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

[chisag]

On 7/3/2025 at 5:03 AM, UncleJohn’sBand said:

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. 

 

 

... I would never get into a discussion on the premise of this topic because so many are just delusional. But I wonder how many have actually been to an LPGA tournament and seen these ladies play in person. I followed a 3some of Nelly Korda, Jeeno Thitikul and Patty Tavatanakit this summer at the Ford Championship on a course I have played and they were absolutely jaw dropping. 

... I have played with 2 very elite golfers on my home course, Aguila GC in Phoenix. The first has won several times on the Outlaw Tour and was averaging about 350 off the tee, shooting 7 under on the front 9 prepping for a Phoenix Open qualifier. Equally impressive as his driving was his flighted wedges that would hit, hop and spin back about a foot every single time. The second was a young lady that was a senior in high school and shot 5 under on the front 9 averaging about 290 off the tee. Yea, high school. This was the smaller school Championship and her school didn't have enough boys so she played on their team. She was practicing for the High School State Championship and ended up winning by 4 shots with a 69-63 and beating 3rd place by 7 strokes.  While it is not apples to apples I think it certainly demonstrates that truly elite woman players at any level can easily beat a scratch golfer. 

 

[aabcuue]

4 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.

Have a friend who is a long time USGA/met/gap area and national course rater. They have been on every course imaginable good and bad.

 

Asked what the group of course reviewers would rate some area LPGA tournament course and majors.

They have been to decades of tournaments men and women.

 

Normal LPGA tournament would be upper 140 to 150+ for men.

LPGA Majors would be way over 156+ for men.

Edited July 4 by aabcuue

[Mr.Cleeks]

On 7/3/2025 at 8:03 AM, UncleJohn’sBand said:

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. 

Lauren’s story is awesome. Started on the mini tours and now has 2 wins 

[iBanesto]

Nick O'Hern says a scratch golfer won't beat a LPGA pro over 4 rounds.

 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

7 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

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.

For auto racing, tell it to Ashley Force. Or Michelle Mouton, etc...  For shooting, Margaret Murdock would like a word.  There are a ton more men in competitive shooting than women.  That alone is sufficient to explain whichever differences exist in Olympic/WSC results.  And yes, it's strenuous to hold up an 8kg free rifle in offhand, no argument there.

 

Even on golf, is there an objective putting competition where men dominate women or vice versa?  I haven't seen one, so despite my agreeing with you that there should be no real difference between genders, how can you say that men are that much better than women at it? 

 

I just don't get the sturm und drang from people like that article author (which I finally skimmed), whose attitude seems to be that we're Bad People for even asking the question.

[grm24]

11 hours ago, chisag said:

... I would never get into a discussion on the premise of this topic because so many are just delusional. 

You could of easily stopped there Sam. That statment alone is so true for some here. Shame they don't realize it. Hope you are well.

Edited July 5 by grm24

[WesternRacing]

Our current club champion is a +3.6.  I’ve played with him multiple times.  He’s an exceptional golfer and a big, big hitter.  I’ve also played with elite female D1 college players.  If I had to bet my life savings in a match between the two of them, particularly if there was money on the line between the two and the associated pressure, I’d take the D1 female player all day and twice on Sunday.

[Red4282]

On 7/4/2025 at 3:56 PM, aabcuue said:

Have a friend who is a long time USGA/met/gap area and national course rater. They have been on every course imaginable good and bad.

 

Asked what the group of course reviewers would rate some area LPGA tournament course and majors.

They have been to decades of tournaments men and women.

 

Normal LPGA tournament would be upper 140 to 150+ for men.

LPGA Majors would be way over 156+ for men.

Thats kind of irrelevant since slope rating is based on a bogey golfer.

[PedronNiall]

18 hours ago, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

For auto racing, tell it to Ashley Force. Or Michelle Mouton, etc...  For shooting, Margaret Murdock would like a word.  There are a ton more men in competitive shooting than women.  That alone is sufficient to explain whichever differences exist in Olympic/WSC results.  And yes, it's strenuous to hold up an 8kg free rifle in offhand, no argument there.

 

Even on golf, is there an objective putting competition where men dominate women or vice versa?  I haven't seen one, so despite my agreeing with you that there should be no real difference between genders, how can you say that men are that much better than women at it? 

 

I just don't get the sturm und drang from people like that article author (which I finally skimmed), whose attitude seems to be that we're Bad People for even asking the question.

 

TBF, women in most racing series aren't an anomaly simply because it's overall a solo sport or because it's a mostly male environment so it might lack the appeal that would draw women. The strength to weight requirements for some series disqualify even many men. Women literally do not have the peak core and lower body muscle strength to fully depress the brakes at speed in some classes, and don't have various total musculature needed to maintain posture during braking, acceleration, and hard turns in others. GT classes are about the limit by all appearances in most cases, and you do see women up to that level in the most prestigious series. Those things plus the strength needed to lean and recover a bike are why you don't see them in MotoGP, Superbike, and the like either. The total strength to stay in place on a bike going from speed to full braking into a hard turn is silly, and as trim as male riders are there's no way a female is matching the strength to weight there, so you're talking about trying to manage a similar amount of total force lap after lap with less muscle. Plenty of videos and write ups out there showing exactly how intense the forces get.

 

Whatever the sport, exceptions don't disprove the rule. 

 

On the golf front we don't normally see parity in setup to know how it would go, so if done well it could be interesting. We've only had a small number of examples of women and men playing the same courses at the same time or reasonably closely to get any idea of how the play compares, and for this proposal everyone would not only play at the same time, everyone would also play from the same tees. LPGA norm green speeds and overall course conditions are probably going to align decently well with what better guys at a better quality course would see, so doubtful there will be surprises on that end. The men will have the advantage of less club off of many tees regardless of what overall course length is chosen, but the Datagolf breakdown shows overall layout and the specific course determine how much that will factor in. On the long end with little penalty for missing the fairways? No chance the men don't have an advantage on that front. Shorter with heavier penalties for all misses? Depends on how penal it gets. It might be just a math problem as some have said, but there are a lot of undetermined variables going into it. 

[isaacbm]

Why do so many people think that length of tee box matters in this discussion? 
 

If you play a golf course at 7400 rated 76, the scratch golfer is going to average between 78 and 80 on that course. The shortest LPGA player on tour would still average 75 to 78.

 

if you get your handicap by playing the back T box on a really long, difficult golf course, it just basically means that you never shoot close to par and don’t know what it’s like to feel the pressure of being at or under par.  
 

Also the longest 20% of the LPGA tour are longer than the average 40-year-old scratch club golfer.  So if you’re playing one of the longer ladies, it gives her an even bigger advantage to move back to the tips.

[Red4282]

12 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

TBF, women in most racing series aren't an anomaly simply because it's overall a solo sport or because it's a mostly male environment so it might lack the appeal that would draw women. The strength to weight requirements for some series disqualify even many men. Women literally do not have the peak core and lower body muscle strength to fully depress the brakes at speed in some classes, and don't have various total musculature needed to maintain posture during braking, acceleration, and hard turns in others. GT classes are about the limit by all appearances in most cases, and you do see women up to that level in the most prestigious series. Those things plus the strength needed to lean and recover a bike are why you don't see them in MotoGP, Superbike, and the like either. The total strength to stay in place on a bike going from speed to full braking into a hard turn is silly, and as trim as male riders are there's no way a female is matching the strength to weight there, so you're talking about trying to manage a similar amount of total force lap after lap with less muscle. Plenty of videos and write ups out there showing exactly how intense the forces get.

 

Whatever the sport, exceptions don't disprove the rule. 

 

On the golf front we don't normally see parity in setup to know how it would go, so if done well it could be interesting. We've only had a small number of examples of women and men playing the same courses at the same time or reasonably closely to get any idea of how the play compares, and for this proposal everyone would not only play at the same time, everyone would also play from the same tees. LPGA norm green speeds and overall course conditions are probably going to align decently well with what better guys at a better quality course would see, so doubtful there will be surprises on that end. The men will have the advantage of less club off of many tees regardless of what overall course length is chosen, but the Datagolf breakdown shows overall layout and the specific course determine how much that will factor in. On the long end with little penalty for missing the fairways? No chance the men don't have an advantage on that front. Shorter with heavier penalties for all misses? Depends on how penal it gets. It might be just a math problem as some have said, but there are a lot of undetermined variables going into it. 

See this is where I think the USGA or the golf organizations has failed in a sense. There is no doubt a “gender/sex handicap” Its not absolute but its in the vicinity of 2-4 strokes. I really wish they wouldn't use two different ratings, and women would just use the male (shouldn't just be male, should just be universal) ratings. 

[Red4282]

3 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Why do so many people think that length of tee box matters in this discussion? 
 

If you play a golf course at 7400 rated 76, the scratch golfer is going to average between 78 and 80 on that course. The shortest LPGA player on tour would still average 75 to 78.

 

if you get your handicap by playing the back T box on a really long, difficult golf course, it just basically means that you never shoot close to par and don’t know what it’s like to feel the pressure of being at or under par.  
 

Also the longest 20% of the LPGA tour are longer than the average 40-year-old scratch club golfer.  So if you’re playing one of the longer ladies, it gives her an even bigger advantage to move back to the tips.

Its not absolute, but it absolutely matters. It is literally exposing a weakness. Just as a short hitting scratch would likely work a long hitting scratch on a wedge course.

[isaacbm]

12 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Its not absolute, but it absolutely matters. It is literally exposing a weakness. Just as a short hitting scratch would likely work a long hitting scratch on a wedge course.

Not sure you could convince me of that. Your handicap is your handicap. The handicap system is designed to work the same from every tee box.  That’s why courses have course/slope ratings from every T box

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, isaacbm said:

Not sure you could convince me of that. Your handicap is your handicap. The handicap system is designed to work the same from every tee box.  That’s why courses have course/slope ratings from every T box

Handicap systems aren't perfect. Some are long hitters and average putters. Some are short and excellent putters. Many ways to achieve scratch. Looking at a strokes gained chart tells you why this length matters.

 

460 yard par4, player A hits fairway and has 140 left to green. Strokes gained has 140 out at 2.91 shots. Player B hits fairway and has 200 yards. Strokes gained for that is 3.19- an advantage of 0.28 for the long hitter. Now take a short hole, 350 yards. Player A has 40 yards from fairway which is 2.6 strokes gained, where as player B has 100 from fairway, at 2.8. So only a 0.20 advantage for the long hitter. Playing a hole 100 yards longer gave the long hitter a 0.09 stroke advantage. Now do that for 18 holes. 
 

Also, short courses may mitigate a long hitter by forcing irons off tees , therefore taking away a clear advantage. As well as long courses can have forced carries a short hitter cannot achieve and put them at a massive disadvantage.

Edited July 5 by Red4282

[AZBRONCFAN]

2 hours ago, isaacbm said:

Why do so many people think that length of tee box matters in this discussion? 
 

If you play a golf course at 7400 rated 76, the scratch golfer is going to average between 78 and 80 on that course. The shortest LPGA player on tour would still average 75 to 78.

 

if you get your handicap by playing the back T box on a really long, difficult golf course, it just basically means that you never shoot close to par and don’t know what it’s like to feel the pressure of being at or under par.  
 

Also the longest 20% of the LPGA tour are longer than the average 40-year-old scratch club golfer.  So if you’re playing one of the longer ladies, it gives her an even bigger advantage to move back to the tips.

Yeah the discussions I've had with these scratch guys all hit 3 finger fades 300 yard carry and never miss fairways. They act like they are immune from the yardage affecting them and it only affects the LPGA player.

 

I bet LPGA players have better proximity to the hole with hybrids and woods as the club pro scratch with mid irons.

Edited July 6 by AZBRONCFAN

[Red4282]

1 hour ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

Yeah the discussions I've had with these scratch guys all hit 3 finger fades 300 yard carry and never miss fairways. They act like they are immune from the yardage affecting them and it only affects the LPGA player.

 

I bet LPGA players have better proximity to the hole with hybrids and woods as the club pro scratch with mid irons.

Great thing is there is data to actually for that. The average proximity to hole from 200 yards for an lpga pro is 35-40 feet. The average proximity to the hole for a scratch from 150 is 30-35 feet.

[AZBRONCFAN]

23 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Great thing is there is data to actually for that. The average proximity to hole from 200 yards for an lpga pro is 35-40 feet. The average proximity to the hole for a scratch from 150 is 30-35 feet.

The difference in SG from 40 feet vs 30 feet is probably minimal and the skill of the LPGA gals is much higher.

[Red4282]

12 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

The difference in SG from 40 feet vs 30 feet is probably minimal and the skill of the LPGA gals is much higher.

Oh absolutely , but the point is distance a course is playing and the distance a golfer hits it makes a difference.

[isaacbm]

3 hours ago, Red4282 said:

Handicap systems aren't perfect. Some are long hitters and average putters. Some are short and excellent putters. Many ways to achieve scratch. Looking at a strokes gained chart tells you why this length matters.

 

460 yard par4, player A hits fairway and has 140 left to green. Strokes gained has 140 out at 2.91 shots. Player B hits fairway and has 200 yards. Strokes gained for that is 3.19- an advantage of 0.28 for the long hitter. Now take a short hole, 350 yards. Player A has 40 yards from fairway which is 2.6 strokes gained, where as player B has 100 from fairway, at 2.8. So only a 0.20 advantage for the long hitter. Playing a hole 100 yards longer gave the long hitter a 0.09 stroke advantage. Now do that for 18 holes. 
 

Also, short courses may mitigate a long hitter by forcing irons off tees , therefore taking away a clear advantage. As well as long courses can have forced carries a short hitter cannot achieve and put them at a massive disadvantage.

I appreciate the post and the numbers. But it’s not exactly relevant for the simple reason that the average guy over 40 who is a scratch golfer does not hit it much further than an average LPGA player. In your example, player A hit a 320 yard drive and player B hit a 260 yard drive. I promise you the average 40-year-old and over club scratch is not hitting it 320 yards.  
 

What would the strokes gained to be if (and this is a big iF) the 45-year-old beer league scratch club player averages 12-15 yards farther than the Lady? 
 

Most  middle-aged men over 40 years old would be absolutely floored by how often they are out driven by 120-140 lb ladies on the LPGA tour. 
 

     My point is that they would not have a distance advantage whatsoever. 
 

Handicap is handicap.  You can use the stats to show that certain outliers will potentially gain or lose a little bit over other potential outliers, but over a large enough sample size, the numbers work out. If any two random scratch golfers get paired against each other, they  have a 50-50 chance of beating each other.

 

So if you take a large sample size of +5 tournament tested LPGA tour players and put them against a large sample size of 40+  0.0 index scratch golfers, no matter how you work the strokes gained, they are  still five shots better. 
 

 

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, isaacbm said:

I appreciate the post and the numbers. But it’s not exactly relevant for the simple reason that the average guy over 40 who is a scratch golfer does not hit it much further than an average LPGA player. In your example, player A hit a 320 yard drive and player B hit a 260 yard drive. I promise you the average 40-year-old and over club scratch is not hitting it 320 yards.  
 

What would the strokes gained to be if (and this is a big iF) the 45-year-old beer league scratch club player averages 12-15 yards farther than the Lady? 
 

Most  middle-aged men over 40 years old would be absolutely floored by how often they are out driven by 120-140 lb ladies on the LPGA tour. 
 

     My point is that they would not have a distance advantage whatsoever. 
 

Handicap is handicap.  You can use the stats to show that certain outliers will potentially gain or lose a little bit over other potential outliers, but over a large enough sample size, the numbers work out. If any two random scratch golfers get paired against each other, they  have a 50-50 chance of beating each other.

 

So if you take a large sample size of +5 tournament tested LPGA tour players and put them against a large sample size of 40+  0.0 index scratch golfers, no matter how you work the strokes gained, they are  still five shots better. 
 

 

 

This is supposed to be scratch and better. As before, if this is nothing but a joke to silence loud talkers then fine. If it's a legitimate match between various pro ladies and a number of scratch or better men of a certain age all from the same tees then it could get interesting. 

 

It's not supposed to be nothing but 0s. The idea is to have legit pluses in the mix. 

[WesternRacing]

Having played with some elite female college players, the thing that just jumped out at me when I watched them is how consistently they strike the center of the club face.  It’s metronomic and nothing like I’ve ever seen a country club amateur scratch or plus player do.  The absolute perfect repeatability of their swing, the consistency of the sound off the face, the ball flight, etc. is just different.  And the focus and consistency in everything they do on the golf course from tee to green is just on another level.  I do not think that any amateur, save for the most elite competitive male amateurs in the country, would have any chance against a solid LPGA pro.  To hear country club scratch or +1/+2 players brag that they would is just pure comedy.

[lchang]

On 7/1/2025 at 5:09 PM, WesternRacing said:

 

Well here’s some actual context consisting of actual scratch golfers against actual LPGA pros on the same course at the same time...  And yes, the amateurs got smoked.

 

https://golf.com/news/scratch-golfer-lpga-pros-handicap/?srsltid=AfmBOorWtyE4VsFPZ6qnOkIN4tDT66Fwpa6BnGjiJ8LsjU9cYY77A4nF

 

And even more data on the subject…

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/lpga-tour-player-scratch-handicap-argument-settled-by-stats

 

And more insight from a pro…

 

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

 

 

 

Seems like this is most definitive, isn't it? Scratch golfers who are used to playing in front hordes of people...

[iBanesto]

On 7/5/2025 at 12:15 PM, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

For auto racing, tell it to Ashley Force. Or Michelle Mouton, etc...  For shooting, Margaret Murdock would like a word.  There are a ton more men in competitive shooting than women.  That alone is sufficient to explain whichever differences exist in Olympic/WSC results.  And yes, it's strenuous to hold up an 8kg free rifle in offhand, no argument there.

 

Even on golf, is there an objective putting competition where men dominate women or vice versa?  I haven't seen one, so despite my agreeing with you that there should be no real difference between genders, how can you say that men are that much better than women at it? 

 

I just don't get the sturm und drang from people like that article author (which I finally skimmed), whose attitude seems to be that we're Bad People for even asking the question.

 

Michele Mouton is a legend. Winning races on equal footing with the greatest WRC drivers and also in the infamous Group B era.

 

Top drivers now would be worried if they were racing Group B cars when there was almost no limit on horsepower and lightweight cars which crumble like cardboard in a crash. Plus the crazy crowds that line the race course.

 

 

 

 

[Johnny Biarritz]

1 hour ago, PedronNiall said:

 

This is supposed to be scratch and better. As before, if this is nothing but a joke to silence loud talkers then fine. If it's a legitimate match between various pro ladies and a number of scratch or better men of a certain age all from the same tees then it could get interesting. 

 

It's not supposed to be nothing but 0s. The idea is to have legit pluses in the mix. 

That doesn't change anything. The number of Amateur golfers who aren't reformed professionals that could hang with any exempt LPGA player over 4 rounds is very near zero. Stewart Hagestad and who else? Sure, can some mid-am toting a +5 index who played 3 or 4 years on the Korn Ferry Tour hang with a LPGA lady? Possibly, perhaps probably even. But scratch or better players who never played professionally? Not a chance.

[iBanesto]

On 7/5/2025 at 12:15 PM, Jayjay_theweim_guy said:

For auto racing, tell it to Ashley Force. Or Michelle Mouton, etc...  For shooting, Margaret Murdock would like a word.  There are a ton more men in competitive shooting than women.  That alone is sufficient to explain whichever differences exist in Olympic/WSC results.  And yes, it's strenuous to hold up an 8kg free rifle in offhand, no argument there.

 

Even on golf, is there an objective putting competition where men dominate women or vice versa?  I haven't seen one, so despite my agreeing with you that there should be no real difference between genders, how can you say that men are that much better than women at it? 

 

I just don't get the sturm und drang from people like that article author (which I finally skimmed), whose attitude seems to be that we're Bad People for even asking the question.

 

Zhang Shan won the 1992 Olympic golf in the mixed individual skeet event. 

 

 

But yes exceptions do not disprove the reality.

 

For example an average person would assume a woman could be World Chess Champion, however, no woman has ever been close to reaching the World Championship final. Not counting 2005 when it was round robin FIDE event.

[Red4282]

5 hours ago, isaacbm said:

I appreciate the post and the numbers. But it’s not exactly relevant for the simple reason that the average guy over 40 who is a scratch golfer does not hit it much further than an average LPGA player. In your example, player A hit a 320 yard drive and player B hit a 260 yard drive. I promise you the average 40-year-old and over club scratch is not hitting it 320 yards.  
 

What would the strokes gained to be if (and this is a big iF) the 45-year-old beer league scratch club player averages 12-15 yards farther than the Lady? 
 

Most  middle-aged men over 40 years old would be absolutely floored by how often they are out driven by 120-140 lb ladies on the LPGA tour. 
 

     My point is that they would not have a distance advantage whatsoever. 
 

Handicap is handicap.  You can use the stats to show that certain outliers will potentially gain or lose a little bit over other potential outliers, but over a large enough sample size, the numbers work out. If any two random scratch golfers get paired against each other, they  have a 50-50 chance of beating each other.

 

So if you take a large sample size of +5 tournament tested LPGA tour players and put them against a large sample size of 40+  0.0 index scratch golfers, no matter how you work the strokes gained, they are  still five shots better. 
 

 

My example was tilted to an extreme to highlight the distance advantage. I don't disagree with 90% of your post. I posted earlier the odds for a scratch to win a 18 hole match against a pro are about roughly 10%. So not great. But those odds do and can increase on a longer course. Not alot but they do. And no, handicaps are not all equal. When determining a course rating, they use averages scratch speeds/distances. A scratch that hits it 250 and established his scratch cap on a 6000 yard course, would NOT be a scratch on a 7000 yard course. Easily becomes a 2 or 3 cap. Thats also the basis of why womens course ratings are different than mens, because on average, they dont hit it as far and that is factored in.

Edited July 6 by Red4282

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, lchang said:

 

Seems like this is most definitive, isn't it? Scratch golfers who are used to playing in front hordes of people...

Actually good stuff. Of course they didnt get close to the winner, but several good rounds in there that actually beat a few rounds from pros on the same day. Further supports the evidence that its not a fair match (advantage ladies),  but it is possible.

[isaacbm]

3 hours ago, Red4282 said:

My example was tilted to an extreme to highlight the distance advantage. I don't disagree with 90% of your post. I posted earlier the odds for a scratch to win a 18 hole match against a pro are about roughly 10%. So not great. But those odds do and can increase on a longer course. Not alot but they do. And no, handicaps are not all equal. When determining a course rating, they use averages scratch speeds/distances. A scratch that hits it 250 and established his scratch cap on a 6000 yard course, would NOT be a scratch on a 7000 yard course. Easily becomes a 2 or 3 cap. Thats also the basis of why womens course ratings are different than mens, because on average, they dont hit it as far and that is factored in.

I mostly agree. I just think over enough of a sample size, 5 shots is too much to make up.  There is actually statistically a better chance she wins by 10 than they tie. Average swing speed of a 45-50 year old scratch is 104 ish. Average swing speed of a top 50 LPGA pro is 96 ish. That’s less than 20 yards. Just not enough to make up 5 shots even if they play 7500 yards. 
   Many low handicap 45-60 year old low caps don’t even play the back tee. So a big course can be shocking to them as well. 

[iBanesto]

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/what-is-the-average-driving-distance-on-the-lpga-tour

 

When it comes to driving distance on the LPGA Tour, it too has dramatically changed. Whilst the tour average has remained relatively stable over the last five years (252 vs 256 yards) we’ve seen impressive increases at the top. The 2021 average is 7 yards longer than 2020 and some 21 yards longer than it is was ten years ago.

 

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/how-far-do-scratch-golfers-hit-their-drives-235313

 

Average Drive Distances Split By Handicap (Male)

Handicap

Distance (yards)

0

285

5

261

10

259

15

236

20

225

25

204 

[iBanesto]

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/what-is-the-average-driving-distance-on-the-lpga-tour

 

When it comes to driving distance on the LPGA Tour, it too has dramatically changed. Whilst the tour average has remained relatively stable over the last five years (252 vs 256 yards) we’ve seen impressive increases at the top. The 2021 average is 7 yards longer than 2020 and some 21 yards longer than it is was ten years ago.

 

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/how-far-do-scratch-golfers-hit-their-drives-235313

 

Average Drive Distances Split By Handicap (Male)

Handicap Distance (yards)

0 285

5 261

10 259

15 236

20 225

25 204 

Edited July 6 by iBanesto