Well, you can't go back. And the only way to go forward is to forget it. That trophy isn't going to magically appear.
Learn, erase that putt from memory, and Get the next one.
Easy to say, hard to do. That's why there are so many sports Psychologists employed...
The one I went to at Prattville was played at 6,607 yards. I would guess that's typical but don't know for sure.
Note: It was obvious watching it that there is LOTS more rollout on that course than most of the cheap tracts I play on.
The men in every sport are better because they're better athletes by a wide margin. Watch the olympics if you don't believe me; the men are throwing a shotput further than the women even though it weighs twice as much, Women can win a medal in track events with times that a good athlete in high school could match, top female tennis players known for a big serve would get laughed off the court by journeyman pros who hit it 20mph faster than anyone they've ever played and are faster and taller and have the strength to return any shot she can hit, the men's soccer teams can practically play an entire half without letting the ball hit the ground because their touch is so good, the men's basketball players can all dunk when the women need to be close to 7 feet to do it, the male gymnasts are some of the most incredible athletes in the world and can do things even the 90lb women can't, and forget about the combat sports. We talk about how it's bad to claim a kid shoots a seemingly good score on a shortened course that really doesn't make the score that impressive, and I think this logic is unrealistic to be simply dismissed with female athletes. It's ridiculous to claim any women "should" be able to compete with elite men. They would need to be well above the average level of professional women, and even then they'd be struggling and not in contention.
You could maybe see something like nascar or a shooting sport where a top female could dominate, but honestly there are things elite male players can do with a golf ball that no woman outside of a world class long drive competitor can do. And there is at least one female LD champion who used to be a man, for what it's worth. Golf isn't a sport where being a big galoot makes you automatically competitive, but it's ridiculous to expect someone with less muscle mass than a 14 year old boy to compete with men in their prime who have spent their lives playing competitively.
The difference is, as has been mentioned, carry yardage. That and the ability to use clubhead speed on shorter shots to get spin and height. The women usually have pretty good touch but from what I've seen the courses are not that demanding at all in terms of ballstriking. If you hit your shots like the women did on a tough men's course, you'd be in a lot of greenside bunkers and probably have a hard time stopping your ball. Your GIR percentage would be low and you'd have a tough time scrambling because you'd be limited in the types of shots you could take on. You couldn't clear any doglegs or forced carries off the tee, so you'd not only need to hit a 3w to reach the green, you'd have to shape it all over the place around trees and thread it through bunkers while still keeping the exact speed on it to end up near the hole. No one is shooting a good score doing that, no matter how skilled they are. Plus the women aren't really better at putting either. The best of them are really really good, but not any better than the top men. To be blunt, the reason more women don't play on the men's tour is because they can't compete and they'd just be embarrassed if they got blown out every week. Many have played in men's events before and gotten beaten, though I think Zaharias or Sorenstam might have made a cut. Even if a woman made a top 10, I think she'd get condescendingly patted on the back by the media so much she'd go insane. I don't think any of the women could have broken 80 at Merion this year the way it was set up, and that wasn't even very long. We saw how the biggest and strongest men who play out of the rough all the time could barely hack their balls out, I don't think the women could do better. I don't think the men would automatically break 60 on a women's major layout though, but I do think the players who brought their game that week would certainly have a hard time shooting above 70.
Sam Snead once played in an official ladies' event and won, and it was on a par 3 course where the long hitting but wild Snead, who was 50 at the time, and who was never known for his putting, should have been beaten if the women were solid competition, because the course shouldn't have suited him, yet he won anyway. No one really wants to see that. Therefore the LPGA sticks to its own guns and doesn't try to pretend their golfers are better, preferring to coexist. I certainly would not want to see a Ryder cup type match between the top men and women; it would be a complete blowout and not entertaining. Even the senior tour would open up a can of whoopass on the ladies. Corey Pavin could still outdrive a ton of the women.
doubtful. i could see maybe 6000. 6600 is decent for men's tees.
doubtful. i could see maybe 6000. 6600 is decent for men's tees.
Do a quick google search before you make yourself look foolish. The last LPGA event held was at Highland Meadows Golf Club in Sylvania, OH. According to the LPGA website, it played 6,428. The Women's British Open kicks off tomorrow at The Old Course. According to the LPGA website, it will be playing 6,672. Mid-6000's is the norm.
I believe that a top women golfer could play and compete in the PGA. Would they be competing with Tiger and Phil on Sundays to win a major? No, but they could be just as good as one of the mid-low level anonymous players that makes a few cuts every year and basically just make a living. The reason you don't see any of them do this is because they have a choice between that or playing at a high level + bigger payouts on the LPGA.
Comparing averages doesn't mean anything. The average LPGA players don't stand a chance. The top LPGA players could compete with the middle of the pack and lower PGA players. There is just no incentive to.
Nothing about a "big brain".
Common sense tells you that doing 7 seconds of research before calling someone a liar, would be the intelligent decision. And that's pretty much common knowledge among golf fans...I could have told you off the top of my head that PGA courses averaged over 7,000 and LPGA courses averaged about 6,500.
Long for you is not long for Tiger...or even Inbee for that matter...
You should care a little instead of spouting off garbage. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Not sure which part of my post made it seem like I wasn't calm. He gave a very specific yardage for an event that he actually attended, and you said "doubtful". That's about as close to calling someone a liar as you can get without specifically saying "You're a liar!"
Especially when a search that would have taken less time than your post did, could have revealed the fact that 6,600 yards is a common LPGA distance. That's all.