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

[Shilgy]

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 ;)

I play with one of those. He averages 250 on good hits, knows Lexi averages over 270+ on measured drives, and yet will still assure you "no woman can out drive" him. :)

[Shilgy]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

[jmck]

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.

 

You don't recall it correctly. Not at all. You're recalling all the wrong calculations. Again. The numbers you keep thinking are right ignore that you'd need to one, throw out the worst half of all of the 75th ranked LPGA player's scores to turn a stroke average into a handicap, and two, adjust for the difference between men's and ladies course ratings to translate a female to male handicap.

 

This has been explained several times over. The idea that #130 on the LPGA tour = scratch or worse man is flat plain crazy talk. Get it out of your head before some random lady you've never heard of meets you on the first tee takes all of your money.

[DavePelz4]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

I have yet to encounter a female Olympic athlete or otherwise who can drink more wine.

 

Drive a golf ball further, hell yeah.

[dhc1]

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.

 

I don't think the courses average a 72.0 rating. Many of them are par 70/71 courses and I'd guess they line up right around 70.5 - 71.0 as played (when adjusted for the shorter than listed distances actually played). That's where I'm getting my scratch assessment.

 

We're not hugely apart and I won't argue that your perspective is unreasonable.

[deadsolid...shank]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Because sometimes there is soemthing to that idea.

 

I was an OK high school sprinter more than 30years ago. The current women’s world records in the 100 and 200 are just a fraction faster than the times I ran in high school.

 

There are literally 100’s of high school boys right now that are faster the current world records.

[Argonne69]

Once again. The 130th ranked LPGA player (by scoring average) is averaging 73.7. Her last 20 rounds are: 69, 74, 70, 73, 72, 70, 71, 74, 75, 74, 72, 75, 74, 77, 73, 75, 76, 72, 78, 73. The best 10 are 69, 70, 70, 71, 72, 72, 72, 73, 73, 73.

 

Using a rating of 72.0, and a slope of 130, the differentials are -2.6, -1.7, -1.7, -0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.9. The index is therefore +0.4.

 

The LPGA plays very few par 71 courses. I would say a 72.0 rating is about right. For example, the KPMG will be played at Kemper Lakes at 6588 yards, which is a Blue/Steward combo (72.4/139).

 

The USWO was played at Shoal Creek at 6653 yards. That equates to a Three/Four combo at ~73.0/139.

 

The Meijer Classic will be played at Blythefield CC at 6451 yards (Blue tees). It's rated at 73.3/128.

[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.

 

You don't recall it correctly. Not at all. You're recalling all the wrong calculations. Again. The numbers you keep thinking are right ignore that you'd need to one, throw out the worst half of all of the 75th ranked LPGA player's scores to turn a stroke average into a handicap, and two, adjust for the difference between men's and ladies course ratings to translate a female to male handicap.

 

This has been explained several times over. The idea that #130 on the LPGA tour = scratch or worse man is flat plain crazy talk. Get it out of your head before some random lady you've never heard of meets you on the first tee takes all of your money.

 

FFS - you have no idea what you're talking about. Argonne has done the math already just using all of the scores for various LPGA players.

 

1. that takes out the 10/20 issue because he used all of their scores

2. he used the men's slope/rating because the tees that the LPGA player plays from is equivalent to member's tees in general. So, no adjustment is needed, just scores

 

IIRC, he showed that the 75th ranked player was about a +2 and that the 150th was a 1.9.

 

Not sure why this is so difficult for you. It's math.

[dhc1]

Once again. The 130th ranked LPGA player (by scoring average) is averaging 73.7. Her last 20 rounds are: 69, 74, 70, 73, 72, 70, 71, 74, 75, 74, 72, 75, 74, 77, 73, 75, 76, 72, 78, 73. The best 10 are 69, 70, 70, 71, 72, 72, 72, 73, 73, 73.

 

Using a rating of 72.0, and a slope of 130, the differentials are -2.6, -1.7, -1.7, -0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.9. The index is therefore +0.4.

 

First, thank you for doing the math, Argonne. Truly appreciate it.

 

Next, boy, this number isn't so far off from men's scratch. I could argue that 72.0/130 is a bit high but even without it, it's pretty close....

 

JMCK (and Shilgy who "likes" his post), where's the problem with the math?

[deadsolid...shank]

Are the 72 rating and 130 slope fairly accurate numbers?

[DON SVO]

Once again. The 130th ranked LPGA player (by scoring average) is averaging 73.7. Her last 20 rounds are: 69, 74, 70, 73, 72, 70, 71, 74, 75, 74, 72, 75, 74, 77, 73, 75, 76, 72, 78, 73. The best 10 are 69, 70, 70, 71, 72, 72, 72, 73, 73, 73.

 

Using a rating of 72.0, and a slope of 130, the differentials are -2.6, -1.7, -1.7, -0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.9. The index is therefore +0.4.

 

First, thank you for doing the math, Argonne. Truly appreciate it.

 

Next, boy, this number isn't so far off from men's scratch.

 

Don't forget to include the obligatory "but are they traveling tournament scores?!?" so we can bring the wagons full circle.

[jmck]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

[deadsolid...shank]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

The numbers are right there. Using Argonne’s course numbers she computes to a +0.4. Looks pretty close to me.

[dhc1]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

[Argonne69]

Are the 72 rating and 130 slope fairly accurate numbers?

 

As an average, I'd say it's very close. Yes, they do play courses with ratings close to 70.5, but they also play courses with ratings >73.0.

 

The upcoming Thornberry Creek classic will be played at 6624 yards, which is basically a Blue/White combo (72.2/129).

[dhc1]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

[DON SVO]

Are the 72 rating and 130 slope fairly accurate numbers?

 

As an average, I'd say it's very close. Yes, they do play courses with ratings close to 70.5, but they also play courses with ratings >73.0.

 

It seems to be a mixed bag. They recently played The Old American course here in DFW (one of my faves, located in The Colony), and the men's blues are 73.7/139. I also acknowledge that they probably mixed some tees but I seem to recall they were on the blue tee box a lot of the time.

[dhc1]

Once again. The 130th ranked LPGA player (by scoring average) is averaging 73.7. Her last 20 rounds are: 69, 74, 70, 73, 72, 70, 71, 74, 75, 74, 72, 75, 74, 77, 73, 75, 76, 72, 78, 73. The best 10 are 69, 70, 70, 71, 72, 72, 72, 73, 73, 73.

 

Using a rating of 72.0, and a slope of 130, the differentials are -2.6, -1.7, -1.7, -0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.9. The index is therefore +0.4.

 

First, thank you for doing the math, Argonne. Truly appreciate it.

 

Next, boy, this number isn't so far off from men's scratch.

 

Don't forget to include the obligatory "but are they traveling tournament scores?!?" so we can bring the wagons full circle.

 

LOL. I do think there's real validity to the point that all of the LPGA scores are "Tournament" scores while many men's scores are for craps & giggles. I'd be interested to compare a men's scratch "Tournament" scores to his total scores and see what that's like. Perhaps Obee can weigh in.

[lchang]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

 

IMO, I think the male advantage is larger in track (and volleyball and hoops and baseball and swimming...) than in golf (and bowling and skiing and billiards and archery...)

[dhc1]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

 

IMO, I think the male advantage is larger in track (and volleyball and hoops and baseball and swimming...) than in golf (and bowling and skiing and billiards and archery...)

 

I agree but both sports have actually mathematical results that we can use to compare (it's much simpler using track, of course). I was just responding to the OP, who brought it up.

[jmck]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

 

There's more to it than math. Tournament golf at a different course every week is apples to oranges compared to what the average scratch man plays.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. I've been as good as a +2.9 and play a lot of golf with someone who played on the LPGA tour from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. The math you're so attached to does not hold up at all when the rubber meets the road.

[dhc1]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

 

There's more to it than math. Tournament golf at a different course every week is apples to oranges compared to what the average scratch man plays.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. I've been as good as a +2.9 and play a lot of golf with someone who played on the LPGA tour from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. The math you're so attached to does not hold up at all when the rubber meets the road.

 

That's exactly not what you've repeatedly written - you specifically (and in as insulting a manner as you possible could) called out that the math was wrong and that I (and others) didn't understand how the handicap calculations work.

 

Take the L - you were dead wrong on what you wrote.

 

After that, you can make the point that tournament golf is different than non-tournament - that's a point that can be reasonably argued.

[wareagle12]

Alright so I played Shoal Creek yesterday exactly like the ladies had it Sunday. I will give background and excuses now. I would really rather not talk about the round, but I think it is pertinent to the discussion.

 

I am currently a 0.8 trending upwards due to not playing as much as normal and practicing none. Length is typically my greatest advantage. 7 iron 205 driver around 320-330. Now to the excuses.

 

I had a wedding to attend Sunday evening and didn't get home until well after midnight. Got around 3 hours sleep. I had 0 practice rounds, have never played the course, and didn't watch coverage. I had a great caddy (who i may start another thread about because he was on the bag for a masters winner) but he mis clubbed me on a few tees and had my bag down the fairway and I couldn't change. I made 2 triples from this. I also pull hooked the majority of driver swings so it stayed in the bag for the most part. I was cold shanking the ball on the range... anyway to the round.

 

I had a shaky par on 1. Missed a shortish birdie on 2. Here is where it gets interesting. 3 is the 1st par 5. I didn't catch all of my drive but hit it pretty well. Scorecard had it right at 500. I hit pw into the green. Tugged it and had a 30ft eagle look for a tap in bird. Next hole was a triple 7. Caddy pulled driver. Had I had my bag I would've hit hybrid at most. Left trees. Tried hero shot (s) tap in for 7. Was a little rattled from that and had a few bogeys in a row. The next notable hole would be 9. Caddy pulled 5 wood. Just under 400 into the wind. It was a slight dog leg left and caddy told me to draw 5 wood off the bunker on the corner. I hit it really solid and had 101 to a back pin. One of the caddies in our group caddied on Thursday/Friday of the tournament and said none of the women got there all week. They were hitting mid irons in. I had a flip wedge. Same thing in 11. Par 5. I hit 5 wood 9 iron on what was a difficult hole for the ladies. Enough of the details.

 

This was my worst ball striking round of the year by far. I putted pretty well and my short game was pretty good for the most part. Didn't make a lot of putts but only had maybe 1 3 putt. I shot 82 with all of that. It felt like I shot a million. I even had a lost ball on a par 5. I would say had I struck the ball normally and had a few practice rounds, I would have averaged between 74-75 over 4 rounds. It looks like there were quite a few 81s on Sunday and some higher and like I said my worst round of the year. I think a traveling tourney scratch would be a toss up with the bottom of the pack lpga player any given week.

[BNGL]

Is there an easy way to solve this hypothetical? Let’s set up a round with an LPGA golf player. I sent a link to a friend of mine to this article, and she texted back lol. If any of y’all are in Florida we might be able to do it.

[Argonne69]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

[wareagle12]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

Lindy Duncan shot 86 Sunday with a 13 on number 11. Jillian Hollis shot 83. Christie Kerr shot 80.

[BNGL]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

[wareagle12]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

[Argonne69]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

Lindy Duncan shot 86 Sunday with a 13 on number 11. Jillian Hollis shot 83. Christie Kerr shot 80.

 

You specifically mentioned not having played the course before, so I limited the scores to the first round given the number of players that didn't get a practice round. Yeah, there were a handful of higher scores in the later rounds.

[heavy_hitter]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

 

IMO, I think the male advantage is larger in track (and volleyball and hoops and baseball and swimming...) than in golf (and bowling and skiing and billiards and archery...)

 

I would disagree with this.