Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[Pretzel]

It's this way in all women's sports except for tennis.

And that's where most of the women who have talent in golf go if they pursue the path of professional sports. Sweeten the pot and this conversation might not exist. As it is, a make scratch golfer wouldn't have too tough a time making the cut at most events.

[acerimusdux]

There's an offset of 6 strokes on my home course as well, and that seems to indicate that a women +6 would be equal to a male scratch and not +8?

Yes, that's similar to the offsets on that course the LPGA players are playing this weekend. It looks like that card got the course ratings incorrect, though. The Thailand Golf Association has it as this:

Black (was Blue when rated)

74.1 132 Men

80.9 140 Women

Blue (was White when rated)

71.4 126 Men

77.6 133 Women

White (was Yellow when rated)

69.8 122 Men

75.6 129 Women

Red

66.0 113 Men

70.7 119 Women

Thing is, they apparently used to call the tips blue, and the current blue were white, and the current white were yellow (as shown here ). That's how they got the wrong ratings down for white and blue (put the current black rating down as blue, the current blue as white, and left the black off the card).

So if the CR was really 71.4, rather than 74.1, that means our scratch male after 2 days, if he played CR+1 each day, would have been at 145, moving him up to T48. Still not competitive with the top ladies, but that does fit in a little more with the idea that he would be good enough to keep in the top 100 and keep his tour card. Seems a little more consistent with what Dave was seeing looking at other tournaments.

[Lihu]

[QUOTE name="Pretzel" url="/t/27302/male-scratch-golfer-on-the-lpga-tour/252#post_1110108"]   Speculation as to the level of competition on the LPGA tour is the reason. Part of the reason, at least I would assume, that the LPGA tour is less competitive is just because athletic and gifted individuals are better off taking up other sports (or non-athletic endeavors) professionally. Women's golf pays diddly unless you're the best in the world. [/QUOTE] This I totally agree. Women's golf doesn't pay much at all. You make most of your money from your endorsements, and still compared to men's golf the amount is a pittance. Those who play are not doing it for the money. It's this way in all women's sports except for tennis.

It wasn't like that all the time in tennis until stronger women filled the ranks of tennis players. If they lengthen the tees and raise the stimp of the greens then stronger and more athletic women will golf. It's not like there aren't any who can fill the ranks if they did that. Currently, no one is looking for them the way the courses are setup for LPGA.

[acerimusdux]

was looking at Kiawah Island and thier 6200 132 slope yard tee box had both mens and womans handicap index. 76.7 women and 70.9 mens. That would mean the woman would have to be a +6 to equal a scratch male. Their 7356 144 slope has a rating of 77.3 That is an extra 1000 yards and 12 degrees equals the same handicap. From 6800 138 it is a 73.5. I just have to imagine that for a woman that would be an 80+. based on the progression. Female golfer would have to play to a +8 to beat the male. I think you are underestimating a male scratch golfer.

I think you are underestimating how much better an LPGA player is than a female scratch golfer. If the LPGA ever played that Kiawah Island Ocean Course, they wouldn't be playing those 6200 yard tees, they'd be playing at the very least the 6475 tees (Mens CR 72.0).  You have to figure they are frequently playing courses which would have a CR for women of 77-78 or more. If they are playing courses with an average CR for men of 71-72, what do you think our scratch male is going to have as a scoring average on those courses? If he averages 72.5, that ranks him 101 in 2014 in scoring average on the LPGA tour.

[DrvFrShow]

It wasn't like that all the time in tennis until stronger women filled the ranks of tennis players.

If they lengthen the tees and raise the stimp of the greens then stronger and more athletic women will golf. It's not like there aren't any who can fill the ranks if they did that. Currently, no one is looking for them the way the courses are setup for LPGA.

Golf is lagging behind tennis, but there are more athletic women starting to play the game now.

I think the PGA and LPGA need to set a minimum age to play in the tour - 18. When we see 15 year olds making the cut, perhaps they need to stimp the greens stronger. I'll go along with lengthening the tees for tournaments maybe to 6800. You can use the back part of the blue box.

Hell, one local muni dog track I play is rated 72.3 from the reds w/ slope 121; then from whites it's 76/129. No rating from the blues. For the men from the blues it's 6600/72/123. The course from the blacks is 74.2/136/7083, but if you played it from the back of the tips acc'd to the groundskeeper it could play 7300 with a 220 yd par 3.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

It wasn't like that all the time in tennis until stronger women filled the ranks of tennis players.

If they lengthen the tees and raise the stimp of the greens then stronger and more athletic women will golf. It's not like there aren't any who can fill the ranks if they did that. Currently, no one is looking for them the way the courses are setup for LPGA.

Golf is lagging behind tennis, but there are more athletic women starting to play the game now.

I think the PGA and LPGA need to set a minimum age to play in the tour - 18. When we see 15 year olds making the cut, perhaps they need to stimp the greens stronger. I'll go along with lengthening the tees for tournaments maybe to 6800. You can use the back part of the blue box.

Hell, one local muni dog track I play is rated 72.3 from the reds w/ slope 121; then from whites it's 76/129. No rating from the blues. For the men from the blues it's 6600/72/123. The course from the blacks is 74.2/136/7083, but if you played it from the back of the tips acc'd to the groundskeeper it could play 7300 with a 220 yd par 3.

But Julia, that would keep Lydia Ko out of the mix.  I think she is a wonderful addition to women's golf.  I have no issue with the youngsters coming in. I think it will help other young people take up the sport.

[newtogolf]

Golf is lagging behind tennis, but there are more athletic women starting to play the game now.

I think the PGA and LPGA need to set a minimum age to play in the tour - 18. When we see 15 year olds making the cut, perhaps they need to stimp the greens stronger. I'll go along with lengthening the tees for tournaments maybe to 6800. You can use the back part of the blue box.

Hell, one local muni dog track I play is rated 72.3 from the reds w/ slope 121; then from whites it's 76/129. No rating from the blues. For the men from the blues it's 6600/72/123. The course from the blacks is 74.2/136/7083, but if you played it from the back of the tips acc'd to the groundskeeper it could play 7300 with a 220 yd par 3.

Venus and Serena did for the WTA what Tiger did for golf.  It will be interesting to see how the WTA does when the Williams sisters hang up their racquets.

The fact 15 years olds make the cut is an indicator of the overall quality of players on the LPGA, especially outside of the top 25.  I think if you increase the stimp rating of the greens and lengthen the tees you'll make it harder for the older players not the younger ones.  You also have to consider that a fair number of players on the LPGA are also part-time models which means they aren't full-time golfers.

[DrvFrShow]

The range where I practice sees a lot of NCAA women. They're really good. They're not even considering playing professionally. They're studying nursing, or considering going onto a professional school. They'll continue to play, but not on the pro circuit.

Regarding tennis, someone else will come along. Parity has been reached in the money. I don't expect it to drop off. There will be another in a few years.

So perhaps with the LPGA, just leave things as they are, and not worry about it. Perhaps a generational group of players will come along and change the game. It s

[Vinsk]

@boogielicious No it wouldn't . She's not perpetually 17yrs old. She turns 18 and gets on tour. What's the hurry? I just think when an 11yr old child can qualify for the US Open, it makes the top 10 ladies look less accomplished. I believe in the first round she beat Natalie Gulbis. Something is awry.

[Lihu]

@boogielicious No it wouldn't . She's not perpetually 17yrs old. She turns 18 and gets on tour. What's the hurry? I just think when an 11yr old child can qualify for the US Open, it makes the top 10 ladies look less accomplished. I believe in the first round she beat Natalie Gulbis. Something is awry.

What's awry is the fact that models can be ranked so high in the LPGA. I think your original thought to make the courses tougher is the only way to make the field stronger.

[DrvFrShow]

The LPGA tour, like the PGA tour is a product. Both require marketing. To attract more and better players, the LPGA tour is going to have to pay out more. Given the amount of work required to make it into a field where only 100 have a chance at earning a living making decent money, most are heading off to other professions once they graduate. I don't blame them. But right now the money isn't there. So some of the players on the tour have to do other things like model to make extra money.

The other thing with the LPGA is that the focus is so much on youth. It's something to do with our society. Someone still in elementary school should not be playing on the tour. There. I said it. For this I blame the parents, and I blame the organizations for not having any kind of age restrictions for playing professionally. One guess is that there aren't nearly as many jr level events for girls as there are for boys.

[acerimusdux]

@boogielicious

No it wouldn't . She's not perpetually 17yrs old. She turns 18 and gets on tour. What's the hurry?

I just think when an 11yr old child can qualify for the US Open, it makes the top 10 ladies look less accomplished.

I believe in the first round she beat Natalie Gulbis. Something is awry.

No it doesn't. Lucy Li wasn't anywhere near the top 10, and she didn't even make the cut in the Open.

Moreover, fretting about underqualified amateurs getting to play against these top players sort of defeats the purpose of having an "Open". The whole point of it is anyone can get in, if they earn it. And I don't get the whole idea that this is somehow damaging to Women's golf. When one of the best male golf champions of all time, Harry Vardon, was actually beaten in the Open by an unknown amateur named Francis Oimet, was that an embarassment for Men's golf? Or did it actually help grow the game?

I just don't see how Lucy Li shooting 78-78 in the Women's Open is much different from Andy Zhang shooting 79-78 in the Men's Open. Both got in the same way, by winning qualifiers. Despite the fact that both are clearly not good enough yet to earn tour cards.

And some of the complaint seems to come from this idea you seem to have that golf should be only about how far you can hit the ball. When LPGA players shoot lower scores than scratch men playing the same course and distance, you think something must be wrong. When Lucy Li outplays those many college women who can drive it as long as many men, and gets into the Open instead of them, something must be awry.

Why not focus instead on what Lucy Li did that made her better than so many people that can hit it farther? After all, her scores are her scores. If she is driving the ball less than 220 yards, there is no shortage of golfers who can outdrive her. How many then are shooting those scores? First off, she was able to enter the qualifyer by virtue of achieving a 1.5 handicap. That might be equivalent of a Men's 7 handicap. Then, she flat out won the qualifier, in which the top 3 finishers get into the Open, by 6 strokes.

The Course the qualifying round was played on is rated at 71.6/125 for Men, 77.3/137 for Women from 6323 yards. It played at 6241 for the qualifier, so maybe more like a 71.0 CR for men for the tees they actually used. Lucy Li shot a 142 for the two day tournament. She pretty much shot the men's course rating for those 2 days, under tournament pressure.

And yes, it being a relatively short course played to her strenghts. But still, all you guys who are easily getting 30 more yards than her on every tee shot, then certainly you should be able to shoot the course rating on a 6800 yard course, right?  If not, then maybe the rest of your game isn't as good as hers . Or should the rest of the game not count?

[newtogolf]

The LPGA tour, like the PGA tour is a product. Both require marketing. To attract more and better players, the LPGA tour is going to have to pay out more. Given the amount of work required to make it into a field where only 100 have a chance at earning a living making decent money, most are heading off to other professions once they graduate. I don't blame them. But right now the money isn't there. So some of the players on the tour have to do other things like model to make extra money.

The other thing with the LPGA is that the focus is so much on youth. It's something to do with our society. Someone still in elementary school should not be playing on the tour. There. I said it. For this I blame the parents, and I blame the organizations for not having any kind of age restrictions for playing professionally. One guess is that there aren't nearly as many jr level events for girls as there are for boys.

In order to pay out more, the LPGA has to demonstrate to sponsors there is a justification for them to put up more sponsor money than they already do, it's a chicken and the egg type of problem.

Open tournaments are intended for non-professionals to compete and earn the ability to play against the pro's so I'm not sure why you have such an issue with it.  Kids can play in an Open and still retain their amateur status if they choose to so I don't see what the problem is other than some LPGA players get embarrassed by losing to a more talented kid.

[BuckeyeNut]

A male scratch golfer would have his clock cleaned on the LPGA tour and would NOT be remotely competitive.   Lets not forget a scratch golfer will average 75-77 even from the tees ladies play on tour.   There is a huge difference between 0HC and scoring average.

[Vinsk]

@acerimusdux Perhaps you missed some previous posts. I'm not hung up on distance. For all those who are convinced that female college golfers, LPGA..are the most amazing athletes on the planet that's fine. They can easily beat any non-pro male hands down. Fine that's wonderful, I'm not going to argue with that. What I'm saying, asking is with the LPGA consisting of such pristine talent and only a small margin of pure distance exists between them and then men....then why is EVERY aspect of the golf course altered for the women? Someone made the statement [ I don't want to watch the women struggle to shoot 80...Id rather watch them compete on a fair level] this was a response to my suggesting they move the tees up 20yds but otherwise keep EVERY thing else the same as they do for the men. Being that the entire short game is not limited by upper body strength why are alterations made? Backside they are women? If that's the case....then this is why I tend to think a scratch male golfer with tournament experience could fair well on the LPGA. There are PGA players who are +4....it seems extreme that a zero HC would be humiliated on the LPGA but a +4 can compete on the PGA. Hell I don't know. I just would like to see the women play Augusta with the tees up 15-20% but no other changes. It's too easy for them. I've watched PGA guys shoot in the 80's. Even big names. I can't remember the last time I saw a big name blow up on the LPGA. I'm sure many here will say it's because they're that much better. I think it's because they have made the tracks too easy for them. With the unnecessarily short holes and the soft greens...they can play awful and still shoot low 70's.

[iacas]

Lets not forget a scratch golfer will average 75-77 even from the tees ladies play on tour.

No they wouldn't. I play with some guys who are between +1 and 1 and they don't average that on courses rated 74.3/144 from 6900 to 7100 yards.

I've also taught a few LPGA players and male scratch golfers. The male scratch golfers are better than the fringe "50/50 to keep their card" LPGA players, and that's just in terms of their ball striking. Men often putt better and have a better short game.

I stand by what I've said in this thread: they'd make most cuts, keep their cards, and likely rarely if ever finish in the top 10 of a tournament unless they got freakishly hot four days in a row…

[BuckeyeNut]

No they wouldn't. I play with some guys who are between +1 and 1 and they don't average that on courses rated 74.3/144 from 6900 to 7100 yards.

I've also taught a few LPGA players and male scratch golfers. The male scratch golfers are better than the fringe "50/50 to keep their card" LPGA players, and that's just in terms of their ball striking. Men often putt better and have a better short game.

I stand by what I've said in this thread: they'd make most cuts, keep their cards, and likely rarely if ever finish in the top 10 of a tournament unless they got freakishly hot four days in a row…

I agree..... I was scratch on a course rated 75.1/141 7100yds and with a 77.8 scoring average.    I was trying to be extremely generous considering the LPGA plays from 6500yds on courses rated 72CR.  LOL

[DrvFrShow]

In order to pay out more, the LPGA has to demonstrate to sponsors there is a justification for them to put up more sponsor money than they already do, it's a chicken and the egg type of problem.

Open tournaments are intended for non-professionals to compete and earn the ability to play against the pro's so I'm not sure why you have such an issue with it.  Kids can play in an Open and still retain their amateur status if they choose to so I don't see what the problem is other than some LPGA players get embarrassed by losing to a more talented kid.

The LPGA has to demonstrate that there's a justification for more sponsor money, and the sponsors have to put up more money to attract more players so that there's a justification.

And I see something else with kids. What I see goes to piano competitions and stuff like that with the next big thing being the cute 12 year old being trotted out to perform the Rachmaninoff 3rd piano Concerto. You do realize how much practice time it takes to master the instrument to the level to perform it, right? The child has no life from the age of 5 through their teens. Practice is a solitary endeavor outside of school where they also have maintain straight As. It's like spending hours upon hours hitting balls.

So while it's fine for a kid to play golf and be good enough to play in events, perhaps they should also be able to be a kid, too. Some parents have a tendency to live out their own dreams through their kids, and the kid of 11 or 12 has no say in the matter.

I stand by what I've said in this thread: they'd make most cuts, keep their cards, and likely rarely if ever finish in the top 10 of a tournament unless they got freakishly hot four days in a row…

I agree with this assessment.