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

[TiScape]

Wow, this has gotten kinda tense! 😬 

[Pnwpingi210]

18 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

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.

I think a scratch shoots their “cap” about 15-20% of the time.  I don’t have tbe calculation for that, but  know it’s been posted in the forums.

 

so take the 40, make it 20 and the use the rest of the calls and  That gets us to 5% of the time they could clip a lpga tour member.  That seems reasonable given.  1 out of 20 feels right

Edited July 15 by Pnwpingi210

[Frank Newport]

35 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…

We have a legit +2.8 at our club and I’d take him against every woman on earth not on the LPGA.

[Red4282]

31 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think a scratch shoots their “cap” about 15-20% of the time.  I don’t have tbe calculation for that, but  know it’s been posted in the forums.

 

so take the 40, make it 20 and the use the rest of the calls and  That gets us to 5% of the time they could clip a lpga tour member.  That seems reasonable given.  1 out of 20 feels right

A handicap is established by averaging their top 8 of last 20 scores. So while they technically may not “hit” their cap 40%, some will be below, some will be above, but statistically it makes no difference. If 2 rounds they are below their cap, well then they beat 60% of the field instead if 50%. And if it was one of the 8 rounds slightly above, well then 40% instead if 50%. Its insignificant because its an average. 40%x50% is 20%

Edited July 15 by Red4282

[Pnwpingi210]

4 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

A handicap is established by averaging their top 8 of last 20 scores. So while they technically may not “hit” their cap 40%, some will be below, some will be above, but statistically it makes no difference. If 2 rounds they are below their cap, well then they beat 60% of the field instead if 50%. And if it was one of the 8 rounds slightly above, well then 40% instead if 50%. Its insignificant because its an average. 40%x50% is 20%

Agree to disagree

 

It’s all funny math and the calculation are so vague and non specific it’s got little value to predict an outcome.

 

we’d have to do some conversions of caps to normalizing, then pick tees and a course and course setup for it to have any value.  
 

this is why I didn’t want to go down this path cause throwing out funny numbers doesn’t hold water, and to really calculate  something that has any value is too time consuming.

 

Edited July 15 by Pnwpingi210

[Obee]

58 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

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.

A player shoots his handicap or lower about 25% of the time.

[Obee]

44 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think a scratch shoots their “cap” about 15-20% of the time.  I don’t have tbe calculation for that, but  know it’s been posted in the forums.

 

so take the 40, make it 20 and the use the rest of the calls and  That gets us to 5% of the time they could clip a lpga tour member.  That seems reasonable given.  1 out of 20 feels right

more like 25%, I believe (cap OR below). Certainly not 40%.

[NorthTexasGlfr]

1 hour ago, Frank Newport said:

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.

 

 

Here's my anecdotal "evidence" that absolutely proves nothing. 

 

A few years ago I was playing with an Epson Tour player and a buddy. We get to the back nine and she says she'll play against our best ball no strokes for $10 a person. She was a legit scratch, my buddy was a 10 and I was a 7. Not only did we win but I beat her straight up with an even par back nine to her 1 over. But I'm also under no illusions that she was all that focused. She literally didn't give a s***. 

[Red4282]

16 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Agree to disagree

 

It’s all funny math and the calculation are so vague and non specific it’s got little value to predict an outcome.

 

we’d have to do some conversions of caps to normalizing, then pick tees and a course and course setup for it to have any value.  
 

this is why I didn’t want to go down this path cause throwing out funny numbers doesn’t hold water, and to really calculate  something that has any value is too time consuming.

 

What are you in disagreement about? That it’s statistically insignificant? Let me provide example to clarify. Rounds of 70,71,72x4, 73, 74 make up the eight round average of 72. Technically, the cap was only “hit” his cap 20%, but hit it or better “30%. The reason its insignificant is because the 73 and 74 would only beat about roughly 30-40 percent of the field in my example, however the 70 and 71 would beat 60-65% of the field in a one round snapshot. It all generally averages out. Even a cap who is more volatile, with a higher score in his 8 has something like a 77, would likely have a low score to balance it out, like a 68, or 69. So calculating the odds, an average is sufficient enough to get a reasonable estimate.

[NorthTexasGlfr]

Just now, Red4282 said:

What are you in disagreement about? That it’s statistically insignificant? Let me provide example to clarify. Rounds of 70,71,72x4, 73, 74 make up the eight round average of 72. Technically, the cap was only “hit” his cap 20%, but hit it or better “30%. The reason its insignificant is because the 73 and 74 would only beat about roughly 30-40 percent of the field in my example, however the 70 and 71 would beat 60-65% of the field in a one round snapshot. It all generally averages out. Even a cap who is more volatile, with a higher score in his 8 has something like a 77, would likely have a low score to balance it out, like a 68, or 69. So calculating the odds, an average is sufficient enough to get a reasonable estimate.

 

I was told that there would be no math involved. 

[Red4282]

1 minute ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

I was told that there would be no math involved. 

Not for you, I got ya taken care of 😉

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

I was told that there would be no math involved. 

All there is, all there has been, and all there will ever be is...math.

[Pnwpingi210]

24 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

What are you in disagreement about? That it’s statistically insignificant? Let me provide example to clarify. Rounds of 70,71,72x4, 73, 74 make up the eight round average of 72. Technically, the cap was only “hit” his cap 20%, but hit it or better “30%. The reason its insignificant is because the 73 and 74 would only beat about roughly 30-40 percent of the field in my example, however the 70 and 71 would beat 60-65% of the field in a one round snapshot. It all generally averages out. Even a cap who is more volatile, with a higher score in his 8 has something like a 77, would likely have a low score to balance it out, like a 68, or 69. So calculating the odds, an average is sufficient enough to get a reasonable estimate.

No.

 

 

 

Look man if you want to use this to develop “red’s betting odds”, go ahead.  
 

Everybody has an exceptional day in golf, and everybody has a bad day in golf. It’s a volatile game.  Can a 0 handicap beat a plus 4 of any gender if they play enough games, sure.  But it’s not happening often and you win a ton of money if you put it on the plus 4 and let it ride.

 

 

 

Edited July 15 by Pnwpingi210

[Obee]

1 hour 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. 
 

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

This is what you don't understand. I am there. I see them play. I walk the course. I have played it leading up to the tournament. I have played it following the tournament. I know what the greens are like. I see the pins. I see how firm the greens are (or aren't). I KNOW how windy it is when they play. I'm not guessing. 

 

And then I play the course a couple weeks after, pure as can be, same tight fairways. Exact same rough. Greens running 12+ with nasty-*ss pins on slopes, on mounds, and tucked in corners. And we play the course 150 to 300 yards LONGER. 
 

They set up the course to punish us. It's not a garden variety "club tournament," it's a 75 year old invitational where they try to test all of us. I truly wish everyone could experience these types of tournaments. It's a privilege to play in them.

 

The course is only 6650 or so, so there is only so much they can do, but the course is tricky as all get out with super penal bunkers with tiny, diabolical "fingers" and fairway bunkers were you almost never have a full shot at the green due to those fingers (verrrrry frustrating).
 

When Patrick Cantlay was the number one amateur golfer in the world (a position he held for a record 54 straight weeks), and already good enough to contend on the PGA Tour, his last amateur tournament before turning pro was the Macbeth. He played with his father. He shot, if memory serves, 64 on day one of better-ball, 67 on day 2 of better-ball (he and his father were leading) then he shot 74 on aggregate day. It's ALWAYS windy in the afternoon that time of year and the leaders always tee off late. And the course is set up TOUGH. Any elite player can shoot a mediocre round on that course in the afternoon wind when things aren't lining up. 

 

Perhaps he was hung over. Perhaps he was injured. Perhaps he made a triple, got pissed and phoned it in. But he was playing with his father, so I doubt it.

 

It's just not (much) conjecture, bud. The scores you see posted by the guys in the Macbeth are the scores they will shoot in the LPGA conditions—except a bit lower on average due to the slight length difference, especially on the final day when they turn one of the par 5's into a par 4 for the ladies that they still call a par 5 (we never play that up tee, as it's like 435 or something).

 

Does that help? Do you still think I don't know how they set up this course for the ladies and for us? Cuz ...

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

This is what you don't understand. I am there. I see them play. I walk the course. I have played it leading up to the tournament. I have played it following the tournament. I know what the greens are like. I see the pins. I see how firm the greens are (or aren't). I KNOW how windy it is when they play. I'm not guessing. 

 

And then I play the course a couple weeks after, pure as can be, same tight fairways. Exact same rough. Greens running 12+ with nasty-*ss pins on slopes, on mounds, and tucked in corners. And we play the course 150 to 300 yards LONGER. 
 

They set up the course to punish us. It's not a garden variety "club tournament," it's a 75 year old invitational where they try to test all of us. I truly wish everyone could experience these types of tournaments. It's a privilege to play in them.

 

The course is only 6650 or so, so there is only so much they can do, but the course is tricky as all get out with super penal bunkers with tiny, diabolical "fingers" and fairway bunkers were you almost never have a full shot at the green due to those fingers (verrrrry frustrating).
 

When Patrick Cantlay was the number one amateur golfer in the world (a position he held for a record 54 straight weeks), and already good enough to contend on the PGA Tour, his last amateur tournament before turning pro was the Macbeth. He played with his father. He shot, if memory serves, 64 on day one of better-ball, 67 on day 2 of better-ball (he and his father were leading) then he shot 74 on aggregate day. It's ALWAYS windy in the afternoon that time of year and the leaders always tee off late. And the course is set up TOUGH. Any elite player can shoot a mediocre round on that course in the afternoon wind when things aren't lining up. 

 

Perhaps he was hung over. Perhaps he was injured. Perhaps he made a triple, got pissed and phoned it in. But he was playing with his father, so I doubt it.

 

It's just not (much) conjecture, bud. The scores you see posted by the guys in the Macbeth are the scores they will shoot in the LPGA conditions—except a bit lower on average due to the slight length difference, especially on the final day when they turn one of the par 5's into a par 4 for the ladies that they still call a par 5 (we never play that up tee, as it's like 435 or something).

 

Does that help? Do you still think I don't know how they set up this course for the ladies and for us? Cuz ...

 

 

How many strokes does extreme course knowledge give the members an advantage of?  If have to think it’s more strokes the harder it plays.  

[Red4282]

33 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

No.

 

 

 

Look man if you want to use this to develop “red’s betting odds”, go ahead.  
 

Everybody has an exceptional day in golf, and everybody has a bad day in golf. It’s a volatile game.  Can a 0 handicap beat a plus 4 of any gender if they play enough games, sure.  But it’s not happening often and you win a ton of money if you put it on the plus 4 and let it ride.

 

 

 

Not about betting but more just about perspective on probabilities.

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, Red4282 said:

Not about betting but more just about perspective on probabilities.

Yeah.  Good enough to satisfy you. 
 

For it to have value I’d say we need to 

*either convert the male cap to female, or female to male.   Now caps normalized

*Then pull up a statically probability chart for likely to shoot by handicap.

*Then pick a course, and tees

 

Then we might have something to discuss…..

 

but I’m not doing all that work at this point, if you want to have it and share back with us

[isaacbm]

Checking in. ..

Is the answer still the same?

 

So ability ranges overlap with smaller sample sizes more often and overlap less with larger sample sizes less often?

 

Scratch can occasionally shoot two under the course rating while a +5 can occasionally shoot five over the course rating?

 

Yet over multiple four day tournaments statistically, the +5 will come out on top?

 

As you were…👌💪👍

 

Edited July 15 by isaacbm

[TiScape]

58 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

All there is, all there has been, and all there will ever be is...math.

Explains why I’m so lost in life… 

[Obee]

39 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

How many strokes does extreme course knowledge give the members an advantage of?  If have to think it’s more strokes the harder it plays.  

I'm not a member. 
 

80% or more of the low handicap players are guests, not members.

Edited July 15 by Obee

[Pnwpingi210]

2 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Checking in. ..

Is the answer still the same?

 

So ability ranges overlap with smaller sample sizes more often and overlap less with larger sample sizes less often?

 

Scratch can occasionally shoot two under the course rating while a +5 can occasionally shoot five over the course rating?

 

Yet over multiple four day tournaments statistically, the +5 will come out on top?

 

As you were…👌💪👍

 

Yup you just have to predict the likely hood this will happen.  1 in 10, 1 in 100. 
 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Obee said:

I'm not a member. 
 

80% or more of the low handicap players our guests, not members.

Got it.  But it didn’t answer the question (I know you can since your not a member)

 

20% of the field is starting with an advatage

[Obee]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Got it.  But it didn’t answer the question (I know you can since your not a member)

 

20% of the field is starting with an advatage

hard to tell. The course does not play like it does for the Macbeth very often during the year, so it's likely not much of an advantage at all. It can actually be a disadvantage. You simply can't keep a golf course in tournament shape year-round—especially the greens—It is too stressful on the golf course.

Edited July 15 by Obee

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Obee said:

hard to tell. The course does not play like it does for the Macbeth very often during the year. It's not much of an advantage at all. It can actually be a disadvantage. You simply can't keep a golf course in tournament shape year-round. It is too stressful on the golf course.

I understand your point however.  If you play course 100 times a year, regardless of the conditions you have an advantage.  
 

I get it you think highly of this tourney but let’s not get carried away

[Red4282]

17 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Yeah.  Good enough to satisfy you. 
 

For it to have value I’d say we need to 

*either convert the male cap to female, or female to male.   Now caps normalized

*Then pull up a statically probability chart for likely to shoot by handicap.

*Then pick a course, and tees

 

Then we might have something to discuss…..

 

but I’m not doing all that work at this point, if you want to have it and share back with us

Huh? All that has already done for you… its just for discussion on what likely happen if they played over and over again.

[Pnwpingi210]

Just now, Red4282 said:

Huh? All that has already done for you… its just for discussion on what likely happen if they played over and over again.

No, it hasn’t.

 

 

[Obee]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I understand your point however.  If you play course 100 times a year, regardless of the conditions you have an advantage.  
 

I get it you think highly of this tourney but let’s not get carried away

It's more the pins and the speed combined. They just don't see the hole locations combined with the speed throughout the year much.

 

And I could be wrong, it might be less than 10% of the guys from Wilshire country club. I will actually check…

[Pnwpingi210]

All right folks.  This has been entertaining, but I’m leaving the Hardee’s ( or Carl’s Jr depending on where your from) 9 am Sunday coffee talk to the experts and statisticians in here!  Have fun!

 

 

 

[Obee]

9 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I understand your point however.  If you play course 100 times a year, regardless of the conditions you have an advantage.  
 

I get it you think highly of this tourney but let’s not get carried away

3 of the 41 listed. 

[iBanesto]

In a cage match, will there be money on the line? If so, it will another advantage for the LPGA Tour golfer.

 

"Pressure is when you play for five dollars a hole with only two in your pocket". --- Lee Trevino