Cage Match to the DEATH: LPGA Tour vs. Middle-aged Scratch and Below

[straightshot7]

The median driving distance on the LPGA is 255 yards. Looking at the course layout for the Memorial Tournament this past weekend, the par 4's were 470, 455, 401, 447, 412, 471, 455, 363, 478, and 484. With the players hitting 5 woods 215 yards, only 4 of the 10 holes would require driver/FW.

 

 

Average par 4 at PGA Tour's Memorial: 443.6 yards (Second shot for average lady: 188.6 yards)

Average par 3: 192 yards

Average par 5: 546 yards

 

 

Average par 4 at LPGA LA Open: 385 yards (Second shot for average lady: 130 yards)

Average par 3: 161.75 yards

Average par 5: 521 yards

 

 

The difference between scoring when hitting approach shots from 130 vs. 188 is massive. Same for 161 par 3 vs. 192 par 3.

 

I'm not saying the lady's aren't great. I'm only saying they are essentially playing a different game at 6,400-6,600 yards.

 

It's all relative isn't it? Most players on the LPGA don't hit 9-LW on their 2nd shots into par 4's nor do they hit mid irons into par 5's.

 

Yeah, my point is that if we did a comparison of Male Scratch or Better vs. average LPGA player on a 7,400 yard course, it's a different comparison.

 

Course setup/length matters a lot and we are only judging the women based on their performance on ~6,500 yard courses.

[Conrad1953]

OK, so Brittany Lincicome is gonna be in the field at the Barbasol........and please don't rant about it.....I know it's

a one off and she will be nervous, etc. but I think the chances are good she will not be the shortest knocker in the

field and she will beat many of the men.............would be cool if she made the cut..........but not likely.

 

I listened to her today on ITR radio and she said she can manage a 7000 yard course, give or take. This tournament

can use some extra eyes so if she brings some more that'll be a good thing. I'd rather see her out there than David

Duvall, lol.

[Shilgy]

I agree that the best guys in the field could easily hang with the middle of the pack LPGA, but the absolute best LPGA players would beat them.

 

However, I still think course setup is crucial to determining this. If you put the ladies on a 7,300+ yard course, how does that change the outcome?

 

For this experiment the course was pretty short overall. I think that favors the ladies.

 

If you took the top 10 guys from the Macbeth tournament and put them on the LPGA Tour for a year, I think their scores would be lower than they currently shoot. Because they'd likely be playing much shorter courses.

I think what some forget is that the scores would be lower at a shorter yesterday but that of itself does not mean a lower handicap. Most players are what they are. Meaning a scratch golfer will shoot the course rating or better about a quarter of the time. So move him back to a course rated at 75 and he will average 75 on his best 10 of last 20. In addition players average about 3 over their cap. So the scratch playing the course rated 75 will average about 78 strokes per round.

The lpga plays courses at 6400-6600 yards on average. Men's ratings would be in the 71. to 72.5 as the norm. So your typical scratch player would get killed as he would average about 74-75.5 on the ladies tour. And that is completely disclosing the fact that a majority of scratch players will average higher than their handicap in actual tournaments. Sure, their are some of Obee's aquaintances whose handicap is made up mostly of tournament scores. But even those are "fun" events, not "put food on the table" life and death for your job events. Richard aka Forgedforever has written quite eloquently on that subject.

 

All in all it looks like the event Obee played in was a great event and was fun to play in.

 

Forget handicaps and course ratings for a minute.

 

Just using common sense and what we know about changes in GIR in relation to the club a player has to use on their approach shot...

 

800-1000 yards will make a significant difference. That's my only point.

 

Asking this question (LPGA Tour player vs. scratch or better male) on a 6,400 yard setup is a different question than on a 7,400 yard setup.

 

There are going to be a lot of women who are shorter hitters on the LPGA Tour who struggle mightily to reach greens in regulation with less than Driver-3 wood or Driver-5 wood on a 7,400 yard course.

Of course you're correct that length of course matters. What will not change is the couple shots margin between #130 last and a scratch (zero handicap) male. She will, on average, beat him by a couple shots at any yardage. Most zero caps don't become better players by moving back to the length your suggesting. There are reasons they are not the plus caps that fared well at Obee's event.

 

PS the "or better" used in this thread really throws a wrench into things. There is a good difference between a solid +3 and a zero cap.

[straightshot7]

I agree that the best guys in the field could easily hang with the middle of the pack LPGA, but the absolute best LPGA players would beat them.

 

However, I still think course setup is crucial to determining this. If you put the ladies on a 7,300+ yard course, how does that change the outcome?

 

For this experiment the course was pretty short overall. I think that favors the ladies.

 

If you took the top 10 guys from the Macbeth tournament and put them on the LPGA Tour for a year, I think their scores would be lower than they currently shoot. Because they'd likely be playing much shorter courses.

I think what some forget is that the scores would be lower at a shorter yesterday but that of itself does not mean a lower handicap. Most players are what they are. Meaning a scratch golfer will shoot the course rating or better about a quarter of the time. So move him back to a course rated at 75 and he will average 75 on his best 10 of last 20. In addition players average about 3 over their cap. So the scratch playing the course rated 75 will average about 78 strokes per round.

The lpga plays courses at 6400-6600 yards on average. Men's ratings would be in the 71. to 72.5 as the norm. So your typical scratch player would get killed as he would average about 74-75.5 on the ladies tour. And that is completely disclosing the fact that a majority of scratch players will average higher than their handicap in actual tournaments. Sure, their are some of Obee's aquaintances whose handicap is made up mostly of tournament scores. But even those are "fun" events, not "put food on the table" life and death for your job events. Richard aka Forgedforever has written quite eloquently on that subject.

 

All in all it looks like the event Obee played in was a great event and was fun to play in.

 

Forget handicaps and course ratings for a minute.

 

Just using common sense and what we know about changes in GIR in relation to the club a player has to use on their approach shot...

 

800-1000 yards will make a significant difference. That's my only point.

 

Asking this question (LPGA Tour player vs. scratch or better male) on a 6,400 yard setup is a different question than on a 7,400 yard setup.

 

There are going to be a lot of women who are shorter hitters on the LPGA Tour who struggle mightily to reach greens in regulation with less than Driver-3 wood or Driver-5 wood on a 7,400 yard course.

Of course you're correct on lengthy of course matters. What will not change is the couple shots margin between #130 last and a scratch (zero handicap) male. She will, on average, beat him by a couple shots at any yardage. Most zero caps don't become better players by moving back to the length your suggesting. There are reasons they are not the plus caps that fared well at Obee's event.

 

PS the "or better" used in this thread really throws a wrench into things. There is a good difference between a solid +3 and a zero cap.

 

How can you know how the average LPGA Tour player (who hits it ~255) will perform at 7,400+ yards? Do we have any examples of when that happened?

 

I don't think the zero cap will get better. What I'm suggesting is that the LPGA player will potentially struggle at that yardage.

 

Edit: Trackman measured the LPGA's average driver carry being just 218 yards. If the course was soft, many would have trouble just reaching 450 yard par 4's in regulation. The scratch male may not be as good a player overall, but if he can carry his driver 250 he has a significant advantage on a 7,400+ yard course. https://blog.trackmangolf.com/2017-pga-lpga-tour-avg/

[ThinkingPlus]

So if folks assume that the USGA course rating adjustments for distance mean anything then some insight can be gleaned. The slopes of the adjustment lines (linear relationship between distance and course rating adjustment) for men and women are different such that an 800 yard difference in course length would result in a gain of 0.9 strokes by a man vs a woman. So on a 7200 - 7400 yard course the scratch would get 0.9 strokes closer to the LPGA pro based on the Macbeth conclusions from 6400 - 6600 yards course length. Not enough to make up the difference, but it becomes a closer contest. I would post the rating adjustment lines, but I plotted in Xcel and can't figure out how to paste in here.

[Shilgy]

So if folks assume that the USGA course rating adjustments for distance mean anything then some insight can be gleaned. The slopes of the adjustment lines (linear relationship between distance and course rating adjustment) for men and women are different such that an 800 yard difference in course length would result in a gain of 0.9 strokes by a man vs a woman. So on a 7200 - 7400 yard course the scratch would get 0.9 strokes closer to the LPGA pro based on the Macbeth conclusions from 6400 - 6600 yards course length. Not enough to make up the difference, but it becomes a closer contest. I would post the rating adjustment lines, but I plotted in Xcel and can't figure out how to paste in here.

That would be an amateur woman though, correct? The woman that hits it 200 of she really flushes one?

Whether she is as long maximum as the scratch can be a bit of contention. Based on her likely more consistent contact she is not as much shorter as many think and is likely to get into a lot less trouble.

 

Again, I am referring to scratch players, not the "and better +3" types.

[ThinkingPlus]

So if folks assume that the USGA course rating adjustments for distance mean anything then some insight can be gleaned. The slopes of the adjustment lines (linear relationship between distance and course rating adjustment) for men and women are different such that an 800 yard difference in course length would result in a gain of 0.9 strokes by a man vs a woman. So on a 7200 - 7400 yard course the scratch would get 0.9 strokes closer to the LPGA pro based on the Macbeth conclusions from 6400 - 6600 yards course length. Not enough to make up the difference, but it becomes a closer contest. I would post the rating adjustment lines, but I plotted in Xcel and can't figure out how to paste in here.

That would be an amateur woman though, correct? The woman that hits it 200 of she really flushes one?

Whether she is as long maximum as the scratch can be a bit of contention. Based on her likely more consistent contact she is not as much shorter as many think and is likely to get into a lot less trouble.

 

Again, I am referring to scratch players, not the "and better +3" types.

Everything USGA applies to amateurs both male and female. Direct applicability of these type tables begins to break down once you move into plus territory so the evaluation of LPGA pros (equivalent to amateur women between +5 and +9 or so) is not all that great. The 0.9 stroke gain would be the absolute max the scratch could hope to gain on a super long course. This also assumes no non-linear factors such as extreme forced carries.

[Shilgy]

So if folks assume that the USGA course rating adjustments for distance mean anything then some insight can be gleaned. The slopes of the adjustment lines (linear relationship between distance and course rating adjustment) for men and women are different such that an 800 yard difference in course length would result in a gain of 0.9 strokes by a man vs a woman. So on a 7200 - 7400 yard course the scratch would get 0.9 strokes closer to the LPGA pro based on the Macbeth conclusions from 6400 - 6600 yards course length. Not enough to make up the difference, but it becomes a closer contest. I would post the rating adjustment lines, but I plotted in Xcel and can't figure out how to paste in here.

That would be an amateur woman though, correct? The woman that hits it 200 of she really flushes one?

Whether she is as long maximum as the scratch can be a bit of contention. Based on her likely more consistent contact she is not as much shorter as many think and is likely to get into a lot less trouble.

 

Again, I am referring to scratch players, not the "and better +3" types.

Everything USGA applies to amateurs both male and female. Direct applicability of these type tables begins to break down once you move into plus territory so the evaluation of LPGA pros (equivalent to amateur women between +5 and +9 or so) is not all that great. The 0.9 stroke gain would be the absolute max the scratch could hope to gain on a super long course. This also assumes no non-linear factors such as extreme forced carries.

And even the extreme forced carries logic assumes the scratch golfer can consistently make the carries the lady pro cannot. Emphasis on consistently.

Using the same thinking here let's put the lady pro and the scratch on a 7400 extremely narrow course. Edge back to the pro?

[ThinkingPlus]

So if folks assume that the USGA course rating adjustments for distance mean anything then some insight can be gleaned. The slopes of the adjustment lines (linear relationship between distance and course rating adjustment) for men and women are different such that an 800 yard difference in course length would result in a gain of 0.9 strokes by a man vs a woman. So on a 7200 - 7400 yard course the scratch would get 0.9 strokes closer to the LPGA pro based on the Macbeth conclusions from 6400 - 6600 yards course length. Not enough to make up the difference, but it becomes a closer contest. I would post the rating adjustment lines, but I plotted in Xcel and can't figure out how to paste in here.

That would be an amateur woman though, correct? The woman that hits it 200 of she really flushes one?

Whether she is as long maximum as the scratch can be a bit of contention. Based on her likely more consistent contact she is not as much shorter as many think and is likely to get into a lot less trouble.

 

Again, I am referring to scratch players, not the "and better +3" types.

Everything USGA applies to amateurs both male and female. Direct applicability of these type tables begins to break down once you move into plus territory so the evaluation of LPGA pros (equivalent to amateur women between +5 and +9 or so) is not all that great. The 0.9 stroke gain would be the absolute max the scratch could hope to gain on a super long course. This also assumes no non-linear factors such as extreme forced carries.

And even the extreme forced carries logic assumes the scratch golfer can consistently make the carries the lady pro cannot.

Using the same thinking here let's put the lady pro and the scratch on a 7400 extremely narrow course. Edge back to the pro?

The longer player will have greater dispersion even with the same angular error. The pros are also more accurate (less angular error) so they should be in less trouble. Thus while further away their approaches will be less obstructed with fewer punch outs. Probably advantage pros, but not huge since a good part of the skill difference is already rolled into the scratch vs LPGA pro base comparison.

[Argonne69]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

[deadsolid...shank]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

[dhc1]

Of course you're correct that length of course matters. What will not change is the couple shots margin between #130 last and a scratch (zero handicap) male. She will, on average, beat him by a couple shots at any yardage. Most zero caps don't become better players by moving back to the length your suggesting. There are reasons they are not the plus caps that fared well at Obee's event.

 

PS the "or better" used in this thread really throws a wrench into things. There is a good difference between a solid +3 and a zero cap.

 

Shilgy,

 

You’ve stated your (not unreasonable but not based on numbers) opinion that the 130th LPGA pro is a +2 as a fact when it is, in fact, just an opinion.

 

IIRC, the 130th ranked LPGA scores reflect that of a men’s scratch or even higher.

 

I’d surmise that the 75th ranked LPGA pro was at best a +1 or +2 and there’s a dramatic drop of in depth in the LPGA.

[Argonne69]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

 

No. I've attended several LPGA events with my Skycaddie in tow, and measured both the hole lengths and the approach shots. Others have played with several pros. There's no doubt the middle of the pack players are hitting it 250 - 255 yards, with the longest hitters at 270+. I followed Lydia and Lexi for a few holes at the KPMG, and Lexi was a good 40 yards ahead of Lydia who was in the 235 range.

[deadsolid...shank]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

 

No. I've attended several LPGA events with my Skycaddie in tow, and measured both the hole lengths and the approach shots. Others have played with several pros. There's no doubt the middle of the pack players are hitting it 250 - 255 yards, with the longest hitters at 270+. I followed Lydia and Lexi for a few holes at the KPMG, and Lexi was a good 40 yards ahead of Lydia who was in the 235 range.

 

I agree with you on Lexi. But she's one of the longest out there and is just 270+. If the longer players are in the 270+ range I just don't see the median at 255.

 

Just watching the telecasts it certainly appears that for every 255 drive there are four or five in the 235 range.

[Argonne69]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

 

No. I've attended several LPGA events with my Skycaddie in tow, and measured both the hole lengths and the approach shots. Others have played with several pros. There's no doubt the middle of the pack players are hitting it 250 - 255 yards, with the longest hitters at 270+. I followed Lydia and Lexi for a few holes at the KPMG, and Lexi was a good 40 yards ahead of Lydia who was in the 235 range.

 

I agree with you on Lexi. But she's one of the longest out there and is just 270+. If the longer players are in the 270+ range I just don't see the median at 255.

 

Just watching the telecasts it certainly appears that for every 255 drive there are four or five in the 235 range.

 

If you think the median is 235, then what are the short hitters at? 200? 210? Mo Martin averages 240 yards, and ranks near the bottom in driving distance. You think it's really 220? How does a player average 71.8 playing 6300 to 6500 yards courses while averaging 220 yards?

 

Keep in mind that driving averages are calculated on two holes only. Lexi may average 272, but she can easily poke it out there 290.

 

The Trackman data doesn't jive with the PGA distances, and it doesn't jive with the LPGA distances.

[deadsolid...shank]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

[ThinkingPlus]

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

 

No. I've attended several LPGA events with my Skycaddie in tow, and measured both the hole lengths and the approach shots. Others have played with several pros. There's no doubt the middle of the pack players are hitting it 250 - 255 yards, with the longest hitters at 270+. I followed Lydia and Lexi for a few holes at the KPMG, and Lexi was a good 40 yards ahead of Lydia who was in the 235 range.

 

I agree with you on Lexi. But she's one of the longest out there and is just 270+. If the longer players are in the 270+ range I just don't see the median at 255.

 

Just watching the telecasts it certainly appears that for every 255 drive there are four or five in the 235 range.

 

If you think the median is 235, then what are the short hitters at? 200? 210? Mo Martin averages 240 yards, and ranks near the bottom in driving distance. You think it's really 220? How does a player average 71.8 playing 6300 to 6500 yards courses while averaging 220 yards?

 

Keep in mind that driving averages are calculated on two holes only. Lexi may average 272, but she can easily poke it out there 290.

 

The Trackman data doesn't jive with the PGA distances, and it doesn't jive with the LPGA distances.

Is the Trackman data taken from actual tournament swings on the course?

[deadsolid...shank]

One funny thing I've noticed over the years. There is always a lot of talk about how male players grossly exaggerate how far they hit the ball.

 

But nothing tops the exaggeration of men, especially fathers, about far the girls in their life hit it. We've had several players in the area go on to high level college golf (don't think any have made the top level though), being a smallish area you know most of the "golf" people. It's mind blowing to listen to the dads tell about how far she is hitting it. Then I talk to the coach, and all of sudden the 285s are 230's (still very respectable), one dad even told me she was hitting it 300!

 

Not that this applies to the topic, the topic just reminded me of this.

[Obee]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

 

Keep in mind a "hybrid" from 170 for some of these ladies is a 5-hybrid or even a 6-hybrid for a couple(?).

[deadsolid...shank]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

 

Keep in mind a "hybrid" from 170 for some of these ladies is a 5-hybrid or even a 6-hybrid for a couple(?).

 

Good point Obee, I don’t think they ever specify that on TV. And I also realize a lot or people have actually been in attendance and watched in person. I’m sure that probably gives a better perspective than what we get on the telecast.

 

That’s why I admitted I could very well be wrong all the way around, it’s just all I have to base my opinions on.

[Argonne69]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

 

Many players have 5h's in the bag, e.g. Inbee. Average distance for the hybrid is in the 185 range. If they're hitting into the wind, or a club uphill, I can see a 5h in their hands.

 

Yes, I believe the data, because I've been to a few tournaments and measured it firsthand. I have the same swing speed as the average LPGA player, and I average 250 yards on good strikes. I also hit my irons about the same distance as the they do, and play courses at 6300 to 6500 yards. Their numbers and club selections line up perfectly with my on-course play.

 

Do you believe the PGA median is 295? Why? I see no good reason why the LPGA would lie about the distances. There's simply no upside to it, and there's a major downside if they get caught fudging the numbers. Why chance it? Again, the driving distance average is calculated on only two shots per round. The players may be longer or shorter on other holes. Unfortunately the tour doesn't utilize ShotLink to track every shot. That would certainly provide better data.

[Argonne69]

Is the Trackman data taken from actual tournament swings on the course?

 

I doubt it. The LPGA only occasionally has a launch monitor on the course.

[ThinkingPlus]

Is the Trackman data taken from actual tournament swings on the course?

 

I doubt it. The LPGA only occasionally has a launch monitor on the course.

Then Trackman data is driving range or indoors then. For me that matters alot. I hit the ball farther on the course. There is something about hitting a real shot that needs to go a certain distance and direction that is different. I suspect adrenaline and playing golf rather than driving range matters to the pros as well. It's an intangible, but suspect it might be pretty prevalent.

[jmck]

One funny thing I've noticed over the years. There is always a lot of talk about how male players grossly exaggerate how far they hit the ball.

 

But nothing tops the exaggeration of men, especially fathers, about far the girls in their life hit it. We've had several players in the area go on to high level college golf (don't think any have made the top level though), being a smallish area you know most of the "golf" people. It's mind blowing to listen to the dads tell about how far she is hitting it. Then I talk to the coach, and all of sudden the 285s are 230's (still very respectable), one dad even told me she was hitting it 300!

 

Not that this applies to the topic, the topic just reminded me of this.

 

Oh, those are absolutely related. Lotta dudes out there 100% certain they hit the ball 250 when they actually max out at 215 or 220. They run into a lady who can actually hit the ball 240, next thing you know they're back at the clubhouse blown away that they just played with a lady who must hit the ball at least 280. It's a compounding error ;)

[Shilgy]

Of course you're correct that length of course matters. What will not change is the couple shots margin between #130 last and a scratch (zero handicap) male. She will, on average, beat him by a couple shots at any yardage. Most zero caps don't become better players by moving back to the length your suggesting. There are reasons they are not the plus caps that fared well at Obee's event.

 

PS the "or better" used in this thread really throws a wrench into things. There is a good difference between a solid +3 and a zero cap.

 

Shilgy,

 

You’ve stated your (not unreasonable but not based on numbers) opinion that the 130th LPGA pro is a +2 as a fact when it is, in fact, just an opinion.

 

IIRC, the 130th ranked LPGA scores reflect that of a men’s scratch or even higher.

 

I’d surmise that the 75th ranked LPGA pro was at best a +1 or +2 and there’s a dramatic drop of in depth in the LPGA.

#130 is averaging 73.7 strokes per round. Using 72 course rating for a tournament prepared course that would make them somewhere in the +1.3 range. Striker average is ALL scores and as we know players average about 3 strokes over their handicap based on using best 10 of last 20.

We could discuss/argue the tournament course ratings but that is where I get my numbers. I played for 10 years at the home course of the Standard Register Ping in Phoenix- Moon Valley CC and know exactly how the course was set up for the tournament. I have seen no reason to change the assessment.

 

Sorry, but I'm really beginning to think that Trackman data is bogus, or woefully out of date. The median LPGA player is now driving the ball 255 yards. They're certainly not carrying it 215 yards with 40 yards of roll. The course conditions at the USWO were very wet, and the the players were getting very little rollout. The players still managed to average around 235 yards, with practically zero roll. I'd say the average players are currently carrying the ball in the 230 to 235 yard range.

 

No, we don't have any data on how an LPGA player would fare on a 7400 yard course. However, we have scores from the USWO for a variety of hole lengths, and we can do a reasonable job approximating the average scores based on the length of the hole. As I discussed early, the average scores would be 3 to 4 shots higher, which matches up fairly well with the course ratings difference between 6400 yard tees and 7400 yard tees.

 

Isn't it just as likely the LPGA stats are bogus, as opposed to the Trackman data?

Not if you follow them on the course and see where they hit it.

[Pure745]

Argonne against the world on this thread! Get em Argonne! :drinks:

[Shilgy]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

Your forgetting that many players on the lpga, like Obee who started this thread, start using hybrids with six iron rather than the 3 or 4 iron you may be used to seeing. So hybrid from 170 does not mean it is the equivalent of a 3 iron.

[deadsolid...shank]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

Your forgetting that many players on the lpga, like Obee who started this thread, start using hybrids with six iron rather than the 3 or 4 iron you may be used to seeing. So hybrid from 170 does not mean it is the equivalent of a 3 iron.

 

Yeah, Obee posted that also, a very valid point.

[Shilgy]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

 

Keep in mind a "hybrid" from 170 for some of these ladies is a 5-hybrid or even a 6-hybrid for a couple(?).

I should have scrolled further before replying to Shank myself with the same! :)

[deadsolid...shank]

I guess if you believe Mo averages 240 then you're on board with the information they're giving us. I don't, but its just a difference of opinion. No big deal.

 

When I see hybrids from 170 on a regular basis, I don't believe in the 255 median.

 

But, like it said, that's just my thoughts on it based on what I've seen on TV. And I could certainly be wrong. But I watch a lot of it too, like many here.

 

Keep in mind a "hybrid" from 170 for some of these ladies is a 5-hybrid or even a 6-hybrid for a couple(?).

I should have scrolled further before replying to Shank myself with the same! :)

 

Hey no worries. Sometimes it takes multiple posts to penetrate my thick head.