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

[wareagle12]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

Lindy Duncan shot 86 Sunday with a 13 on number 11. Jillian Hollis shot 83. Christie Kerr shot 80.

 

You specifically mentioned not having played the course before, so I limited the scores to the first round given the number of players that didn't get a practice round. Yeah, there were a handful of higher scores in the later rounds.

 

Ahh. That makes sense. I don't know if they let the rough grow all week but a mower hadn't touched it Monday and it was pretty brutal thanks to all that rain and heat. I would think a stronger player would've had a clear advantage due to that. The caddies said they also choked in a few of the fairways to make it tighter.

[dhc1]

I think you have to throw out the bottom scores at a pro tourney during the [second day]* as they’re not indicative of talent - many of them are mailing it in or working on something other than scoring once they know they’re not making the cut.

 

I think this is true for both PGA and LPGA.

 

* edited from “first two days” as Argonne and Obee schooled me below

[BNGL]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

 

I got two questions for everyone here.

 

Why compare yourself to average? Don’t you want more to be better than average?

 

And

 

Why to the LPGA? I’m sure there is some female presence on the board, but we could hash this out easier with compring apples to apples. Men v men, qualify for the US Open or other PGA Tour event. There’s typically open qualifiers and pre qualifiers before each event if it’s not an invitational or other limited field.

[Argonne69]

I think you have to throw out the bottom scores at a pro tourney during the first two days as they're not indicative of talent - many of them are mailing it in or working on something other than scoring.

 

I think this is true for both PGA and LPGA.

 

I can see a player turning their 2nd round into a "practice" round if they have a blow up first round, or firing at pins to try to make the cut (with poor results), but I can't see them tossing away the opening round.

[dhc1]

I think you have to throw out the bottom scores at a pro tourney during the first two days as they're not indicative of talent - many of them are mailing it in or working on something other than scoring.

 

I think this is true for both PGA and LPGA.

 

I can see a player turning their 2nd round into a "practice" round if they have a blow up first round, or firing at pins to try to make the cut (with poor results), but I can't see them tossing away the opening round.

 

Fair enough - you're right and I'm likely wrong.

[dhc1]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

 

I got two questions for everyone here.

 

Why compare yourself to average? Don’t you want more to be better than average?

 

And

 

Why to the LPGA? I’m sure there is some female presence on the board, but we could hash this out easier with compring apples to apples. Men v men, qualify for the US Open or other PGA Tour event. There’s typically open qualifiers and pre qualifiers before each event if it’s not an invitational or other limited field.

 

I enjoy watching the women because they hit it about the same distances as I do although much much better. The PGA game has very little to compare with mine.

 

Plus, some of the ladies are attractive...

[dhc1]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

Give you’re close to scratch, can you please provide your index based on “T” rated events vs your every day handicap? Thanks.

[wareagle12]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn’t see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

Give you’re close to scratch, can you please provide your index based on “T” rated events vs your every day handicap? Thanks.

 

I haven't played any tournaments this year other than club stuff. Only played 1 last year but was about 7 shots over rating I think. My handicap is pretty much comprised of home rounds with casual travel rounds mixed in. I'm not a good sample for "true" scratch. My scoring average for the past 6 months is between 73 and 74 but it and handicap are going up as I'm not playing or practicing much, which is why I don't have any tournament rounds. Don't have time to prepare like I'd like. That's why I think OP would not have a problem shooting mid to low 70s there first time around wth a decent caddie.

 

I haven't played enough this year to have my handicap accurate. I would say I'm between 1 and 2 right now truly.

[lchang]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

 

IMO, I think the male advantage is larger in track (and volleyball and hoops and baseball and swimming...) than in golf (and bowling and skiing and billiards and archery...)

 

I would disagree with this.

 

Which part—the archery part? ;-)

[Obee]

I think you have to throw out the bottom scores at a pro tourney during the first two days as they're not indicative of talent - many of them are mailing it in or working on something other than scoring once they know they're not making the cut.

 

I think this is true for both PGA and LPGA.

 

I disagree. 2nd day, yes, but only for maybe a small portion of the bottom. First day, no way. 90% of them are grinding their butts off to shoot a number decent enough to be able to stay within a decent round's distance of making the damn cut.

 

I hear this argument every once in a wnile, and it makes zero sense to me. I don't know very many pros who show up on day one "not really trying" because they are "working on something." Let's be honest: Golfers (including the best players in the world) are constantly "working on something." They show up, they do their best, and they go home and show up the next day (with minor exceptions).

 

On day 2, only those who shoot far, far above the cut are mailing it in, and ONLY after shooting themselves out of it the first 6 to 9 holes. Do you think someone who shoots 6-over when the cut is even par, but then starts out birdie, birdie, birdie is mailing it in? Hell no, they are trying to shoot 66 and make the damn cut! :-)

 

I think you have to throw out the bottom scores at a pro tourney during the first two days as they're not indicative of talent - many of them are mailing it in or working on something other than scoring.

 

I think this is true for both PGA and LPGA.

 

I can see a player turning their 2nd round into a "practice" round if they have a blow up first round, or firing at pins to try to make the cut (with poor results), but I can't see them tossing away the opening round.

 

LOL! We say the same things so frequently!! ;-) See above....

[Obee]

Once again. The 130th ranked LPGA player (by scoring average) is averaging 73.7. Her last 20 rounds are: 69, 74, 70, 73, 72, 70, 71, 74, 75, 74, 72, 75, 74, 77, 73, 75, 76, 72, 78, 73. The best 10 are 69, 70, 70, 71, 72, 72, 72, 73, 73, 73.

 

Using a rating of 72.0, and a slope of 130, the differentials are -2.6, -1.7, -1.7, -0.9, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.9, 0.9, and 0.9. The index is therefore +0.4.

 

The LPGA plays very few par 71 courses. I would say a 72.0 rating is about right. For example, the KPMG will be played at Kemper Lakes at 6588 yards, which is a Blue/Steward combo (72.4/139).

 

The USWO was played at Shoal Creek at 6653 yards. That equates to a Three/Four combo at ~73.0/139.

 

The Meijer Classic will be played at Blythefield CC at 6451 yards (Blue tees). It's rated at 73.3/128.

 

What was the stroke average (relative to par) at the LA Open fo the ladies? Was it higher than the average tournament? If so, we kind of have our answer to the type of course they play. If it's higher, then the play courses rated below 72, right?

 

So the index of the 130th ranked LPGA player, right now (based on last 20 scores) is +0.4? (if we state that their average course rating is 72).

 

And we have a guy on this thread stating that a scratch male golfer is nowhere near as good as the 130th ranked player in the world? I guess you can put me in the "perplexed" camp. What am I missing?

[BNGL]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn't see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

Give you're close to scratch, can you please provide your index based on "T" rated events vs your every day handicap? Thanks.

 

Have not had an established USGA handicap for years. I have only played 14 tournament rounds this year but going to play a lot more this summer and try and get my game back, I log my rounds just to track my progress, scores of 76, 76, 75, 72, 68, 68, 71, 67, 70, 69, 68, 68, 67, 68 (From February to last week.)

[Obee]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn't see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

Give you're close to scratch, can you please provide your index based on "T" rated events vs your every day handicap? Thanks.

 

My "T" scores from 2017: https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

 

47 Scores Total

Low score of 67

High score of 83

Average of 23 best differentials: -0.6

Average of 23 best scores: 71.96

Average rating of 23 best scores: 72.43

 

Average score of all 47 rounds): 74.74

Average rating of all 47 rounds: 72.96

[Argonne69]

Difficult to calculate the average score across all tournaments. The last non-major, the Volvik Championship, had a scoring average of 71.78 (427 rounds). Minjee won with a score of -16 (272). The players making the cut averaged 70.4. The players missing the cut averaged 74.75. The course played at 6734 yards, which was a Blue/White combo with a rating of ~72.8/133.

[Dpavs]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

I have yet to encounter a female Olympic athlete or otherwise who can drink more wine.

 

Drive a golf ball further, hell yeah.

 

Good for you DP4! I don't drink and drive either and given the choice between the two.... all I can say is bottoms up!

[Dpavs]

Let's face it already....

 

 

[Shilgy]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

actually it was Adam Scott I believe that thought Inbee was the best putter. But I digress. Who cares what the boys room the 100 in. Based in the thread I thought we were comparing middle aged scratch golfers. I pointed out we, and I'm well beyond middle aged, cannot run as fast.

 

PS I will grant you 100% you are correct this year. We last had this discussion a year ago. And interestingly enough the #130 average score at seasons end was over a foot stroke lower at 72.549.

[Argonne69]

The Founders Cup is generally one of the lowest scoring tournaments of the season. This year the winning score was -19. The field average was 71.5. The players making the cut averaged 70.3, and the players missing the cut averaged 73.9. The cut line was at even par. The course, a combination of one set of nines from the Palmer and Faldo courses, played at 6,679 yards with a rating of ~70.0/126.

[dhc1]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

actually it was Adam Scott I believe that thought Inbee was the best putter. But I digress. Who cares what the boys room the 100 in. Based in the thread I thought we were comparing middle aged scratch golfers. I pointed out we, and I'm well beyond middle aged, cannot run as fast.

 

PS I will grant you 100% you are correct this year. We last had this discussion a year ago. And interestingly enough the #130 average score at seasons end was over a foot stroke lower at 72.549.

 

I’d be interested to see if you can find anything wrt Scott stating that about Inbee Park.

 

I do recall that he stated that he loves her swing tempo but have never seen anything that says she’s comparable to the PGA:

 

“Believe it or not, when I play there are plenty of times I'm thinking of LPGA Tour player Inbee Park, who is as slow and smooth on her takeaway as anyone out there. ”

 

There was an LPGA player (Gal, Munoz??) who did recently state inbee was better than PGA players.

[dhc1]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

Who cares what the boys room the 100 in. Based in the thread I thought we were comparing middle aged scratch golfers. I pointed out we, and I'm well beyond middle aged, cannot run as fast.

 

 

One of the beauties of golf is that the handicap system allows comparisons that only relies on scores.

 

Middle aged male scratch is the same as teenaged male scratch and should be the same as women whose scores rate as men's scratch.

 

Just for nothing, the world record for a middle aged 40 year old male in the 100 meter sprint is 9.93

 

Now that we've acknowledged that the math shows that this year's scores are close to a men's scratch, perhaps you can walk back (1) the sanctimonious posts that question the intentions of why we want to compare LPGA players to elite men's amateurs as well as (2) the "liking" of posts which insist that the handicap math is wrong.

[dhc1]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn't see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

Give you're close to scratch, can you please provide your index based on "T" rated events vs your every day handicap? Thanks.

 

My "T" scores from 2017: https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

 

47 Scores Total

Low score of 67

High score of 83

Average of 23 best differentials: -0.6

Average of 23 best scores: 71.96

Average rating of 23 best scores: 72.43

 

Average score of all 47 rounds): 74.74

Average rating of all 47 rounds: 72.96

 

Thanks OB. How does this compare to your full scores?

 

The point that’s been raised is that amateur’s regular scores/handicaps don’t reflect how a player does under tournament conditions and I was hoping to get example of how big that difference is, if at all.

[dhc1]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

 

There's more to it than math. Tournament golf at a different course every week is apples to oranges compared to what the average scratch man plays.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. I've been as good as a +2.9 and play a lot of golf with someone who played on the LPGA tour from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. The math you're so attached to does not hold up at all when the rubber meets the road.

 

Here's exactly what you can tell me: Directly address your accusations that the handicap calculations were "all wrong" because of best 10 out of 20 and mens vs women's handicap.

[Obee]

 

 

Thanks OB. How does this compare to your full scores?

 

The point thats been raised is that amateurs regular scores/handicaps dont reflect how a player does under tournament conditions and I was hoping to get example of how big that difference is, if at all.

 

My tournament scores are slightly better in general than my regular scores. I have explained why this is before, and I assume it is the same for many tournament players.

 

Until this year, I played a lot of golf, three rounds a week minimum, and sometimes up to five. I had an outside sales job. Perfect for playing lots of late afternoon golf during the week.

 

But when I am playing during the week, I may or may not be prepared to play. I may be rushing to the tee from the office. I may have work on my mind. But when I play a tournament, generally I am more prepared and I get to the course on time, and I try to leave work at work. I also focus a bit more and grind, meaning, I am playing purely for score. I am not working on something or tinkering, unless I have to in order to find my swing that day, which happens, of course.

 

I would be surprised to find many scratch golfers who play a lot of tournament golf who scores in tournaments aren't close to (or better, like mine) what they shoot during "regular" play.

 

The guys who blowup in tournament rounds are usually new to tournament golf. They have not played much of it, and are completely out of their element on the first several (many?) tries. There are lots of those guys, but either they stop playing tournament golf because they suck at it, or they get addicted to it and play more and more, and then their tournament scores and their regular scores tend to even out.

 

The other type of guy that plays terribly and tournaments but is a "scratch" golfer is simply a vanity handicapper. The type of guy who does not turn in all of his scores. He "forgets" to turn in his bad scores, for instance. There are lots of guys like that out there. I know, because when I was a young man, I was one of them! LOL!

[koung]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

 

IMO, I think the male advantage is larger in track (and volleyball and hoops and baseball and swimming...) than in golf (and bowling and skiing and billiards and archery...)

 

I would disagree with this.

 

Which part—the archery part? ;-)

 

Have you played much billiards? You would be surprised at how big of a gap there is between men and women. Personally I have seen amateur level guys beat women handily and they didn't even play all that much. One memorable league night a traveling pro (woman) came into a bar and was asking around for some action and probably didn't expect to have much competition. This was the toughest league in my state and we had some really solid players. Well that night the "pro" lost 10k to one of the guys so there is still quite a bit of a skill gap.

[r0scoe]

A number of players at the USWO didn't get in a practice round. Others got in 9 holes. Most players were playing it for the first time. The average score for the 1st round was 74.7. The high score was an 85 shot by Sophia Schubert, a non-LPGA amateur. There were 14 rounds of 80 - 84.

 

The winner didn't see the f9 until her round Thursday

 

The winner would have kicked my tail in all rounds and I don't think anyone would argue a scratch would not have had a chance there. The topic has been about ANY lpga player. If I took a handful of friends that play a decent amount of tournament golf there, I would've probably gotten beat badly by all of them. I don't know Obee, but from what I've read of his posts he is much better than me. I played terrible and shot 82, so I would deduce he would be in the mid to low 70s first time around with a caddy no problem. Had I played normally, I would think I would have been in the mid to upper 70s without seeing it beforehand.

 

 

I got two questions for everyone here.

 

Why compare yourself to average? Don't you want more to be better than average?

 

And

 

Why to the LPGA? I'm sure there is some female presence on the board, but we could hash this out easier with compring apples to apples. Men v men, qualify for the US Open or other PGA Tour event. There's typically open qualifiers and pre qualifiers before each event if it's not an invitational or other limited field.

 

I enjoy watching the women because they hit it about the same distances as I do although much much better. The PGA game has very little to compare with mine.

 

Plus, some of the ladies are attractive...

 

These are my exact reasons for enjoying LPGA more than most PGA tourney's

[dhc1]

 

 

Thanks OB. How does this compare to your full scores?

 

The point that’s been raised is that amateur’s regular scores/handicaps don’t reflect how a player does under tournament conditions and I was hoping to get example of how big that difference is, if at all.

 

My tournament scores are slightly better in general than my regular scores. I have explained why this is before, and I assume it is the same for many tournament players.

 

Until this year, I played a lot of golf, three rounds a week minimum, and sometimes up to five. I had an outside sales job. Perfect for playing lots of late afternoon golf during the week.

 

But when I am playing during the week, I may or may not be prepared to play. I may be rushing to the tee from the office. I may have work on my mind. But when I play a tournament, generally I am more prepared and I get to the course on time, and I try to leave work at work. I also focus a bit more and grind, meaning, I am playing purely for score. I am not working on something or tinkering, unless I have to in order to find my swing that day, which happens, of course.

 

I would be surprised to find many scratch golfers who play a lot of tournament golf who scores in tournaments aren't close to (or better, like mine) what they shoot during "regular" play.

 

The guys who blowup in tournament rounds are usually new to tournament golf. They have not played much of it, and are completely out of their element on the first several (many?) tries. There are lots of those guys, but either they stop playing tournament golf because they suck at it, or they get addicted to it and play more and more, and then their tournament scores and their regular scores tend to even out.

 

The other type of guy that plays terribly and tournaments but is a "scratch" golfer is simply a vanity handicapper. The type of guy who does not turn in all of his scores. He "forgets" to turn in his bad scores, for instance. There are lots of guys like that out there. I know, because when I was a young man, I was one of them! LOL!

 

Thanks OB!

 

This is fascinating. What rough percentage of “scratch”-ish golfers do you guess are like you vs. vanity/newby tournament players?

[dhc1]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

 

There's more to it than math. Tournament golf at a different course every week is apples to oranges compared to what the average scratch man plays.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. I've been as good as a +2.9 and play a lot of golf with someone who played on the LPGA tour from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. The math you're so attached to does not hold up at all when the rubber meets the road.

 

Here's exactly what you can tell me: Directly address your accusations that the handicap calculations were "all wrong" because of best 10 out of 20 and mens vs women's handicap.

 

I’m not surprised to hear nothing from jmck. I don’t know why people can’t just admit they were wrong on an anonymous internet board....

[dhc1]

It's funny isn't it? Why do so many find it difficult to believe that the top 130 or more in the world women are better than the dime a dozen male player?

 

Does anyone have an issue with believing the elite Olympic females run faster, jump higher, swim faster, shot put further?

 

Shilgy,

 

This is a supremely weak post, up there with your "many PGA pros / instructors believe that Inbee is a better putter than any on the PGA."

 

Why do you feel the need to repeatedly make sanctimonious claims like these? There's no one on this thread who isn't a fan of the LPGA and doesn't watch it a decent amount. I don't see anyone even trying to bring elite women down.

 

We're trying to objectively/subjectively find out where the comparison point is and it's at an impressively high level. I'm not sure what "dime a dozen" mean to you but if we're talking about scratch players, I think that's not how I'd describe Obee, et al.

 

As for your Olympic comments, according to Wikipedia, the women's 100 meter dash world record is 10.49, which is disputed due to wind issues. Comparatively, the 5th place High School boys finisher in the 2017 Florida Relays ran 10.48. Didn't even medal in a high school state contest.

Who cares what the boys room the 100 in. Based in the thread I thought we were comparing middle aged scratch golfers. I pointed out we, and I'm well beyond middle aged, cannot run as fast.

 

 

One of the beauties of golf is that the handicap system allows comparisons that only relies on scores.

 

Middle aged male scratch is the same as teenaged male scratch and should be the same as women whose scores rate as men's scratch.

 

Just for nothing, the world record for a middle aged 40 year old male in the 100 meter sprint is 9.93

 

Now that we've acknowledged that the math shows that this year's scores are close to a men's scratch, perhaps you can walk back (1) the sanctimonious posts that question the intentions of why we want to compare LPGA players to elite men's amateurs as well as (2) the "liking" of posts which insist that the handicap math is wrong.

 

Here, perhaps against my better judgment, I am surprised that shilgy can’t admit fault.

[jmck]

Anyone who thinks an average scratch man is as good as the 130th best woman in the world simply has never been a scratch man.

 

Are you going to address the math calculations or not? You've repeated stated that the calculations are all wrong.

 

There's more to it than math. Tournament golf at a different course every week is apples to oranges compared to what the average scratch man plays.

 

I really don't know what to tell you. I've been as good as a +2.9 and play a lot of golf with someone who played on the LPGA tour from the mid 80s to the mid 90s. The math you're so attached to does not hold up at all when the rubber meets the road.

 

Here's exactly what you can tell me: Directly address your accusations that the handicap calculations were "all wrong" because of best 10 out of 20 and mens vs women's handicap.

 

I'm not surprised to hear nothing from jmck. I don't know why people can't just admit they were wrong on an anonymous internet board....

 

At this point I'm going by the "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" principle. This applies to my thoughts on anyone who thinks an average scratch male golfer has any chance at competing with a middle of the pack LPGA tour player. (To fully answer the original question, get to a legit travelling +3 or +4 and it's a different discussion). This is me speaking as a more or less scratch golfer who regularly plays with a more or less former middle of the pack LPGA tour player. What's your relevant experience here? Some theoretical numbers in a theoretical match up?

 

10 or so pages ago you absolutely displayed a total lack of understanding of how handicap math works compared to tournament scores, and the difference in men's vs. ladies course ratings. I'm too lazy to dig the exact posts out, but I suppose I can if you really want me to. Now you hang your hat on someone else's math, and think you have some sort of right to gloat over me and Shilgy for having different, real-world based opinions on the matter?

 

7 or 8 pages or so ago I posted the scores it takes to make it through LPGA Q school. Again, I'm too lazy to dig it out, but suffice to say that they're scores that the average scratch male has zero chance of ever shooting. Okay, you got me on a technicality....It isn't zero chance, more like 1/1000, or maybe 1/5000 or 1/10000? Maybe you can do the math out for us all. (Again, get to a legit +3 or better and it's a different discussion).

 

And, please, what's am I "wrong" about? The math? A half a theoretical stroke here or there? 10 or 20 or 30 places on the LPGA money list here or there? How about this instead: I would put any amount of money you name on any LPGA pro you name--anyone from #1 to #150--beating any scratch man you can come up with in any sort of best of four round format. What about you? You feel comfortable putting house buying money on the average scratch man beating an LPGA pro with any sort of consistency? Something tells me you wouldn't, despite your "it's just math" attitude. But hey, let me know if you want to make that bet. I'm sure my ex-LPGA buddy could arrange something. You've done a lot of tough talking in the last few pages. PM me if you ever want to put your money where your mouth is.

[dhc1]

Played a round recently with a caddy who just returned from spending the entire year on the LPGA.

 

He thought that the bottom end of the LPGA is about a men’s scratch (we were playing with a men’s +0.2 as a baseline) and the differential between the top and bottom of the LPGA tour is immense.