or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2013 Women's US Open Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 Women's US Open Discussion Thread - Page 5

post #73 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

The top-20 PGA Tour golfers currently have a combined scoring average of 69.82.

The top-20 LPGA Tour golfers currently have a combined scoring average of 70.81.

 

If you're going to find a reason not to watch, you might want to pick something other than how they don't score as well because the numbers don't back you up.

 

They play from different tees.  They don't hit it as far.  Their caddies sometimes appear too intrusive into their games (my major complaint).  Inbee Park isn't as cute as Tiger Woods (or whatever argument you guys were trying to make).

 

But the shot-making, particularly in the short game, is just as good as the men (barely a 1-stroke difference) and the scoring shows it.

 

And some of you guys sound like the chicks I know who, when discussing football, can't seem to get past the "I'm a Patriots fan because Tom Brady is so dreamy" crap.  Really?  All the free porn on the internet and you think any of us who watch golf do it just because the girls are cute?  Yes, some of them ARE cute, but seriously I doubt that's the main reason anyone watches the LPGA (unless their parents have their internet locked down and they can't find their sister's Victoria's Secret catalog).

 

I think what you're missing is that the men are playing on longer, harder courses - if you adjust those scores for the venue on which they are played, the difference is likely more apparent.  It's the same reason you can't use greens in regulation average as any sort of comparison - guys who play on easier courses throughout the year have higher GIRs than guys like Adam Scott and Tiger who pretty much only play in the toughest tournaments.

 

Now, speaking of scoring average and strength of competition (and whether what Park is doing truly is amazing), I thought it would be interesting to see how many players you have to go through to get to 1 more stroke above average.  

 

This is how they shake out:

 

69.082 - Tiger Woods - PGA Tour #1 in Scoring

70.049 - #15 Keegan Bradley

71.083 - #96 John Senden

72.058 - #168 Ben Curtis

73.593 - #183 Paul Haley II - Last on PGA Tour in scoring

 

69.674 - Inbee Park LPGA #1 in Scoring

70.659 - #7 So Yeon Ryu

71.674 - #29 Gerina Pillar

72.667 - #62 Juli inkster

73.682 - #108 Pat Hurst

74.667 - #139 Laura Davies

75.727 - #147 Kayla Mortellaro

76.842 - #151 Karlin Beck

77.300 - #152 Hannah Yun - Last on LPGA Tour in scoring

 

What this shows you is that in a given week, Park really has only about 29 competitors to deal with (those that average within 2 strokes of her) and if you want to expand it to 3 stroke, it only brings in 61 players in an average week.

 

Compare that to the PGA where Tiger and guys at the top have 95 other golfers who average within 2 strokes of the leader and if you expand it just one more stroke to 3, you bring in 167 golfers - more than ever compete in a PGA field each week and 100 more golfers than average within 3 strokes of the top scorer on the LPGA tour.  

 

It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.  It's like arguing that a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 5 team league is as impressive as a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 30 team league.  There is simply not as much competition, period.

post #74 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

I'd hazard a bet that most people would disagree with you.

Seeing people playing from appropriate tees and scoring consistently below par is what most people find entertaining (read this thread again if you don't agree, because it's a pretty common theme).

 

I don't particularly care what the common theme of the thread is. I was giving my own opinion. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

You made the comment that if you were playing from tees suited for shorter hitters you could do just as well.  Again, I don't see how you playing inappropriate tees compares to someone playing the correct tees.  You're the one who brought up the 5800 yard stat...not me.

 

My comment wasn't to say that LPGA players are scoring well only because of the length of the courses. My point was that a low score on a given course does not necessarily equal entertainment. 

post #75 of 117

I K Kim is 5' 3" tall and weighs maybe 110 lbs.  Her stats are here:  Pretty impressive for someone so diminutive.

 

http://www.lpga.com/golf/players/k/ik-kim/stats.aspx

 

They don't play from the forward tees either.  The course length was 6700 yards at Sebonack, so they are playing a longer course than most weekend golfers play.

post #76 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

I K Kim is 5' 3" tall and weighs maybe 110 lbs.  Her stats are here:  Pretty impressive for someone so diminutive.

 

http://www.lpga.com/golf/players/k/ik-kim/stats.aspx

 

They don't play from the forward tees either.  The course length was 6700 yards at Sebonack, so they are playing a longer course than most weekend golfers play.

 

There's no arguing that they are really good golfers. Still bores me.

post #77 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

And I can probably average 70 on a 5800 yard course. Doesn't mean it would be fun to watch.

Maybe you were just going for hyperbole here, but just as an FYI ...

 

The shortest course they have played this year was 6,108 yards.  The longest course (last week US Open) was 6821, and the average of the 15 tournaments so far (all according to distances listed on lpga.com) is 6,488 yards.

 

Maybe this is why I'm defending them ... they are playing about the same tees I would usually play, and with considerable less distance off the tee than even me (on average), they are leaving any score I could even dream of (at this point - I'm still working) in the dust.

 

Dave67az makes a fantastic point here as well, regarding a big negative:

 

Quote:

 Their caddies sometimes appear too intrusive into their games (my major complaint). 

 

This bothers me most of all as well, and its really starting to creep onto the mens tour too.  Really annoying watching the guys/gals having to rely on the crutch of the caddy making sure they are lined up correctly all the way until 2 seconds before they pull the trigger.  Ugh.

post #78 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriskzoo View Post

 

I think what you're missing is that the men are playing on longer, harder courses - if you adjust those scores for the venue on which they are played, the difference is likely more apparent.  It's the same reason you can't use greens in regulation average as any sort of comparison - guys who play on easier courses throughout the year have higher GIRs than guys like Adam Scott and Tiger who pretty much only play in the toughest tournaments.

 

Now, speaking of scoring average and strength of competition (and whether what Park is doing truly is amazing), I thought it would be interesting to see how many players you have to go through to get to 1 more stroke above average.  

 

This is how they shake out:

 

69.082 - Tiger Woods - PGA Tour #1 in Scoring

70.049 - #15 Keegan Bradley

71.083 - #96 John Senden

72.058 - #168 Ben Curtis

73.593 - #183 Paul Haley II - Last on PGA Tour in scoring

 

69.674 - Inbee Park LPGA #1 in Scoring

70.659 - #7 So Yeon Ryu

71.674 - #29 Gerina Pillar

72.667 - #62 Juli inkster

73.682 - #108 Pat Hurst

74.667 - #139 Laura Davies

75.727 - #147 Kayla Mortellaro

76.842 - #151 Karlin Beck

77.300 - #152 Hannah Yun - Last on LPGA Tour in scoring

 

What this shows you is that in a given week, Park really has only about 29 competitors to deal with (those that average within 2 strokes of her) and if you want to expand it to 3 stroke, it only brings in 61 players in an average week.

 

Compare that to the PGA where Tiger and guys at the top have 95 other golfers who average within 2 strokes of the leader and if you expand it just one more stroke to 3, you bring in 167 golfers - more than ever compete in a PGA field each week and 100 more golfers than average within 3 strokes of the top scorer on the LPGA tour.  

 

It's not even close to an apples to apples comparison.  It's like arguing that a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 5 team league is as impressive as a team that wins 20 consecutive championships in a 30 team league.  There is simply not as much competition, period.

 

I think what you guys are missing is that the men AREN'T playing longer courses.

 

The length of a course (i.e. the length from the tees you're supposed to be playing from) is the same for the women than the men.  We've got other threads on how to choose tees based on how far you hit your drives, if you don't get what I'm saying.  Just because you're playing from longer tees doesn't mean you're playing a longer course.  The length of a course is a ratio based on your shot distance...not an arbitrary yardage.

 

The ladies hit the ball, on average, maybe 80% as far as the guys (I'll do that stats on that if you want, but my guess is 80%)?  So for them to play a course 80% as long as the PGA Tour plays requires the same effort and excellence in order to play under par.

post #79 of 117

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Maybe you were just going for hyperbole here....

 

I was indeed. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

Maybe this is why I'm defending them ... they are playing about the same tees I would usually play, and with considerable less distance off the tee than even me (on average), they are leaving any score I could even dream of (at this point - I'm still working) in the dust.

 

As I said above, I don't discount their golfing ability. Just pointing out that, in my book, low scores don't always equal high entertainment. 

post #80 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

The ladies hit the ball, on average, maybe 80% as far as the guys (I'll do that stats on that if you want, but my guess is 80%)?  So for them to play a course 80% as long as the PGA Tour plays requires the same effort and excellence in order to play under par.

While I totally agree with you regarding the length - and if you're right that they're 80% as far as the guys, then they are actually playing much longer courses than the men (6488/80% = 8110!) - you are wrong about the "same effort and excellence in order to play under par" part.  You are discounting fairway widths, rough height, green speed, and pin locations, all of which probably play a bigger part in course difficulty than length for expert players (as was quite excellently proven at the mens Open a couple of weeks ago).

 

EDIT:  The rough average driving distance of the top 50 in driving on the LPGA tour is 265-ish.  The rough average of the top 50 on the PGA tour is in the high 290's.  Let's call it 295 to be safe.  That puts the women at closer to 90% of the men in distance/power.  But still, their average course length of 6488 divided by 90% equals 7200, so I think distance can be discounted as a difference between the two.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

As I said above, I don't discount their golfing ability. Just pointing out that, in my book, low scores don't always equal high entertainment. 

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

post #81 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

 

My point exactly. I just didn't communicate it well I suppose.

 

My wife says I have an issue with communication, or something like that. I don't know, I wasn't really listening. b3_huh.gif

post #82 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post

While I totally agree with you regarding the length - and if you're right that they're 80% as far as the guys, then they are actually playing much longer courses than the men (6488/80% = 8110!) - you are wrong about the "same effort and excellence in order to play under par" part.  You are discounting fairway widths, rough height, green speed, and pin locations, all of which probably play a bigger part in course difficulty than length for expert players (as was quite excellently proven at the mens Open a couple of weeks ago).

 

EDIT:  The rough average driving distance of the top 50 in driving on the LPGA tour is 265-ish.  The rough average of the top 50 on the PGA tour is in the high 290's.  Let's call it 295 to be safe.  That puts the women at closer to 90% of the men in distance/power.  But still, their average course length of 6488 divided by 90% equals 7200, so I think distance can be discounted as a difference between the two.

 

I don't disagree with this at all.  How many people prefer the Bob Hope, where the winner is -30, to the US Open or British Open, where the winner can be -5 or +5?  Except for maybe Brian Gay (this years Hope winner) I'm guessing none. ;)

 

Just ran the stats, and I was off a little.

 

PGA Tour, top-20 in driving distance average is 301.37 yds.

LPGA Tour, top-20 in driving distance average is 264.63 yds (or 88% of the men).

 

So that 6488 yd course would play the same distance as a 7372 yd course for the men.

 

And I get that some don't find it entertaining, and that's entirely subjective.  But I'd rather see a generic "I'm not entertained" comment than fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.  That just makes it look like someone doesn't understand why we have separate tee boxes on golf courses.  It also explains why some people don't want to tee it forward, since there are people out there that refuse to acknowledge a good game unless it's played from the tips.

post #83 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

And I get that some don't find it entertaining, and that's entirely subjective.  But I'd rather see a generic "I'm not entertained" comment than fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.  

 

I'm not entertained.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

That just makes it look like someone doesn't understand why we have separate tee boxes on golf courses.  It also explains why some people don't want to tee it forward, since there are people out there that refuse to acknowledge a good game unless it's played from the tips.

 

don't necessarily agree that it's always best to tee it forward, in the sense that you can't judge the challenge of a course simply from the length. I have played 6500 yard courses that are extremely difficult. I've also shot some of my lowest scores on courses over 7000. It's not because I'm a long hitter, but because there's a lot more that goes into the difficulty of a course than just yardage. 

 

 

Just as a quick example: Huntington Park, a municipal course in Shreveport, LA is 7294 yards from the back tees with a slope rating of 113. Bethpage Black's white tees measure 6684 yards with a slope rating of 145. Yardages are only a small factor in the difficulty of a course, and I think players should pay more attention to slope ratings than just yardages when selecting tees.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

fabricating comparisons to 5800 yard courses.  

 

Hyperbole. Look it up.

post #84 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

 

don't necessarily agree that it's always best to tee it forward, in the sense that you can't judge the challenge of a course simply from the length. I have played 6500 yard courses that are extremely difficult. I've also shot some of my lowest scores on courses over 7000. It's not because I'm a long hitter, but because there's a lot more that goes into the difficulty of a course than just yardage. 

 

 

Just as a quick example: Huntington Park, a municipal course in Shreveport, LA is 7294 yards from the back tees with a slope rating of 113. Bethpage Black's white tees measure 6684 yards with a slope rating of 145. Yardages are only a small factor in the difficulty of a course, and I think players should pay more attention to slope ratings than just yardages when selecting tees.

 

So do you think in comparing the PGA Tour to the LPGA, looking at the respective slope ratings of their courses when comparing would be a better indicator of their abilities?  Again, this has nothing to do with entertainment value because each has their own interests.  But an argument had been brought up that the ladies didn't play "good golf" and I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind the comment.

post #85 of 117

Some points:

 

Those arguing for relative parity between the PGA and the LPGA are statistically wrong, as several people above have pointed out.  The LPGA hasn't really seen someone since Annika who could compete stats-wise with the top PGA pros, and the men simply putt better and make fewer mistakes than the women do (and aren't spending 2+ minutes per green having their caddies read the breaks and line them up, like the LPGA players do).

 

However, that matters very little in terms of television viewing - how can you claim watching the PGA on TV is exciting and the LPGA is boring unless you are mainly talking about following favorite or disliked players on the men's tour?  They edit golf on TV so much that you're typically not seeing too much mediocre play, whether it's a PGA or LPGA tournament - it's basically a 2-3 hour highlight show.  If one of the leaders has a bad hole, they'll cut over to someone in a later hole who just hit an approach or bunker shot to within two feet, or who just sank a 40 foot birdie putt.  If someone comes up a club short and puts a ball into the lake, if the player is at all prominent, either on the tour or in that tournament, the network is going to show that bad shot.  Are you seriously trying to tell me that the splash from a PGA player's ball is poignant and exciting, but the 1" lower splash from an LPGA player's ball is dull and uninteresting?

 

Sorry, but getting the ball close to the hole or in the hole is matter of feet/meters and inches/centimeters, not a matter of whether the player who hit the shot is wearing a skirt or pants.  A man making a 20' birdie putt isn't any more exciting than a woman making a putt of the same distance, unless you have a personal bias in favor or against the particular golfer.  No doubt the WNBA plays a much slower, tamer, lower-scoring variety of basketball than the NBA and that is very evident while watching it on television, but there aren't those sorts of notable difference in watching PGA vs. LPGA golf.  No one is saying "I just can't watch a barely-triple digit swing speed -it's too slow."  You cannot appreciate distances from the visual aspect of watching golf on television - you know intellectually that an approach shot to gimme range is more impressive on a 470 yard par-4 than on a 380 yard one, but it doesn't show on TV like a jumper from half-court is more impressive than one inside the foul line.  If you watched all of the players playing all of the holes, you'd see a lot more mediocre and bad shots from the women than the men, but that's not what televised golf looks like, is it?

 

Anyone thinking that the LPGA players don't have some pretty remarkable athletic abilities compared to a better male golfer not on the PGA tour really ought to go see an LPGA event in person.  At last year's US Women's Open at Blackwolf Run, I watched the final twosome hit their second shots onto the 9th hole.  They were something like 210-220 out, the green was sloped with a forward pin placement and the front and part of the side of the green was surrounded by a creek.  Both Na Yeon Choi and Amy Chang hit hybrids that were so solidly struck, their shots went high and far, and they both gently placed their balls on the green in makeable birdie range, truly excellent shots.  I don't gamble, but I'd put a fair amount of coin on a wager that not a single golfer on this website could have hit a better shot from exactly that location onto that green - realistically, I would put my ball in the creek at least 15 times from that location before I could even get one on the green; hell, I bet only 10 percent of the people on this board could hit that green.  I saw more players hit their balls into the water on a few holes than I think I would have at a PGA event, but it was still very exciting to watch and I saw some terrific shots. 

 

Bottom line is that the PGA players are better from a statistical standpoint, unquestionably.  But anyone saying that LPGA golf is boring is either not giving it a fair chance or is measuring "interesting" only in terms of watching favorite athletes, much the same as watching the European tour is less interesting to me than watching the PGA tour, because I've never heard of 80+% of the European players.  That doesn't make their golf boring, it just means I'm less interested in the overall competition since I've got less emotional stake in many/any of the players.

post #86 of 117

It's OK that you don't enjoy it.  To each his own.  I find college football dull.  It's like watching the game at half speed.  I do like watching the LPGA during the Majors though.  

post #87 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

So do you think in comparing the PGA Tour to the LPGA, looking at the respective slope ratings of their courses when comparing would be a better indicator of their abilities?  Again, this has nothing to do with entertainment value because each has their own interests.  But an argument had been brought up that the ladies didn't play "good golf" and I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind the comment.

 

Yes, slope rating would be a much better measure. 

 

And I never made the argument that LPGA players don't play "good golf". In fact, I've said the opposite several times. 

 

Several people earlier in the thread were saying that women's scores are just as low as men's, and therefore must be interesting. I was only refuting that argument. 

post #88 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

 

Yes, slope rating would be a much better measure. 

 

And I never made the argument that LPGA players don't play "good golf". In fact, I've said the opposite several times. 

 

Several people earlier in the thread were saying that women's scores are just as low as men's, and therefore must be interesting. I was only refuting that argument. 

 

My apologies if that sounded like it was ALL directed at you.

You're not the one who said they don't play good golf.

post #89 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

My apologies if that sounded like it was ALL directed at you.

You're not the one who said they don't play good golf.

 

I don't understand the argument that LPGA isn't interesting because it's bad golf. I've played a few rounds with ladies that were on the LPGA tour at the time, and they were as good as 99% of the men I've played with in my life.

 

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

post #90 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by geauxforbroke View Post

 

I don't understand the argument that LPGA isn't interesting because it's bad golf. I've played a few rounds with ladies that were on the LPGA tour at the time, and they were as good as 99% of the men I've played with in my life.

 

That being said, I still find it boring. Part of it the long, loopy swings that most women have. Part of it is the fact that it seems really gimmicky and doesn't pay homage to the tradition and class of the game. I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that makes it boring. I just know I would rather watch paint dry.

I hope your being hyperbolic again? b2_tongue.gif  My weekend watch priority list (currently ... during football season?  forget golf) is something like:

 

1.  PGA Tour if its a quality tournament with a good field (and not a blowout)

2.  Champions Tour if its a pretty course

3.  The Avengers, Rango, A Few Good Men, Dodgeball, 40 Year Old Virgin, Oceans 13, Italian Job, Princess Bride, or any other frequently shown, very rewatchable movie on Epix, Bravo, Spike, etc.

4.  Dodgers or Angels game if its close or if they're playing the Padres

5.  Last 5 laps of Nascar race.

6.  Installing shelves in laundry room AND painting them, HOWEVER ...

7.  While the paint is drying and nothing else in on TV, I'd much rather watch the women play golf than stare at the walls in the laundry room. c2_beer.gif

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › 2013 Women's US Open Discussion Thread