toughness of the course? Does having narrow fairways with tall rough (like Golf Digest Challenge) favor long hitter even more because they have a better chance of advancing their ball?
-
This is a tough call. I think the average LPGA player would struggle on a 7000+ yard course. Someone like Lorena, Michelle Wie and the other longer players would be somewhat OK. But as a rule, I think LPGA players would struggle on a long course.
No, I don't think the majority of LPGA players would shoot less than 81 at Bethpage, however, that being said, Rothlisberger is not an average 3 handicap. The pressure of playing wouldn't get to him as much; I think 85 or so would be a good score for a normal 3 handicap player.
A tough course will not favor a long hitter as much as it will favor someone who has above average strength; those two are not always seen together.
-
I think all of those LPGAers would KILL a 4 handicapper at just about anything other than a long drive contest.
But the thread does raise some interesting questions. I've always thought length was very overrated as a defense, unless coupled with other more important things: firmness, speed of greens, amount of rough, hazards, etc. I think length is more of a magnifier than anything else; if the bare bones aren't there, it doesn't matter that much.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the women at Oakmont next year. I plan on spending as much time as possible, to see if there's anything to be learned from the differences.
Nice thread, Richard.
-
Stina is right.
Suzy Whaley's scores at the TPC in Hartford weren't too bad (upper 70s?) and she was a rung or two below an LPGA Tour player. A 4 handicap male is a FAR CRY from a scratch. This 4 handi at 7000 yards is usually out of the 70s.
Handicaps are meaningless in college golf because to be competitive you have to get the "throwouts" (non-counting scores for handicap purposes) down near par. If a Division I player's scores are considered for handicap you are easily looking at a +2/+3 or better.
Stina probably knows that a 4 handicap player just isn't very good when you are talking about this level of competitiion.
-
Thank you George! What do you guys think? That as the course gets longer the 4 handicapper will continue to shoot his average score?
Golf Digest was wondering how the ladies would do on a PGA tour setup before Annika played in TX. They got Christy Kerr to play the tour setup in Phoenix the Monday after the PGA was there. She shot 73. Your 4 handicapper wouldn't break 80!
:P
;)
-
I would favour the tour pro.
Course where I play here in the UK is around 6800 yds off the medal tees. The daughter of one of our members plays (or at least did play) on the WPGA tour here in Europe (and a former Curtis Cup player). The Christmas before last she came for a game with her dad, used his clubs and shot level par from the medal tees. Very few of our Cat1 men score level par
-
OK, so most think that the distance is not that big of a difference maker. What do you think the effect of the distance are? Is it a stroke for every 200 yards or so if the person outdrives you by 10%? Or is there at somepoint where further distance does not matter? Will it make a bigger difference if you are playing an LPGA versus 4 handicap playing on an 8000 yard course versus 7000 yard course? Or would it start to even out after awhile?
-
I think you need to start by comparing the effects of distance among the same levels of golfers. Trying to wed out one variable between players of vastly different skill levels is borderline impossible, imho.
There might be a rare case of a long erratic guy playing out of his mind beating an extremely short player who has a really bad day, but generally speaking, the better player will win out regardless of length.
I love Big Ben, but he wouldn't have beaten an LPGA tour pro playing that same day. His score - and everyone else's - were greatly helped by the very wet conditions.
-
.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the women at Oakmont next year. I plan on spending as much time as possible, to see if there's anything to be learned from the differences.
Nice thread, Richard.
Having seen them up close last year for The Women's British Open at Sunningdale and being able to compare their shots to how I would normally play, I found it amazing how straight and consistent they were. That said, their short game and putting left a lot to be desired when compared to the top men, and the course was deliberately set up to encourage low scoring, as they want the tour to be seen as marketable and the players as shooting low scores.
Given what I saw last year, if Oakmont is in anything like it's usual condition it will be an utter bloodbath. I just don't think they'll be able to cope with the greens or the rough.
As for their length, I think most - if not all - would struggle at Bethpage Black. It's a beast of a golf course, and most of the women wouldn't be able to reach a lot of fairways.
-
The only way the long player is going to have a chance to catch up is if the course is very wide with little or no penalty for "off road" excursions. Otherwise just adding length makes the 4 handicappers score go up faster than the LPGA tour pro.
REMEMBER. LENGTH IS THE #1 COMPONENT THAT INCREASES THE BOGEY RATING.
-
Richard-
Interesting topic. IMO, the LPGA Pro (plus alternates, and most mini-tour players) will beat the 4 hcap'er 99 times out of 100. From some first hand experience, I had a friend when I was at the Univ. of Georgia back in the early 90's who dated a girl on the golf team. We would often times go out with her and one or two others from the team and play. My buddy and I were low-mid single digit players and I can't recall a single time we ever beat the women--and we always played from either the men's tees or the championship tees. The difference between the elite competitive golfer--man or woman-- and the 4 hcap'er is HUGE, and I just don't see how distance changes it. The consistency of golf shots from the elite player is mind-boggling. Garland nails it in regards to length, but in regards to the comment about the average LPGA player beating Ben's 81--I would say the vast majority of them would do it.
-
I have my doubts about comparing let's say the 30th-best player on the LPGA Tour to a good, competitive male player in terms of short-game, putting and playing out of rough. Not to mention the missing distance and other results of lacking clubhead speed. But that said, I play golf not infrequently with club golfers carrying handicap indexes in the 4-6 range and they're not going to be remotely in the running with a Touring professional on a course of any length. Not in stroke play and certainly not over 72 holes.
-
I think the original question might be an interesting one if comparing about a +1 man to a veteran LPGA Tour player at 7,000 yards. But there's way more difference in a +1 and a 4 than there is between the 4 and myself (bogey golfer).
Tis true.
I caddied in three LPGA pro-ams with guys two guys who were low single digits.
Based on watching those three rounds, I think on their best rounds they could have stayed with a middling LPGAer, but probably not on their bad days.
And I think a top player was on her game would be impossible for them to handle.
-
I recall Michael Wharton Palmer giving the opinion that Annika Sorenstam would kill him head to head. He is/was a +4 or so at the time.
In my city league events there are plenty of 3 handicaps who hit it 300 yards. Average score is around 82 on courses that average around 6800 yards in length.
The Women's US Open was just contested at 6750 set up tough. 7000 might add a shot or two but not more.
-
I think distance does make a difference. Kerr playing Phoenix, which is a very easy course for the PGA tour, skews this a tad. Same thing for Whaley and River Highlands. Why did Annika play Colonial? Because the distance was not a huge factor there, and she admitted as much. I do think the 4 handicap would struggle as well, but for different reasons, if he in fact can hit the ball 300 yds. I think if the player was in fact a solid 4 and regularly hits it 300, I think he COULD beat a low ranked LPGA player on courses such as Quail Hollow, Muirfield, Congressional etc. Now, if you had a solid 2 handicap hitting it 300, I think he would stand a very good chance on a long course of beating most players on the LPGA. But what do I know....
-
What is a "solid" 2? You're either a 2, or you're something else. But regardless of that, I think you're crazy to think anyone with a minus index could compete with an LPGA player on ANY course in the US played at ANY distance. It would literally be lightening in a bottle stuff to beat the pro. A 4 index or even a 2 index is a pretty good player at whatever club they're a member, but I would guess their ESC adjusted stroke average would be somewhere in the 77-82 range--LIGHT YEARS away from even the bottom of the LPGA. Of course, multiply all of this in a tournament setting where the 4 index just crumbles.
-
The Women's US Open was just contested at 6750 set up tough. 7000 might add a shot or two but not more.
They kept setting the course shorter as the days went by. I believe the only day when they played over 6700 was on Thu. By Sunday, the course setup was 6350.
-
All 4 handicaps are not created equal. If we're talking about a 4 handicap that plays long, difficult golf courses regularly from the back tees then i think you'd have a helluva match with the lower half of the LPGA. If you're talking about a 4 that plays from 6400 yards regularly then, it wouldn't even be close. i've played some golf with some former LPGAers and their games honestly did not impress me all that much. Maybe it was just the event or an off-round...
-
The problem with trying to draw comparisons between Sorenstam/Colonial or Kerr/Phoenix is that they were playing against Tour Pros' scores.The difference between a 4 handicap and a Tour Pro is the difference between a house painter and Vermeer.
A 4 handicap is merely a good club player,not remotely an elite amateur.
The 4 handicap gets smoked all day/every day by a Tour Pro of either gender.
-
David, did you happen to watch Annika during the Tavistock Cup?
No chance any 2 or 4 beats an LPGA pro other than an absolute bizarro fluke.
-
Jay--
I actually disagree more with your premise of the 4 hcap who plays a long, difficult course... in 2008 I was a 4.6 index at a course with a 73.1/141 rating from the blues and 74.5/145 from the blacks and my ESC stroke average was 83! My hcap traveled well to easier courses but nothing to the extent of me going out and shooting an under par number. There's a Duramed Futures tour player that plays and practices at my course and she regularly shoots sub 75 scores from the blue tees. It's simply NOT EVEN CLOSE.
-
And George, I don't think anyone would argue that a 4 handicap would have a chance in hell beating a player like Annika. I think things get more interesting when you compare players at the bottom of LPGA rank and alternates.
-
Jason --
I guess my example is more an indictment of the handicap system than anything.
I've got a buddy that was a very good jr player, played Div. I golf briefly, quit the game, and now plays a fair amount. His index is just under 4, but he plays every golf course (often ridiculously hard ones) from the tips. Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up. If you take him and a lower tier LPGAer and throw them on the back tees of Quail Hollow in Charlotte, I give him even odds that he prevails at the end of the day. He'll shoot 76-82 max and I just don't think a lower-tier LPGAer would do much better under normal conditions.
Also, there are several extreme courses around us that create great travelling players. I'll put guys that play to a 4 from those courses up against 1s at any of the other courses in the area.
Perhaps I'm just a chaveunist pig... in fact, thats probably the most logical reason for my answer.
-
The difference between Annika and the lower ranks isn't nearly as great as the difference between any tour pro and any normal 4.
I will grant that there may exist somewhere out there a 4 who used to be a +3 that doesn't play much anymore and might catch lightning in a bottle, but to steal from Jay, that merely highlights the shortcomings in the handicap system.
-
Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up.
Remind me to never bet with said friend. I actually have no issues with the handicap system for those that strictly adhere to it. Seems to work well with all of the people I golf with. All I can say is you're telling me your just under 4 index friend breaks par on a 6700 yard course of any difficulty....well, like I said, just remind me not to bet.
I actually did some digging and I started 2008 as a 7 index so my 83 ESC Avg is misleading---slightly. Maybe it was 81 the second half of the year.
-
I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing. Once again, that may be my malecentric bias coming out in full bloom, but I have a hard time thinking that some of the young college kids from decent programs couldn't dominate on a 6400 yard course. It would have turned into pitch and putt for many of them, and with the grooves nowadays, rough only presents a minor disadvantage (see spin-induced fiasco at Bethpage).
-
You're probably closer there...the top end of the elite amateur male golfers who play competitively could have held their own, no question. But we're not talking about those guys. Here's something--go look at any regional golf association's mid-am tournament qualifiers. See how many 0.4's and 1.1's and 2.3's shoot mid-high 80's in a tournament format on a course not playing from the back tees and certainly not set up with any exceptional difficulty.
-
Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up.
Remind me to never bet with said friend. I actually have no issues with the handicap system for those that strictly adhere to it. Seems to work well with all of the people I golf with. All I can say is you're telling me your just under 4 index friend breaks par on a 6700 yard course of any difficulty....well, like I said, just remind me not to bet.
I actually did some digging and I started 2008 as a 7 index so my 83 ESC Avg is misleading---slightly. Maybe it was 81 the second half of the year.
Funny thing is that he's the most honest golfer I've every played with... he putts everything out and counts every penalty stroke no matter the game. He hits it a long way and is somewhat sporadic with the driver. When he gets on a sub 6700 yard golf course, he just takes three wood or hybrid and doesnt' worry about hitting it out of play -- something he can't do on most of the golf courses he plays.
-
I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing.
How many of those guys are 4s?
-
You're probably closer there...the top end of the elite amateur male golfers who play competitively could have held their own, no question. But we're not talking about those guys. Here's something--go look at any regional golf association's mid-am tournament qualifiers. See how many 0.4's and 1.1's and 2.3's shoot mid-high 80's in a tournament format on a course not playing from the back tees and certainly not set up with any exceptional difficulty.
I here you there. I've played many a qualifier with a 1 handicap that couldn't break an egg. Then again, I've played with guys that actually play much better in tournament conditions. It just gets back to my theory that al 4 handicaps aren't created equally, and that tournament golf is a 'crazy' thing. A couple weeks back, I made 3 doubles in a qualifier... something I haven't even come close to doing in any recreational round in probably a year.
-
The "young college kids from decent programs" that I've met were plus-handicaps when they graduated High School. Past that point the handicap index doesn't mean much.
The USGA Handicap System, whatever its flaws, does a decent job making it possible for golfers with indexes from Scratch or so up into the 20's have somewhat enjoyable matches. It was not designed to accurately rate players who play in handicapped competition with those who regularly compete in straight-up tournaments over 72 holes of stroke play. If it did, there would not be the idea of using the best half of the scores and the numerical difference between me and some Top 100 college golfer wouldn't be 25 strokes it would be more like 35.
That's why these hypothetical "Pro against a so-and-so handicapper" questions are ill-formed IMO. There's a set of abilities needed to play and count all your bad shots, day in and day out, and seldom be totally out of it. Most 4 (or 2, or 1) handicappers have never been tested in terms of those abilities and a numerical USGA index certainly does not capture that potential.
-
I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing.
How many of those guys are 4s?
None. Don't confuse my arguments here... I've already probably pissed enough people off.
I think many elite male amateurs could make a good living on the LPGA. Heck... Mike Goodes, a formerly elite NC amateur, is making a great living on the Champions Tour. He had great success in the Carolinas Amateur ranks for many years, but never really seriously contended at a national level to my (limited) knowledge.
I think a "high quality" 4 handicap could, on occasion, hang with a lower-tier short-hitting female pro on a long, hard golf course.
Theres a big difference in the two.
-
Any way you slice it....Womens professional Basketball and Golf are in the same league...
Put a very good male High School Team/Player up against them and it would be good competition.
-
Kalen-
I actually don't disagree with you. But in this context, Jay is confusing a 4 handicap index with someone who could--even on rare occasion--compete with an LPGA golfer. There is absolutely no way. I think even less so for the "high-quality" 4, whatever that means. The more scores that 4 index has posted, the further away he gets from the LPGA pro. And to tie all of this back to the original question in the thread--distance--IMO, it has nothing to do with enormous gap in golfing skill between these two sets of golfers.
-
Jay, you seem to be comparing your friend to female touring pros, but are saying "a 4 hcp".
If your friend played Division I golf anytime recently he is nowhere close to a 4. Shoot 79 every now and then on a 7,000+ yard course and you probably have an index of 4.something and a course handicap of 6. A four handicap on a course where the rating is 72.0 (which is probably 6,500 yards in Florida) will shoot 76 or better just one in five rounds. (Do it more often than that and he's not a 4.)
Also, your hypothetical player probably becomes a 0 or 1 handicap if he plays golf all summer daily. The truth is that a 4 hcp just isn't very good when you are talking about playing high-level amateur golf.
My scale:
Tiger Woods - +10
Top 10 Tour pro - +8
Normal Tour pro - +6-7
Top college player - +4-5
Normal D1 college player +2-3
Competitive amateur golfer at state level +1-2
Competitive club player (may win club champ)0 or +1
Solid mid-am golfer (not going to win state event) 2-3
Good golfer 4-5
There are so many rungs between the 4 and an LPGA tour player that it isn't even close. An LPGA Tour player is probably a +3 hcp on the men's scale.
All that said, handicaps doin't matter in competitive golf for the reason I gave above. You COUNT your bad rounds in competition.
-
The "young college kids from decent programs" that I've met were plus-handicaps when they graduated High School. Past that point the handicap index doesn't mean much.
The USGA Handicap System, whatever its flaws, does a decent job making it possible for golfers with indexes from Scratch or so up into the 20's have somewhat enjoyable matches. It was not designed to accurately rate players who play in handicapped competition with those who regularly compete in straight-up tournaments over 72 holes of stroke play. If it did, there would not be the idea of using the best half of the scores and the numerical difference between me and some Top 100 college golfer wouldn't be 25 strokes it would be more like 35.
That's why these hypothetical "Pro against a so-and-so handicapper" questions are ill-formed IMO. There's a set of abilities needed to play and count all your bad shots, day in and day out, and seldom be totally out of it. Most 4 (or 2, or 1) handicappers have never been tested in terms of those abilities and a numerical USGA index certainly does not capture that potential.
Fair enough, but, the argument remains that there are 3-4 handicap golfers that I believe could hang with LPGAers under the right conditions. The Rothelisberger example atleast illustrates that a little...
-
I fall heavily on the side of the LPGA touring pro. In fact, the more difficult and tighter the setup, the greater the odds of the touring pro. Half the time in a tournament setup a 4 handicap can't play his way out of a paper bag. I would say a 4 capper making the cut at a LPGA event would be a great success.
Ciao
-
That's why these hypothetical "Pro against a so-and-so handicapper" questions are ill-formed IMO. There's a set of abilities needed to play and count all your bad shots, day in and day out, and seldom be totally out of it. Most 4 (or 2, or 1) handicappers have never been tested in terms of those abilities and a numerical USGA index certainly does not capture that potential.
Exactly.Hence Jones' "There's golf...".
-
I think some of you guys are missing the point of the thread. The thread has to do with distance and whether or not it, under the right conditions, can negate handicap. I say, unequivacally, yes. These women yesterday (the creme de la creme of womens golf) were shooting 80s on a 6300 yard (albeit tricky and hard) golf course. Throw them on a 7200 yard golf course with a 4 handicap that hits it 280-300 yards and you've got yourself a match. The 4 may not win, but I think he (or she) would give a lower-tier female pro a run for their money in at least 3 out of 10 head-to-head matches
-
I think some of you guys are missing the point of the thread. The thread has to do with distance and whether or not it, under the right conditions, can negate handicap. I say, unequivacally, yes. These women yesterday (the creme de la creme of womens golf) were shooting 80s on a 6300 yard (albeit tricky and hard) golf course. Throw them on a 7200 yard golf course with a 4 handicap that hits it 280-300 yards and you've got yourself a match. The 4 may not win, but I think he (or she) would give a lower-tier female pro a run for their money in at least 3 out of 10 head-to-head matches
Jay Kirkpatrick,you have a very inflated view of 4 handicaps.Simply put,neither length nor any other factor would ever narrow the gap between a 4 and someone who plays for a living.If you want to make a Tour Pro(either gender) laugh,ask how close their respective skill levels are.
Tour Pro's can SCORE,it's what they do.Irrespective of the course or conditions,they either learn to score or they go broke.If your mythical,consistently 300-yard driving 4 handicap could score,he wouldn't be a 4 handicap.
-
A week ago we held the California Girls Championship on the Dunes Course.
One of the finalists, was a tall elegant Korean girl who looked something like Michelle Wie and had a beautiful swing and a magic touch with the putter. The other girl was much shorter, stockier and very athletic. I watched the first hole of the final and the last. On the first hole of the Dunes, for those who have played it know that it is somewhat uphill and plays longer than the yardage. The shorter player hit it past the bunkers on the right and had a sand wedge into the green. On the 17th and last hole of the match the same player hit the drive something like 270 yards, chipped on and three putted to lose the match.
The winner was 14 and the loser 15 and both had plus handicaps. I cannot see a 4 handicapper beating these two kids from say, the 6800 yard markers let alone an LGPA member.
As an aside I remember playing with Kelly Leadbetter in 1992 when the US Open was being held at Pebble Beach. She hadn't played much and went out from the tips and shot even par. She was more than six months pregnant!
Bob
-
The fallacy lies not in how difficult a wet, long, narrow 7,000 golf course is for an LPGA pro whose carry distance is 230 off the tee and maybe 200 on a good day from the fairway. They're going to have trouble keeping it anywhere close to par under those conditions. Something in the 75-80 range is likely. Stipulated.
The fallacy is saying "Drives it 300 yards" as those he's going to be walking 300 yards up the fairway 14 times a round and dropping the ball a short-iron from the green in a perfect lie. Not any big-hitting 4-handicapper I've ever seen. He's going to get three or four holes where he just "schools" the short-hitting lady pro. Drives it within wedge distance, hits it close and has 10-15 feet for birdie. He'll even make one or two of them if he's lucky.
It's what he does on the 6, 8, 10 holes where he a) does not get 300 yards out of it and b) is not in the fairway. And at least one or two of those 300-yard (potential) drives will be in the deep shit on a tournament setup. And unless he's a serious sandbagger, several of those bad drives (and BTW hitting it that long on most 7,000 yard tournaments setups it doesn't take much error to get screwed for your second shot) are going to be the occasion of an 8 or 9 or 10 on a hole. Assuming we're talking stroke play, our hypothetical lady pro will be tallying pars and bogeys with maybe the odd double somewhere along the line.
So her scorecard looks like a boatload of 4's and 5's with the odd three and a couple 6's. His scorecard looks an even mix of 3's, 4's, 5's, 6's, 7's and 8's with at least one "blow up" hole of 10 or 11 strokes. He can have the round of his life, make four birdies to her zero and still lose by half a dozen strokes. More likely he makes one birdie on a Par 5 (she pars them all) and shoots 85 with at least a couple of "others".
-
If all handicaps are created the same, then maybe we should frame the argument differently. Perhaps another way to assess the distance issue is how an LPGA tour player would do at, say, the US Am. US Ams are set up long and tough -- much more so than US Womens Opens. Where do you think these elite LPGA players would fall in the mix? I think they would struggle mightily (with maybe 5 in the overall top 10)... yet the LPGAers would far surpass their college counterparts on almost all levels of skill (short game, putting, iron play). I just think distance makes too big of a difference in the current game, and that is a shame.
As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here. Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread? As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases." I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
-
As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here. Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread? As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases." I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
You're reading anger into simple disagreement. Just because I think you're crazy doesn't mean I hate you. :)
In all seriousness, you seem to be citing the rare exception to disprove the rule. I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine not even an hour ago. He's a legit 4, just lost in his club championship this past weekend to a guy who's dominated his club championship (a real name club, btw) for some 30 years now. He absolutely laughed at the premise of the thread and said there's simply no way to compare. He felt the guy he lost to - who's probably a +1 or so - could compete with an LPGA tour pro on a 7000 yard course, but knew that he would get killed.
Apples and oranges.
I once had a job interview that required sitting in a room all by my lonesome and figuring out a math problem that sounded easy but proved somewhat problematic. It wasn't until I went back to my roots and remembered to simplify that I figured it out, took me about 45 minutes. No one I know since has figured it out, btw. I don't add that to brag, just to illustrate the difference between doing it when it counts, and doing it off the cuff. You have to compare apples to apples and not get confused by the chaff.
Brent would figure it out it maybe 30 seconds...but he's a stat guru.
:)
-
As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here. Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread? As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases." I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...
Apologies if I came across as angry and yes,disagreement does make for a healthy thread.Just type "Merion" and see how healthy things will soon get.
It's a pet peeve of mine that 4 handicaps really believe they've really got game.They don't.
I think your question regarding an LPGA player in the US Am is interesting on a couple of levels.I don't know that the course set up really matters;it's impossible for everyone equally.What would matter,IMO,is that it's match play.Purely speculating but my guess is that the really high-level male amateur player would be able to offset the LPGA player's consistency with power and birdie opportunities gained from shorter approaches.In match play,it wouldn't surprise me if a high-level amateur could hang with a mid-level LPGA pro.
-
It's a pet peeve of mine that 4 handicaps really believe they've really got game.They don't.
Agreed. It's also a pet peeve of mine when a 4 handicap shoots around even par on a 6700 yard course. :)
-
It wouldn't surprise me either, but those guys in the US Am are plus 2,3,4+, not 4 handicappers.
-
Anyone who thinks a 4 index could hang with an LPGA tour pro has rocks in their brain.
I am a 5.1 index and have been as low as a 2.8 index. MY BEST ROUND EVER!!!! is 73.
EVER!!!!! That was from about 6,700 yds; my best round ever from 7k + is 75.
Any LPGA tour pro would be disappointed with my BEST ROUND EVER.
I could beat an LPGA tour pro....a bad one at that.....one who misses more than 1/2 her cuts.......1 out of 75-100 times.....if that.
I would literally have to play my very best and she would have to play her very very worst.
I agree that a top level Amateur is about the same caliber as an LPGA tour pro. Probably a +1-+3 handicap index could play with them.
-
The handicap shouldn't make a difference... thats the point. Given the earlier scale, I assume there would be some agreement that a lower-tier LPGAer equates to a +3 handicap. Using that scale, do you think a long-hitting 7 handicap could hang with a scratch short-hitting player on a long golf course at least some of the time? How about a 10 vs. 3 or a 15 vs. 8? I think extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". When we have "tough day" at our course, we have short-hitting 2-4 handicaps that can barely finish, much less contend. Meanwhile, long-hitting 10s shoot similar scores...
By the way, in the US Am example, I wasn't even considering the match play format. I think the Ams would more than hold their own in a stroke play event on a difficult golf course...
-
The handicap shouldn't make a difference... thats the point. Given the earlier scale, I assume there would be some agreement that a lower-tier LPGAer equates to a +3 handicap.
There's the root of the problem. I've seen those silly computations in the magazines and where ever that assign some sort of Course and Slope ratings to PGA Tour courses and compute that Greg Norman was playing to a +6.3 or whatever their numbers said. The LPGA Tour player doesn't equate to any number of the handicap scale, any more than Greg Norman did. It's a qualitative difference.
-
Anyone who thinks a 4 index could hang with an LPGA tour pro has rocks in their brain.
I am a 5.1 index and have been as low as a 2.8 index. MY BEST ROUND EVER!!!! is 73.
EVER!!!!! That was from about 6,700 yds; my best round ever from 7k + is 75.
Any LPGA tour pro would be disappointed with my BEST ROUND EVER.
I could beat an LPGA tour pro....a bad one at that.....one who misses more than 1/2 her cuts.......1 out of 75-100 times.....if that.
I would literally have to play my very best and she would have to play her very very worst.
I agree that a top level Amateur is about the same caliber as an LPGA tour pro. Probably a +1-+3 handicap index could play with them.
its almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 with a low round of 73. you must be very consistent and shoot a lot of 75-77s. if thats the case, i think you'd be surprised how often shorter-hitting (and less talented) lpga tour players would shoot scores of that quality on a 6700 yard course. i'm not saying they would be happy with them, but i think we overestimate the length and difficulty of the courses that they normally play (and the champions tour). you have to be really good with long irons to shoot under par consistently if you drive the ball 230 yards. most of them are, thats what makes them top tier pros, but you only have to excel in a handful of events/year to stay on tour.
by the way, the shortest hitter on the lpga AVERAGES 220 yards/drive. assuming that the par 3s average 180yds on a 6700yd course and the par 5s avg 500yds, that leaves the avg par 4 at 400 yds. if you are hitting 230 yd drives, that means you are probably hitting hybrids into over half the holes on the course. its hard to make a living doing that... though pavin (and others) certainly have managed just fine.
-
Jay-
Please explain to me how it's almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 hcap index with a low round of 73. Sounds pretty typical to me. I'm not positive you understand how the hcap system works, but I'm absolutely sure your friend with the 4 index who plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses doesn't.
And while I can see where you're coming from regarding the player whose driving average was 220 yards--what does that prove? To me, it shows she must have an amazing array of shots with long irons and fairway woods and is probably an unbelievable putter.
-
It's important to separate the possible from what's likely, especially considering how handicaps are figured.
Possible: The 4 wins.
Likely: The LPGA pro stomps him.
WW
-
The Women's US Open was just contested at 6750 set up tough. 7000 might add a shot or two but not more.
They kept setting the course shorter as the days went by. I believe the only day when they played over 6700 was on Thu. By Sunday, the course setup was 6350.
The course was over 6700 on both Thursday and Friday. Buf with greens running at 13, your 4 handicapper would have trouble breaking 90. With fast greens at Torrey Pines the 4 to 6 handicapper had trouble breaking 100.
-
...
I think a "high quality" 4 handicap could, on occasion, hang with a lower-tier short-hitting female pro on a long, hard golf course.
Theres a big difference in the two.
Definition: high quality, aka sand bagger.
-
Jay-
Please explain to me how it's almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 hcap index with a low round of 73. Sounds pretty typical to me. I'm not positive you understand how the hcap system works, but I'm absolutely sure your friend with the 4 index who plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses doesn't.
And while I can see where you're coming from regarding the player whose driving average was 220 yards--what does that prove? To me, it shows she must have an amazing array of shots with long irons and fairway woods and is probably an unbelievable putter.
if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low. its certainly not impossible (i'm not calling anyone a liar), it just shows that the person is consistent when they play well and don't have a lot of low rounds to skew the cap.
-
if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low.
HUH? Are you saying that 25% of his 30 scores are 75 or better? Where in the world did this come from?
Jay, please go to: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/
Scroll down to Section 11.
This may help you understand why people are a little confused with your reasoning.
-
Section 10, sorry.
But Section 11 is worthwhile too.
-
off-topic, but if you guys think all 4 (or 10s or 18s or 36s) handicaps are created the same, then you're crazy...
that comment doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is a sandbagger. you've got legit 4s that putt everything out and play "real" golf... then you have 4s that take 4 fters and write down bogies when they were destined to make doubles. maybe the former is the exception but i see it all the time.
-
of course you're correct. And those are the 4's we all love to play. Nothing better than a vanity 4. But you're trying to tell us your 4 index friend plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses. That, Jay, is statistically impossible.
-
if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low.
HUH? Are you saying that 25% of his 30 scores are 75 or better? Where in the world did this come from?
Jay, please go to: http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/
Scroll down to Section 11.
This may help you understand why people are a little confused with your reasoning.
if you are a 3 handicap, it would stand to reason that roughly 25% (actually .96 of .25) of your scores are below that number since a handicap is essentially the modified avg of your best 10 (out of 20 scores). assuming you have 20 scores in the system, that means that generally 5 of them are 75 or better (or all 10 could be 75 which would show impressive consistency). like i said, that certainly isn't impossible. its just a sign that half the time that person is really close to their handicap b/c there isn't a low score to skew the result.
-
Jay-
Read the link. You may learn something this evening. :)
It isn't score. It's differential which is computed using score adjusted for ESC. A huge difference.
-
of course you're correct. And those are the 4's we all love to play. Nothing better than a vanity 4. But you're trying to tell us your 4 index friend plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses. That, Jay, is statistically impossible.
statistically unlikely perhaps, but not impossible. i'm telling you, this guy is legit. he plays 7200yd golf courses and shoots between 78-84 all the time (2-3 doubles with lots of pars). probably 17 of his 20 handicap scores are at 7000+yd courses. put him on a short course, and he'll shoot 70-75 every time.
-
Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.
And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "
Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.
-
Jay-
Read the link. You may learn something this evening. :)
It isn't score. It's differential which is computed using score adjusted for ESC. A huge difference.
Jason -- I'm very aware of what the differential is... I get my update every 2 weeks and serve on our version of the handicap committee for my club. Look at the example on the website, we're talking about a .2 differential on the score described. Obviously, I'm assuming a golfer that plays his home course 20 times with a rating of 72 and an average slope. If the golfer shoots a 75 on a really hard golf course, it could mean just as much as a 72 on an easy one... i get that. i stand by my statement that it would be rare for a golfer with a handicap of 2.8 to have a low round of 73.
-
Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.
And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "
Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.
you are going under the assumption that slope and rating are properly determined. thats an impossibility. you can't mathematically compare courses... you can try and the usga does... but the system is flawed.
-
Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.
And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "
Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.
you are going under the assumption that slope and rating are properly determined. thats an impossibility. you can't mathematically compare courses... you can try and the usga does... but the system is flawed.
No offense Jay, but that is the kind of statement I usually hear from golfers with vanity handicaps. Technically you are correct. You can't mathematically compare courses. However, statistically you can make great approximations.
-
I've been everything from a 2 to a 9 hcp depending on how hard I've worked at it and other factors between the ears. When I was a 2 it was as a fairly erratic one that shot 69 a couple times and high scores other times. Heck even this year I shot a 48-35--who knows.
Anyway--when I was at my best I could play well enough to beat the LPGA Tour pro--maybe one of 20 rounds (as a 2 hcp). I'd get hammered most of the time. As a 4 hcp I think my chances would be significantly less--there's a big difference in those two shots.
I've played with a good friend of mine probably 50 times--he's probably just below scratch and not a very long hitter. I've beat him once, on an easy course where I shot 73 and he shot 74. The tougher the course, the more likely he is to beat me badly. Same here--making the course longer actually beats up the erratic but longer male worse than the fairway hitting LPGA pro. I don't think it would be close most of the time.
-
I don't know much about how the LPGA sets up their courses vs. what the PGA guys see every weekend. I also don't know how strength is a direct correlation to quality and creative short game.
What I'm told by those that know, is that the cutoff is not necessarily the length. I will say that, IMO, a 7000+ isn't where I would put the threshold. I would place the threshold of competition for a 4 handicapper against a female tour player at 7500. I think when you start throwing in 480+ yard par 4's, it starts getting tougher for the short hitter to make pars.
-
Ben,
As straight and accurate as most of the LPGA'ers are I would guess that if one played 10 480 yd holes(kinda like their short 5s) her avg score would probably be about 4.6...say one double, 5 bogeys, 3 pars and a birdie. A legit 4 doing the same would likely make 2 doubles, 5 bogeys, 2 pars and a birdie, stroke avg of 4.8. Overall accuracy and skill around the greens completely negates any distance advantage, especially a somewhat crooked one. You could use 8500 yards and the results would only get worse for the hacker, IMO.
-
Jay,
Do you have a handicap?
If you did you wouldn't make such as asinine comment as the one you made about it being statistically impossible for a 2.8 for their best round to be a 73.
When I was a 2.8, last summer, the 73 wasn't even figured into my scores since I shot that 73 about 5 years ago. I believe the lowest score was 75. The highest score that counted to my index was an 81.
My average score was 80.2 when my index was 2.8; I played probably 1/2 my rounds at 139 slope and 73.9 CR and the other 1/2 at 145 Slope and 74.5.
A couple of weeks ago I shot 81 at Hammock Dunes; 74.7/142; the differential was 5.0. I am not sure exactly how the system works but I would bet I would be a 3.5 if I shot 10 81's at that CR and slope; if I had one round that was as low as 73 it would be an annomaly.
When I was 2.8 it was the best I ever was; for 2.8 who that is in the middle of their range I would bet most do have lower rounds then 73. My mean index over the past 10 years would be probably 4.5.
Anyone who thinks a 4 index could hang with an LPGA tour pro has rocks in their brain.
I am a 5.1 index and have been as low as a 2.8 index. MY BEST ROUND EVER!!!! is 73.
EVER!!!!! That was from about 6,700 yds; my best round ever from 7k + is 75.
Any LPGA tour pro would be disappointed with my BEST ROUND EVER.
I could beat an LPGA tour pro....a bad one at that.....one who misses more than 1/2 her cuts.......1 out of 75-100 times.....if that.
I would literally have to play my very best and she would have to play her very very worst.
I agree that a top level Amateur is about the same caliber as an LPGA tour pro. Probably a +1-+3 handicap index could play with them.
its almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 with a low round of 73. you must be very consistent and shoot a lot of 75-77s. if thats the case, i think you'd be surprised how often shorter-hitting (and less talented) lpga tour players would shoot scores of that quality on a 6700 yard course. i'm not saying they would be happy with them, but i think we overestimate the length and difficulty of the courses that they normally play (and the champions tour). you have to be really good with long irons to shoot under par consistently if you drive the ball 230 yards. most of them are, thats what makes them top tier pros, but you only have to excel in a handful of events/year to stay on tour.
by the way, the shortest hitter on the lpga AVERAGES 220 yards/drive. assuming that the par 3s average 180yds on a 6700yd course and the par 5s avg 500yds, that leaves the avg par 4 at 400 yds. if you are hitting 230 yd drives, that means you are probably hitting hybrids into over half the holes on the course. its hard to make a living doing that... though pavin (and others) certainly have managed just fine.
-
Right now my index is 5.0
I have 1 rd that is better than 77 of my last 20.
3 rd's better than 80 although 1 of those is a tournament score.
-
Lighten up, Francis.
You're talking about playing all your golf on two VERY hard golf courses. I get all the equations, and I understand how you could have a 2.8 with a low of 73. I still think it is a rarity though. Most people don't play golf courses that hard on a regular basis. I can't think of anyone that I know with a 3 handicap that hasn't shot par at least once. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. My choice of "statistically impossible" was poor in hindsight. It obviously ruffled some feathers, and that wasn't my intent.
And yes I do have a handicap... my highest differential on a round that counts towards my handicap is 1.7 so I'm in a tight range myself.
Edited to say: Good grief, play an easy course once in a while.
-
i'm telling you, this guy is legit. he plays 7200yd golf courses and shoots between 78-84 all the time (2-3 doubles with lots of pars). probably 17 of his 20 handicap scores are at 7000+yd courses. put him on a short course, and he'll shoot 70-75 every time.
Okay, here's the bet I'm all over. I take the bet if your friend shoots 74 or higher. 73 is a push. You win at par or better. 6,700 yards on a 'normal' course (has some hazards) at 1,500 feet of elevation or less.
Warning: I won a lot of Wie bets when she played in the Public Links about four years ago. LPGA Tour pros may not generate a lot of clubhead speed, but the good ones will plop it down the center of the fairway and get a good deal out of their drives when you factor in roll. At 7,000 yards most single digits would be better off walking one out 225 in the center than they'd be playing their own drives.
Twenty years ago the LPGA players weren't even close to as good as they are now. Do you follow them at all?
-
John -- The guy is no longer a 4 unfortunately. He went the first part of the year unemployed and managed to reduce his handicap to a 2. Will probably be back to a 4 by year-end though as he is working harder than ever now...
To add another level of complexity to the conversation, how does one adjust for the seasonality of the handicap. As a father of three young children, I play very little golf in late Fall and Winter. As such, my best scores from late Summer stay in the system til early summer of the next year -- deflating my handicap. Yet in early summer, my handicap typically goes up briefly as my best scores from the previous year fall off and my winter scores hold more weight. I know there is a trend number that you can use, but my handicap rarely represents how I'm playing at that point in time (mid-late summer being the exception). Its not that big of a deal since it doesn't fluctuate a whole bunch, but I'd imagine it probably does for some...
-
The guy is no longer a 4 unfortunately. He went the first part of the year unemployed and managed to reduce his handicap to a 2.
To add another level of complexity to the conversation, how does one adjust for the seasonality of the handicap. As a father of three young children, I play very little golf in late Fall and Winter. As such, my best scores from late Summer stay in the system til early summer of the next year -- deflating my handicap. Yet in early summer, my handicap typically goes up briefly as my best scores from the previous year fall off and my winter scores hold more weight. I know there is a trend number that you can use, but my handicap rarely represents how I'm playing at that point in time (mid-late summer being the exception). Its not that big of a deal since it doesn't fluctuate a whole bunch, but I'd imagine it probably does for some...
So the 4 in question is really a 2. That certainly changes things, doesn't it. Yes, you may carry a 4 handicap before shooting low scores that drag it down to 2. Hence your assertion "a good 4". By that reasoning anyone trending down is "a good" whatever their handicap is. I think this only confirms the points expressed by those who responded. HE'S NOT A FOUR!
If a top college player quit golf for five years and then played once a month for two years - and posted the scores - he could easily carry a 7 handicap. Then imagine said player practices a lot and plays 9 holes each week for a few months. Then he goes to play. Yes, his card says 7, but he's not a "7 handicap" in the eyes of me or probably anyone else on the board. THat clearly does not describe his skill level.
To reply to your question - yes, their is an ebb and flow to the handicap you carry. As I once heard, "you make money on the way down and lose money on the way up."
-
John -- According to the handicap system we all operate under, he was a 4 for a long time and it was done in accordance of the rules. If he posts every score legitimately and happens to be playing at a level above a 4, does that make him a sandbagger? If the seasonal adjustments I described above makes my handicap temporarily inaccurate to my current playing level, does that make me a cheater? Handicap doesn't always accurately portray skill level... it just doesn't. That guy could pull off shots that I'd put up against PGA tour pros, but he can also top it off a tee on the next shot. I get the sense that some of the guys on here play with robots that have very little variabilty to their games.
-
Handicap doesn't always accurately portray skill level... it just doesn't. That guy could pull off shots that I'd put up against PGA tour pros, but he can also top it off a tee on the next shot. I get the sense that some of the guys on here play with robots that have very little variabilty to their games.
Yet this is the same guy who shoots par or better on sub-6700 yard courses? Jay--enough!
I have TONS of variability in my game. My last 20 scores--high of 94, low of 78, last 20 differentials--high of 16.7, low of 3.4. Makes for a 6.2 index.
-
John -- According to the handicap system we all operate under, he was a 4 for a long time and it was done in accordance of the rules. If he posts every score legitimately and happens to be playing at a level above a 4, does that make him a sandbagger?
Jay, he's not a sandbagger. He's also not beating an LPGA Tour player if he carries a 4.
You are very argumentative on the thread for some reason, then commented you felt hated. If your assertion is that your friend can beat Leta Lindley, I guess you went about it wrong. How about:
My friend played a little in college, but he's not at the level he once was. Still, he can pull off shots that the LPGA players can't. His handicap is now 4. Still, I'd take him over any of these girls on a tough course.
The truth is a 4 handicap would not do well in a match with a lady pro. That's not an opinion.
The USGA handicap system is designed to allow for fair matches when players are at a different level.
-
The handicap shouldn't make a difference... thats the point. Given the earlier scale, I assume there would be some agreement that a lower-tier LPGAer equates to a +3 handicap. Using that scale, do you think a long-hitting 7 handicap could hang with a scratch short-hitting player on a long golf course at least some of the time? How about a 10 vs. 3 or a 15 vs. 8? I think extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". When we have "tough day" at our course, we have short-hitting 2-4 handicaps that can barely finish, much less contend. Meanwhile, long-hitting 10s shoot similar scores...
First off, all bets are off when you start climbing in the numbers - I wouldn't want to guess on comparing a long hitting 15 versus a short hitting 8 on some random long course.
But I think you're kidding yourself if you think a legit long hitting 7 beats a short hitting scratch player on any course from any tees more than once in a blue moon. Sure, there's a chance of someone playing the round of his life while another plays his worst, but at some point you have to chalk that up to just being a fluke, not that it was the distance that made it happen.
Anything that makes a course "harder" - length, hazards, firmness, sped of greens, etc - makes it proportionately harder for the lesser golfer, regardless of the length of the respective players, unless you are talking about 2 relatively similar levels of golfers with very specific strengths and weaknesses (i.e. something silly like comparing a straight hitting 15 to a wild but good scrambling 12).
-
It wouldn't surprise me either, but those guys in the US Am are plus 2,3,4+, not 4 handicappers.
Agreed.I'd never refer to 4's as "high level" amateurs.
-
Many times over the years I've heard my teaching-pro buddy advise players who want to improve to find or make or take advantage of every opportunity to play with "good players". A couple times people have asked if "good player" means like a 2 or 3 handicapper and his answer is always the same. A "good player" is someone who can shoot around par or better two days in a row from the back tees playing for serious stakes. And he will point out that "good player" can not be measured by a handicap index computed off friendly Nassaus with your usual foursome. It's a variation on the old "golf vs. tournament golf" dichotomy.
There's a reason that virtually all top-level competition is stroke player over 36-72 holes. That's really the only way of measuring ability such that the "good players" are separated from the guys who can break par on a good day and the guys who can post a 73 or 74 with two off the first tee and a few gimmes.
-
A four handicap player will have a relatively very bad short game and will only shade the pro in greens in regulation despite hitting longer clubs. Not sure about the exact number but about 70% of shots are played within 100 yards. This is the range that the LPGA player would really beat the 4 handicapper.
I think the LPGA player even on a long course would win relatively easily.
-
This is kinda funny to me....
I am a four handicapper. Current index is 4.4. Ok that makes me a 5 on most courses right now, but hey, it gets lower than that quite often.
I have seen LPGA players play this game.
Unless they have a HORRIBLE day, they would kick my ass sideways. It's not even close. And it doesn't matter what course we played, what length, whatever. They are better than me at every aspect of the game.
Now guys like Jamie Slonis, Jim Sullivan, Andrew Biggadike, Matt Cohn, etc... truly top-level plus handicap male amateurs, I believe they could hang with the LPGA gals. They'd need to be on their best games, and they do not play the game for a living and these women do, but I think they could win often enough.
But us four handicappers? Fuggeddaboudit.
-
I'll take Jamie over Sarah Lee (currently #75)...
-
I'll take Jamie over Sarah Lee (currently #75)...
I'll take her in a bake-off.
;D
But yeah, I think you truly big boys could keep right up with the ladies, particularly those farther from the top of the rankings.
But man the question was us hack 4 handicappers... and well... no way.
TH
-
My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...
-
My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...
Exactly. She'd kick my ass sideways for sure.
But I still want to have the bake-off.
-
This is kinda funny to me....
I am a four handicapper. Current index is 4.4. Ok that makes me a 5 on most courses right now, but hey, it gets lower than that quite often.
I have seen LPGA players play this game.
Unless they have a HORRIBLE day, they would kick my ass sideways. It's not even close. And it doesn't matter what course we played, what length, whatever. They are better than me at every aspect of the game.
Now guys like Jamie Slonis, Jim Sullivan, Andrew Biggadike, Matt Cohn, etc... truly top-level plus handicap male amateurs, I believe they could hang with the LPGA gals. They'd need to be on their best games, and they do not play the game for a living and these women do, but I think they could win often enough.
But us four handicappers? Fuggeddaboudit.
I too am a 4 handicap, and wouldn't stand a chance against these ladies. My misses could get me in a lot of trouble...
For the record, I played Sand Hills a week or so ago and had one round stop short due to weather at one-under through 16, played another nine at 2-under, and also had rounds of 77 and 82. Consistent I am not, and that's one of the things the ladies definitely are. And that is the difference between a 4 handicap and a true scratch golfer, consistency.
Scott
-
My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...
Exactly. She'd kick my ass sideways for sure.
But I still want to have the bake-off.
I'll be the taste tester...
-
Technique.
The wonderful fighter Alexis Arguello (RIP) won his first title as a featherweight - that is, at about 125 pounds. I weigh about 210. I would've lasted half a round, and then only if I had ingratiated myself to him before the fight...
Peter
-
I'm a 5 right now and I regularly drive it 300 yards. My home course is about 7050 yards 74.1/134, with bluegrass rough 'mow to 3" grow to 5"' when there's regular rain. Give me one shot to get me to 4 handicap and let's say I take on an LPGA player on my home course - I know it like the back of my hand, she's never seen it before. Only way I win is if I push her down a hillside and she twists her ankle. And I better do that in the early holes, if I wait until the back nine it might be too late :)
Those who are thinking the 4 has a chance are in a fantasy world. Michelle Wie and Annika may not be average LPGA players, and they may not have made the cut on tour but they came pretty damn close. Let's say you add TEN strokes to what they did on the PGA tour events they played in to more than correct for the fact they are better and longer than the average LPGA player. A scratch golfer on a really good day might shoot 10 strokes above what they did on those layouts (in practice rounds, I'm not talking about subjecting them to the pressure of TV and gallery) so what the hell chance to do you think a 4 handicap would have?
-
I saw someone looking at this thread of almost a year ago so I thought I would pull it up and put something on it that is most appropriate to its subject.
This apparently happened very recently and my source of info was one of the ladies playing with her so it's definitely accurate-----Christina Kim was taken over to Merion East by three other top tournament lady amateurs from around here. The three amateurs played from the ladies tees but Christina Kim teed it up from the Walker Cup tees and played them all (other than the interestingly jury-rigged 3rd hole that the Walker Cuppers played one day from the 6th tee (about 235 yards vs the app. 190 3rd hole tee)).
Anyway, apparently those three ladies could not believe the extent to which Christina Kim could bust it, and she made seven birdies, three putted twice and shot a smooth 67 anyway. Take THAT Merion East.
All I could think to tell my source is a lot of it may've had to do with the fact that she played the course on a regular day and not on a real "tournament set-up" day. :-[
But still, does that leave any doubt how some of those LPGA players play now? ;)
Hell, a couple of years ago, Wayno, who really can hit it pretty danged far took three LPGA mini-tour players over to Merion East and he had trouble keeping up off the same tees with all of them including one little one who weighed about one quarter of what he does! :o
In that vein, Bob Crosby and I walked around Cypress the other day with a group that included Kristel (can't spell her last name right now) a probably mid thirties French lady who is not only incredibly tall and beautiful but she had perhaps the most beautiful golf swing I have ever seen and believe me I have seen a lot of them over the years. She won the NCAAs out of Arizona State back in 1995. Her ball striking was incredibly impressive and if she made a mistake with it she was generally long which I have always thought was the sign of a very accomplished players. Her father was playing with her and apparently he won the French Amateur something like ten times. He also mentioned that the real golfer in the family was Kristel's mother who pretty much beat everyone except the one lady who always had her ticket----none other than the all time energizer bunny and arguably the best American lady amateur of the last half of the last century----Pittsburgh's Carole Semple Thompson!