Obee

It's my thread. of course I am reading the posts. I started the thread specifically to give some actual data instead of just conjecture. We know exactly what scratch men will shoot on course that the ladies play. And we played it longer and in tougher conditions. I have given everyone real data. Honestly, it is about a good comparison as you will ever see. And it tracks well with the other examples we have of scratch guys playing on the same course as the ladies, like when Derek Lowe(?) played in the Sentry. He got his a** kicked by an elite player. But he also tied(?) Annika Sorenstam. Nobody saw that coming. The Top ladies are absurdly good. A scratch male has no chance against them in a four round tournament. If he played a full season on the LPGA tour he might make a few cuts at or right around the number. He would NEVER contend if he did happen to squeak past the cut line a couple/few times a year. But we know what men can shoot on the courses the ladies play (again, in tougher conditions). The numbers are there for everyone to see. That's all this thread was ever about. Real numbers from a real LPGA venue. With real scratch golfers (and some serious plusses). Anyone making it into more than that is tilting at windmills or erecting strawmen.

Who is saying that??? NO ONE in this thread is saying that. If you think they are, you are arguing with straw men.

There's tons of data on this if people just ... pay attention. But they don't. A true 0.0 index male who has any level of travelling index (meaning he plays a few tournaments here and there, plays in his club championship every year, and plays multiple courses throughout the year -- so, virtually every scratch I know) is going to get beaten handily in a four-round tournament in the same conditions as the ladies. I have said this over and over and over. He's going to shoot something like I mentioned above: 77, 74, 71, 80. Of course those numbers can vary, but something like that is a relatively likely scenario. The ladies are going to shoot, on average, for the whole field, 73, 73, 72, 72. or 72, 72, 71, 71. Or something VERY close to that. That's it. It's THAT simple. The winner will shoot a lot lower (68, 66, 70, 68?) and the gals at the bottom will shoot 76, 75 and trunk slam. This. Is. Not. Hard.

I am most certainly not conflating index with handicap. Most people assume your index IS your handicap, but your index is used to determine your COURSE handicap (as it seems you know). Regardless, a 0.0 index travels relatively well regardless of where you earn it. To be a 0.0 index at my current home course, with a par of 72 and a rating of 75.8 and a slope of 145, you have to average around 76 for the best 8 of your last 20. I don't play the back tees at all anymore, but last time I did, I shot 77 hitting fairway wood into most of the par 4's. To be a 0.0 at my former course with a par of 72 and a rating of 71.3 and a slope of 128, you need to average around 71 for the best 8 of your last 20. As a broken-down, 225 hitting senior with debilitating back spasms, I was a 1.0 to +1.0 at my former club, and I'm a 1.0 to +1.0 at my current club. But we're not at all discussing course handicap because that varies so widely. At most LPGA course from the tees they play and the conditions they play in, a 0.0 index will be very close to, if not exactly, a course handicap of 0. At Wilshire, where the ladies play the course that is featured in this thread at the beginning (which has now been long lost to everyone chiming in, sadly), a 0.0 index is a course handicap of 0 or 1 depending on the tee set up each day.

I have been playing competitive golf in California for over 30 years. My modest accomplishments are online for everyone to see. I can count on one hand the amount of players that I know that live between 1.0 and +1.0 who play the white tees that are under 50 years old. Where are you seeing these scratch golfers that play the white tees who aren't seniors? I'm sure they exist, but I certainly haven't played with them in my 30 years of golf. As for gambling, every club I have ever been a member at the vast majority of scratch/below guys gamble with each other.

Not arguing (with you). Who are these "vanity scratch" guys you know know who take gimmes all the time? The overwhelming majority of guys who live in the +1.0 to 1.0 range are ex college players and/or former pros. Most guys play tournaments, both locally and regionally, and most gamble for decent money with fellow scratch guys and they make sure they are putting everything out. I just haven't seen many of these "vanity scratches" in my years, but I do know they exist. Usually, they show up in USGA qualifiers. Nobody knows who they are and they shoot 87. Yes, those guys exist. But they've never been a member of a private club or other men's club I've been a member of! 🙂

Read the Mickelson thread. Guarantee that you would have been one of the guys in the thread to embarrass yourself by popping off.

What's your point?

Look, I'll put it to you another way: If you don't think a legit scratch male is capable of shooting even par or 1 under on a course like Wilshire CC or Palos Verdes CC in LPGA Tournament conditions (and then have a top pro have a poor day and shoot 1-over on the same day) then you simply don't know this game like you (so obviously) think you do. There is no question this will happen. It's just a question of how often. It will be relatively rare, but not "never going to happen" rare. A scratch at a course like Wilshire (which this thread STARTED with) is going to shoot something like: 77, 74, 71, 80. That's just ... math, dude. The 74 is going to beat some players in the field. The 71 is going to beat about 40% or more players in the field on that day. It's really not that hard.... Edited to add: And he's going to get SMOKED in the tournament itself and likely miss the cut or finish near the very bottom if he happens to squeak in and make the cut, which would be rare.

Then you should know better.

I am responding only to specific idiotic claims. See all of my posts to see what I claim about the ladies. A single round is not a golf tournament. The professional game is a game of four round tournaments. No scratch players is ever going to beat the top ladies in a four-round tournament. In a single round of golf, when a top lady plays poorly and the scratch am plays well, they are capable of posting a lower score. This will be rare. But it will happen because ... math.

You clearly don't understand the vagaries of the game we play. There's still time for you to learn this game and how players of various skill levels score on courses of various difficulties based on ... simple math. But you're probably one of those people who think LPGA courses are set up incredibly difficult such that no male amateur could ever hope to break par or shoot anywhere near par. And you are wrong. How many LPGA players have you played with? How many PGA Tour pros have you played with? Have many PGA Tour pros have you gambled with? How many PGA Tour Courses have you played the day after the tournament? How many LPGA courses? You would have been someone who chimed in like a tool on this thread only to find out that you just ... don't know much about golf... There's still time for you to delete yours.

Adding that I have already said a scratch has NO CHANCE against an elite woman in a four-round tournament.

In a head to head match, almost never. In a tournament on the same course in the exact same conditions, absolutely it can happen when she has a bad day. If you don't understand that, you don't know golf.

Yup. BY DEFINITION, a scratch golfer will shoot right around the COURSE RATING about 40% of the time. This isn't hard, people. Their best 8 of 10 will AVERAGE the COURSE RATING (NOT PAR!) of the courses they played for the 8 rounds that are their lowest differentials.

Yes. In a single round.