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

[JungleJimbo]

 You might enjoy this "Players Journal" write-up by Auston Kim

 

Players' Journal: Let's End The 'Scratch Golfer vs. LPGA Pro' Debate Once and For All

(https://www.skratch.golf/news/golf-culture/players-journal-auston-kim-talks-pro-golf-life-mental-health-scratch-golfers-vs-lpga-debate)

 

 

 

Quote

 

Players' Journal: Let's End The 'Scratch Golfer vs. LPGA Pro' Debate Once and For All

skratch.golf/news/golf-culture/players-journal-auston-kim-talks-pro-golf-life-mental-health-scratch-golfers-vs-lpga-debate

 

It's a debate that has floated around for years, decades even, and yet somehow continues to permeate its way through online golf culture. I'm here to put the argument to bed.

Auston Kim

Let's set the record straight, scratch golfers can't beat LPGA pros. It's a debate that has floated around for years, decades even, and yet somehow continues to permeate its way through online golf culture. I'm here to put the argument to bed, and perhaps provide context on where I believe the myth gained its legs while also giving some insight as a second-year tour pro that can hopefully eradicate this...rather silly belief.

 

I've been around the game since I was five years old. I grew up playing with those older than me, usually men, so this is a topic that hits close to home. Though my pro career has been rather brief, I've heard the same things echoed around me for most of my golf journey.

 

Me (blue shirt) with my big sister August.

I grew up around the ideology that G.O.L.F is for Gentlemen Only and Ladies are Forbidden. It's uncomfortable and quite frankly shocking how casually some are able to poke fun at women in golf. I do my best to pay it little mind, but it can be challenging even now, as I find my footing on the LPGA. Golf in general has had a bit of a sexist air to it, especially from people the who don't really understand what golf is, or how many women play golf in general, or understand what the LPGA is and how long it has been around.

 

It's not entirely on them, you don't know what you don't know. For so many of us, we understand golf through a male-centered framework—myself included. In middle school, I was the only girl on an otherwise all boys golf team, playing from the same tees, and it wasn't until I got to high school when I began to see just how many girls participated in golf. And not just for the sake of having fun, it was mind-blowing to see how many of them had aspirations of playing in college and on the levels beyond.

 

Until you witness it ("it" being women's golf) up close, there's no way to understand it.

 

There's no blame to be placed, and there shouldn't be, but given that less eyes are on women's pro golf, that has allowed the notion that we're not as good as our male counterparts to take up space. Yes, women play shorter golf courses. PGA pros tend to play around 7,000 yards comfortably and we're playing 6,300-6,400 any given week (majors tend to play longer).

 

To me, that difference in yardage is why those who think scratch golfers can potentially beat an LPGA pro in tournament conditions exists. But what those who think that way must come to understand is that even though we're playing shorter courses, it doesn't necessarily mean that our courses are easier.

 

I've spoken to a handful of amateurs who are curious about pro life and want to pick my brain. And what I always want them to walk away with is the understanding of the amount of dedication, practice, knowledge and application it takes in order to succeed at such an elite level.

Many fail to realize the amount of practice that us professionals have to put in. The amount of effort, like the things that we do that are non-golf related, the amount of knowledge and brain power that it takes to play an 18 hole round and play your best is unmatched.

 

And there's no rulebook on how to excel at really anything, especially golf. Not only is this sport physically demanding, but it's mentally taxing and the progressions you go through working your way through each level is unlike anything else.

 

The jumps from high school and junior golf, to collegiate golf, to the development tours, to the LPGA are all learning curves that you're expected to execute, and at the highest level. Success in this game is fleeting, every moment, every shot counts—there's no wasting time.

 

What separates scratch golfers from the pros is not rooted in physical or technical skill, but rather exceptional mental strength and an elite level of golf IQ.

 

Sure, a scratch golfer can do their best replicate the training conditions of a pro, utilizing the same equipment and training aids, but myself and my peers on tour just understand the game differently. It's a skill that can absolutely be learned, but that ultimately lies in experience.

 

For instance, I've played rounds with amateurs in the past and they hit a putt that blows by the hole. Often times they'll think out loud and give a reason for why they believed it didn't go in. And more times than not, the comment that they make after the miss has no correlation to why they actually missed the putt. I know exactly why they missed it, and unless they explicitly ask for my advice I won't offer up critique—we're here for a good time, no need for a playing lesson.

 

But the point remains, as a pro, my understanding of the game, the mechanics, is just elevated. Our technique is just different. We work each and every day to optimize the smallest details of our swings, and it's not for the faint of heart.

 

 

Mechanics and technique aside, perhaps the most challenging part of golf and the true differentiator of scratch golfers vs. the pros is the mental toughness you must have to compete.

It's like that meme, "___ would shock a small Victorian child", well hey, in this instance amateurs are the Victorian children, and pro golf will certainly shock you. Because it shocked me, and each day I'm finding ways to pivot.

And I'm not talking about swing yips and what goes on inside the ropes, but it's battling the internal demons that plague your mind in the quiet moments.

 

In the past, golfers have talked about how professional golf is very lonely, to which I agree but I think that loneliness looks different for everyone.

 

For some people, they need big groups of friends or they need their team around them at all times. Some players are more social, and need that debrief to pull themselves out of their own heads. I definitely need that social time even though I'm a bit more introverted, but for me, that loneliness never really subsides. Like I said, it's different for everyone, but for me that loneliness looks like a player sitting in their hotel room at night, probably around 8 or 9:00 p.m. You have an 8:30 a.m. tee time the next morning and you're sitting in your bed right before falling asleep and you're thinking, "I don't know how I'm going to play tomorrow and I feel very nervous."

 

And when I struggled mentally, those were the moments that were the most difficult.

 

The reality is, is that unless you play at the highest level, you can't begin to understand how tough it is mentally to go to sleep the night before, wake up in the morning of competition having to convince yourself and talk to yourself in a way that's so positive, despite the self-doubt that wants to creep in, the negativity that wants to creep in, and how being able to combat that negativity is a learned skill, a skill that you have to develop over time.

 

People are well aware that there's pressure involved in sport. But I don't think the general public or people who play golf recreationally or a majority of amateurs understand the level of pressure that's involved with elite sport and how much work that it takes to maintain an internal environment that is suited for high performance.

 

Golf is so uniquely nuanced and in order to understand one aspect of our game, you need to figure out two or three other components. It's frustrating beyond belief, and yet, we still love it. It is the best sport out there. Beautiful, mind numbingly difficult, and incredibly human—there's nothing else like it.

—with Addie Parker

---

Share this article

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Get our top stories in your inbox, including the latest drops in style, the need-to-know news in pro golf, and the latest episodes of Skratch’s original series.

 

 

 

Edited July 3 by JungleJimbo

[Red4282]

31 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

I hate topics like this because I always get into arguments… not going to do it! But I do find it interesting, that I asked AI a series of questions on this topic and this was what it spit out, which by the way I think is pretty accurate:

 

The average LPGA score is 71.82. They typically play courses around 6400. Most courses in that range tend to be rated right around par. AI says they play the course harder than usually, tucked pins, perhaps taller rough, etc. However there can be some advantages too, assistants to help find balls, pure conditions, and caddies.

 

All in all i think its fair to say the average course is playing at a rating 1-2 over par.
 

A scratch would shoot at or near this rating statistically 40 % of the time (8 out 20 rounds). Bottom line, is AI determined in a single 18 hole match the LPGA pro would probably win 80+% of the time. The odds get worse if you are talking top 10-20 LPGA range, probably high 90’s in favor of the pro. Drop near the bottom of the LPGA and maybe you are looking at roughly a 30% chance for the scratch. 
 

Now, if we moved the tees back to 7000 yards and the scratch is a longer hitter, that changes things quite a bit. AI gives the scratch  40-50% chance in a single 18 hole match, with the caveat of its very fluid, top lpga have better odds, bottom worse, etc. 

 

Its been eluded to several times above but no two scratches are alike. Some long hitters, some short, some have pressured experience. Some are vanity caps created with buddies. Some are traveling caps, some are made playing one course. Same can be said about an LPGA pro to a much smaller degree in that some are longer than others etc. The point in all that is “pro vs scratch” is a VERY broad brush stroke and it really could go many different ways depending on alot of other factors.

 

Overall odds favor the ladies quite a bit, as if I was to lay money, it would be on the pro. Is it unreasonable to think a scratch has a chance? No, its certainly possible given the right variables and circumstances.

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

[aenemated]

45 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

I asked AI a series of questions

 

Heh. 

[27x10.5]

Now too 10 LPGA player popped in our course a few years ago when she was outside top 50. Played the back of every tee box, just walked to the back edge of every hole and shot -5 to match the low round anyone shot all summer from any tee box. Gave it a Jack Parkman shoulder shrug  

[iBanesto]

5 hours ago, JungleJimbo said:

 You might enjoy this "Players Journal" write-up by Auston Kim

 

Players' Journal: Let's End The 'Scratch Golfer vs. LPGA Pro' Debate Once and For All

(https://www.skratch.golf/news/golf-culture/players-journal-auston-kim-talks-pro-golf-life-mental-health-scratch-golfers-vs-lpga-debate)

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is always the visceral hope that the LPGA pro has an absolute shocker of a round (which is possible for anyone) and the scratch golfer has a great round.

 

[UncleJohn’sBand]

I will share one more story on this and how good these ladies really are, and how many of them there are:

 

In February 2021, I was paying an event in Tampa and was paired with a rather famous gentleman, who with around 4 other guys had the “original” golf/ podcast content channel, with ideas such as “strapped” and “tourist sauce” 

 

We start the day on the 5th hole and he realizes that he has forgotten his rangefinder back home in Jacksonville (he was under the impression he had missed the cut, drove 4 hours back home, realized he made the cut and flew back to Tampa that night). He happened to tell us that he and the camera crew had a player they sponsored living in Bradenton and SHE would be bringing one up for him. 
 

Lo and behold, behind the 9th green stands Lauren Coughlin with a rangefinder for him. My older sister and Lauren had played quite a bit of golf in their junior and college days, and she and I got to talking and had a pleasant conversation for the next 5 holes or so. She told me that she had finally received conditional status on the LPGA tour for that year, and couldn’t wait to get started. I believe she secured her card in like 12 starts or so that season. 
 

It’s now 2025 and she is the 14th ranked player in the world. I use her as an example simply to show that there are Solheim Cup level players at EVERY level of professional golf. They just might not have gotten there yet. 
 

Again, it’s amazing to see the split between those who know golf, and those who don’t, and the way they think this would play out. 

[Shilgy]

8 hours ago, Red4282 said:

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

I’m just trying to do the math in my head…..if you use a course rating of 72.0 as the benchmark for the am and we know his low 8 average 72  I would  think he would most likely be shooting over 74 half the time or more.  
per USGA folks average 3 shots over their handicap so his average would be 75ish. 
 Not saying you Red but too many start to equate a scratch as shooting par or better every time and the fact is they’re not that good.

If the scratch plays higher rated courses their average would go up.  For example a scratch playing exclusively at Oakmont off the tips would have an average over 80. Course rating is 77.8 so his best 8 would average about 78.

[TiScape]

This thread remind me of:

 

Edited July 3 by TiScape

[JungleJimbo]

15 minutes ago, TiScape said:

This thread remind me of:

 

 

 

 

 

[Obee]

10 hours ago, Red4282 said:

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

Love this. 
 

Real stats.

 

And an average LPGA tournament is in no way set up more difficult than any number of local regional Scratch amateur tournaments. 

 

This confirms exactly what I have said all along: A Scratch player can absolutely beat an LPGA player in a round of golf. 
 

Virtually NEVER in a 4-round tournament, as the math would be something close to (but a bit better than):

 

.12 x .12 x .12 x .12 

[PedronNiall]

16 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Ok…but we’re not discussing how the ladies would fare against D1 ams or male pros are we?  The discussion essentially centers around “what do you think the ladies handicap would be.  So we’d need to look at scores shot to have an estimate since the male scratch counts just 8 of the last 20.

 

Alexa Pano has not had a great year and is #125 on the tours scoring average list at 72.79.

Her best 8 of last 20 are 69-68-66-69-69-66-67-64

 

We certainly should be in some instances seeing a few former collegiate and similar type players in this at some point if it's going to have and merit, yes. To add to the above, former collegiate men in their middle years have also played professional women in soccer and the older men won. 

 

The discussion is pretty multifaceted at this point. I'm simply stating reality: in most sports men have an outsized advantage due to strength and other factors. Analysis shows us that the traditional advantages for men are not necessarily conferred in golf both because of how the distance of a given course affects the length advantage, because of the natural lack of symmetry found on golf courses vs most other sports arenas, and because golf doesn't tend to physical extremes of certain sports like racing where strength again has bearing. This also is a very open situation in terms of what "scratch or better" actually means, and that will heavily factor into whether there's relatively balanced competition or whether it's simply a slaughter. 

 

If the entire point of this is only to embarrass loud trash talkers with no real game then I've misunderstood the potential premise. If the point is to see how well the compete games of great ladies can overcome the distance advantages of good amateur men then I still think it could be a fun lark. 

 

The outcome is a given if it's nothing but actual pros vs the loudest vanity caps. 

 

Edit: and that still isn't touching on the reasoning behind many not wanting to allow trans female golfers to compete with the current pros. Again, we've seen some who used to do nothing of note as men show up and compete and even win now playing against the women. It's not a cut and dry as to where the dividing line is for men vs women in golf to simply be able to say all women pros take all amateur males to task, even if we're talking non 20-something males. 

Edited July 3 by PedronNiall

[Shilgy]

25 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

We certainly should be in some instances seeing a few former collegiate and similar type players in this at some point if it's going to have and merit, yes. To add to the above, former collegiate men in their middle years have also played professional women in soccer and the older men won. 

 

The discussion is pretty multifaceted at this point. I'm simply stating reality: in most sports men have an outsized advantage due to strength and other factors. Analysis shows us that the traditional advantages for men are not necessarily conferred in golf both because of how the distance of a given course affects the length advantage, because of the natural lack of symmetry found on golf courses vs most other sports arenas, and because golf doesn't tend to physical extremes of certain sports like racing where strength again has bearing. This also is a very open situation in terms of what "scratch or better" actually means, and that will heavily factor into whether there's relatively balanced competition or whether it's simply a slaughter. 

 

If the entire point of this is only to embarrass loud trash talkers with no real game then I've misunderstood the potential premise. If the point is to see how well the compete games of great ladies can overcome the distance advantages of good amateur men then I still think it could be a fun lark. 

 

The outcome is a given if it's nothing but actual pros vs the loudest vanity caps. 

 

Edit: and that still isn't touching on the reasoning behind many not wanting to allow trans female golfers to compete with the current pros. Again, we've seen some who used to do nothing of note as men show up and compete and even win now playing against the women. It's not a cut and dry as to where the dividing line is for men vs women in golf to simply be able to say all women pros take all amateur males to task, even if we're talking non 20-something males. 

All of that being true….what this boils down to is what you think the lady pros handicap would be.  Can a 3 handicap beat a scratch for one round? Sure it happens.  But the scratch would win more often than not. Same here in this thread.  The scratch can win occasionally against the lady pro…much less often against any of the top 20 but it would become more frequent the further you went down the list but over four rounds?  I’d certainly take anyone in the top 125 for that bet.

 

I respect the heck out of @Obee and his knowledge and his game.  But…he keeps bringing up the events at Wilshire as proof based on scores.  My problem, is how many of the guys that did play better than the women are actually “just” 0.0 index kind of players?   That’s where the definition of scratch comes into play.  For the sake of discussion it needs to be defined or the discussion is meaningless.  Yes the guys that are deep into the plus range would fare much better than the 0.0 .  IMO that is a given but is a totally different discussion.

[Obee]

23 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

All of that being true….what this boils down to is what you think the lady pros handicap would be.  Can a 3 handicap beat a scratch for one round? Sure it happens.  But the scratch would win more often than not. Same here in this thread.  The scratch can win occasionally against the lady pro…much less often against any of the top 20 but it would become more frequent the further you went down the list but over four rounds?  I’d certainly take anyone in the top 125 for that bet.

 

I respect the heck out of @Obee and his knowledge and his game.  But…he keeps bringing up the events at Wilshire as proof based on scores.  My problem, is how many of the guys that did play better than the women are actually “just” 0.0 index kind of players?   That’s where the definition of scratch comes into play.  For the sake of discussion it needs to be defined or the discussion is meaningless.  Yes the guys that are deep into the plus range would fare much better than the 0.0 .  IMO that is a given but is a totally different discussion.

What do you think I think the scores at Wilshire are "proof" of?

 

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Obee said:

What do you think I think the scores at Wilshire are "proof" of?

 

Without scrolling the entire thread my only issue is you seem, to my reading comprehension, to mix in the “scratch” and “better than scratch” as one lump deal.  So it comes down to definition of scratch.  I call it ~0.0 index as opposed to some that would call it all that play in these gross events.  Sure a +3 or better may be competitive with the gals or even better….but not the 0.

 

[Red4282]

6 hours ago, Shilgy said:

I’m just trying to do the math in my head…..if you use a course rating of 72.0 as the benchmark for the am and we know his low 8 average 72  I would  think he would most likely be shooting over 74 half the time or more.  
per USGA folks average 3 shots over their handicap so his average would be 75ish. 
 Not saying you Red but too many start to equate a scratch as shooting par or better every time and the fact is they’re not that good.

If the scratch plays higher rated courses their average would go up.  For example a scratch playing exclusively at Oakmont off the tips would have an average over 80. Course rating is 77.8 so his best 8 would average about 78.

Right, but Im not understanding how that relates to this? Handicaps and averages don't correlate, a handicap is to capture ones ceiling.

[lchang]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

All of that being true….what this boils down to is what you think the lady pros handicap would be.  Can a 3 handicap beat a scratch for one round? Sure it happens.  But the scratch would win more often than not. Same here in this thread.  The scratch can win occasionally against the lady pro…much less often against any of the top 20 but it would become more frequent the further you went down the list but over four rounds?  I’d certainly take anyone in the top 125 for that bet.

....

 

I would add this:  Let's say we think our archetypal LPGA player is a +3 (or whatever). She'd be the type of +3 whose worst 12 of her last 20 rounds would be very (very!!) good compared to a typical amateur with the same index.

[Shilgy]

14 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Right, but Im not understanding how that relates to this? Handicaps and averages don't correlate, a handicap is to capture ones ceiling.

I replied to your post that said a scratch shoots 2 over 40% of the time.  Or if he did….

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

 

So your 12% should be much lower since if a player shot 2 over the course rating just 40%of the time they would most likely be better than scratch.  He should/would have some 2 over scores in his best 8.

 

All I’m trying to show is how flawed some are looking at this scratch golfer.  He’s not as good as you think he is and does not come close to shooting his 0.0 index as often as some think.  Essentially if it’s 8 of the last 20 that count the average of the 8 will mean he shoots to his cap just 20%of the time. The other 80% are some amount over the rating which means most likely more than +2…not just 40% of the time.

 

 

I will add this as well.  I get where you got your math but on a course like PGA Frisco where the ladies really did struggle the scratch is most likely to struggle even worse.

 

edited to add…. I’ve bowed out of these type of threads too many times to count and will do so again. I just get frustrated by the back and forth this seems to bring out. IMO it’s simple math.

Edited July 3 by Shilgy

[isaacbm]

38 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

I replied to your post that said a scratch shoots 2 over 40% of the time.  Or if he did….

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

 

So your 12% should be much lower since if a player shot 2 over the course rating just 40%of the time they would most likely be better than scratch.  He should/would have some 2 over scores in his best 8.

 

All I’m trying to show is how flawed some are looking at this scratch golfer.  He’s not as good as you think he is and does not come close to shooting his 0.0 index as often as some think.  Essentially if it’s 8 of the last 20 that count the average of the 8 will mean he shoots to his cap just 20%of the time. The other 80% are some amount over the rating which means most likely more than +2…not just 40% of the time.

 

 

I will add this as well.  I get where you got your math but on a course like PGA Frisco where the ladies really did struggle the scratch is most likely to struggle even worse.

 

edited to add…. I’ve bowed out of these type of threads too many times to count and will do so again. I just get frustrated by the back and forth this seems to bring out. IMO it’s simple math.

I agree. It’s just a math problem.
 

 I said it at some point much earlier in this thread a few years ago: Even if it’s only a couple shots here and there, those couple of shots seem hard to find when you actually go looking for them in tournaments…. 
   Tournament golf is hard.
 

My hat is off to any man or woman anywhere in the world who has a scoring average under par in tournaments. 

Edited July 3 by isaacbm

[straightshot7]

21 hours ago, aabcuue said:

Thats *BEFORE* factoring in 100k+ of expenses for lodging, airfare (no long 2wk+ planning here), car rental (most lpga tournament dont have courtesy vehicles), food, caddy, coach, psychologist/mental advisor, etc.

 

Check the player blogs and posts. Unless yr top player, most are sharing/splitting rooms/house w several players AND caddy, team members.

my quote was from 2018?

 

so much has changed in 7 years.

 

why quote things from 7 years ago?

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

I replied to your post that said a scratch shoots 2 over 40% of the time.  Or if he did….

One more fun statistic, roughly 30% of scores in LPGA tournaments are 2 over par or worse. If a scratch were to shoot 2 over 40% of the time, we calculate the odds of both happening-

0.3 X 0.4= 0.12

12% likelyhood.

 

So your 12% should be much lower since if a player shot 2 over the course rating just 40%of the time they would most likely be better than scratch.  He should/would have some 2 over scores in his best 8.

 

All I’m trying to show is how flawed some are looking at this scratch golfer.  He’s not as good as you think he is and does not come close to shooting his 0.0 index as often as some think.  Essentially if it’s 8 of the last 20 that count the average of the 8 will mean he shoots to his cap just 20%of the time. The other 80% are some amount over the rating which means most likely more than +2…not just 40% of the time.

 

 

I will add this as well.  I get where you got your math but on a course like PGA Frisco where the ladies really did struggle the scratch is most likely to struggle even worse.

 

edited to add…. I’ve bowed out of these type of threads too many times to count and will do so again. I just get frustrated by the back and forth this seems to bring out. IMO it’s simple math.

Ah ok I understand, but you cant definitively say that one way or another.  The broad brush comes in, as many scratches are aggressive and may have a few rounds under par but alot of stinkers in there but his top 8 averages right at the index. (0.0). Or you can have a very consistent golfer who just makes a sh*t ton of pars, not gonna go low or have terrible rounds either. You could say his top 8 would very consistent. An 8 round average of 72 can have a low of 68 and high of 76,  just as 8 rounds of 72 can. Bottom line, there are so many variables, a number like 12% is just a rough estimate. In some cases its lower than that and in some cases its much higher. 

[Obee]

19 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Without scrolling the entire thread my only issue is you seem, to my reading comprehension, to mix in the “scratch” and “better than scratch” as one lump deal.  So it comes down to definition of scratch.  I call it ~0.0 index as opposed to some that would call it all that play in these gross events.  Sure a +3 or better may be competitive with the gals or even better….but not the 0.

 

I do not whatsoever, bud. 

 

There is a large difference between someone whose index averages zero and someone whose index averages even just +2 for an entire year.

 

I tried to make it very clear and it is even in the thread TITLE: "...Scratch and BELOW..."

 

Also, there is this: somebody who has an index of 0.1 in July for two weeks is generally going to call himself a "Scratch Golfer.."

 

That person, in my mind, is absolutely NOT a Scratch Golfer. You are what you average for the playing season (and I was even careful to make that distinction further up in the thread).
 

Anyone who AVERAGES a zero index for an entire playing season of, say, 5 to 8 months is a decent golfer. 

Anyone who AVERAGES an index of +2 or better is a VERY good golfer— especially if a lot of those scores are shot in competition which, at that level of golf, is more often than not going to be the case.

Edited July 4 by Obee

[Obee]

15 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Ah ok I understand, but you cant definitively say that one way or another.  The broad brush comes in, as many scratches are aggressive and may have a few rounds under par but alot of stinkers in there but his top 8 averages right at the index. (0.0). Or you can have a very consistent golfer who just makes a sh*t ton of pars, not gonna go low or have terrible rounds either. You could say his top 8 would very consistent. An 8 round average of 72 can have a low of 68 and high of 76,  just as 8 rounds of 72 can. Bottom line, there are so many variables, a number like 12% is just a rough estimate. In some cases its lower than that and in some cases its much higher. 

A few years back when I was a bit more healthy (but still sucked at golf) and my low index was around +1 and my high index was around 1.0 for an entire season (a true "scratch golfer") I would be the player where virtually every round I shot was between 68 and 76 with most scores clustered between 70 and 74 on a course rated 71.5/129.

 

There are plenty of golfers with an index range like that that have many more scores in the high 70s or even low 80s, but they get thrown out in the calculation of index.

 

And of course all of this is super "course dependent." It's really about differentials, not scores. and even more so, it is about the average of ALL of one's differentials.

 

You really can't compare SCORES from low handicap men to the LPGA ladies, because many low handicap men are playing courses with ratings above 75 and slopes above 140. Simply comparing SCORES there is irrelevant. 
 

As @isaacbm and others have mentioned, this is really just a math problem—as long as you can agree on the ratings and slopes of LPGA tour courses as a baseline.

Edited July 4 by Obee

[TiScape]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

A few years back when I was a bit more healthy (but still sucked at golf) and my low index was around +1 and my high index was around 1.0 for an entire season (a true "scratch golfer") I would be the player where virtually every round I shot was between 68 and 76 with most scores clustered between 70 and 74 on a course rated 71.5/129.

 

There are plenty of golfers with an index range like that that have many more scores in the high 70s or even low 80s, but they get thrown out in the calculation of index.

 

And of course all of this is super "course dependent." It's really about differentials, not scores. and even more so, it is about the average of ALL of one's differentials.

 

You really can't compare SCORES from low handicap men to the LPGA ladies, because many low handicap men are playing courses with ratings above 75 and slopes above 140. Simply comparing SCORES there is irrelevant. 
 

As @isaacbm and others have mentioned, this is really just a math problem—as long as you can agree on the ratings and slopes of LPGA tour courses as a baseline.

“Sucked at golf”, low index around +1.0…   I’m really *confused now??? 
 

😂

 

*it doesn’t take much! 

 

[farmer]

One of the disconnects here is in the title "middle aged".  The discussion has kind of morphed into elite tournament tested + hdcps vs LPGA players.  A middle aged scratch is about 40, has a job, is married and has a child or two.  Probably plays with the same group or two, is a fine club player, but not a guy who can spend hours practicing and days traveling to big time tournaments.  He has no chance against any LPGA player.

[Red4282]

28 minutes ago, farmer said:

One of the disconnects here is in the title "middle aged".  The discussion has kind of morphed into elite tournament tested + hdcps vs LPGA players.  A middle aged scratch is about 40, has a job, is married and has a child or two.  Probably plays with the same group or two, is a fine club player, but not a guy who can spend hours practicing and days traveling to big time tournaments.  He has no chance against any LPGA player.

Id actually argue this type golfer might be the most dangerous…assuming this isnt a vanity cap created with buds…. he has managed a scratch cap with all those limitations, he might actually be better than scratch should he get time to practice,  etc. No chance is way too much. Little chance, but there its there, especially *any* Lpga player: People easily forget there are scores in the mid to high 70s every week on tour even a low 80 now and then. 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

I don't understand why people get so vehement about this topic.  It's unquestionable that in sports like basketball, soccer, tennis, a very good male amateur is going to rock a lady professional, and the female athlete is no worse for that being acknowledged.  Testosterone is a hell of a drug.  There are sports (equestrian, shooting, auto racing, yachting) where gender differences really don't exist, and male dominance, if it occurs, is due to a much larger male population engaging in the activity.  

 

Since golf does depend on how far a golfer can hit the ball, I'd expect stronger golfers, like men as compared to women, to do better.  Yet this seems insanely controversial for some reason, and spawns articles like the one @JungleJimbo just posted (and I haven't read), where we're supposed to be offended by that idea. 

 

The last time we kicked this around, my guess was that the level of male golfer achievement would have to be at #1 or #2 on a D1 team, to beat an LPGA player >50% of the time.  Which isn't a scratch (because it's much better).  If that's the case, female golfers are holding their own better than female basketball players, where a "scratch" level is beating, e.g., a Houston Comet.  See, e.g., games at the Fonde, where exactly that happened.

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

I don't understand why people get so vehement about this topic.  It's unquestionable that in sports like basketball, soccer, tennis, a very good male amateur is going to rock a lady professional, and the female athlete is no worse for that being acknowledged.  Testosterone is a hell of a drug.  There are sports (equestrian, shooting, auto racing, yachting) where gender differences really don't exist, and male dominance, if it occurs, is due to a much larger male population engaging in the activity.  

 

Since golf does depend on how far a golfer can hit the ball, I'd expect stronger golfers, like men as compared to women, to do better.  Yet this seems insanely controversial for some reason, and spawns articles like the one @JungleJimbo just posted (and I haven't read), where we're supposed to be offended by that idea. 

 

The last time we kicked this around, my guess was that the level of male golfer achievement would have to be at #1 or #2 on a D1 team, to beat an LPGA player >50% of the time.  Which isn't a scratch (because it's much better).  If that's the case, female golfers are holding their own better than female basketball players, where a "scratch" level is beating, e.g., a Houston Comet.  See, e.g., games at the Fonde, where exactly that happened.

But the knuckle dragging 0 - 4 caps don't believe you...

[straightshot7]

39 minutes ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

I don't understand why people get so vehement about this topic.  It's unquestionable that in sports like basketball, soccer, tennis, a very good male amateur is going to rock a lady professional, and the female athlete is no worse for that being acknowledged.  Testosterone is a hell of a drug.  There are sports (equestrian, shooting, auto racing, yachting) where gender differences really don't exist, and male dominance, if it occurs, is due to a much larger male population engaging in the activity.  

 

Since golf does depend on how far a golfer can hit the ball, I'd expect stronger golfers, like men as compared to women, to do better.  Yet this seems insanely controversial for some reason, and spawns articles like the one @JungleJimbo just posted (and I haven't read), where we're supposed to be offended by that idea. 

 

The last time we kicked this around, my guess was that the level of male golfer achievement would have to be at #1 or #2 on a D1 team, to beat an LPGA player >50% of the time.  Which isn't a scratch (because it's much better).  If that's the case, female golfers are holding their own better than female basketball players, where a "scratch" level is beating, e.g., a Houston Comet.  See, e.g., games at the Fonde, where exactly that happened.

Agree with you that it would probably take the level of a good college player to consistently beat an LPGA player.

 

But the idea that gender differences don’t exist in some activities (equestrian, auto racing, shooting, etc)…. Hogwash!

 

Auto racing is very physically demanding and also requires extreme competitiveness, reaction time, spatial awareness and a variety of things males are simply superior in. 
 

Most women probably don’t even want to get into racing because it’s too intense. Doesn’t fit with their beautiful femininity. And it shouldn’t.

 

also if you were going to choose a top 5 list of putters currently or all time, I bet most would be men. 
 

Putting isn’t physically demanding, nor does it require more testosterone. why are you choosing men?
 

Men are just in general more “athletic”. Men have better spatial awareness.
 

this might be controversial to say but it shouldn’t be. 
 

Women are superior at others things.

[aabcuue]

19 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

my quote was from 2018?

 

so much has changed in 7 years.

 

why quote things from 7 years ago?

It wasn’t about the # but cost of living on tour.

Even in 2018 that player wasn’t surviving ft on tour w/o sponsorship.

 

[drn92]

2 hours ago, Obee said:

A few years back when I was a bit more healthy (but still sucked at golf) and my low index was around +1 and my high index was around 1.0 for an entire season (a true "scratch golfer") I would be the player where virtually every round I shot was between 68 and 76 with most scores clustered between 70 and 74 on a course rated 71.5/129.

 

There are plenty of golfers with an index range like that that have many more scores in the high 70s or even low 80s, but they get thrown out in the calculation of index.

 

And of course all of this is super "course dependent." It's really about differentials, not scores. and even more so, it is about the average of ALL of one's differentials.

 

You really can't compare SCORES from low handicap men to the LPGA ladies, because many low handicap men are playing courses with ratings above 75 and slopes above 140. Simply comparing SCORES there is irrelevant. 
 

As @isaacbm and others have mentioned, this is really just a math problem—as long as you can agree on the ratings and slopes of LPGA tour courses as a baseline.

What I find interesting is the need to defend the ability for men to beat women. Your post above kind of defines the type of male player that this discussion originally identified as “middle aged scratch” golfer. But in reality, on an lpga course in tournament conditions, you are closer to a 4. So likely 6 to 10 shots worse per round than the lpga pros that are making the cut and contending. Maybe one out of 25-30 rounds you could get lucky … career day for you and off day for the pro … and if you want to have that stand as the average “middle aged scratch” player being able to beat an lpga pro then that is your prerogative. But in reality, especially over a multi-day event, I’d put the house on the lpga pro. 
 

drn92