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

Pnwpingi210 · July 14

3 minutes ago, Obee said:

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...

That’s what I meant. Amatuer +1.8 handicap that plays at you local club

Obee · July 14

1 hour 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.

What's the course? Who are your "low index to scratch golfers"? Who's this young lady? Details matter with statements like this.

I have played virtually every "challenging" public course in California -- especially Southern California. What's the course?

Certainly you can't be giving up an special, privileged info by naming the course...

Obee · July 14

Just now, Pnwpingi210 said:

That’s what I meant. Amatuer +1.8 handicap that plays at you local club

Yeah, those guys hardly exist. Virtually all of them compete. If, once again, what you mean is: Some guy who happens to have a +1.8 index, but all he ever does is play his home course and never competes and never did.

Damn near a unicorn.

Pnwpingi210 · July 14

Just now, Obee said:

Yeah, those guys hardly exist. Virtually all of them compete. If, once again, what you mean is: Some guy who happens to have a +1.8 index, but all he ever does is play his home course and never competes and never did.

Damn near a unicorn.

I don’t mean that. I mean a +1.8 handicap amateur golfer. Drop the “club” if that brings in some other caveat

Obee · July 14

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I don’t mean that. I mean a +1.8 handicap amateur golfer. Drop the “club” if that brings in some other caveat

Yes, it does. Consider it dropped. 🙂

Obee · July 14

3 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I don’t mean that. I mean a +1.8 handicap amateur golfer. Drop the “club” if that brings in some other caveat

You do realize that the majority of these guys played, at a minimum, D2 golf and a solid portion of mid-ams and seniors who can hold onto an index of +1.8 for any length of time also played professionally and cashed some checks on mini-tours for a spell, right?

These guys now have families and jobs, but a lot of these guys who are now legit, non-sandbagging +1.8's used to be +3.5 to +5 guys.

Pnwpingi210 · July 14

Just now, Obee said:

You do realize that the majority of these guys played, at a minimum, D2 golf and a solid portion of mid-ams and seniors who can hold onto an index of +1.8 for any length of time also played professionally and cashed some checks on mini-tours for a spell, right?

These guys now have families and jobs, but a lot of these guys who are now legit, non-sandbagging +1.8's used to be +3.5 to +5 guys.

Sure man.

the thread was about scratch golfers.

some dude moved the goal posts to plus 1.8 golfers. I realize that means they can shoot the scores to back it up.

I’m not sure what your going on about?

Red4282 · July 14

43 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!!! 😉

Thank you! Perfectly reasonable.

1 hour ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

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

For a scratch in a single round against the #75 player ish, id say about 1-2 times out of ten the scratch would win at 6400. Back to 7000, depends on the scratch but the odds could increase to as much as 3 times out of 10. For a four round tourney… very little chance, like 2-3% chance.

This of course an opinion but I make my opinion based on data. Just because someone says a scratch has a decent shot, people want to just go crazy defending women, like its insult. Certainly not insulting them, but I like to look at things objectively as possible.

UncleJohn’sBand · July 14

Just now, Red4282 said:

Thank you! Perfectly reasonable.

For a scratch in a single round against the #75 player ish, id say about 1-2 times out of ten the scratch would win at 6400. Back to 7000, depends on the scratch but the odds could increase to as much as 3 times out of 10. For a four round tourney… very little chance, like 2-3% chance.

This of course an opinion but I make my opinion based on data. Just because someone says a scratch has a decent shot, people want to just go crazy defending women, like its insult. Certainly not insulting them, but I like to look at things objectively as possible.

Now that’s an answer I can respect. I’m not going crazy defending women, scratch golfers just aren’t that good.

Pnwpingi210 · July 14

3 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Thank you! Perfectly reasonable.

For a scratch in a single round against the #75 player ish, id say about 1-2 times out of ten the scratch would win at 6400. Back to 7000, depends on the scratch but the odds could increase to as much as 3 times out of 10. For a four round tourney… very little chance, like 2-3% chance.

This of course an opinion but I make my opinion based on data. Just because someone says a scratch has a decent shot, people want to just go crazy defending women, like its insult. Certainly not insulting them, but I like to look at things objectively as possible.

I hear you, but I wouldn’t call that decent chance.

if I blindly take the lpga player I’m way way up over 10 matches…..

Red4282 · July 14

1 minute ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

Now that’s an answer I can respect. I’m not going crazy defending women, scratch golfers just aren’t that good.

Well….not that good that they are in the 1.85%….? , thats high on the bell curve and pretty good lol

UncleJohn’sBand · July 14

Just now, Red4282 said:

Well….not that good that they are in the 1.85%….? , thats high on the bell curve and pretty good lol

Compared to professional golfers, who go to work at the golf course and play Thursday thru Sunday for their bread.

Not the 42 year old father of 3 who played at “Insert state college here” in the late 90’s

Frank Newport · July 15

5 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Thank you! Perfectly reasonable.

For a scratch in a single round against the #75 player ish, id say about 1-2 times out of ten the scratch would win at 6400. Back to 7000, depends on the scratch but the odds could increase to as much as 3 times out of 10. For a four round tourney… very little chance, like 2-3% chance.

This of course an opinion but I make my opinion based on data. Just because someone says a scratch has a decent shot, people want to just go crazy defending women, like its insult. Certainly not insulting them, but I like to look at things objectively as possible.

What about 2000 Tiger Woods vs a mediocre female high school golfer? Are you giving him any chance?

Red4282 · July 15

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I hear you, but I wouldn’t call that decent chance.

if I blindly take the lpga player I’m way way up over 10 matches…..

Right and thats what MOST of us in this thread have been saying all along. Doesnt mean a scratch couldnt win every now and then. Thats all I am saying.

Red4282 · July 15

2 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

Compared to professional golfers, who go to work at the golf course and play Thursday thru Sunday for their bread.

Not the 42 year old father of 3 who played at “Insert state college here” in the late 90’s

Well “not that good” is a relative term. To each his own.

Red4282 · July 15

1 minute ago, Frank Newport said:

What about 2000 Tiger Woods vs a mediocre female high school golfer? Are you giving him any chance?

I dont wanna put numbers on it but i played with a juco all american once, she’d give him a run for sure….😜

Pnwpingi210 · July 15

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Right and thats what MOST of us in this thread have been saying all along. Doesnt mean a scratch couldnt win every now and then. Thats all I am saying.

Oops, I thought you scenario above was for the plus 1.8. That I would think is reasonable.

I don’t think the average scratch beats the average lpga player 1 out of 10 ten times on any course.

maybe if you picks Kyle Berkshire vs the shortest lpga tour member on the longest and widest course out there.

UncleJohn’sBand · July 15

56 minutes ago, Obee said:

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

What did I take out of context?

The four scores you posted that Nelly shot during that event have zero correlation to what a scratch golfer “would” or “could” or “might” have shot those same four days anymore than the scores shot at the same place at another moment in time, so please stop presenting it as a fact.

There were zero men on the course for those four days, and no mention of course conditions during those tournament days either. Such as: where were the pins, how firm were the greens, was the wind blowing, was it raining, rough height, bunkers raked parallel or horizontal to the greens surface…all things that change from a professional event where the course has no say in the setup, to a course hosted event where they control everything, and that is aimed at amateurs.

I have agreed with you on a lot of high level golf issues, but this one I can’t. I’m sorrry!

Edited July 15 by UncleJohn’sBand

Obee · July 15

13 minutes ago, Frank Newport said:

What about 2000 Tiger Woods vs a mediocre female high school golfer? Are you giving him any chance?

Certainly not. But old, injured Tiger Woods, absolutely!

Obee · July 15

1 minute ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

What did I take out of context?

The four scores you posted that Nelly shot during that event have zero correlation to what a scratch golfer “would” or “could” or “might” have shot those same four days anymore than the scores shot at the same place at another moment in time, so please stop presenting it as a fact.

There were zero men on the course for those four days, and no mention of course conditions during those tournament days either. Such as: where were the pins, how firm were the greens, was the wind blowing, was it raining, rough height, bunkers raked parallel or horizontal to the greens surface…all things that change from a professional event where the course has no say in the setup, to a course hosted event where they control everything, and that is aimed at amateurs.

Wow.

maybe one day you will be lucky enough to play the course when the ladies play it and when we play the Macbeth.

If I could get the members and or the superintendent to explain to you that the course is set up slightly tougher for the Macbeth then for the ladies, with that shut you up?

Or are you too proud?

Red4282 · July 15

15 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Oops, I thought you scenario above was for the plus 1.8. That I would think is reasonable.

I don’t think the average scratch beats the average lpga player 1 out of 10 ten times on any course.

maybe if you picks Kyle Berkshire vs the shortest lpga tour member on the longest and widest course out there.

Statistically, the data indicates that. You can argue tournament pressure, yada yada, but thats nonsense IMO

Pnwpingi210 · July 15

1 minute ago, Red4282 said:

Statistically, the data indicates that. You can argue tournament pressure, yada yada, but thats nonsense IMO

What statiscal data?

what course?

what tees?

UncleJohn’sBand · July 15

12 minutes ago, Obee said:

Wow.

maybe one day you will be lucky enough to play the course when the ladies play it and when we play the Macbeth.

If I could get the members and or the superintendent to explain to you that the course is set up slightly tougher for the Macbeth then for the ladies, with that shut you up?

Or are you too proud?

Too proud for what?! You’re just insulting me now because I don’t agree with your opinion?

I mean, have you played it on a tournament day with the ladies?

Edited July 15 by UncleJohn’sBand

Frank Newport · July 15

I don’t know if this puts things into perspective, but I know an Epson Tour golfer who’s a legit scratch. She’s right around a men’s 0.0 index. She’s very small so she’s at huge disadvantage in the distance department but she’s surgical with her long irons. On a long enough course she would struggle to hit long par 4s in regulation.

At her best she’s an average Epson Tour member.

Obee · July 15

4 minutes ago, UncleJohn’sBand said:

Too proud for what?! You’re just insulting me now because I don’t agree with your opinion?

my knowledge of how LPGA courses are set up is not opinion.

It is most certainly certainly not opinion when it comes to Wilshire

WesternRacing · July 15

I sometimes play with a father son duo at my club, the kid is a high schooler, good player but nothing super special. I just looked up his index. He’s a +2.5, and I would bet everything that I own against him against even an average female D1 player, much less an LPGA player. He’d get destroyed. Sure, he can rip off a 4 under 68 on the country club course he plays all the time, but his scores vary widely, with far more 73’s/74’s/75s, and even a 79 thrown in there for good measure, than rounds under par. And yet…he’s a +2.5…

UncleJohn’sBand · July 15

11 minutes ago, Obee said:

my knowledge of how LPGA courses are set up is not opinion.

It is most certainly certainly not opinion when it comes to Wilshire

So what am I too proud of? Questioning your golf course?

Obee · July 15

5 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

I sometimes play with a father son duo at my club, the kid is a high schooler, good player but nothing super special. I just looked up his index. He’s a +2.5, and I would bet everything that I own against him against even an average female D1 player, much less an LPGA player. He’d get destroyed. Sure, he can rip off a 4 under 68 on the country club course he plays all the time, but his scores vary widely, with far more 73’s/74’s/75s, and even a 79 thrown in there for good measure, than rounds under par. And yet…he’s a +2.5…

And THAT's when he jumped the shark, ladies and gentlemen.

Frank Newport · July 15

14 minutes ago, WesternRacing said:

I sometimes play with a father son duo at my club, the kid is a high schooler, good player but nothing super special. I just looked up his index. He’s a +2.5, and I would bet everything that I own against him against even an average female D1 player, much less an LPGA player. He’d get destroyed. Sure, he can rip off a 4 under 68 on the country club course he plays all the time, but his scores vary widely, with far more 73’s/74’s/75s, and even a 79 thrown in there for good measure, than rounds under par. And yet…he’s a +2.5…

He’s either omitting scores, lying about his scores, or he only plays very difficult courses. Otherwise, His index wouldn’t be that low.

Red4282 · July 15

30 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

What statiscal data?

what course?

what tees?

Just an example, this past weekend playing at 6300-6400 yards, the course rating for that was likely about 72 (mens rating-par is 71). Of the full field of 131 players, approximately half (50%) of the rounds were 72 or worse. If a scratch shoots his cap (course rating), 40% of the time, the math says that (0.5x0.4)=0.2 or 20%. Id round that down conservatively to 10% just to give ladies benefit of the doubt with possible other factors.

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ralphyboy84

isaacbm

Obee

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites