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

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Aren’t top women’s amateur golfers usually in the +4 to +6 range right before they get their cards?

 

https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/what-handicap-are-lpga-tour-players

No mention if thats using male or female ratings.

[Red4282]

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

Don’t know the odds.  But I’ve seen two lpga events in person and lots of men’s  championships.

 

im taking the lpga player (over scratch or even club 1.8) in any scenario where you playing 4 or more rounds

Give me numbers man. You cant call people delusional then be vague and dodge lol

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

No mention if thats using male or female ratings.

Women's ratings...

[WesternRacing]

There’s a well known, challenging public course in California that I’ve played well over 100 times, many, many of those times with low index to scratch golfers.  I can count on one hand the number of times one of them broke par and I can tell you every single one of the low index rounds I’ve watched there have included some significant scrambling on their part to get their score.  I’ve also played that course one single time with a female college player, a four year D1 college starter, not an elite school, but D1.  It was the first time she had ever seen the course.  She missed one fairway and one green all day, shot a one over 72 (17 pars, one bogey), and afterwards told me that they were the hardest greens to read that she had ever putted.  She said that she thought she could have shot 3-5 under if she knew the greens.  The entire round, every ball strike sounded exactly the same and her ball went where she wanted to go on all but one swing.  I’ve never, ever seen anything like that from another golfer.  And this was a 25 year old ex-college player who couldn’t even sniff the LPGA tour.  Oh and she actually putted EVERYTHING out, unlike most country club scratch golfers.

 

Edited July 14 by WesternRacing

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Give me numbers man. You cant call people delusional then be vague and dodge lol

I’m not being vague and dodge.

 

i told you what I’d take.  The more holes they play the more it favors the lpga player.  Now if we continue to shift goalposts around sure we find a point where a non professional +6 male might be better.

 

I can tell you the scratch men golfers that played sahlee last year prior to the women’s lpga event weren’t shooting those anywhere near the field average for the event.

 

[Red4282]

2 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I’m not being vague and dodge.

 

i told you what I’d take.  The more holes they play the more it favors the lpga player.  Now if we continue to shift goalposts around sure we find a point where a non professional +6 male might be better.

 

I can tell you the scratch men golfers that played sahlee last year prior to the women’s lpga event weren’t shooting those anywhere near the field average for the event.

 

So your saying in the questions i asked, you would take the pro 10/10 times in all scenarios? Or are we not answering with numbers for a reason.

[Red4282]

7 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

There’s a well known, challenging public course in California that I’ve played well over 100 times, many, many of those times with low index to scratch golfers.  I can count on one hand the number of times one of them broke par and I can tell you every single one of the low index rounds I’ve watched there have included some significant scrambling on their part to get their score.  I’ve also played that course one single time with a female college player, a four year D1 college starter, not an elite school, but D1.  It was the first time she had ever seen the course.  She missed one fairway and one green all day, shot a one over 72 (17 pars, one bogey), and afterwards told me that they were the hardest greens to read that she had ever putted.  She said that she thought she could have shot 3-5 under if she knew the greens.  The entire round, every ball strike sounded exactly the same and her ball went where she wanted to go on all but one swing.  I’ve never, ever seen anything like that from another golfer.  And this was a 25 year old ex-college player who couldn’t even sniff the LPGA tour.  Oh and she actually putted EVERYTHING out, unlike most country club scratch golfers.

 

Anecdotes again. We get it. The scratches you play with arent true scratches and you played with a lady once who was really good.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

4 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

So your saying in the questions i asked, you would take the pro 10/10 times in all scenarios? Or are we not answering with numbers for a reason.

Well you said yourself, the scratch only hits that number 40% of the time, so seems like guaranteed money to me taking the professional…..you know….MATH

Edited July 14 by UncleJohn’sBand

[Red4282]

1 minute ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

Well you said yourself, the scratch only hits that number 40% of the time, so seems like guaranteed money to me taking the professional…..you know….MATH

Its not a 100% though, so Im asking for odds. Hence 10 round/sample example.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

It’s not a 100% though, so Im asking for odds. Hence 10 round/sample example.

But why do you need odds? If the scratch can beat the pro, why do you want odds? 

[Pnwpingi210]

10 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

So your saying in the questions i asked, you would take the pro 10/10 times in all scenarios? Or are we not answering with numbers for a reason.

I’d take the lpga pro.

[Red4282]

1 minute ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

But why do you need odds? If the scratch can beat the pro, why do you want odds? 

 

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I’d take the lpga pro.

Pretty comical that nobody can give numbers. Have a feeling I know why, but hey you do you.

[Pnwpingi210]

Somebody should plug this into the ghin app and see if the male (0 handicap male) or lpga pro (lets say women’s +6) gets strokes 

 

[UncleJohn’sBand]

3 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

 

Pretty comical that nobody can give numbers. Have a feeling I know why, but hey you do you.

I mean what do you want? +110, +210, -310….like what? I’ve got one guy over here saying that a scratch can beat the best female golfer on planet earth, and another one asking for odds. 
 

And while we’re at it, why don’t you give some numbers. 

Edited July 14 by UncleJohn’sBand

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

 

Pretty comical that nobody can give numbers. Have a feeling I know why, but hey you do you.

Cause any number is just a made up funny number.  Nobody’s claiming to have an algorithm here. Unless you do and aren’t sharing

[Frank Newport]

35 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

There’s a well known, challenging public course in California that I’ve played well over 100 times, many, many of those times with low index to scratch golfers.  I can count on one hand the number of times one of them broke par and I can tell you every single one of the low index rounds I’ve watched there have included some significant scrambling on their part to get their score.  I’ve also played that course one single time with a female college player, a four year D1 college starter, not an elite school, but D1.  It was the first time she had ever seen the course.  She missed one fairway and one green all day, shot a one over 72 (17 pars, one bogey), and afterwards told me that they were the hardest greens to read that she had ever putted.  She said that she thought she could have shot 3-5 under if she knew the greens.  The entire round, every ball strike sounded exactly the same and her ball went where she wanted to go on all but one swing.  I’ve never, ever seen anything like that from another golfer.  And this was a 25 year old ex-college player who couldn’t even sniff the LPGA tour.  Oh and she actually putted EVERYTHING out, unlike most country club scratch golfers.

 

This definitely didn’t happen.

[Red4282]

11 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

I mean what do you want? +110, +210, -310….like what? I’ve got one guy over here saying that a scratch can beat the best female golfer on planet earth, and another one asking for odds. 
 

And while we’re at it, why don’t you give some numbers. 

Already have, well for a scratch, not a +1.8

[Red4282]

11 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Cause any number is just a made up funny number.  Nobody’s claiming to have an algorithm here. Unless you do and aren’t sharing

I mean you can do some somewhat reasonable data analysis. Its an estimate. 

[Red4282]

14 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Somebody should plug this into the ghin app and see if the male (0 handicap male) or lpga pro (lets say women’s +6) gets strokes 

 

@ThinkingPlus has already broken down the difference in womens and mens course ratings/handicaps. Scroll back a few pages for it.

[Pnwpingi210]

Too many variables like course rating, weather, what the person ate that day..

 

 

in all seriousness, isn’t there a golf app out that lets you plug in these variables to see who gets strokes in a head to head match?

 

same course

same tees

 men’s 0 handicap

womens + 6 handicap 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

I believe that Dean Knuth's Pope of Slope website might have some odds y'all could play with. BTW, when comparing handicap strokes between genders the specific course played matters. Men's and women's ratings vary some in relation to each other.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

14 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Already have, well for a scratch, not a +1.8

Well give some odds, because I’m assuming you want some on yourself, seeing the handicap tag in your sig! 

Edited July 14 by UncleJohn’sBand

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I believe that Dean Knuth's Pope of Slope website might have some odds y'all could play with. BTW, when comparing handicap strokes between genders the specific course played matters. Men's and women's ratings vary some in relation to each other.

Exactly.

 

I thought for sure there’s an app that does it.  Grint, 18 birdies, ghin app

[NorthTexasGlfr]

You all will have to get over it forgive me if this has already been talked about in this now 33 page thread but I'm old and can't remember what I may or may not have read 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 pages ago😉

 

Doesn't it simplify things if you simply base everyone's handicap off the same course rating and slope? Either base the women's handicap off the men's rating or vice versa. Seems that would at least give you a better handicap comparison and reveal a little better how they match up. 

[lchang]

Even if the LPGA pro were a +6 and we assume that's pretty close to mathematically equivalent to an amateur man's 0.0, I'd take the LPGA pro because, as I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the LPGA pro's anti-cap will be much, much better. (Anti-cap is the average of the worst 12 differentials of your most recent 20 rounds.)

[Obee]

1 hour ago, Red4282 said:

Curious, What would you put odds of a +1.8 male against the approx #75 ish (nobody in particular) in a single 18 hole match. From various yardages.

3 to 1 against from 6200 to 6600. 2.75 to 1 from 6601 to 6900. 2.5 to 1 from 6901 to 7200. 2 to 1 from 7200+.

 

And this is ONLY IF the +1.8 is his AVERAGE index all year, meaning sometimes he touches +3.2 or whatever. So +1 in some months, +3.2 in others. AVERAGE of +1.8 all year.

NEXT QUESTION!!! 😉

[lchang]

8 minutes ago, Obee said:

3 to 1 against from 6200 to 6600. 2.75 to 1 from 6601 to 6900. 2.5 to 1 from 6901 to 7200. 2 to 1 from 7200+.

 

And this is ONLY IF the +1.8 is his AVERAGE index all year, meaning sometimes he touches +3.2 or whatever. So +1 in some months, +3.2 in others. AVERAGE of +1.8 all year.

NEXT QUESTION!!! 😉

 

I like that! I think the odds would be longer the more trouble there is. Even from 7200+ yards, the long hitting scratch will struggle against the LPGA pro if there are penal hazards everywhere. 

 

I'm envisioning a 475-yard par 4 with no trouble. Long hitting scratch likes it. 475-yard par 4 that punishes you badly for being offline? Well, we've all seen the LPGA pros hitting driver-hybrid right where they're looking over and over again. (And we've seen amateur scratches fighting a hook on every 4th swing, for example!)

[Obee]

39 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

I mean what do you want? +110, +210, -310….like what? I’ve got one guy over here saying that a scratch can beat the best female golfer on planet earth, and another one asking for odds. 
 

And while we’re at it, why don’t you give some numbers. 

Dude, you are the king of taking people out of context. Grow up.

When Nelly Korda sh*ts the bed and shoots 76, YES, a scratch golfer playing well can beat her on an LPGA course. If he plays well. It happens. It's golf.

Just like I could tie Phil Mickelson with a 700-yard advantage. Virtually nobody thought a true scratch golfer (which I was at the time) could do that. They are humans. They are not machines and golf score fluctuations are crazy.

Here's a much better example for you. Below is Nelly Korda at Wilshire CC in 2021. You put just 10 male true scratch golfers (guys whose indexes AVERAGE around 0.0) and at least one of them is going to beat or tie her on day 2. Potentially 2 to 4 guys. She doesn't even have to shoot 76 to get beaten in a single round.

But she is going to WAX them over the tournament? Why? Because she's significantly better at golf than they are and far, far more consistent. But you just don't understand golf score fluctuation and what true scratches shoot at a course like Wilshire. The thing is, it's right in this thread for you. Just look further up in the thread.

Scratch Amateur: 

77, 72, 78, 80

That's all a scratch needs to do to "beat Nelly Korda" in a SINGLE ROUND OF GOLF. If you don't think that is not just POSSIBLE for a scratch golfer, but LIKELY for a scratch golfer to shoot at a course like Wilshire, you really do not know this game at the tournament level.

T10

Nelly Korda

-8

66

73

70

67

276

[Obee]

4 minutes ago, lchang said:

 

I like that! I think the odds would be longer the more trouble there is. Even from 7200+ yards, the long hitting scratch will struggle against the LPGA pro if there are penal hazards everywhere. 

 

I'm envisioning a 475-yard par 4 with no trouble. Long hitting scratch likes it. 475-yard par 4 that punishes you badly for being offline? Well, we've all seen the LPGA pros hitting driver-hybrid right where they're looking over and over again. (And we've seen amateur scratches fighting a hook on every 4th swing, for example!)

Yeah, that could certainly be. LOTS of it depends on the "match up." When I was a +2 to +3.8, I was a short hitter (265ish?), but I know guys in that range who hit is 320 and relatively straight. They just don't putt it or wedge it like I did. "Horses for courses" is a thing for sure. Everyone's game is different.

Oddsmakers would have a blast with it, I can tell you that.

[Obee]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Don’t know the odds.  But I’ve seen two lpga events in person and lots of men’s  championships.

 

im taking the lpga player (over scratch or even club 1.8) in any scenario where you playing 4 or more rounds

There are very few "club +1.8" golfers, if I'm understanding you. Most +1.8 mid-am or senior golfers played in college, and many of them played professionally at some point. I hardly know a single +1.8 or better who doesn't play in several tournaments a year. I mean, why get that good at something and then never test yourself?

Most do...