Are LPGA Setups Too Difficult?

[DeadMan]

Came across an interesting article today about how players and the media think that LPGA course setups are too hard. It's a fairly long read, but it's an interesting one:

https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2021/03/16/lpga-golf-course-setups-womens-golf-pga-tour/

After reading that article, what do you think? Are LPGA setups too hard?

[vasaribm]

How the numbers are presented definitely leads to setups being too hard.  It would be interesting to see the LPGA let a few courses play "easier" and see the response.

[Club Rat]

I voted too easy. Looking at scoring average  - https://www.lpga.com/statistics/scoring/scoring-average

2021 - Top 51 players average less than par.

2020 - Top 70 players average less than par.
2019 - 100 players average are less than par.

Considering the total number of players is not very many, it seems the scores are pretty low for the average.

[ncates00]

Some courses are set up hard. Some are not. In 2019 (no covid), we saw the following winning results on the LPGA (see https://www.google.com/search?q=lpga+2019+results&oq=lpga+2019&aqs=chrome.6.69i57j0l4j0i22i30l2j69i60.6388j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8):

-18 at CME

-17 at Toto

-18 at Taiwan Championship

-19 at BMW

-16 at Buick

-18 at Volunteers of America

-21 at Indy Women

-21 at Portland Classic

-26 at CP Women's

-20 at Ladies Scottish

-18 at Women's British

-15 at Evian

-27 at Dow Great Lakes

-22 at Marathon

-29 at Thornberry Creek

-18 at Walmart

-9 at Women's PGA

-21 at Meijer

-12 at Shoprite

-6 at USWO

-17 at Kingsmill

-7 at Mediheal

-14 at Hugel-Air

-16 at Lotte

-10 at ANA

-18 at Kia

-22 at Founders

-15 at HSBC

-22 at Honda

-17 at Women's Australian

-8 at Vic

-14 at Diamond Resorts

So, no, @DeadMan, I do not think the courses are set up too hard for them. Perhaps you could argue, as the article somewhat asserts, that there aren't enough risk v. reward holes, but I don't know. Hard to judge. 

[iacas]

I think it's a combination of things. In general, I think the winning scores are fine… but the thing is, LPGA Tour setups often see the pins in the centers of the green (not literally, just less tucked than on the PGA Tour), with softer greens, less rough, etc.

So they combat that with length.

I say:

• Shorten the LPGA Tour courses to 5900 to 6300 yards.
• Make the hole locations more difficult.
• Firm up the greens a bit (LPGA Tour players aren't going to hit the ball 100 feet in the air, but they'll be hitting more wedges and short irons in from 6250 than 6750 for sure).

The cream will still rise to the top, while the much less deeper LPGA will feel a bit better about their cuts being lower, too (less good players can play to the centers of the greens, but still with shorter clubs, and average a bit lower than they can now hitting longer clubs to the centers of the greens…).

All told a very, very good article from Beth Ann. Thank you @DeadMan for finding/posting it.

A few bullet points.

• I backed/agreed with the DIII proposal to go from 5800 yards to 5600 yards. My women, at DIII level, were struggling at 5800 yards. Hell, I'd take 5400 yards.
• Natalie has been playing 5700 yards for quite some time, and she plays well (she's a +0.7), but man she rarely gets many realistic birdie opportunities.
• Comparing 5I proximity isn’t quite the same. The distance from the hole matters. If she hit her 5I 50 yards, she'd almost surely be closer. This is no different, and the LPGA Tour players are, as a whole, not as good as the PGA Tour players. This segues into…
• … The LPGA isn’t nearly as deep as the PGA Tour. There’s almost always going to be a bigger fall-off from the top to the bottom. This means while the winning scores might be similar, cuts will be higher, eagles will be less plentiful for the Tour as a whole, etc.
• I generally agree: 6500+ is stretching it. 5900 to 6300 is the sweet spot, maybe (par 70 to 72).

I'll re-read this article a few times.

P.S. From the article: "When people tune in and say, ‘Wow, they’re hitting 3-woods into par 4s and can’t reach the par 5s, it just leads to a stereotype that is wholly inaccurate,” said Chamblee, “and it makes my blood boil."

How is that stereotype inaccurate? Women are shorter, and they're hitting longer clubs in despite playing shorter courses. I'm not sure what he's saying. What stereotype is inaccurate here?

[saevel25]

LPGA is about 15-18% shorter than the PGA Tour. If you take the 7300 yard course, and reduce it by lets say 16%. You are at 6100-6200 yards. 

I agree with Erik, make the courses 5900 to 6300 yards. 

[Darkfrog]

Good read so far. I didn't have time to finish the entire article (bookmarked to return to it later). I voted "too hard" based on the portion I was able to cover. As a cordcutter, I don't get to watch as much women's golf as I would like, so I'm only basing my vote on what the article presented.

Anecdotally, in casual play, the women's tees at several of the muni courses I play offer almost zero advantage compared to the men's middle tees. It's like they were positioned without any thought to the game of a typical female golfer who plays the course. By "typical female golfer", I mean those that usually play at the types of courses I play at; generally they're either older (60+) and probably drive the ball 150 yards at most, or young but still learning the game and so also lack the distance/skill to make playing the course enjoyable to play. Personally, I would find it incredibly frustrating to hit driver, fairway wood, and then still have a mid/short iron into a par-4 hole. I usually kindly suggest that if they are really struggling and getting frustrated, that they try the junior tees, which are about 2500 yards shorter than the women's tees.

[Golfingdad]

Good article.  I voted “too hard” based on the article, but then read the following posts on here and agree it’s probably not “too hard” so much as it’s “too long.”

So I also agree that making the courses shorter but not necessarily easier would be worth a shot.

[jxdama]

I hope they set  up the  courses as at  least  challenging as opposed to the  mens tour who is scared to death of anything  other than a  perfect  lie. Mens tour is set  up way  too easy.

[Shorty]

13 hours ago, DeadMan said:

 

After reading that article, what do you think? Are LPGA setups too hard?

Nope - especially when every other tournament seems to end with a par 5 that's really a par 4 for players of their quality. 

[Shorty]

Qualifying the above, which is not an argument......

The article seems to be that setups should be easier, not that they are too hard.

Womens professional golf seems to be at a point where the men were in the 70s and 80s. A group of top players who won frequently and the odd outlier winning.

I don't think that that scenario would have been "corrected" with courses being shorted and a premium on accuracy and length being reduced.

I don't think that being on "59 watch" every week is necessarily that exciting because it speaks of the golf course as much as the players at that level.

[bkuehn1952]

Thanks @DeadMan for an interesting topic.  Also, @Darkfrog, that is an good observation about "regular" courses and the forward tee distances.

I voted "Too Hard" but I see merit in the idea "too long" is more appropriate than "too hard."

 

[StuM]

I finally voted "Too Hard" with my focus on "Too Long".  The LPGA players are talented and the courses should be set up relative to an average shot distance for those on the tour to enable scoring and that should be able to be done without making the course "Easy".  They are pros so it should be hard, just not excessively hard.

[ghalfaire]

I voted the course were "just right".  However having said that I'm not against setting the tee boxes for the Ladies such that their second shot on par 4s and par 5s, on average, is the same club as the PGA tour would be. 

I recall a passed off season exhibition event held in Nevada somewhere called the 3 tour challenge (I think) where players from all three tours were invited and they played in threesomes.  The tee boxes were set as I said in the first paragraph, second shot was about the same club for everyone on par 4s and 5s.   I tried to find the history of this event, but no luck as I ran out out of time.  But my failing memory is that it was very competitive, fun to watch, and the winner each year was about evenly split between the tours.

I know that there is more than just distance involved in why scores are the way they are.  But I believe the above set up would go a long way to similar results on the LPGA as on the PGA.  I suppose this could be a concession that the LPGA set ups are too difficult, in spite of my vote.  But one of my favorite tournaments is the US Open as there is truly a penalty to missing the target, which isn't really true on many PGA events.   So events where 40% of the participants are under par isn't my thing.  These Men and Ladies are the best in the world and I personally like to see them challenged.

[Golfingdad]

Realistically, though, are little things like this actually going to ever spike their viewership numbers?

I always try and ask myself what exactly it is that makes me want to watch certain tournaments and I think the answer (again, this is just me) usually comes down to the course.  And that is true of all tours.

For the LPGA, I'm excited to watch this week because it's Aviara, and I've played there a few times and love the course.  I like watching them at Mission Hills because that course is cool and familiar (and a major) and I got drawn in last year to their British Open because the visuals were great.  (It was Royal Troon)

For the seniors its basically Hualalai and that's about it.

European Tour I watch more of mainly because of convenience.  It's frequently on live at bed time.

Obviously the course isn't the only thing that matters because I watch way more PGA TOUR than any others, but I still think the course is a really big part of it.

LPGA should consider more famous venues along with tweaking their course setups.

 

[Golfnutgalen]

On 3/16/2021 at 10:17 AM, Club Rat said:

I voted too easy. Looking at scoring average  - https://www.lpga.com/statistics/scoring/scoring-average

2021 - Top 51 players average less than par.

2020 - Top 70 players average less than par.
2019 - 100 players average are less than par.

Considering the total number of players is not very many, it seems the scores are pretty low for the average.

2021's data is too incomplete. Like you have listed for last year 69 out of 136 players averaged under 72 or basically 50% while on the PGA Tour a staggering 190 out of 193 players averaged under 72 last season. Then again the courses may be too easy for the men and just right for the women... The LPGA Tour's data looks a lot like the PGA Tour in the 1980s before the distance boom. 1980 is the earliest data point and back then 62 out of 175 players averaged 72 or lower the scoring average for the tour was almost exactly 2 strokes higher - 72.59 vs 70.56.

https://www.pgatour.com/content/pgatour/stats/stat.108.y2020.html

[Braivo]

I'm not sure it matters. If the goal is to increase viewership for the LPGA, I doubt anyone new is going to tune in because they are getting a few more eagles on par 5s. A winning score of -15 versus -20? Not gonna move the needle. 

However, I enjoy watching LPGA golf, and I voted the courses are too easy. Almost every course they play brings very little trouble into play. As @iacas said, they usually have center green pins on large greens. Tuck the pins more and shorten the course would make things more entertaining for the average fan, but I doubt it would draw many more viewers. 

[dennyjones]

I voted yes.   On many courses in which the PGA Tour plays, the long hitters are hitting a driver and a wedge or up to an 8 iron.   The LPGA should have the same distances accordingly.