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

[Obee]

3 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

Here is a bunch of scratch golfers in a local AZ am tournament over the weekend. Probably was 7200 yards. 

What's your point?

[aenemated]

I could totally beat Nelly Korda if she got run over in the parking lot before we teed off. People get run over in parking lots all the time! 

[Obee]

14 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

I do. And I know a scratch golfer ain’t beating Nelly Korda. 

Read the Mickelson thread. Guarantee that you would have been one of the guys in the thread to embarrass yourself by popping off.

[UncleJohn’sBand]

1 minute ago, Obee said:

Read the Mickelson thread. Guarantee that you would have been one of the guys in the thread to embarrass yourself by popping off.

I realize there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. 
 

I would love for you to get one of these matches set up at Wilshire, so we can all find out.
 

Glad you got to play with Phil and Rickie. Damn good story. 

[Frank Newport]

Stop arguing. A lot of, if not most, scratch golfers have vanity handicaps so stop talking like all "scratch" golfers are the same. And don't show me some scoreboard where a lot of "scratch" golfers shot +10 or worse unless you know for a fact that those gentlemen are legit scratch golfers who's games travel well and don't rely on gimmes to maintain their index.  

[Obee]

7 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

Stop arguing. A lot of, if not most, scratch golfers have vanity handicaps so stop talking like all "scratch" golfers are the same. And don't show me some scoreboard where a lot of "scratch" golfers shot +10 or worse unless you know for a fact that those gentlemen are legit scratch golfers who's games travel well and don't rely on gimmes to maintain their index.  

Not arguing (with you). 

Who are these "vanity scratch" guys you know know who take gimmes all the time? The overwhelming majority of guys who live in the +1.0 to 1.0 range are ex college players and/or former pros. Most guys play tournaments, both locally and regionally, and most gamble for decent money with fellow scratch guys and they make sure they are putting everything out. 

I just haven't seen many of these "vanity scratches" in my years, but I do know they exist. Usually, they show up in USGA qualifiers. Nobody knows who they are and they shoot 87. Yes, those guys exist. But they've never been a member of a private club or other men's club I've been a member of! 🙂

[Frank Newport]

4 minutes ago, Obee said:

Not arguing (with you). 

Who are these "vanity scratch" guys you know know who take gimmes all the time? The overwhelming majority of guys who live in the +1.0 to 1.0 range are ex college players and/or former pros. Most guys play tournaments, both locally and regionally, and most gamble for decent money with fellow scratch guys and they make sure they are putting everything out. 

I just haven't seen many of these "vanity scratches" in my years, but I do know they exist. Usually, they show up in USGA qualifiers. Nobody knows who they are and they shoot 87. Yes, those guys exist. But they've never been a member of a private club or other men's club I've been a member of! 🙂

 

That's +1.0-1.0  from most country club's white tees. You don't need to be a former pro or college golfer to get to that level of golf. We have plenty of guys at scratch or better at my club who didn't play competitive golf at any level. Most of their posted rounds take place at the club, are recreational, and they take gimmes for pace of play reasons. 

 

I'm starting to doubt the extent of your knowledge. Most very good/great golfers that I know don't play for high stakes because they're at a disadvantage in a match play setting against mid-high handicappers. Most of them are also very distrusting of other's handicaps and limit who they do play with when the stakes are higher.  

 

There's plenty of vanity scratches out there who's competitive rounds don't resemble their recreational rounds for various reasons. They take gimmes, most of their rounds are played at the same course from the same tees, they don't play to the letter of the law, they can't post anything above net double bogey, etc.

[AZBRONCFAN]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

What's your point?

They aren't that good in the grand scheme of things and cannot beat a top 100 LPGA player like the thread. Notice anytime you put these guys in a tournament where you have to play by the rules, they are never even close to making the cut. They would lose by 30 in an LPGA event.

Edited July 14 by AZBRONCFAN

[Frank Newport]

2 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

They aren't that good in the grand scheme of things and cannot beat a top 100 LPGA player like the thread. Notice anytime you put these guys in a tournament where you have to play by the rules, they are never even close to making the cut. They would lose by 30 in an LPGA event.

 

To be fair, 73rd at the Evian this past weekend finished 22 strokes off the lead and 60th place at the Women's US Open finished 26 strokes off the lead. If a scratch can keep it to within 30 strokes then he could definitely play with the 50 worst competitors on the LPGA each week.

[AZBRONCFAN]

44 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

 

To be fair, 73rd at the Evian this past weekend finished 22 strokes off the lead and 60th place at the Women's US Open finished 26 strokes off the lead. If a scratch can keep it to within 30 strokes then he could definitely play with the 50 worst competitors on the LPGA each week.

That is being kind to the scratch. When you look at their scores, you dont see many C next to the scores. 

Edited July 14 by AZBRONCFAN

[Frank Newport]

5 minutes ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

That is being kind to the scratch. When you look at their scores, you dont see many Cash next to the scores. 

So what are you assuming the 75th best LPGA golfers index is? What is the median index for a PGA Tour golfer?

 

I don't necessarily think your wrong, but I think you might be overrating the #75-150 LPGA golfers.

Edited July 14 by Frank Newport

[EDT501]

This thread makes for some hysterical reading. Lot of delusional people here on both sides. It is just as absurd to posture that a scratch male golfer is the tournament equal of even the bottom decile of the LPGA as it is to say that a scratch golfer could never beat an LPGA player in a single round.

 

No stranger to competitive rounds and I’ve also played with professional golfers of both genders. I’ve played as low as a +2, dabbled in collegiate golf, but now hover a little over scratch. I’d bet the house on both the following scenarios:

 

1. Me vs the top 10 LPGA players across 1,000 individual competitive rounds in a mix of setups and conditions - I will beat one player in one round. Even the best have blowup rounds here and there. Given a large enough sample size (I would not make this bet at 500 rounds), eventually one of their bad days will match against one of my better days and I won’t be dead last in the group. I will never win the day, but one day I won't be dead last.
2. Me vs the bottom 10 LPGA players across 10 cumulative competitive rounds in a mix of setups and conditions - I will absolutely come dead last and I don't expect the last round to be remotely competitive in terms of me not coming dead last.

[ThinkingPlus]

40 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

So what are you assuming the 75th best LPGA golfers index is? What is the median index for a PGA Tour golfer?

 

I don't necessarily think your wrong, but I think you might be overrating the #75-150 LPGA golfers.

LPGA touring pros would have men's handicap indices between +1 and maybe as high as +3. At the very bottom you might have some just slightly plus, but highly unlikely they will be scratch or worse (they couldn't keep a card).  PGAT players hover between +6 and +9. Once again, much worse than +6 and they will be struggling to keep a card.

 

[Frank Newport]

52 minutes ago, EDT501 said:

This thread makes for some hysterical reading. Lot of delusional people here on both sides. It is just as absurd to posture that a scratch male golfer is the tournament equal of even the bottom decile of the LPGA as it is to say that a scratch golfer could never beat an LPGA player in a single round.

 

No stranger to competitive rounds and I’ve also played with professional golfers of both genders. I’ve played as low as a +2, dabbled in collegiate golf, but now hover a little over scratch. I’d bet the house on both the following scenarios:

 

1. Me vs the top 10 LPGA players across 1,000 individual competitive rounds in a mix of setups and conditions - I will beat one player in one round. Even the best have blowup rounds here and there. Given a large enough sample size (I would not make this bet at 500 rounds), eventually one of their bad days will match against one of my better days and I won’t be dead last in the group. I will never win the day, but one day I won't be dead last.
2. Me vs the bottom 10 LPGA players across 10 cumulative competitive rounds in a mix of setups and conditions - I will absolutely come dead last and I don't expect the last round to be remotely competitive in terms of me not coming dead last.

Stop ruining this fine website with your common sense and rational thought. This place is reserved for delusions of grandeur and shitposting.

 

Moderators, please suspend this man. 

[Obee]

2 hours ago, Frank Newport said:

 

That's +1.0-1.0  from most country club's white tees. You don't need to be a former pro or college golfer to get to that level of golf. We have plenty of guys at scratch or better at my club who didn't play competitive golf at any level. Most of their posted rounds take place at the club, are recreational, and they take gimmes for pace of play reasons. 

 

I'm starting to doubt the extent of your knowledge. Most very good/great golfers that I know don't play for high stakes because they're at a disadvantage in a match play setting against mid-high handicappers. Most of them are also very distrusting of other's handicaps and limit who they do play with when the stakes are higher.  

 

There's plenty of vanity scratches out there who's competitive rounds don't resemble their recreational rounds for various reasons. They take gimmes, most of their rounds are played at the same course from the same tees, they don't play to the letter of the law, they can't post anything above net double bogey, etc.

I have been playing competitive golf in California for over 30 years. My modest accomplishments are online for everyone to see. 
 

I can count on one hand the amount of players that I know that live between 1.0 and +1.0 who play the white tees that are under 50 years old.

 

Where are you seeing these scratch golfers that play the white tees who aren't seniors? I'm sure they exist, but I certainly haven't played with them in my 30 years of golf.

 

As for gambling, every club I have ever been a member at the vast majority of scratch/below guys gamble with each other.

Edited July 14 by Obee

[Frank Newport]

18 minutes ago, Obee said:

I have been playing competitive golf in California for over 30 years. My modest accomplishments are online for everyone to see. 
 

I can count on one hand the amount of players that I know that live between 1.0 and +1.0 who play the white tees that are under 50 years old.

 

Where are you seeing these scratch golfers that play the white tees who aren't seniors? I'm sure they exist, but I certainly haven't played with them in my 30 years of golf.

 

As for gambling, every club I have ever been a member at the vast majority of scratch/below guys gamble with each other.

I too live in California and many local country club events (Member-Guest, Member-Member) are played from the white tees. 

 

Regardless, I never said that the scratch golfers I know play the white tees regularly. I said a 0.0 index is a 0 handicap from the equivalent of most country club's white tees. If we're defining a "scratch" golfer as a +1.0-1.0 index then they're also going to be a +1-1 handicap on a pretty easy layout relative to their skill level.  

 

If we're defining a "scratch golfer" as a +1-1 handicap from the tips at Oakmont, then we're describing a whole different level of golfer.

 

I'm starting to think some of you are conflating index and handicap.

 

Also, I didn't say scratch golfers don't gamble. I said most of the very good golfers I know don't play for high stakes. There's a difference between gambling and playing for high stakes. This has been my experience here in California and the 12 years I caddied in Chicago at a club notorious for high stakes games.

Edited July 14 by Frank Newport

[Obee]

26 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

I too live in California and many local country club events (Member-Guest, Member-Member) are played from the white tees. 

 

Regardless, I never said that the scratch golfers I know play the white tees regularly. I said a 0.0 index is a 0 handicap from the equivalent of most country club's white tees. If we're defining a "scratch" golfer as a +1.0-1.0 index then they're also going to be a +1-1 handicap on a pretty easy layout relative to their skill level.  

 

If we're defining a "scratch golfer" as a +1-1 handicap from the tips at Oakmont, then we're describing a whole different level of golfer.

 

I'm starting to think some of you are conflating index and handicap.

 

Also, I didn't say scratch golfers don't gamble. I said most of the very good golfers I know don't play for high stakes. There's a difference between gambling and playing for high stakes. This has been my experience here in California and the 12 years I caddied in Chicago at a club notorious for high stakes games.

 

I am most certainly not conflating index with handicap. Most people assume your index IS your handicap, but your index is used to determine your COURSE handicap (as it seems you know).

Regardless, a 0.0 index travels relatively well regardless of where you earn it.

To be a 0.0 index at my current home course, with a par of 72 and a rating of 75.8 and a slope of 145, you have to average around 76 for the best 8 of your last 20. I don't play the back tees at all anymore, but last time I did, I shot 77 hitting fairway wood into most of the par 4's.

To be a 0.0 at my former course with a par of 72 and a rating of 71.3 and a slope of 128, you need to average around 71 for the best 8 of your last 20.

As a broken-down, 225 hitting senior with debilitating back spasms, I was a 1.0 to +1.0 at my former club, and I'm a 1.0 to +1.0 at my current club.

But we're not at all discussing course handicap because that varies so widely. At most LPGA course from the tees they play and the conditions they play in, a 0.0 index will be very close to, if not exactly, a course handicap of 0.

At Wilshire, where the ladies play the course that is featured in this thread at the beginning (which has now been long lost to everyone chiming in, sadly), a 0.0 index is a course handicap of 0 or 1 depending on the tee set up each day.

 

Edited July 14 by Obee

[Red4282]

2 hours ago, AZBRONCFAN said:

They aren't that good in the grand scheme of things and cannot beat a top 100 LPGA player like the thread. Notice anytime you put these guys in a tournament where you have to play by the rules, they are never even close to making the cut. They would lose by 30 in an LPGA event.

Dude, you are literally arguing against MATH….posting a single round where some scratches struggled one round isnt proof of anything.  The scratches you have experienced must not be true scratches to be honest. Which is a completely different thing. 

 

22 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

I too live in California and many local country club events (Member-Guest, Member-Member) are played from the white tees. 

 

Regardless, I never said that the scratch golfers I know play the white tees regularly. I said a 0.0 index is a 0 handicap from the equivalent of most country club's white tees. If we're defining a "scratch" golfer as a +1.0-1.0 index then they're also going to be a +1-1 handicap on a pretty easy layout relative to their skill level.  

 

If we're defining a "scratch golfer" as a +1-1 handicap from the tips at Oakmont, then we're describing a whole different level of golfer.

 

I'm starting to think some of you are conflating index and handicap.

 

Also, I didn't say scratch golfers don't gamble. I said most of the very good golfers I know don't play for high stakes. There's a difference between gambling and playing for high stakes. This has been my experience here in California and the 12 years I caddied in Chicago at a club notorious for high stakes games.

Great point, thats why the handicap system is flawed. Ive tried to point out how far you hit it matters, and the course setup and length. The proof of this is they treat a womens course rating way differently than a mens rating… why? Because they base it on average distance hit by a man and women. So when you say scratch, that could mean ALOT of different things, and they dont all translate the same. 

[straightshot7]

Is there anything stopping the LPGA from allowing some "Scratch" males to play in some events? Would definitely boost viewership I believe.

 

I think they banned males pretending to be females, but this would obviously be different.

The men wouldn't receive prize money but maybe simply some separate prizes like a new car. 

[WesternRacing]

8 hours ago, Red4282 said:

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, that link provided was for over 4 rounds? I think we are all in agreement that is really not feasible for a scratch. My argument is a single round on any given day.

 

That’s not the debate though.  The argument being made by ignorant blowhard middle aged scratch golfers is that they are better than the LPGA pros, not they could get lucky and maybe beat them one round if the LPGA pro is off their game.   I shot a round once at our club that would have had me near the top of our club championship, but that doesn’t mean I’m anywhere near as good a golfer as our club champion, as he can literally do it over and over and over again, in a tournament setting.  He’s way better than me and would destroy me in a multi day tournament.

[Obee]

14 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

Is there anything stopping the LPGA from allowing some "Scratch" males to play in some events? Would definitely boost viewership I believe.

 

I think they banned males pretending to be females, but this would obviously be different.

The men wouldn't receive prize money but maybe simply some separate prizes like a new car. 

 

There's tons of data on this if people just ... pay attention.

But they don't.

A true 0.0 index male who has any level of travelling index (meaning he plays a few tournaments here and there, plays in his club championship every year, and plays multiple courses throughout the year -- so, virtually every scratch I know) is going to get beaten handily in a four-round tournament in the same conditions as the ladies. I have said this over and over and over.

He's going to shoot something like I mentioned above: 77, 74, 71, 80. Of course those numbers can vary, but something like that is a relatively likely scenario.

The ladies are going to shoot, on average, for the whole field, 73, 73, 72, 72. or 72, 72, 71, 71. Or something VERY close to that.

That's it. It's THAT simple.

The winner will shoot a lot lower (68, 66, 70, 68?) and the gals at the bottom will shoot 76, 75 and trunk slam. 

This. Is. Not. Hard.

Edited July 14 by Obee

[WesternRacing]

36 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

I too live in California and many local country club events (Member-Guest, Member-Member) are played from the white tees. 

 

Regardless, I never said that the scratch golfers I know play the white tees regularly. I said a 0.0 index is a 0 handicap from the equivalent of most country club's white tees. If we're defining a "scratch" golfer as a +1.0-1.0 index then they're also going to be a +1-1 handicap on a pretty easy layout relative to their skill level.  

 

 

Not sure what you mean by white tees, but where I play in California all the scratch or low single digit index players that I know either play from the tips (blacks) or from the second (blue) tees.  At my club the black tees are just under 7,000 yards and the blues are 6,500.  Our white tees are 6,150 and are almost entirely used by older and/or higher index players.  Every low index player at our club has an index based on the tips or second tees, and I don’t know any low cap players personally from other clubs that play shorter tees than 6,400 yards.  In fact, our true scratch to +5 players seem to always play from the tips unless they’re doing a casual round with lesser players.  And our member-member/guest events are played from the 6,500 yard blue tees.

[Obee]

6 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

That’s not the debate though.  The argument being made by ignorant blowhard middle aged scratch golfers is that they are better than the LPGA pros, not they could get lucky and maybe beat them one round if the LPGA pro is off their game.   I shot a round once at our club that would have had me near the top of our club championship, but that doesn’t mean I’m anywhere near as good a golfer as our club champion, as he can literally do it over and over and over again, in a tournament setting.  He’s way better than me and would destroy me in a multi day tournament.

Who is saying that??? NO ONE in this thread is saying that. If you think they are, you are arguing with straw men.

[WesternRacing]

1 minute ago, Obee said:

Who is saying that??? NO ONE in this thread is saying that. If you think they are, you are arguing with straw men.

 

You must not be reading well because most of the posts in here are commenting about and discussing a general comparison of skill levels, not ‘could a scratch amateur beat an LPGA pro for one round’.  The latter is meaningless because anything could happen in one round.  Pretty sure that a scratch amateur could enter an off field PGA Tour event and possibly beat the one player who loses his swing that day and shoots an 88.  What would that prove?

[m d g]

19 hours ago, fowlerscousin said:

Im looking at the leaderboard of the most recent lpga event. 75% of the field finished at +2 or worse on a 6500 course

 

When Golf Channel switched to the Evian, the announcer said it was 6,300 yards, I believe. I noted it because that is what me and my hacker buddies play most of the time.

 

That course is at 2,400 feet, so it plays even shorter.

[Frank Newport]

8 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

Not sure what you mean by white tees, but where I play in California all the scratch or low single digit index players that I know either play from the tips (blacks) or from the second (blue) tees.  At my club the black tees are just under 7,000 yards and the blues are 6,500.  Our white tees are 6,150 and are almost entirely used by older and/or higher index players.  Every low index player at our club has an index based on the tips or second tees, and I don’t know any low cap players personally from other clubs that play shorter tees than 6,400 yards.  In fact, our true scratch to +5 players seem to always play from the tips unless they’re doing a casual round with lesser players.  And our member-member/guest events are played from the 6,500 yard blue tees.

 

Courses have added so many tee boxes these days that's hard to even keep track or compare them to the tees at other courses. In general, my experience has been that the white tees were what mid-higher handicaps would generally play with their course rating being right around the course handicap (usually around 6400 yards). Blue tees are what single digits and most adult males capable of driving the ball 250 yards would play regularly and tend to be 1-2 strokes more difficult than the white tees (usually around 6700 yards). 

[m d g]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

I can count on one hand the amount of players that I know that live between 1.0 and +1.0 who play the white tees that are under 50 years old.

 

 

Even a 'vanity' scratch wouldn't play the white tees. If anything , it would look bad : )

[Frank Newport]

32 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

Is there anything stopping the LPGA from allowing some "Scratch" males to play in some events? Would definitely boost viewership I believe.

 

I think they banned males pretending to be females, but this would obviously be different.

The men wouldn't receive prize money but maybe simply some separate prizes like a new car. 

Yeah. Risk/Reward. 

[Obee]

5 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

You must not be reading well because most of the posts in here are commenting about and discussing a general comparison of skill levels, not ‘could a scratch amateur beat an LPGA pro for one round’.  The latter is meaningless because anything could happen in one round.  Pretty sure that a scratch amateur could enter an off field PGA Tour event and possibly beat the one player who loses his swing that day and shoots an 88.  What would that prove?

It's my thread. of course I am reading the posts.

 

I started the thread specifically to give some actual data instead of just conjecture. We know exactly what scratch men will shoot on course that the ladies play. And we played it longer and in tougher conditions.
 

I have given everyone real data. Honestly, it is about a good comparison as you will ever see. And it tracks well with the other examples we have of scratch guys playing on the same course as the ladies, like when Derek Lowe(?) played in the Sentry. He got his a** kicked by an elite player. But he also tied(?) Annika Sorenstam. Nobody saw that coming.
 

The Top ladies are absurdly good. A scratch male has no chance against them in a four round tournament. If he played a full season on the LPGA tour he might make a few cuts at or right around the number. He would NEVER contend if he did happen to squeak past the cut line a couple/few times a year.

 

But we know what men can shoot on the courses the ladies play (again, in tougher conditions). The numbers are there for everyone to see.

 

That's all this thread was ever about. Real numbers from a real LPGA venue. With real scratch golfers (and some serious plusses).

 

Anyone making it into more than that is tilting at windmills or erecting strawmen. 

[Red4282]

30 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

 

That’s not the debate though.  The argument being made by ignorant blowhard middle aged scratch golfers is that they are better than the LPGA pros, not they could get lucky and maybe beat them one round if the LPGA pro is off their game.   I shot a round once at our club that would have had me near the top of our club championship, but that doesn’t mean I’m anywhere near as good a golfer as our club champion, as he can literally do it over and over and over again, in a tournament setting.  He’s way better than me and would destroy me in a multi day tournament.

I have not seen that argument and for those saying that, thats silly. Its also not quite as extreme as getting lucky for one round. 10-20% chance and as much as 30-40% in some circumstances isnt just pure luck.