or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour - Page 10

post #163 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I wonder what would happen if some guy really did push to be allowed to compete on the LPGA tour. The PGA has allowed females to compete on occasion so it seems only fair that they reciprocate right? They could even allow some amateur men try to qualify for certain events, that would be neat to see.

 

It's not going to happen. The PGA isn't called the MPGA. The LPGA has the "L" in the name. :)

post #164 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

It's not going to happen. The PGA isn't called the MPGA. The LPGA has the "L" in the name. :)

 

I know, but it would be cool anyway. Of course, if they tried to make it the MPGA you know there would be copious amounts of outrage by the feminists. We aren't allow to call anything Men's only.

post #165 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremie Boop View Post
 

I know, but it would be cool anyway. Of course, if they tried to make it the MPGA you know there would be copious amounts of outrage by the feminists. We aren't allow to call anything Men's only.

 

I've made the point (probably in this thread) that nothing good could come of allowing a male to play on the LPGA Tour unless they were somehow certain all the women would beat him. Since that's not going to happen, it would only serve as bad press for them, with the level of "badness" increasing the higher the guy finished.

post #166 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

You can be confident all you want. I could do it. Dave could do it. Mike could do it.

 

And even if you were right (you're not), what did "unknown player X" do from 200 yards out? Keeping your LPGA card wouldn't mean beating Suzann Pettersen or Yani Tseng or Inbee Park every week.

 

 

I haven't seen any bashing of female golfers.

 



I doubt it. If you could consistently hit the shots I saw Choi and Chang play last summer that I described, under tournament pressure, you wouldn't be spending 10+ hours a day on this internet forum you created, you'd be out on the PGA Tour making seven figures a year. Like it or not, that is the honest truth, unless you're the 1-in-10,000 (hell, maybe 1-in-100,000) golf pro who genuinely never dreamed of being a successful tour pro.

This is a big, old thread, I didn't re-read all of it, and some of the negativity I recall seeing on this forum toward LPGA players may have been in other threads, but there are definitely posts on this forum that use a very condescending tone to discuss the skills and competitiveness of LPGA players. I concede that based on the objective statistics, the LPGA players are not the equal of the PGA and European Tour players in terms of skill, obviously strength, and depth of field (and have never contended to the contrary), but so what? Why is it important to the several people in this thread to point out "Women aren't as good"? People have commented that Sorenstam choked [not even a whole lot], under enormous pressure, in the one PGA event she played, as if that one incident somehow proves anything. She also shot a freakin' 59 on a better day, something that very few men have ever done even on their very best practice rounds under no pressure. Annika Sorenstam was an extraordinary athlete and anyone contending otherwise is ignorant. And she's not the only one who has ever played on the LPGA tour, even if that tour has had less competition and fewer legendary athletes than the men's tours.

I personally don't feel any need, that some people do, to strike up these debates comparing the genders. I can appreciate, applaud, and be entertained by a golfer's skill regardless of whether or not a skirt is allowable work attire for that athlete. But hey, if you feel better making the argument that "Men are better," then good for you, go pat yourself on the back.
post #167 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post

I doubt it. If you could consistently hit the shots I saw Choi and Chang play last summer that I described, under tournament pressure, you wouldn't be spending 10+ hours a day on this internet forum you created, you'd be out on the PGA Tour making seven figures a year.

You really have no idea of the disparity between the top and average players on the LPGA Tour, let alone the difference between the LPGA and PGA Tour players.
post #168 of 213

Wiseguy, you're taking this totally the wrong way.  Okay, you don't like comparing athletics between genders.  Some of us think it's an interesting never testable debate.  The whole point of this kind of thread is pure amusement.  Many of us have at least played with a male scratch or near scratch player a few times and find it amusing to wonder how those guys would stack up against the worst 10 or 15 players on the LPGA who keep their cards.

 

And where does dissing Erik (or the other founders) come into this?  I've only ever played with Mike, and I don't know if he ever thought he was good enough to have a real dream of playing on tour.  But that's neither here nor there.  He certainly doesn't claim to be able to play shot for shot with the best players in the world of either gender, and neither has Erik ever done so on the board.  They just both love the game and love teaching the game and by all evidence are both quite good at it.  Teaching and playing are very different skills.  They've both found something they're good at that lets them earn money around the game they love.  

 

Plus they've created the best golf forum on the internet, something we enjoy for free, and they dispense solid advice for free if you upload swing vids.  I just don't see the umbrage...

post #169 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post
 
I doubt it. If you could consistently hit the shots I saw Choi and Chang play last summer that I described, under tournament pressure, you wouldn't be spending 10+ hours a day on this internet forum you created, you'd be out on the PGA Tour making seven figures a year. Like it or not, that is the honest truth, unless you're the 1-in-10,000 (hell, maybe 1-in-100,000) golf pro who genuinely never dreamed of being a successful tour pro.
 

 


LOL

 

Seriously? If he can hit a shot that a mid range LPGA player can, that means he can compete and make a living on the PGA tour? That's a hilarious assumption.

 

Didn't Michelle Wie try to play on the PGA when she was one of the best? How'd that turn out again, I don't remember...

post #170 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisguy View Post
 
I doubt it. If you could consistently hit the shots I saw Choi and Chang play last summer that I described, under tournament pressure, you wouldn't be spending 10+ hours a day on this internet forum you created, you'd be out on the PGA Tour making seven figures a year.

 

That's silliness.

 

I enjoy watching women's sports (including the LPGA) but I'm under no illusion while watching them that they are anywhere close to the men.

 

It's sort of like watching a college football game. I love it, but the best team in the country would get killed (probably literally) against the worst NFL team.

post #171 of 213
MW was impressive in her PGA showing even though she missed the cut lol
post #172 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by theworldengine View Post

MW was impressive in her PGA showing even though she missed the cut lol

 

lol. Exactly my point. You're not exactly gonna make a good living traveling around and missing cuts. In fact, you'll just lose a crapload of your own money. 

post #173 of 213

This thread is 10 pages long and I didn't read it all....ugggh.

 

 

With that said, this is my 2 cents.

A scratch male golfer wouldn't have a chance in hell of being competitive on the LPGA.   If he got extremely lucky, he might make a cut.  he'd play from the same 6500 yard tees with the women, and they'd eat his lunch.

 

 

You all do realize that a scratch golfer will average about 75-77 from those tees, right?

post #174 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut View Post
 

You all do realize that a scratch golfer will average about 75-77 from those tees, right?

 

You should have read the previous pages.

post #175 of 213

I read a couple posts where a few people suggested a scratch golfer could compete which is pure nonsense.    No I should no read all 10 pages...sheesh...

post #176 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS256 View Post
 

 

That's silliness.

 

I enjoy watching women's sports (including the LPGA) but I'm under no illusion while watching them that they are anywhere close to the men.

 

It's sort of like watching a college football game. I love it, but the best team in the country would get killed (probably literally) against the worst NFL team.

 

This is a good point to make in this thread. If the pros are the best of the best and a very small group why should we consider that an amateur could compete with them? Gender and physical traits appear to be the reasons and IMO I don't think people are giving the LPGA enough credit. If for no other reason than the comparison seems more between the PGA and LPGA because I don't think there's any solid stats for scratch golfers. If you use the USGA definition for males it's a guy that averages 250 drives. Which wouldn't make him exceptional compared to LPGA averages. I'm not sure how many scratch golfers are out there but my guess is there are more of them than female tour pros. You could be a scratch golfer and not even win your measly club championship. That's not even the minor leagues.

post #177 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post
 

If you use the USGA definition for males it's a guy that averages 250 drives.

 

You can't. That's used to determine ratings. The 250 yards is used because a 490-yard hole will play as more than a par four because the "scratch golfer" hits the ball 250 + 220.

post #178 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

You can't. That's used to determine ratings. The 250 yards is used because a 490-yard hole will play as more than a par four because the "scratch golfer" hits the ball 250 + 220.

 

But surely they didn't pull that number out of the air and if 490 yd holes should be played as par 5's that kind of debunks the belief a scratch golfer would have significant distance advantage. At least it does to me. Wasn't long ago someone here posted a thread because he was excited about making his first eagle. He got a lot a crap because it was a sub 500 yard par 5. Some went as far to congratulate him on his "birdie" in an attempt to discredit him. This forum has a distance fetish.

post #179 of 213
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post
 

But surely they didn't pull that number out of the air and if 490 yd holes should be played as par 5's that kind of debunks the belief a scratch golfer would have significant distance advantage. At least it does to me. Wasn't long ago someone here posted a thread because he was excited about making his first eagle. He got a lot a crap because it was a sub 500 yard par 5. Some went as far to congratulate him on his "birdie" in an attempt to discredit him. This forum has a distance fetish.

 

You're missing the point. The scratch golfer that's constructed for the sole purpose of doing course ratings and whatnot also basically hits the ball straight, always 250+220, always two-putts, etc. It's a construct created solely for the purpose of course ratings. It's an amalgamated "average" of abilities. Most scratch golfers hit the ball over 250 yards, but less accurately, occasionally three-putt, don't hit every second shot 220 yards, etc.

 

The 490-yard hole might equate to a rating of 4.2 for the scratch golfer (unless it's downhill, in which case it could still come out to sub-4.0).

 

That 3 was on a hole measuring 440 yards IIRC. It wasn't just barely sub-500 yards.

 

Anyway, this isn't really on topic.

post #180 of 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave2512 View Post
 

 

But surely they didn't pull that number out of the air and if 490 yd holes should be played as par 5's that kind of debunks the belief a scratch golfer would have significant distance advantage. At least it does to me. Wasn't long ago someone here posted a thread because he was excited about making his first eagle. He got a lot a crap because it was a sub 500 yard par 5. Some went as far to congratulate him on his "birdie" in an attempt to discredit him. This forum has a distance fetish.

 

You're making a big assumption assuming that all scratch golfers drive it 250 yards. There are plenty that average 275 or more, which would immediately make them one of if not THE top driver in the LPGA. The 250 is just a reference point. I've seen Erik take a half swing with a 3 wood and hit it 250 yards. 

 
And then there are other clubs. He could be hitting a 7 iron from 170 out, where an LPGA player is hitting a 3 or 4 hybrid. Clear advantage.
 
Let's do an example:
 
The Evian Championship for instance. Par 71, 6,428 yards. +4 for the tournament would make you top 50 on the leaderboard. Hole 9 is a 475 yard par 5. I could reach in two, without much difficulty. Let alone a scratch golfer...they're probably hitting a 5 or 6 iron to the green. The longest par 5 is 527 yards. Which is still reachable by a scratch golfer, but by very few LPGA players.
 
And those are just two holes.

 

BTW, +13 would make the cut. I would bet money that plenty of scratch players could average +4 per 18 on that course.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour