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

[dhc1]

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.

 

Here's exactly what you can tell me: Directly address your accusations that the handicap calculations were "all wrong" because of best 10 out of 20 and mens vs women's handicap.

 

I'm not surprised to hear nothing from jmck. I don't know why people can't just admit they were wrong on an anonymous internet board....

 

At this point I'm going by the "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" principle. This applies to my thoughts on anyone who thinks an average scratch male golfer has any chance at competing with a middle of the pack LPGA tour player. (To fully answer the original question, get to a legit travelling +3 or +4 and it's a different discussion). This is me speaking as a more or less scratch golfer who regularly plays with a more or less former middle of the pack LPGA tour player. What's your relevant experience here? Some theoretical numbers in a theoretical match up?

 

10 or so pages ago you absolutely displayed a total lack of understanding of how handicap math works compared to tournament scores, and the difference in men's vs. ladies course ratings. I'm too lazy to dig the exact posts out, but I suppose I can if you really want me to. Now you hang your hat on someone else's math, and think you have some sort of right to gloat over me and Shilgy for having different, real-world based opinions on the matter?

 

7 or 8 pages or so ago I posted the scores it takes to make it through LPGA Q school. Again, I'm too lazy to dig it out, but suffice to say that they're scores that the average scratch male has zero chance of ever shooting. Okay, you got me on a technicality....It isn't zero chance, more like 1/1000, or maybe 1/5000 or 1/10000? Maybe you can do the math out for us all. (Again, get to a legit +3 or better and it's a different discussion).

 

And, please, what's am I "wrong" about? The math? A half a theoretical stroke here or there? 10 or 20 or 30 places on the LPGA money list here or there? How about this instead: I would put any amount of money you name on any LPGA pro you name--anyone from #1 to #150--beating any scratch man you can come up with in any sort of best of four round format. What about you? You feel comfortable putting house buying money on the average scratch man beating an LPGA pro with any sort of consistency? Something tells me you wouldn't, despite your "it's just math" attitude. But hey, let me know if you want to make that bet. I'm sure my ex-LPGA buddy could arrange something. You've done a lot of tough talking in the last few pages. PM me if you ever want to put your money where your mouth is.

 

I just saw this tough talk-not sure how i missed it....

 

Let's do it. How about $1k donated to golf charity of winner's choice? let's do it in the NYC/philly area - let's take a professional player ranked around 125 and I'll put up the scratch player.

 

BTW, the bold is nonsense.

[blaird]

I may have missed all this and I am not going back over 17 pages, but are we talking scratch vs. LPGA from same tees? Or scratch from 7,000 or so and LPGA from 6,400 or so?

[deadsolid...shank]

I may have missed all this and I am not going back over 17 pages, but are we talking scratch vs. LPGA from same tees? Or scratch from 7,000 or so and LPGA from 6,400 or so?

 

You’re missing out if you don’t read it all. Some good stuff in there!

 

But, if I recall correctly, both playing from the same tees. That was one of the considerations, how far they would play from.

[lchang]

Played a round recently with a caddy who just returned from spending the entire year on the LPGA.

 

He thought that the bottom end of the LPGA is about a men's scratch (we were playing with a men's +0.2 as a baseline) and the differential between the top and bottom of the LPGA tour is immense.

 

I guess it makes some sense that the difference between top-and-bottom of the LPGA is much bigger than the top-and-bottom of PGA Tour.

[straightshot7]

Played a round recently with a caddy who just returned from spending the entire year on the LPGA.

 

He thought that the bottom end of the LPGA is about a men's scratch (we were playing with a men's +0.2 as a baseline) and the differential between the top and bottom of the LPGA tour is immense.

 

I guess it makes some sense that the difference between top-and-bottom of the LPGA is much bigger than the top-and-bottom of PGA Tour.

 

I'm not so sure. Yes there are more really good players on the PGA Tour, but the gap from top to bottom is still pretty large.

 

#1 PGA Tour Scoring Average: 68.702

#150 PGA Tour Scoring Average: 71.349

 

#1 LPGA Tour Scoring Average: 69.402

#150 LPGA Tour Scoring Average: 73.347

 

How often does somehow from outside the top 50 win a large event on the PGA Tour? It seems like the talent is pretty heavily concentrated in the top 30 guys. I don't have the exact stats but I would guess that the top 10% accounted for 80%+ of the wins in the last 20 years.

[Obee]

I may have missed all this and I am not going back over 17 pages, but are we talking scratch vs. LPGA from same tees? Or scratch from 7,000 or so and LPGA from 6,400 or so?

 

We played pretty much the same course, but we played it longer by about 200 yards and the pins for us were definitely tougher on at leas two of the days.

[blaird]

Id take the scratch to plus player winning the majority of the time from the same tees against say from 60 down on the rankings. I would probaby take the top 20 women against the scratch to plus player the majority of the time.

[SurfDuffer]

I've played pro-am golf with a number of mid and lower ranked LPGA players and one rookie who is now ranked 15 in the world. The scratch and + handicap men I play with would easily beat some of the lower level LPGA players I've played with. As the course gets longer I'd give the advantage to the men as well even against the better LPGA players I've played with. If the course is real short I give the ladies the advantage because of their accuracy inside 140 and putting abilities.

[Obee]

Resurrecting this thread because it's that time of year again! The ladies play this coming week. We play Memorial Day. Real nice preview of the course from the Fried Egg guys:

[tiderider]

good stuff, obee! ... you better not lay up on #15! ...

[BearQ]

Almost as funny as the WNBA complaining about pay gap. Your league loses millions every year. Wipe out that league and reduce events on lpga. The unpopular but popular opinion

[MtlJeff]

So obviously last year's match wasn't to the death. I feel kinda robbed.

[Obee]

> @tiderider said:

> good stuff, obee! ... you better not lay up on #15! ...

 

It's 16 for us, And I will definitely be laying up! :-)

 

[Buzzkill]

Don't bet any monies on the middle aged player, lol!

[jmvargas]

the LPGA stars came over here in 1976 and 1977 to play the Colgate Palmolive Classic at one of our elite but shortish courses and I was part of the TV coverage crew as an announcer..

 

the players included Nancy Lopez, Jo Ann Carner, Carol Mann, Sandra Palmer, Beth Daniel, Amy Alcock, Jan Stephenson, Sally ??? are among those I remember playing..

 

I was 31 then with a 5 hdcp and the only one I may have had a problem outdriving was Jo-Ann Carner..

 

but I knew I could not outplay ANY of them..

[RobertBaron]

> @straightshot7 said:

> Playing a 6,500 yard course neutralizes the men's greatest advantage: length.

 

I’ve never really understood the reasoning behind this. Wouldn’t length always be an advantage all else being equal?

 

Like a long male player will be driving par 4s more often, hitting mid to long irons off tee when accuracy is at a premium and won’t have much more than wedge into every green.

 

Personally I’d rather my errant drive be 20 yards off the green in the rough than have to hit a 60 yard approach shot from the fairway.

 

I think length that isn’t a trade off for accuracy (which it typically isn’t at high level golf) is always an advantage. Even on a executive course.

 

[Ferguson]

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> straightshot7 wrote:

>

>

>

> Kenny Lee Puckett wrote:

>

>

> Obee wrote:

>

>

> Shilgy wrote:

>

>

>

> My only take on this would be the advantage the men will have is they don't have to play their foul balls. Having a partner is a big help.

>

>

>

> But it will be interesting to see the results.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On the final day, it is aggregate. Meaning you have to play your ball all the way in. Add up your partner's total score and your total score.

>

>

>

> Real golf. :-)

>

>

>

>

> sorry Obee, but that's real amatuer golf.

>

>

>

> put your dudes on the same golf course playing for prize money that covers all the bills for the week, makes another mortgage payment, and puts a gallon of milk in the fridge and then we got a conversation.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Please...LPGA Tour players on average are not playing for basic needs. 100th on the money list made $98k last year not including endorsements and anything their spouse brings in.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> That's getting close to basic needs.

>

>

>

> And spousal income, if someone has one, isn't a proper part of the discussion.

 

Funding spousal problems can get pricey too.

[driveandputtmachine]

As far as the Carnoustie comments earlier about distance it can be played..... I played the Old Course last summer the week of the Open Championship, the Thursday of it to be exact. The next week the Senior guys came there and played sets of tees that CANNOT be played by everyone because they are on one of the neighboring courses. There are a few that are just farther back and not "open" for play as well. I think I played it right around 6600 from the "back" tees and the Pros played a course over 7,000 based on what I watched on TV. From walking around Carnoustie during the tournament on Saturday and Sunday there are some similar issues. There are three courses at Carnoustie, but some of the tees for the pros may just be off limits too. The practice tee when a the Senior or just Open championship is at the Old course is on the 18th of the Jubilee for them. My scores were left a lot to be desired compared to the Senior guys, and I was a +1.4 at the time, this was right before my major downfall of scoring and crap golf I have been dealing with for 9 months now. I did shoot a 71 at the old course though, which in and of itself is just awesome because it is the old course.

[DavePelz4]

> @MtlJeff said:

> So obviously last year's match wasn't to the death. I feel kinda robbed.

 

Apparently you haven't seen Michelle Wie's career.

[Jc0]

> @BearQ said:

> Almost as funny as the WNBA complaining about pay gap. Your league loses millions every year. Wipe out that league and reduce events on lpga. The unpopular but popular opinion

 

Only problem with this is the LPGA is it's own organization and doesn't get any money from the men's tour, has a total prize pool over $70 million, and is growing. Don't assume a league is failing because of your narrow view.

[BearQ]

> @Jc0 said:

> > @BearQ said:

> > Almost as funny as the WNBA complaining about pay gap. Your league loses millions every year. Wipe out that league and reduce events on lpga. The unpopular but popular opinion

>

> Only problem with this is the LPGA is it's own organization and doesn't get any money from the men's tour, has a total prize pool over $70 million, and is growing. Don't assume a league is failing because of your narrow view.

 

Lpga and women’s tennis are pretty damn good especially the majors. No narrow view here mate but thanks.

 

Even if it’s growing I think a reduced schedule would benefit long term. Too many fluff events. We’re taking reducing games in major men’s league too. Nothing left field.

 

Perhaps I shouldn’t have grouped lpga with a failed league like WNBA. So I thought I’d clarify

 

Nothing about me is narrow

 

[bogeypro]

Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

 

There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

 

Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

 

[Shilgy]

> @bogeypro said:

> Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

>

> There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

>

> Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

>

>

 

I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

[Obee]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @bogeypro said:

> > Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

> >

> > There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

> >

> > Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

> >

> >

>

> I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

 

Those are definitely women's ratings/slopes. Still, phenomenal scoring.

[bogeypro]

> @Obee said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @bogeypro said:

> > > Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

> > >

> > > There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

> > >

> > > Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

>

> Those are definitely women's ratings/slopes. Still, phenomenal scoring.

 

Last summer, the women’s state am was held at my club. This girl had a 3 day total 195 and won. The same summer, the club had their club championship (3 days). The men’s club champion is the current back to back state mid am champion... he shot 209... and he’s a +4.5. The course played longer for the men, of course. The scratch male golfers shot around 220 in club championship. That’s a huge difference.... even if the course was longer.

 

I’m telling you folks... a scratch won’t hang with LPGA.

 

[Obee]

> @bogeypro said:

> > @Obee said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bogeypro said:

> > > > Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

> > > >

> > > > There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

> > > >

> > > > Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

> >

> > Those are definitely women's ratings/slopes. Still, phenomenal scoring.

>

> Last summer, the women’s state am was held at my club. This girl had a 3 day total 195 and won. The same summer, the club had their club championship (3 days). The men’s club champion is the current back to back state mid am champion... he shot 209... and he’s a +4.5. The course played longer for the men, of course. But still... that’s huge.

>

> I’m telling you folks... a scratch won’t hang with LPGA.

>

 

Did you read earlier in the thread? The scores that were shot on the same course in similar conditions last year? That's what the whole thread was about: "Just how big is the difference?" :-)

 

Now the tournament is coming up again this year, so we'll have two years of some nice data. :-)

[bogeypro]

I edited my post to reflect how the scratch players finished.

 

I still think people overestimate the scratch player ability. It’s not like bowling... scratch doesn’t equal a 300 game. A scratch would be like someone that averages like 220 - good enough to beat most folks at the alley, but a long long way from being a pro or top ranked am.

[Obee]

> @bogeypro said:

> > @Obee said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @bogeypro said:

> > > > Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

> > > >

> > > > There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

> > > >

> > > > Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

> >

> > Those are definitely women's ratings/slopes. Still, phenomenal scoring.

>

> Last summer, the women’s state am was held at my club. This girl had a 3 day total 195 and won. The same summer, the club had their club championship (3 days). The men’s club champion is the current back to back state mid am champion... he shot 209... and he’s a +4.5. The course played longer for the men, of course. The scratch male golfers shot around 220 in club championship. That’s a huge difference.... even if the course was longer.

>

> I’m telling you folks... a scratch won’t hang with LPGA.

>

 

Just looked at the scores and the scorecard. The course has a men's rating of about 68.0 and a slope of about 118. A male scratch golfer is going to **average** about 70/71 on a course like that. His low scores will be 64's and 65's.

 

And that is taking nothing away from Michaela. She is a fantastic golfer and will, likely, eventually be on the LPGA Tour.

[bogeypro]

Alabama

[bogeypro]

> @Obee said:

> > @bogeypro said:

> > > @Obee said:

> > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > @bogeypro said:

> > > > > Here’s the problem here: people give a scratch golfer way too much credit. I play with scratch and better all the time. They are good, but not as consistent as a touring pro.

> > > > >

> > > > > There’s a junior female golfer here that is a +7.3. She’s committed to Alabama and will be a very good LPGA pro one day. A very good example of a LPGA pro. No way that a scratch golfer hangs with her...even from the same tees.

> > > > >

> > > > > Here’s her ghin scores... look at those course ratings and scores.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I am always impressed by the last pros no doubt but I gotta ask, since I do not see those course ratings and slope on the card, are those ladies course ratings? I agree she would kick most guys rear but being +7.3 is misleading.

> > >

> > > Those are definitely women's ratings/slopes. Still, phenomenal scoring.

> >

> > Last summer, the women’s state am was held at my club. This girl had a 3 day total 195 and won. The same summer, the club had their club championship (3 days). The men’s club champion is the current back to back state mid am champion... he shot 209... and he’s a +4.5. The course played longer for the men, of course. The scratch male golfers shot around 220 in club championship. That’s a huge difference.... even if the course was longer.

> >

> > I’m telling you folks... a scratch won’t hang with LPGA.

> >

>

> Just looked at the scores and the scorecard. The course has a men's rating of about 68.0 and a slope of about 118. A male scratch golfer is going to **average** about 70/71 on a course like that. His low scores will be 64's and 65's.

>

> And that is taking nothing away from Michaela. She is a fantastic golfer and will, likely, eventually be on the LPGA Tour.

 

Ehhh, probably not 64 and 65. Most of the scratch guys can get to 68 on that course (not really much defenses). Lee Hodges (Canadian tour, young pga player) is also a member there. He has recently shot 59 or 60 (forget which one) there. So it’s easy to go low there.

 

I’ll stand by my statement though... scratch male won’t compete with LPGA.