Bet of the century

If the LPGA invited Tiger, Phil, Steve, and AK to the 2010 Women’s Open at Oakmont in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. And to equalize it, since the men are approximately 40 yards longer with each club, the men would back up 40 yards for each regulation shot. Would you put $1000 on a woman or on a man to come in first.
To flesh out this so called match
1. The women will play from the T’s to be used for the Women’s Open.
3. The men will back up 40 yards behind the women on the Par 3’s, 80 yards back on the Par 4’s, and 120 yards on the Par 5’s.
4. Stroke play.
5. Good luck.

PS: I thought this was a simple question until it was asked of some serious betting golfers I know. I was told that If I didn’t understand how complicated it was, I shouldn’t bet a lot of money until I did.

On a par 72, that's a 36x40 = 1440 yard difference. So the men would be at about 8000 yards. I think it's no contest... one of the ladies wins. No amount of easier setup will compensate for that extreme in length. Spot 25 yards per shot (900 yards on a par 72), on the other hand, and I'd call it a toss-up.

Golf World Dec 28,2009
No 1. Vicki Hurst 272.5 Pa A19.
No 2. Bubba Watson 311.4 Pa A10.
311.4 - 272.5 = 38.9

Why do the men need help, a 15 yard per shot advantage? It makes them look weaker.

That's for driving, right? I bet the difference is a lot less than 40 yards for a 9I. Don't treat it as a 40 yard distance, treat it as a ~13% difference. That's right in line with jschen's suggestion, incidentally. It'd be the men playing a 7400 yard course to the women's 6500.

I'd bet on the men for nearly every dollar I have.

What you are not considering the the MAJOR difference in setup between a men's and women's tournament.

Rough is much shorter and greens are slower.

Let me give you an example.

When the US Women's open was at Interlochen, I played the course the next week when it was still in Open conditions. I also played Hazeltine the week before the PGA this year. (when it was tough, but the greens weren't as fast as they would be the next week.)

I played "ok" both days. I shot 75 at Interlochen and 88 at Hazeltine.

Here's the general setup for the 2009 US Women's open. Obviously the yardages differ day to day. On Sunday, the course was only about 6300 yards.

The first yardage is the women's, the 2nd yardage would be the men's.

1 - Par 5 - 549 yards | 669 yards
2 - Par 4 - 435 yards | 515 yards
3 - Par 4 - 373 yards | 453 yards
4 - Par 3 - 154 yards | 194 yards
5 - Par 4 - 409 yards | 489 yards
6 - Par 5 - 559 yards | 679 yards
7 - Par 4 - 453 yards | 533 yards
8 - Par 4 - 387 yards | 467 yards
9 - Par 3 - 178 yards | 218 yards

10- Par 4 - 252 yards | 332 yards
11- Par 3 - 165 yards | 205 yards
12- Par 5 - 555 yards | 675 yards
13- Par 4 - 433 yards | 513 yards
14- Par 4 - 399 yards | 479 yards
15- Par 4 - 257 yards | 337 yards
16- Par 4 - 374 yards | 454 yards
17- Par 3 - 170 yards | 210 yards
18- Par 4 - 444 yards | 524 yards

Women:6546 yards
Men:7946

The 2009 Women's open winner shot even par.
The 2009 Womens US Open course had only 2 par 5's. Both of those would play over 670 yards for the men. Tough birdies and eagle is definitely out of the picture. Pro's really capitalize on par 5's.

At the 2009 Masters, the course was roughly 7400 yards. 34 players shot under par. Augusta is no cake walk.
At the 2004 PGA Championshiop, the course was 7514 yards, the longest ever in a major. 35 players shot under par.

If the bet were for the same course as the 2009 US Womens open, and only those 4 male golfers you mentioned - Tiger, Phil, Steven, and AK - I think betting on the men has a negative expected value. You're really depending on one of these men to play great and that just doesn't happen often enough - otherwise the same players would win every single tournament.

If you're allowing as many men to play as women (127 of each), then I think the expected value of betting on the men greatly increases. I think of 127 men, there's a pretty good chance someone breaks par with a hot putter and some lucky shots.

I don't believe Oakmont could make the holes that long, so their course would be playable at around 8000+ yards.

Realistically, I have been persuaded the men are at a severe disadvantage that would be impossible to overcome. The PGA's scores could be over 90 or 100 for18 holes. Even if the men only moved back 25 yds per regulation shot it would take a special course to have the room.

First- Design wise some of the holes would be impossible to play from that far back. The men would be playing some weird holes, where they would be T'ing off on a severe down or up slopes. The T could be down in a ravine or in the woods. A hole that never was designed to be played from those distances and would also be extremely difficult if not impossible because doglegs, hazards, and landing areas are in all the wrong or impossible positions. In fact some of the T shots might have to be pitch or chip shots, to get out of trouble.

Second - after all the trouble getting in range of the greens, some of the shots into a distant green might be like hitting to a long Par 3.

Even with the easier rough, the men's short game advantage is all about hitting shorter clubs, and that probably won't happen.

I have to admit, I originally thought the men would easily take the first two places. And I didn't thing about the fact that the course might be impossible at those distances.

It would take a special course that would be playable from those distances.

Well, my estimate of 25 yards/shot penalty to even things out assumes a hypothetical course where one actually has room to have a reasonable tee at that position. On par 4s, the extra distance should keep fairway hazards at relevant distances. On par 5s, placing hazards potentially out of reach of the drive is compensated for by the absurd length added. Of course, if you simply back the hole up a given number of yards with no accommodation for the men's tees, you end up in absurd tee locations. That would be so non-playable so as to be a non-contest.

For what it's worth, the reason I settled on 25 yards/stroke is because the LPGA setup at Torrey Pines in 2009 is about 900 yards shorter (25 yards/stroke average) than the US Open setup in 2008. The women scored much better, but I think that if the course conditions were the same (save for different tee boxes to adjust for length), it could be close.

jschen.

Torry Pines sounds like a great place to have a joint tournament. I like your idea, and would love to watch a joint tournament with good golf and good friendly competition.

this thread actually raises a much bigger issue-- how will the USGA set up Oakmont and in a few years Pinehurst #2 for the Open?

If anyone can remember back to 1998 at Blackwolf Run, when +7 won the tourney, the USGA took a ton of crap for their setup. The perception was that these women's weren't that good. Ever since the women's open courses have become much easier.

I can't believe the USGA will suddenly grow 4 inch rough at the Open and let the Oakmont greens run at 15. If they do, no women breaks +10 for the tourney

If someone actually set up such a joint tournament at Torrey Pines, I definitely would watch every day. If not in person, at least from my office window (overlooking 9th and 15th fairways of the South Course, partially obstructed view of 9th green). It definitely would be interesting to see how the best of the PGA and the LPGA fare against each other with some distance handicapping to try to even the field.

That's an important point, and why we can't simply compare the 2008 US Open at Torrey (winning score, even par after an extended Monday playoff) with the 2009 LPGA Samsung world championship (winning score, -16). Same course, with on average our hypothetical 25 yard/stroke difference already in place (US Open setup played about 900 yards longer), but totally different conditions.

All i have learned from this post is that you are a poker player....the firdst -ev comment i have read on here!!!

This sounds like the Wendy's 3-Tour Challenge.

I guess if you can wait until 2014, when the mens and womens Opens are held on consecutive weeks on Pinehurst #2, you may get an actual answer to this. From what the Club management has said so far, course setups will very similar for each, with the rough being cut back slightly for the women. Length should be around 700 yards shorter for the women, and folks around here don't think anyone will be under par for 72 holes. Might make a bet like the O.P.'s tough to call.

biggest difference is that that was always done as a resort course with virtually no rough. If this was set up like this, I think women would have a much better chance. But here we are talking about a major tournament setup. Big difference.

The rough is shorter and the greens are slower.

The men could hit woods out of the rough so that'd make up a lot of the distance. I think tiger on a good day could win.

It would be nice to see this with caddies banned from providing assistance in reading greens and alignment.

I can see Tiger walking 1/2 way up the fairway, standing in the sightline of the other players (like he does now) and them folding like a cheap suit.