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

[MadGolfer76]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

[Frostfield]

Easy one. Take the pro. Yes the scratch or below can hang on any given round, but would likely get smoked over time due to consistency issues most pros don’t have.

[straightshot7]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

[Pure745]

I know an LPGA golfer. Have played a lot of golf with her. Have seen her play with scratch golfers. Not even close.

 

So do I! Recently played with a top 100 player in the world. She beat A group of six or seven scratch golfers by 2 to 4 shots playing a golf course about 400 yards shorter than we played. She shot 71 from the blues. We all shot 73 to 76 from the back.

 

So, in the context of this thread, what does "not even close" mean?

 

Was this at Brentwood?

 

Yeppers.

 

Was I or Dwight the 76 (I know I won $$) :) ? Either way, first time seeing the course, against her home course.. I know I had a double on that one hole.. up tees for her was a huge advantage. All things equal, I think it would be closer.. my distance would close the gap her amazing short game. I still think she'd shoot a lower number more consistently.. I'd have to shoot my lower rounds to compete with her "meh" round.

 

My scores at MacBeth only time I played were 67,69,76 (agg day) we got 3rd. Had front row to Funk's 65, another tough one.. two factors in this argument.. guys who undersell how good LPGA players are, and guys who also do the same for top ranked amateurs (guys like Obee, who golf more than they work) ;)

[oikos1]

Changing parameters for one group changes everything. What could you possibly infer as a comparison from this experiment?

[MadGolfer76]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

[straightshot7]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

 

Why can't you let the LPGA player stand on her own? You keep replacing her with a 1980s man and now Fred Funk.

 

That wasn't the question. Fred Funk and the average LPGA player are not the same.

[MadGolfer76]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

 

Why can't you let the LPGA player stand on her own? You keep replacing her with a 1980s man and now Fred Funk.

 

That wasn't the question. Fred Funk and the average LPGA player are not the same.

 

I am happy to let the LPGA player stand on her own. I think whoever it is would win simply because there is more experience on her part playing under pressure than there would be for the scratch male. What I am trying to do is show people how ridiculous the argument it by turning it around. The reason I do that is because folks seem to think 40 yards or so off the tee is going to make a difference between a professional golfer and a scratch.

 

That, and it is much harder to argue against the pro when gender is removed from the argument. ;)

[straightshot7]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

 

Why can't you let the LPGA player stand on her own? You keep replacing her with a 1980s man and now Fred Funk.

 

That wasn't the question. Fred Funk and the average LPGA player are not the same.

 

I am happy to let the LPGA player stand on her own. I think whoever it is would win simply because there is more experience on her part playing under pressure than there would be for the scratch male. What I am trying to do is show people how ridiculous the argument it by turning it around. The reason I do that is because folks seem to think 40 yards or so off the tee is going to make a difference between a professional golfer and a scratch.

 

That, and it is much harder to argue against the pro when gender is removed from the argument. ;)

 

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

[bbedell]

How's THAT for a click-bait title??? ;-)

 

So coming up at the end of May, we'll have a chance to do a (quite) accurate comparison of scores for scratch ams and LPGA players on the same course in the same conditions.

 

The ladies right now are playing the Hugel-JTBC LA Open at Wilshire Country Club in Los Angeles. At the end of May, (Memorial Day Weekend) Wilshire Country Club holds the "Macbeth Invitational," named after its architect, Norman Macbeth. It is one of the coolest, longest running 2-man invitationals in the country. It's flighted, so there are plenty of mid-cappers playing, but there are always a good 30 to 40 or so scratch or below amateurs in the field vying for the "low gross" championship.

 

Wilshire is a fun, sporty, quirky track from way back in 1919. It's about 6550 yards from the tips. Par 71. I was there yesterday and walked the entire course while the ladies were playing. The tees were in same places we play them for the most part. If anything, we play the course a bit longer than the ladies, pushing 6600, whereas they played it from 6450 yesterday. Greens yesterday looked to be 11 to 12+, which is where they usually are for the Macbeth. Very little rough to speak of, course playing firm and fast. Greens yesterday were quite receptive due to some early (and unseasonal for SoCal!) rain. Greens also have quite a bit of movement and front to back slope. They can get nasty and are very tough to putt well.

 

Conditions for the Macbeth will be nearly identical if the last six years I've played are any indication. Format is: Four-Ball, Four-Ball, Aggregate. So the scores on aggregate day are playing the ball "down and in."Based upon prior experience, I'm guessing we'll see that the 40(?) scratch or below golfers will shoot between 67 and 80 on the final day of the tournament, with an average score of probably 74 or 75. Looks like 4-over 146 (it's a par-71) is going to make the cut at the LPGA tournament today, with a full field 2-day average score of about 5-over 76.

 

This is as close an approximation I can think of for a "pros vs. joes" type of thing where the conditions are truly similar. Same course. Same conditions. Played in competition. And it will also give us some insight into the eternal question: "Can a 4-handicapper bean an LPGA Tour Pro" thread from a while back! LOL!

 

I love the LPGA and love golf, period. It's fantastic to see the ladies play a course that I've played many, many times in competition, and I can't wait to see what we can glean from the exercise.

 

And if you're in Los Angeles this weekend, you owe it to yourself to stop by Wilshire CC and check out the tournament. Wilshire CC is a true gem and one of my favorite under 6800 yard golf courses in the country.

 

My father in law was a member there for quite some time (has since moved to Saticoy CC in the Camarillo area) and I got to play the course with him many times. Course is a bit different since they made the recent drought tolerant changes. I remember how hard those greens are....my god so frustrating to putt on for someone who doesnt play there regularly...but I agree total gem of a course and classic small old LA layout. Facilities are pure class as well (i got married there).

[lowheel]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

 

look up shot dispersion from 150 in. men are far superior with the wedges, not even up for debate. Bad comparable

[MadGolfer76]

 

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

 

Oh, now...don't be overly dramatic. Calling something "dumb" means you don't like it, not that it doesn't make sense. As far as why you don't like it, I can only guess, however, I think re-reading my first post would help you to understand where I am coming from. I said that...it seems to me, that distance is the key argument for this comparison. I provided an analogy where distance was placed on equal terms, and then another that reversed the situation that removed gender from being a factor. If that is too hard to digest, I can only say good luck on navigating hypotheticals. :hi:

[MadGolfer76]

I don't get these threads. Since it seems to me it comes down to a perception of how distance affects score, I looked at numbers.

 

This year, the LPGA top average distance is 283. The median LPGA Pro average distance is 256. The first time the top average driving distance crested 280 on the PGA Tour was 1986, with Davis Love III at 285. Larry Nelson represented the median average at 261.

 

If distance is the central issue to these arguments, the opposite argument can be made by saying, "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?" I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?

 

Doesn't it depend on the length of the golf course?

 

I'll take the LPGA player on a 6,500 yard course.

 

But if you put her on a 7,500 yard course against a male "scratch" who legitimately hits his driver 300 and therefore his irons long and high, then the argument changes.

 

The shortest hitter on the Champions Tour is Fred Funk, at 255 yards on an average drive (which is the number that is more or less the median driving distance on the LPGA Tour this year). Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?

 

look up shot dispersion from 150 in. men are far superior with the wedges, not even up for debate. Bad comparable

 

If we were talking about comparing PGA Tour pros and LPGA Tour pros. For your assertion, you would need to show that "middle aged, male, scratch golfers who drive the ball 300 yards" are better with wedges from inside 150 yards than the average LPGA pro.

[llamont]

One thing this forum is famous for....hypothetical scenarios where a man can beat a LPGA player. I guess I don't see the infatuation.

 

^^^THIS^^^ I don’t get it either...

[Obee]

Easy one. Take the pro. Yes the scratch or below can hang on any given round, but would likely get smoked over time due to consistency issues most pros don’t have.

 

I believe this is true. Quite true in fact.

[Obee]

I know an LPGA golfer. Have played a lot of golf with her. Have seen her play with scratch golfers. Not even close.

 

So do I! Recently played with a top 100 player in the world. She beat A group of six or seven scratch golfers by 2 to 4 shots playing a golf course about 400 yards shorter than we played. She shot 71 from the blues. We all shot 73 to 76 from the back.

 

So, in the context of this thread, what does "not even close" mean?

 

Was this at Brentwood?

 

Yeppers.

 

Was I or Dwight the 76 (I know I won $$) :) ? Either way, first time seeing the course, against her home course.. I know I had a double on that one hole.. up tees for her was a huge advantage. All things equal, I think it would be closer.. my distance would close the gap her amazing short game. I still think she'd shoot a lower number more consistently.. I'd have to shoot my lower rounds to compete with her "meh" round.

 

My scores at MacBeth only time I played were 67,69,76 (agg day) we got 3rd. Had front row to Funk's 65, another tough one.. two factors in this argument.. guys who undersell how good LPGA players are, and guys who also do the same for top ranked amateurs (guys like Obee, who golf more than they work) ;)

 

I think so.

 

And by the way, I play twice a week now. New job. :-(

[straightshot7]

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

 

Oh, now...don't be overly dramatic. Calling something "dumb" means you don't like it, not that it doesn't make sense. As far as why you don't like it, I can only guess, however, I think re-reading my first post would help you to understand where I am coming from. I said that...it seems to me, that distance is the key argument for this comparison. I provided an analogy where distance was placed on equal terms, and then another that reversed the situation that removed gender from being a factor. If that is too hard to digest, I can only say good luck on navigating hypotheticals. :hi:

 

No, I meant "dumb" as in it makes no logical sense.

 

You equated a modern day LPGA Tour player with a 1980s male Tour pro (such as Davis Love III). Then you equated the LPGA Tour player with Fred Funk.

 

You literally tried to pass these them all off as being the same.

 

If the question was male scratch vs. 1980s tour pro or male scratch vs. modern day Fred Funk, that would be an entirely different question.

 

Do you really think if we gave all the ladies on the LPGA Tour an extra 30 yards off the tee that they'd suddenly be good enough to play on the PGA Tour?

 

There are hundreds of differences between those different sets of people. So to consider them the same is a nonsensical comparison which is what I meant by "dumb".

[MtlJeff]

One thing this forum is famous for....hypothetical scenarios where a man can beat a LPGA player. I guess I don't see the infatuation.

 

^^^THIS^^^ I don't get it either...

 

I don't really think it's an infatuation for the OP here. There was a thread that was a million pages long started a couple of years ago. Most threads have very little actual data to support anything beyond "my friend's friend played a round with a girl who was friends with an LPGA player in college, he shot 78 and she shot 77. I REST MY CASE"

 

Bar style debates can be quite fun, there was a book written a while ago called "Andy Roddick beat me with a frying pan" that is one of the more enjoyable reads for stuff like this (one of the chapters, he has a normal dude race against olympic sprinter Maurice Greene but the normal guy gets to run on an airport moving walkway and get a head start)

 

Anyway, i don't really see the harm in the discussion either.

[Sean2]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

[KBong]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Or how about the guy on this site who knows Megan Khang and has played golf with her quite a few times and is best friends with her dad ........and talks about her often in the WRX threads...yet can't spell out her name in the posts.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

[PowderedToastMan]

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

 

Oh, now...don't be overly dramatic. Calling something "dumb" means you don't like it, not that it doesn't make sense. As far as why you don't like it, I can only guess, however, I think re-reading my first post would help you to understand where I am coming from. I said that...it seems to me, that distance is the key argument for this comparison. I provided an analogy where distance was placed on equal terms, and then another that reversed the situation that removed gender from being a factor. If that is too hard to digest, I can only say good luck on navigating hypotheticals. :hi:

 

No, I meant "dumb" as in it makes no logical sense.

 

You equated a modern day LPGA Tour player with a 1980s male Tour pro (such as Davis Love III). Then you equated the LPGA Tour player with Fred Funk.

 

You literally tried to pass these them all off as being the same.

 

If the question was male scratch vs. 1980s tour pro or male scratch vs. modern day Fred Funk, that would be an entirely different question.

 

Do you really think if we gave all the ladies on the LPGA Tour an extra 30 yards off the tee that they'd suddenly be good enough to play on the PGA Tour?

 

There are hundreds of differences between those different sets of people. So to consider them the same is a nonsensical comparison which is what I meant by "dumb".

You’ve completely missed MadGolfer’s analogy, which is logically sound (you’re debating a well-educated man who knows his way around logic). He’s basing his 80’s Tour players vs current LPGA Tour players on the illogical assessment that men with scratch-4 handicaps have a chance against LPGA Tour players simply because they might be longer.

 

He’s arguing that the supposed length advantage is overemphasized, nothing about current LPGA Tour players being Davis Love III level golfers.

 

If you are going to accuse someone of being illogical, you need to study their argument closely. Not agreeing with the argument is different than being illogical.

[straightshot7]

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

 

Oh, now...don't be overly dramatic. Calling something "dumb" means you don't like it, not that it doesn't make sense. As far as why you don't like it, I can only guess, however, I think re-reading my first post would help you to understand where I am coming from. I said that...it seems to me, that distance is the key argument for this comparison. I provided an analogy where distance was placed on equal terms, and then another that reversed the situation that removed gender from being a factor. If that is too hard to digest, I can only say good luck on navigating hypotheticals. :hi:

 

No, I meant "dumb" as in it makes no logical sense.

 

You equated a modern day LPGA Tour player with a 1980s male Tour pro (such as Davis Love III). Then you equated the LPGA Tour player with Fred Funk.

 

You literally tried to pass these them all off as being the same.

 

If the question was male scratch vs. 1980s tour pro or male scratch vs. modern day Fred Funk, that would be an entirely different question.

 

Do you really think if we gave all the ladies on the LPGA Tour an extra 30 yards off the tee that they'd suddenly be good enough to play on the PGA Tour?

 

There are hundreds of differences between those different sets of people. So to consider them the same is a nonsensical comparison which is what I meant by "dumb".

You've completely missed MadGolfer's analogy, which is logically sound (you're debating a well-educated man who knows his way around logic). He's basing his 80's Tour players vs current LPGA Tour players on the illogical assessment that men with scratch-4 handicaps have a chance against LPGA Tour players simply because they might be longer.

 

He's arguing that the supposed length advantage is overemphasized, nothing about current LPGA Tour players being Davis Love III level golfers.

 

If you are going to accuse someone of being illogical, you need to study their argument closely. Not agreeing with the argument is different than being illogical.

 

It honestly makes no sense and it's a bad analogy.

 

He said "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?' I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?" - - - most of us would call BS on that because a 1986 PGA Tour player is far superior to an LPGA Tour player.

 

I honestly don't think that you are correctly interpreting MadGolfer's analogy.

 

He said "Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?"

 

He honestly doesn't seem to think there is a difference between Fred Funk and an LPGA Tour player. . . just read his words.

 

I don't think there is anyone on here who thinks that distance is the only consideration here.

 

If I said "Could a scratch golfer beat a PGA Tour player if the PGA Tour player had to take driver and 3 wood out of the bag?"

 

That's still a totally different question than the LPGA question, even though the PGA Tour player could only get it 230-270 off the tee with his 5 wood/2 iron.

 

There are so many differences between a PGA Tour and an LPGA Tour player. So, to ask us to swap short hitting PGA Tour players (whether it's a 1980s Tour pro or Fred Funk) with the LPGA Tour player and pretend it's a valid analogy is nonsensical. And if they were equal, why make the trade in the first place? Makes no sense.

 

Modern LPGA Tour player, present day Fred Funk, and 1980s male PGA Tour player are three very different entities. So to imply that we should consider them equal for the sake of argument and swap them interchangeably just because they hit the ball similar distances off the tee is what I consider clearly illogical.

[Sean2]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Or how about the guy on this site who knows Megan Khang and has played golf with her quite a few times and is best friends with her dad ........and talks about her often in the WRX threads...yet can't spell out her name in the posts.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

 

Thanks for spelling her name correctly. :-)

[knock it close]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Oh relax, people still spell Spieth wrong, it's not a big deal

[lowheel]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Oh relax, people still spell Spieth wrong, it's not a big deal

 

God, it’s Speef!! Let’s get it right! :)

[Sean2]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Oh relax, people still spell Spieth wrong, it's not a big deal

 

It doesn't take much effort to spell a person's name correctly, especially when you have seen it written countless times, e.g., Spieth and Dufner, and in some cases the person has been corrected and still insists on spelling the name wrong. Regarding the latter it indicates one of two things: stupidity, or lack of respect for the individual in question.

[KBong]

It amazes me that some people still can't spell the name of an LPGA Tour player...despite seeing it written countless times.

 

Megan Khang.

 

Is that so hard? Apparently it is.

Oh relax, people still spell Spieth wrong, it's not a big deal

I spell his name as....Whiny Cry Baby. :taunt:

[Conrad1953]

Geez, I think Obee just wants to do a fun comparison. No one's life is riding on this. Who

cares if it's not a perfect analogy?

 

Obee did an outstanding write up when he and his partner played with Phil and Rickie.

Everyone knew Obee and his partner didn't suddenly show up to play at a PGA Tour

event that day. That was a great read and I think Phil only beat Obee by 1, from

different tees of course............but still.

[95124hacker]

One thing this forum is famous for....hypothetical scenarios where a man can beat a LPGA player. I guess I don't see the infatuation.

 

^^^THIS^^^ I don't get it either...

 

Male chauvinism is strong here. I doubt the LPGA players at their tournament dinners are sitting around discussing how they would love to compete against scratch or 4-handicap amateur men. This is a fictitious match dreamt up by egotistical guys who want to brag. So what's the next step? Petition the LPGA to have guys enter tournaments? Just leave the women alone. 99% of them are doing fine competing against each other and not comparing themselves to men. Annika, Wie, and Lexi wanted to see what would happen. After that, they went back to their own Tour.

[MadGolfer76]

Sorry but it's a dumb analogy. You didn't remove gender. You changed it to a PGA Tour or Champions Tour player.

 

Do you honestly believe the only difference between an LPGA Tour player and a PGA Tour player is distance off the tee??

 

Fred Frunk's current scoring average (71.15) would be good enough for 34th on the LPGA Tour's, despite playing courses on average 500 yards longer.

 

Fred, at 61 years old, would most likely be the #1 player in the world on the LPGA Tour. Imagine him on courses 500 yards shorter.

 

Changing the argument from LPGA Tour player to short hitting male Tour pro doesn't prove anything. It's a useless analogy.

 

The question of LPGA Tour player vs. Male scratch remains the same.

 

Oh, now...don't be overly dramatic. Calling something "dumb" means you don't like it, not that it doesn't make sense. As far as why you don't like it, I can only guess, however, I think re-reading my first post would help you to understand where I am coming from. I said that...it seems to me, that distance is the key argument for this comparison. I provided an analogy where distance was placed on equal terms, and then another that reversed the situation that removed gender from being a factor. If that is too hard to digest, I can only say good luck on navigating hypotheticals. :hi:

 

No, I meant "dumb" as in it makes no logical sense.

 

You equated a modern day LPGA Tour player with a 1980s male Tour pro (such as Davis Love III). Then you equated the LPGA Tour player with Fred Funk.

 

You literally tried to pass these them all off as being the same.

 

If the question was male scratch vs. 1980s tour pro or male scratch vs. modern day Fred Funk, that would be an entirely different question.

 

Do you really think if we gave all the ladies on the LPGA Tour an extra 30 yards off the tee that they'd suddenly be good enough to play on the PGA Tour?

 

There are hundreds of differences between those different sets of people. So to consider them the same is a nonsensical comparison which is what I meant by "dumb".

You've completely missed MadGolfer's analogy, which is logically sound (you're debating a well-educated man who knows his way around logic). He's basing his 80's Tour players vs current LPGA Tour players on the illogical assessment that men with scratch-4 handicaps have a chance against LPGA Tour players simply because they might be longer.

 

He's arguing that the supposed length advantage is overemphasized, nothing about current LPGA Tour players being Davis Love III level golfers.

 

If you are going to accuse someone of being illogical, you need to study their argument closely. Not agreeing with the argument is different than being illogical.

 

It honestly makes no sense and it's a bad analogy.

 

He said "Do you think a scratch male golfer can beat a male PGA Pro from 1986?' I think most of us would call BS on that, so why do we still entertain the notion that a scratch male could beat an LPGA Tour pro?" - - - most of us would call BS on that because a 1986 PGA Tour player is far superior to an LPGA Tour player.

 

I honestly don't think that you are correctly interpreting MadGolfer's analogy.

 

He said "Put Fred Funk and the other male scratch on a 7500 yard course, and who wins? Why would the argument change just because the golfer is female?"

 

He honestly doesn't seem to think there is a difference between Fred Funk and an LPGA Tour player. . . just read his words.

 

I don't think there is anyone on here who thinks that distance is the only consideration here.

 

If I said "Could a scratch golfer beat a PGA Tour player if the PGA Tour player had to take driver and 3 wood out of the bag?"

 

That's still a totally different question than the LPGA question, even though the PGA Tour player could only get it 230-270 off the tee with his 5 wood/2 iron.

 

There are so many differences between a PGA Tour and an LPGA Tour player. So, to ask us to swap short hitting PGA Tour players (whether it's a 1980s Tour pro or Fred Funk) with the LPGA Tour player and pretend it's a valid analogy is nonsensical. And if they were equal, why make the trade in the first place? Makes no sense.

 

Modern LPGA Tour player, present day Fred Funk, and 1980s male PGA Tour player are three very different entities. So to imply that we should consider them equal for the sake of argument and swap them interchangeably just because they hit the ball similar distances off the tee is what I consider clearly illogical.

 

SS, let's just call good/good on this and move on. Yes?