Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[Jeremie Boop]

A sub 500 yd par 5 seems short to me, but then again most par 5's aren't straight so cutting the corner really makes it sub 500 anyway. I've noticed since joining this forum that since courses typically use multiple lines to calculate distances of holes that how I play a hole will usually shorten the actual length. There is one completely straight par 4 on a local course I play that really seems to play very long because there are no shortcuts.

[Slice of Life]

A sub 500 yd par 5 seems short to me, but then again most par 5's aren't straight so cutting the corner really makes it sub 500 anyway. I've noticed since joining this forum that since courses typically use multiple lines to calculate distances of holes that how I play a hole will usually shorten the actual length. There is one completely straight par 4 on a local course I play that really seems to play very long because there are no shortcuts.

Yeah, I have one like that at one of my favorite course. 417 yard par 4, but seems so much longer because it's dead straight and narrow.

[wils5150]

.

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.

.

It may be a length advantage unless they are very accurate with their hybrids which most of them are. if we were talking about the lpga playing 7000  yard courses the length would be  a huge advantage but, they don't.

[Slice of Life]

It may be a length advantage unless they are very accurate with their hybrids which most of them are. if we were talking about the lpga playing 7000  yard courses the length would be  a huge advantage but, they don't.

If a guy is a scratch golfer on 6500-7000 yard courses, he's gonna be able to golf close to par on a 6,400 yard course with short par 3s and 5s.

Again, +4 makes you top 50 in the tournament. +13 still had a pay day.

[wils5150]

if you say so

[Jeremie Boop]

if you say so

It's pretty obvious that unless there are significant other difficulties a shorter course will play easier. Even accounting for more doglegs/trees someone with more distance will have more options because they would be able to go over trees when the shorter hitter wouldn't. If there are more hazards/traps the longer hitter would be able to hit a shorter club allowing for more control *usually* for more precise shots. Also, generally speaking, a mid-short iron shot will be easier to get close to the pin/on the green than a long iron-hybrid/fw wood would be. I can't think of an instance when being a longer hitter would be detrimental.

[Dave2512]

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.

I don't think I've missed the point at all because course ratings play a significant part in handicap and course ratings are based on those numbers regardless of how they are derived. Which brings up another point that's probably been discussed. The scratch golfer is a moving target. The guy that plays scratch golf and primarily plays at Bethpage Black and the scratch golfer that primarily plays at  his local city course maintained by retirees and immigrants aren't playing the same quality of golf.

Like I said IMO the comparisons being made here seem to be based on PGA vs. LPGA averages. I'm not convinced the male scratch golfer has a significant distance advantage because we don't have a consistent example of this golfer. Beyond that I think we can use examples we do see that the LPGA does play at an elite level even if we just base the judgment in what we saw from Annika and Wie. We can compare how they played in PGA events to how the majority of the amateurs and PGA pros play in the US Open and PGA. Those guys are a small group and some of them put up 90's in those events. No doubt there is disparity between the LPGA best and those at the bottom but how can we determine how much compared something that's tough to define. If we can't use USGA definitions what else is there? To get to scratch it's accomplished using those definition and ratings.

[wils5150]

I agree jeremie length is never a bad thing.  I also think anyone who thinks a scratch player would make a living, make the cut on a regular basis or the alike on the lpga tour is living in fantasy land. These girls even the bottom level ones are way better than most people think

[Slice of Life]

I don't think I've missed the point at all because course ratings play a significant part in handicap and course ratings are based on those numbers regardless of how they are derived. Which brings up another point that's probably been discussed. The scratch golfer is a moving target. The guy that plays scratch golf and primarily plays at Bethpage Black and the scratch golfer that primarily plays at  his local city course maintained by retirees and immigrants aren't playing the same quality of golf.

Like I said IMO the comparisons being made here seem to be based on PGA vs. LPGA averages. I'm not convinced the male scratch golfer has a significant distance advantage because we don't have a consistent example of this golfer. Beyond that I think we can use examples we do see that the LPGA does play at an elite level even if we just base the judgment in what we saw from Annika and Wie. We can compare how they played in PGA events to how the majority of the amateurs and PGA pros play in the US Open and PGA. Those guys are a small group and some of them put up 90's in those events. No doubt there is disparity between the LPGA best and those at the bottom but how can we determine how much compared something that's tough to define. If we can't use USGA definitions what else is there? To get to scratch it's accomplished using those definition and ratings.

I'm posting under the assumption that this is a "real" scratch golfer. That plays multiple courses of varying difficulty at a scratch golf level. Not a guy who figured out how to play par at his local muni course that he plays 3 times a week.

[iacas]

I don't think I've missed the point

You have. You are talking as if the "scratch golfer" by definition hits his ball 250 yards. That's true but only in the "amalgamated" version used to determine course ratings. The real scratch golfers will hit the ball 280, perhaps, but occasionally spray one into trouble. They'll reach 520-yard par fives while the fake, constructed "scratch golfer" never does.

The guy that plays scratch golf and primarily plays at Bethpage Black and the scratch golfer that primarily plays at  his local city course maintained by retirees and immigrants aren't playing the same quality of golf.

That's already been addressed. We've said that a true scratch golfer, not a guy who plays one course, nor a guy who consistently plays an over-rated course.

Like I said IMO the comparisons being made here seem to be based on PGA vs. LPGA averages.

Some people are making those cases. I agree they're largely pointless.

I'm not convinced the male scratch golfer has a significant distance advantage because we don't have a consistent example of this golfer.

I have plenty of evidence, and there is no consistent example. Scratch golfers all have varying strengths and weaknesses.

No doubt there is disparity between the LPGA best and those at the bottom but how can we determine how much compared something that's tough to define. If we can't use USGA definitions what else is there? To get to scratch it's accomplished using those definition and ratings.

There's no way to know. Hence, this discussion where people say what they think. If there was a known answer, then there'd be no need to discuss it.

[Dave2512]

I'm posting under the assumption that this is a "real" scratch golfer. That plays multiple courses of varying difficulty at a scratch golf level. Not a guy who figured out how to play par at his local muni course that he plays 3 times a week.

Great now compare what those elite few do in tournaments like the US Open and PGA. Keeping in mind they are a very small group they get stomped. I think we can agree there are more scratch golfers than touring pros and few ever sniff a PGA event, most can't play on their own dime in rinky-dink mini tour events. How did the guy that won BB Greenbrier do with his golden ticket? That's the type that kicks around at the lowest level of "pro" golf and is better than the rest of us schlubs. Is there enough disparity there to determine the LPGA is somewhere in the middle?

[Slice of Life]

Great now compare what those elite few do in tournaments like the US Open and PGA. Keeping in mind they are a very small group they get stomped. I think we can agree there are more scratch golfers than touring pros and few ever sniff a PGA event, most can't play on their own dime in rinky-dink mini tour events. How did the guy that won BB Greenbrier do with his golden ticket? That's the type that kicks around at the lowest level of "pro" golf and is better than the rest of us schlubs. Is there enough disparity there to determine the LPGA is somewhere in the middle?

Again, take the low end guys in a PGA tournament, and they're making a hefty living on the LPGA tour. Apples and oranges.

A scratch golfer would get destroyed in the PGA. But the disparity between the PGA and LPGA is very large.

[Jeremie Boop]

I agree jeremie length is never a bad thing.  I also think anyone who thinks a scratch player would make a living, make the cut on a regular basis or the alike on the lpga tour is living in fantasy land. These girls even the bottom level ones are way better than most people think

Number 107 on scoring LPGA is 73.04 KATHLEEN EKEY. That's based on course length/layout similar to what the scratch player that Erik described would be able to shoot a similar average. She also made $62,744 this year. So, while the male scratch golfer would technically be able to make a living.

[Dave2512]

Again, take the low end guys in a PGA tournament, and they're making a hefty living on the LPGA tour. Apples and oranges.

A scratch golfer would get destroyed in the PGA. But the disparity between the PGA and LPGA is very large.

I'm not comparing the PGA and LPGA but I will. That's the point if the scratch guy gets stomped in PGA events why does he have what it takes to compete at the LPGA level? We've seen what the LPGA best do in PGA events and we've seen how the majority of elite amateurs fare in PGA events. If the difference in scoring average between the LPGA best and worst in 2013 is 7.6 strokes doesn't it stand to reason they would play better than the amateur that makes a PGA event and ends his Fri nearly +20? We see that all the time. I realize the LPGA few that have played PGA events are a small sample but if we just used scoring average as the measuring stick the disparity between those few and what we see from the amateurs in PGA events the LPGA would have an edge. The guy that won the 2012 US amateur hasn't made a PGA cut, missed nearly as many as Michelle Wie did. How much disparity is there between him and a legit scratch golfer that can't even qualify for a tournament like the US Amateur. Probably quite a bit. But it's been pointed out it's not something we can measure.

[Slice of Life]

I'm not comparing the PGA and LPGA but I will. That's the point if the scratch guy gets stomped in PGA events why does he have what it takes to compete at the LPGA level?

This post could be read as:

I'm not comparing the PGA and LPGA, but let me follow it with a sentence that compares the PGA and LPGA.

In PGA tournaments (not including withdraws), Michelle Wie averaged 10 strokes off the cut. an average of 5 strokes a day...off the cut. Not off the leader, off the cut. And at the time, she was definitely one of the best female golfers on the LPGA. Most of her PGA tournaments were in 2006, when she played 8 LPGA tournaments and made the cut in every one of them, with 6 top 10s.

So the disparity between playing the PGA tour and the LPGA tour goes something like this:

Someone who misses the cut by 10 strokes in the PGA tour, will finish in the top 10 on the LPGA tour.

[Dave2512]

This post could be read as:

I'm not comparing the PGA and LPGA, but let me follow it with a sentence that compares the PGA and LPGA.

In PGA tournaments (not including withdraws), Michelle Wie averaged 10 strokes off the cut. an average of 5 strokes a day...off the cut. Not off the leader, off the cut. And at the time, she was definitely one of the best female golfers on the LPGA. Most of her PGA tournaments were in 2006, when she played 8 LPGA tournaments and made the cut in every one of them, with 6 top 10s.

So the disparity of someone playing the PGA tour and the LPGA tour is someone who misses the cut by 10 strokes in the PGA tour, will finish in the top 10 on the LPGA tour.

.

I said I wasn't comparing the tours with previous posts but I will. I don't think it's relevant.

Let me put it another way. If Steven Fox represents the best of the best amateurs by winning the 2012 US Amateur, 6500 guys tried to qualify for that and just 312 make it, and can't make a cut on the PGA tour what would happen to the roughly 6200 that didn't make it. Like you said they would get destroyed and probably significantly more so than a guy like Steven. Assume some of them are scratch golfers playing comparable courses to what the LPGA plays. This is the golfer I question has what it takes to compete at the LPGA level. Not the guy that makes it into a PGA event. If those guys can't succeed at that level how can they compete with female pros. He's playing scratch golf but not in big events.

[David in FL]

.

I said I wasn't comparing the tours with previous posts but I will. I don't think it's relevant.

Let me put it another way. If Steven Fox represents the best of the best amateurs by winning the 2012 US Amateur, 6500 guys tried to qualify for that and just 312 make it, and can't make a cut on the PGA tour what would happen to the roughly 6200 that didn't make it. Like you said they would get destroyed and probably significantly more so than a guy like Steven. Assume some of them are scratch golfers playing comparable courses to what the LPGA plays. This is the golfer I question has what it takes to compete at the LPGA level. Not the guy that makes it into a PGA event. If those guys can't succeed at that level how can they compete with female pros. He's playing scratch golf but not in big events.

There are scratch golfers and there are "scratch" golfers.......golfers that play to a 0 course handicap on their own home course and struggle to break 80 on any other course.  Erik's OP is clearly talking about the true scratch golfer.  The one capable of playing to a zero course handicap on virtually any course.  A lot of them play a wide variety of courses and a significant amateur tournament schedule at the state and local levels.  They're going to be right around par or a little better on most LPGA tour courses.  That makes a lot of cuts with the ladies......

As to the 6200 entries for the U.S. Amateur qualifying, you only need a handicap index of 2.4 or better to throw your hat into that ring.  Lots of people do it with no expectations except to check a box that they tried.....

[Dave2512]

Still not seeing it if for no other reason than using that example of scratch golfer still sounds like a guy with a day job and a hobby. The 200 or so on the LPGA tour represent the best in the world. I will concede there is a point where the quality of golf seems to fall with LPGA but it's not as dramatic as people are making it out to be. A difference of 7.6 strokes scoring average is between Suzann and the worst on tour and all of that is pro tournament golf, not 10 best of 20 playing who knows where. Even if their courses don't compare to PGA setup it's still probably better and tougher than what we see as amateurs.

I read through Erik's initial post a few times and to me it reads more like a "maybe" than anything. IMO a better question would have been how would a middle of the pack LPGA player fare at your club championship against the men. That and distance seems to be the main reason for the claim. If I've learned anything from the abundance of 300 yd threads here it's distance isn't a huge advantage. How else can we explain all the long hitting high handicapers? I'm certain I've seen your posts proclaiming modest distances in those threads while playing decent golf, 4.7 is good in my eyes. If anything Erik's initial post hints that lack of distance doesn't seem to hinder them as much as less than stellar short game. But not so bad quite a few manage to shoot under par frequently. I guess what I am saying is I don't see gender as a disadvantage, they're still touring pros. I think pro vs. am is a bigger difference than men vs. women at that level. But I do agree with his presumption that with a caddie, quality coach and full time commitment to the cause legit scratch golfers have potential to play at a high level. That's why I brought up Steven Fox. But he's the exception not the rule. For every one like him there's someone like the Big Break guys.