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

[Obee]

On 7/4/2025 at 1:56 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.

 

I have played several of the courses. They are nowhere near that, for men. You are either misrepresenting your friend, he was talking about women's ratings, or your friend is grossly mistaken. 

Edited July 6 by Obee

[Obee]

On 7/4/2025 at 11:33 AM, drn92 said:

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

 

And you should bet the house on them. And you would win overwhelmingly

 

You are tilting at windmills and erecting strawmen here. I have consistently said it would take a man in the +2 to +4 range to consistently make cuts on the LPGA Tour. I was that player in my 30s, (good enough to play D1 golf with a tournament scoring average of around 72) but I have not been that player in a long long time.

 

 

[Obee]

On 7/4/2025 at 6:54 PM, iBanesto said:

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

 

And he is correct. Who in this thread is saying that would happen?

[Obee]

On 7/4/2025 at 10:20 PM, WesternRacing said:

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.

What do you think the indexes are of male D1 golfers?

 

I'm not talking about the top 20, I'm talking about, say, the number three Golfer at the 30th ranked D1 school? An average D1 golfer. Not the best. Not the worst. Right in the middle.

 

 

[Obee]

18 hours 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

It makes sense. A short hitting scratch, by definition, must be very solid inside, say 150.

[Obee]

11 hours 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. 

Not really. The original post was merely about who was actually in the tournament.
 

I couldn't say just "Scratch golfers," because that would be inaccurate. In the field and the tournament, or players of all different handicaps and if I limited it to only "Scratch Golfer,", then there would've only been a small handful that accurately fit that description.

[straightshot7]

11 minutes ago, Obee said:

What do you think the indexes are of male D1 golfers?

 

I'm not talking about the top 20, I'm talking about, say, the number three Golfer at the 30th ranked D1 school? An average D1 golfer. Not the best. Not the worst. Right in the middle.

 

 

 

I know you didn't ask me but . . I would say:

 

Without looking up any stats online, their college scoring average in competition is probably around 75. It's very difficult to score well in college tournament conditions. Generally carrying your own bag or push cart, and playing 36 holes the first day. 18 the second day. the 36 hole day is a grind. Much more difficult than 18 in a golf cart on the weekend with your buddies. 

 

But their handicap could vary wildly depending on what scores they are counting. If most of their handicap scores are non-tournament and they are mostly playing the same home course over and over under zero pressure and following the handicap system where it only counts their best 8/20 and they can't make worse than double bogey. .. 

 

I would bet their handicap in that scenario would almost definitely be a +1 or +2 or better. I wouldn't be surprised if it was +3 or +5.

Edited July 6 by straightshot7

[Obee]

9 hours ago, Johnny Biarritz said:

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.

Wait, you think Stewart Hagestad could "hang" with LPGA golfers? The guy who finished 18th at The Masters a few years back? That's good to know...

[NorthTexasGlfr]

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.

 

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

LPGA Majors would be way over 156+ for men.

Are you sure this is what your friend told you? Because these ratings seem to be more like what it would be for women. 

Edited July 6 by NorthTexasGlfr

[Obee]

28 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

 

I know you didn't ask me but . . I would say:

 

Without looking up any stats online, their college scoring average in competition is probably around 75. It's very difficult to score well in college tournament conditions. Generally carrying your own bag or push cart, and playing 36 holes the first day. 18 the second day. the 36 hole day is a grind. Much more difficult than 18 in a golf cart on the weekend with your buddies. 

 

But their handicap could vary wildly depending on what scores they are counting. If most of their handicap scores are non-tournament and they are mostly playing the same home course over and over under zero pressure and following the handicap system where it only counts their best 8/20 and they can't make worse than double bogey. .. 

 

I would bet their handicap in that scenario would almost definitely be a +1 or +2 or better. I wouldn't be surprised if it was +3 or +5.

Definitely nowhere near +5 for the middle of the pack guy. I think your initial assessment is pretty good. Nowadays, I would say +2?

 

And yes, everyone's index can vary wildly. The "pressure" thing is vastly overrated simply because everyone gets used to "pressure" once they start playing tournament golf. Sure, a player (amateur or pro) may fold down the stretch in a big tournament where they are near the lead, but that doesn't vastly affect one's index, or scoring average.

 

For the most part, when you play a competitive sport, you just ... play the game. Pressure simply doesn't exist for you except in extreme or relatively rare circumstances. Those circumstances can be extremely important to how one actually finishes in a tournament, but they don't drastically change one's overall scoring average.

 

Finishing double, double due to pressure to go from tied for the lead to 17th place is a big blow to the ego, put in the overall scoring average of the player, it barely makes an impact. If that makes sense.

 

And I daresay that most seriously competitive players have virtually no difference between their casual round scoring average and their tournament round scoring average. They just ... play golf.

 

I know that, for years, my regular scoring average and my tournament scoring average were always virtually identical. Mostly, my tournament scoring average was LOWER than my casual round scoring average. There are a variety of factors in my particular case for that, but I know that I am not unusual in that regard. 

 

 

[Obee]

14 minutes ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

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

LPGA Majors would be way over 156+ for men.

Are you sure this is what your friend told you? Because these ratings seem to be more like what it be for women. 

Have any of you commenting about the difficulty of LPGA courses ever played them in the weeks leading up to a tournament? Or the immediate Monday following?

 

 

[UncleJohn’sBand]

7 minutes ago, Obee said:And I daresay that most seriously competitive players have virtually no difference between their casual round scoring average and their tournament round scoring average. They just ... play golf.

 

I know that, for years, my regular scoring average and my tournament scoring average were always virtually identical. Mostly, my tournament scoring average was LOWER than my casual round scoring average. There are a variety of factors in my particular case for that, but I know that I am not unusual in that regard. 

 

 

I don’t think people can understand how true this is if they’ve never played at a high level. It’s just golf. And the only reason you still play golf is for the last three holes of a tournament when you’re one behind/tied/one ahead and trying to win. Can’t replicate or describe it if you’ve never felt it. 
 

But it’s addictive. 

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

10 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

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.

Again, let's compare relative population sizes of men vs women who are interested in pursuing chess at that high of a level.  One pool is going to be immensely bigger than another.

 

If you want to open the door to a discussion of men's inherent cognitive abilities versus women's are the reason why they dominate high-level chess competition...it'll make discussing gender differences in performance at the highest levels of golf, seem tame.  Have at it.

[straightshot7]

17 minutes ago, Obee said:

Definitely nowhere near +5 for the middle of the pack guy. I think your initial assessment is pretty good. Nowadays, I would say +2?

 

And yes, everyone's index can vary wildly. The "pressure" thing is vastly overrated simply because everyone gets used to "pressure" once they start playing tournament golf. Sure, a player (amateur or pro) may fold down the stretch in a big tournament where they are near the lead, but that doesn't vastly affect one's index, or scoring average.

 

For the most part, when you play a competitive sport, you just ... play the game. Pressure simply doesn't exist for you except in extreme or relatively rare circumstances. Those circumstances can be extremely important to how one actually finishes in a tournament, but they don't drastically change one's overall scoring average.

 

Finishing double, double due to pressure to go from tied for the lead to 17th place is a big blow to the ego, put in the overall scoring average of the player, it barely makes an impact. If that makes sense.

 

And I daresay that most seriously competitive players have virtually no difference between their casual round scoring average and their tournament round scoring average. They just ... play golf.

 

I know that, for years, my regular scoring average and my tournament scoring average were always virtually identical. Mostly, my tournament scoring average was LOWER than my casual round scoring average. There are a variety of factors in my particular case for that, but I know that I am not unusual in that regard. 

 

 

but specifically for college golf I know it can vary a lot (practice scores vs tournament).
 

my scoring average in college tournaments was 77.

 

i rarely shot worse than 74 in non-tournament rounds. Due in part to the things I mentioned above (carrying my own bag 36 holes, etc)

 

This was true across the board.

 

in order to qualify for the traveling team, you had to shoot par or better in practice.

 

but almost no one on our team shot par or better in the tournament. 
 

also, I had a friend who played at the d1 level and his scoring average was 74 in college.

 

He got his handicap as low as +7  because his home course was extremely forgiving and he knew it extremely well.

 

there is also the famous saying of a traveling scratch and a tournament scratch, vs a non traveling one, isn’t there?

 

[NorthTexasGlfr]

13 minutes ago, Obee said:

Have any of you commenting about the difficulty of LPGA courses ever played them in the weeks leading up to a tournament? Or the immediate Monday following?

 

I have not. 

 

But I did play Pebble Beach 2 weeks after the 2010 Men's U. S. Open.

[Obee]

17 minutes ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

I have not. 

 

But I did play Pebble Beach 2 weeks after the 2010 Men's U. S. Open.

Two weeks after is too far after to get any idea of the actual playing conditions, sadly. They would've already drastically reduced the rough and been watering the greens nonstop from the day the tournament was over. But I bet you had a blast!

Edited July 6 by Obee

[Jayjay_theweim_guy]

11 hours ago, iBanesto said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I truly don't understand Rally crowds.  Does life suck that much in Europe that you want to take the risk of getting clipped by a bumper at 120 kph and thereby rid you of the burden of existing?   (Only that slow because she has to make the rated-"2" corner...)

 

Or conversely, is it so amazing that only standing 1 meter from the track edge, not 2 or 3, will provide enough sensation to drive away the ennui??

 

I blame socialized medicine, personally...

 

 

[Obee]

27 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

but specifically for college golf I know it can vary a lot (practice scores vs tournament).
 

my scoring average in college tournaments was 77.

 

i rarely shot worse than 74 in non-tournament rounds. Due in part to the things I mentioned above (carrying my own bag 36 holes, etc)

 

This was true across the board.

 

in order to qualify for the traveling team, you had to shoot par or better in practice.

 

but almost no one on our team shot par or better in the tournament. 
 

also, I had a friend who played at the d1 level and his scoring average was 74 in college.

 

He got his handicap as low as +7  because his home course was extremely forgiving and he knew it extremely well.

 

there is also the famous saying of a traveling scratch and a tournament scratch, vs a non traveling one, isn’t there?

 

When was this the 80's???
 

[straightshot7]

39 minutes ago, Obee said:

When was this the 80's???
 

haha, no, why?

 

Graduated college in 2010.

 

Let's look at Duke's team for example. You don't think the guys averaging 74+ in D1 college golf are shooting under par when playing with their buddies at home?? They are. 

 

You think their team's scoring average is 73.23 during practice rounds and at home fun rounds?? More like 69.

 

 

This may be specific to college since at that age we are still figuring out our self-belief, etc. and could have a greater variance under pressure. But again, carrying your bag 36 holes is tough.

 

What type of tournaments are you referring to when you referenced them above?

 

The setup in college tournaments is way more difficult than an average country club, to be fair. We also played in all weather conditions (hailing, extreme rain) as long as there was no lightning. Stuff that people normally wouldn't even go out in. 

Edited July 6 by straightshot7

[NorthTexasGlfr]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

Have any of you commenting about the difficulty of LPGA courses ever played them in the weeks leading up to a tournament? Or the immediate Monday following?

 

 

 

Obee,

 

Was I on the right track with what was thinking? Sometimes I can't keep it straight if we're talking about women's rating or men's ratings. 

[Obee]

I am not sure if I related this story in this thread. I have done so elsewhere. It directly relates to this thread in about as "open and shut way" as you could imagine:

Several years ago, a guy challenged an LPGA player to a 4-round, stroke-play bet, winner take all for ... a LOT of $$$. The match was played at the venue mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Both players had "backers" also, if I'm not mistaken. The male in question was, at the time, a true "scratch" golfer. His index would get as low as +1.x. He also had several revisions in the 0.x and up to 1.x, I believe. His average index was somewhere around 0 or a tad bit over at the time, if memory serves.

He was never a pro and was mostly a club player, though he did play in some SCGA and USGA qualifiers. He's a very solid golfer, though inconsistent -- like most ams.

The LPGA player was a top 50 player in the world at the time.

He lost by ~16 shots.

So 4 shots per round. Was he "nervous"? Oh I guarantee you he was. Was she? Maybe on the very first day? A TINY bit? Because losing to an am wouldn't be fun? But I can guarantee you that any nervousness on her part was dwarfed by the nervousness he felt. Still, he probably settled down after a bit and ... just played golf. It was four rounds after all.

But ... 16 shots. 4 per round.

That's as good an estimation of the difference as you're going to find anywhere. If they do it 20 times, perhaps he could narrow that down a smidge just from feeling more comfortable, but the bottom line is going to be somewhere around 12 to 16 shots over and over and over and OVER.

Take a middle-aged guy who is a full two strokes better (with an AVERAGE index of +2.0ish and a someone who plays a lot of tournament golf and/or who played in college/professionally when younger), and it narrows the gap significantly. now we're talking about a player who can make some cuts on the LPGA tour, but even then, would NEVER sniff winning an event. Again this was a Top-50 lady in the world at the time.

The top ladies are CRAZY good at this game ... and the next 150 to 200 are still damn good too.

Edited July 6 by Obee

[Obee]

19 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

haha, no, why?

 

Graduated college in 2010.

 

Let's look at Duke's team for example. You don't think the guys averaging 74+ in D1 college golf are shooting under par when playing with their buddies at home?? They are. 

 

You think their team's scoring average is 73.23 during practice rounds and at home fun rounds?? More like 69.

 

 

This may be specific to college since at that age we are still figuring out our self-belief, etc. and could have a greater variance under pressure. But again, carrying your bag 36 holes is tough.

 

What type of tournaments are you referring to when you referenced them above?

 

The setup in college tournaments is way more difficult than an average country club, to be fair. We also played in all weather conditions (hailing, extreme rain) as long as there was no lightning. Stuff that people normally wouldn't even go out in. 

A big YES to everything you mention above. I'm assuming they are playing at courses that are similar to the courses they play in college. My take is skewed due to my home course being 75.7/147, but I cam from a course that was 71.5/129, so OF COURSE their average SCORES would be lower there than in the tournaments they play. 

Switch everything I said to "average differentials" and then it's likely that they are similar. 🙂

 

[Obee]

23 minutes ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

Obee,

 

Was I on the right track with what was thinking? Sometimes I can't keep it straight if we're talking about women's rating or men's ratings. 

 

For women's ratings, yes.

For men's ratings, no.

I'll leave it to @ThinkingPlus for the detailed analysis of men's ratings/slopes vs women's. 😉

[Johnny Biarritz]

2 hours ago, Obee said:

Wait, you think Stewart Hagestad could "hang" with LPGA golfers? The guy who finished 18th at The Masters a few years back? That's good to know...

I think he could beat 3/4s of the field on any given week, yes. Or more. Unless I'm missing something, he and Trip Kuehne are the only mid-am winners in the past 20 years who aren't reformed pros. Trip's over 50, so I didn't include him. But who's another consistently elite am who never played professionally? I can't think of one.

[Obee]

3 hours ago, Obee said:

 

 

Edited July 6 by Obee

[AZBRONCFAN]

-7 won USO at just under 6900 yards and 20 ladies under par. A scratch would have lost by 30 at Erin Hills IMO. Minjee would have won by 30 at the PGA against a scratch in even tougher conditions. A scratch isnt very good in the grand scheme. The scratch golfers think another 500 to 800 yards would make up the difference. 😅

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

For women's ratings, yes.

For men's ratings, no.

I'll leave it to @ThinkingPlus for the detailed analysis of men's ratings/slopes vs women's. 😉

Based on the data I compiled over the years, CR difference for common tees was roughly 5 - 7 strokes, i.e. a men's rating of 71.7 would likely yield just under 78 for women. Shorter tees tended to be closer to 5 - 6 strokes different while longer tees were closer to 6 - 7 strokes different.

 

Similar differences can be seen on common tees for slope where the women's rating would be 7 - 11 points higher. As you might guess, the slope differences were driven primarily by the number and length of the forced carries.

 

Back in the day when I was longer, I typically played courses at LPGA length 6300 - 6800 yards. Because tees were frequently not rated for women from those tees, I spent some effort adjusting CR/slope from the nearest rated tees in order to post my scores. As a consequence, I compiled a decent database of these kinds of comparisons. Also, now that tees are more commonly rated for both genders, I have seen (purely anecdotal) a little tighter differences in CR/slope between men and women, but it isn't significant. 

 

BTW, based on the numbers I have looked at, men should start becoming competitive with the average LPGA pro around scratch (they still lose most of the time) and will start winning more often than not around +2 - +3. JMHO

[NorthTexasGlfr]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Based on the data I compiled over the years, CR difference for common tees was roughly 5 - 7 strokes, i.e. a men's rating of 71.7 would likely yield just under 78 for women. Shorter tees tended to be closer to 5 - 6 strokes different while longer tees were closer to 6 - 7 strokes different.

 

Similar differences can be seen on common tees for slope where the women's rating would be 7 - 11 points higher. As you might guess, the slope differences were driven primarily by the number and length of the forced carries.

 

Back in the day when I was longer, I typically played courses at LPGA length 6300 - 6800 yards. Because tees were frequently not rated for women from those tees, I spent some effort adjusting CR/slope from the nearest rated tees in order to post my scores. As a consequence, I compiled a decent database of these kinds of comparisons. Also, now that tees are more commonly rated for both genders, I have seen (purely anecdotal) a little tighter differences in CR/slope between men and women, but it isn't significant. 

 

BTW, based on the numbers I have looked at, men should start becoming competitive with the average LPGA pro around scratch (they still lose most of the time) and will start winning more often than not around +2 - +3. JMHO

 

Just looked at a scorecard from my home course. 

 

White Tees @ 6607 yards

72.1 CR / 123 Slope for men

78.1 CR / 135 Slope for women

 

[TiScape]

Went back several pages to see who I needed to take off my Christmas card list… 

Sorry AZ 😐

[aabcuue]

4 hours ago, Obee said:

I have played several of the courses. They are nowhere near that, for men. You are either misrepresenting your friend, he was talking about women's ratings, or your friend is grossly mistaken. 

Major problem, don’t assume.

 

Never stated which courses, what year setup and which majors.

 

Only said area course didn’t say which states.