Obee

Pics or it doesn't happen...

3 of the 41 listed.

It's more the pins and the speed combined. They just don't see the hole locations combined with the speed throughout the year much. And I could be wrong, it might be less than 10% of the guys from Wilshire country club. I will actually check…

hard to tell. The course does not play like it does for the Macbeth very often during the year, so it's likely not much of an advantage at all. It can actually be a disadvantage. You simply can't keep a golf course in tournament shape year-round—especially the greens—It is too stressful on the golf course.

I'm not a member. 80% or more of the low handicap players are guests, not members.

This is what you don't understand. I am there. I see them play. I walk the course. I have played it leading up to the tournament. I have played it following the tournament. I know what the greens are like. I see the pins. I see how firm the greens are (or aren't). I KNOW how windy it is when they play. I'm not guessing. And then I play the course a couple weeks after, pure as can be, same tight fairways. Exact same rough. Greens running 12+ with nasty-*ss pins on slopes, on mounds, and tucked in corners. And we play the course 150 to 300 yards LONGER. They set up the course to punish us. It's not a garden variety "club tournament," it's a 75 year old invitational where they try to test all of us. I truly wish everyone could experience these types of tournaments. It's a privilege to play in them. The course is only 6650 or so, so there is only so much they can do, but the course is tricky as all get out with super penal bunkers with tiny, diabolical "fingers" and fairway bunkers were you almost never have a full shot at the green due to those fingers (verrrrry frustrating). When Patrick Cantlay was the number one amateur golfer in the world (a position he held for a record 54 straight weeks), and already good enough to contend on the PGA Tour, his last amateur tournament before turning pro was the Macbeth. He played with his father. He shot, if memory serves, 64 on day one of better-ball, 67 on day 2 of better-ball (he and his father were leading) then he shot 74 on aggregate day. It's ALWAYS windy in the afternoon that time of year and the leaders always tee off late. And the course is set up TOUGH. Any elite player can shoot a mediocre round on that course in the afternoon wind when things aren't lining up. Perhaps he was hung over. Perhaps he was injured. Perhaps he made a triple, got pissed and phoned it in. But he was playing with his father, so I doubt it. It's just not (much) conjecture, bud. The scores you see posted by the guys in the Macbeth are the scores they will shoot in the LPGA conditions—except a bit lower on average due to the slight length difference, especially on the final day when they turn one of the par 5's into a par 4 for the ladies that they still call a par 5 (we never play that up tee, as it's like 435 or something). Does that help? Do you still think I don't know how they set up this course for the ladies and for us? Cuz ...

more like 25%, I believe (cap OR below). Certainly not 40%.

A player shoots his handicap or lower about 25% of the time.

And THAT's when he jumped the shark, ladies and gentlemen.

my knowledge of how LPGA courses are set up is not opinion. It is most certainly certainly not opinion when it comes to Wilshire

Wow. maybe one day you will be lucky enough to play the course when the ladies play it and when we play the Macbeth. If I could get the members and or the superintendent to explain to you that the course is set up slightly tougher for the Macbeth then for the ladies, with that shut you up? Or are you too proud?

Certainly not. But old, injured Tiger Woods, absolutely!

You do realize that the majority of these guys played, at a minimum, D2 golf and a solid portion of mid-ams and seniors who can hold onto an index of +1.8 for any length of time also played professionally and cashed some checks on mini-tours for a spell, right? These guys now have families and jobs, but a lot of these guys who are now legit, non-sandbagging +1.8's used to be +3.5 to +5 guys.

Yes, it does. Consider it dropped. 🙂

Yeah, those guys hardly exist. Virtually all of them compete. If, once again, what you mean is: Some guy who happens to have a +1.8 index, but all he ever does is play his home course and never competes and never did. Damn near a unicorn.

What's the course? Who are your "low index to scratch golfers"? Who's this young lady? Details matter with statements like this. I have played virtually every "challenging" public course in California -- especially Southern California. What's the course? Certainly you can't be giving up an special, privileged info by naming the course...

There are very few "club +1.8" golfers, if I'm understanding you. Most +1.8 mid-am or senior golfers played in college, and many of them played professionally at some point. I hardly know a single +1.8 or better who doesn't play in several tournaments a year. I mean, why get that good at something and then never test yourself? Most do...

Yeah, that could certainly be. LOTS of it depends on the "match up." When I was a +2 to +3.8, I was a short hitter (265ish?), but I know guys in that range who hit is 320 and relatively straight. They just don't putt it or wedge it like I did. "Horses for courses" is a thing for sure. Everyone's game is different. Oddsmakers would have a blast with it, I can tell you that.

Dude, you are the king of taking people out of context. Grow up. When Nelly Korda sh*ts the bed and shoots 76, YES, a scratch golfer playing well can beat her on an LPGA course. If he plays well. It happens. It's golf. Just like I could tie Phil Mickelson with a 700-yard advantage. Virtually nobody thought a true scratch golfer (which I was at the time) could do that. They are humans. They are not machines and golf score fluctuations are crazy. Here's a much better example for you. Below is Nelly Korda at Wilshire CC in 2021. You put just 10 male true scratch golfers (guys whose indexes AVERAGE around 0.0) and at least one of them is going to beat or tie her on day 2. Potentially 2 to 4 guys. She doesn't even have to shoot 76 to get beaten in a single round. But she is going to WAX them over the tournament? Why? Because she's significantly better at golf than they are and far, far more consistent. But you just don't understand golf score fluctuation and what true scratches shoot at a course like Wilshire. The thing is, it's right in this thread for you. Just look further up in the thread. Scratch Amateur: 77, 72, 78, 80 That's all a scratch needs to do to "beat Nelly Korda" in a SINGLE ROUND OF GOLF. If you don't think that is not just POSSIBLE for a scratch golfer, but LIKELY for a scratch golfer to shoot at a course like Wilshire, you really do not know this game at the tournament level. T10 Nelly Korda -8 66 73 70 67 276

3 to 1 against from 6200 to 6600. 2.75 to 1 from 6601 to 6900. 2.5 to 1 from 6901 to 7200. 2 to 1 from 7200+. And this is ONLY IF the +1.8 is his AVERAGE index all year, meaning sometimes he touches +3.2 or whatever. So +1 in some months, +3.2 in others. AVERAGE of +1.8 all year. NEXT QUESTION!!! 😉

Only an idiot would take that bet.

Yes? 😉

It is a flaw. That used to be the way it was in the UK. In fact, ONLY competition rounds counted for handicap purposes, I believe. The USGA is all about "the more people who have an index, the better." I would LOVE there to be two indexes: Your "normal" index and you "competition index" with only scores shot fully under the rules of golf and supervised by either the pro shop or a golf association can be counted.

I may have been responding to something else. Apologies.

But ... they shoot the same differentials (at least for the top 8 of their last 20).