Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[Vinsk]

So Buckeyenut.....if you feel a scratch guy would be annihilated on the LPGA....who exactly do you feel could keep his card? I mean surely you don't think low ranked PGA players would struggle on the LPGA? The whole basis of the question and using "scratch male" is not to belittle the LPGA. It was an estimate taking in consideration males are dominant in most sports. That's not sexist, rude or PC incorrect. It's just a fact of human nature. It's why we have an Lpga, a Wnba, women's soccer, women's tennis...... So considering the physiological advantage males have, at what level sub-pga pro could compete?

[Pretzel]

My problem with these types of scenarios is that I don't believe that we're comparing apples with apples. The handicapping system is supposed to take into account all of the variables, but it doesn't when people do it their own way. When I think of a scratch player, and the dozens I have known over the years, I am thinking about a player who is regularly under par and expects par. A round of 75 on a decent course in OK weather is a poor round, but is erased by several rounds around par.  Scratch players can struggle, but their scores are very consistent. Here, I see people writing who say they are are close to scratch never having played a competition round, asking what to expect in their first "tournament" and people in the mid single figures ditching drivers and asking for advice about golf balls. To answer the question - I think that a scratch player who is a top amateur - one of the best guys in a region that everyone knows about - would need 7 shots a round over 4 rounds to be anywhere near say, Kaymer when he's shooting mid to high 60s. My point is that a person who manipulates a handicap and calls himself a scratch player may be a 10 or 12. Someone reading this thread could have in mind a player who says he's scratch but is nowhere near it. So person A ( a relative newbie whose father in law says he's a scratch but never putts inside 4 feet) may not be aware that "scratch isn't scratch". Person B might think of a guy who plays off scratch was pro for a coiple of years, made no money and went back to amateur status. My scratch player might do his scratch player by 15 shots. Which leads me to........ Back to my pet topic, Dan McLaughlin, who thinks he's a 2.x wouldn't be within 10 shots of the players I know who are genuine 0, 1 or 2 players. 2 markers are not scoring in the 80s more than once or twice in 20 rounds. His "83" at Pebble would be closer to 100 than 90 if he'd played off the big boy tees. And we aren't all playing Oakmont off the back tees week in week out.

This is a good point to make here. The #1 player on my high school team was a +1.3 and wouldn't have had any issues playing on the LPGA tour and doing quite well. Most high school tournaments are actually quite similar to the LPGA ones in terms of yardage and difficulty honestly (having played in one and been to the other). This guy had a scoring average of about a 68-69 in our tournaments through the year, which would be more than competitive on the LPGA. He was a + handicap however, but it's still safe to say a scratch wouldn't have too much trouble at least keeping his card, especially if he improved over the year.

[neophyte]

After hearing people talk about their experiences in how much harder championship courses and their setup is compared to local setups and courses.

A scratch at the local muni would probably have a bunch of mid 70's and a few low 80's listed in their scores.

How would this player fare in Florida, Pennsylvania, Mid Amateur State championship?  I would guess their probably score jump up to be around 80 to 85.

How would this player fare in the national Mid Amateur championship?  I would guess their probable score to be 85 to 95.

How would this player fare in the Final Qualification of the US Open?  I would guess their probable scores to be 85 to 100.

One year I think Tiger said the average scratch player would not score under 100 on the US Open setup.  Big ben a great professional quarterback and really good golfer shot under 100.

And this scratch muni player is really good when we see him at our local course.

But we have to realize that pros playing on the tours aren't good,  they are great beyond anything I can comprend.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavvySwede

I figure Kaymer was playing  to about a +10 that week. 1000 yards, easier pins, and softer greens should cut down the difficulty by at least 3 strokes and giving up seven stokes should bring it to an even match up. How many strokes do you think would be necessary?

My problem with these types of scenarios is that I don't believe that we're comparing apples with apples.

The handicapping system is supposed to take into account all of the variables, but it doesn't when people do it their own way.

When I think of a scratch player, and the dozens I have known over the years, I am thinking about a player who is regularly under par and expects par. A round of 75 on a decent course in OK weather is a poor round, but is erased by several rounds around par.  Scratch players can struggle, but their scores are very consistent.

Here, I see people writing who say they are are close to scratch never having played a competition round, asking what to expect in their first "tournament" and people in the mid single figures ditching drivers and asking for advice about golf balls.

To answer the question - I think that a scratch player who is a top amateur - one of the best guys in a region that everyone knows about - would need 7 shots a round over 4 rounds to be anywhere near say, Kaymer when he's shooting mid to high 60s.

My point is that a person who manipulates a handicap and calls himself a scratch player may be a 10 or 12. Someone reading this thread could have in mind a player who says he's scratch but is nowhere near it. So person A ( a relative newbie whose father in law says he's a scratch but never putts inside 4 feet) may not be aware that "scratch isn't scratch". Person B might think of a guy who plays off scratch was pro for a coiple of years, made no money and went back to amateur status.

My scratch player might do his scratch player by 15 shots. Which leads me to........

Back to my pet topic, Dan McLaughlin, who thinks he's a 2.x wouldn't be within 10 shots of the players I know who are genuine 0, 1 or 2 players. 2 markers are not scoring in the 80s more than once or twice in 20 rounds. His "83" at Pebble would be closer to 100 than 90 if he'd played off the big boy tees. And we aren't all playing Oakmont off the back tees week in week out.

While I completely agree with the rest of your assessment, I think there is only about a 25% difference in handicap values due to the method of calculation. If we use a running average your handicap will essentially be your average raw differential while with the USGA method it will be 96% of the best half of your differentials or a fraction more than 26%.

So, a 3 handicap here would be roughly a 4 handicap there, and an 10 handicap will be a 13 over there. A 2 handicap will essentially be a 2 handicap with both methods. By the time you get to scratch, there is 0 difference, and plus handicaps will be identical (assuming they get rid of the 0.96 factor for negative numbers).

I can see an 8-9 handicap being a 10-12, but I don't see it possible that a 3-5 handicap would be a 10-12 handicap over there as long as they play by the standard ROG all the time.

[Vinsk]

Neophyte You misquoted Tiger. He said " a 10 HC couldn't break 100" Much, Much different than scratch.

[neophyte]

Big difference.  Thanks Vinsk for clarifying that.

But I hope my point about course setup getting harder isn't lost?

[GHIN0011458]

To answer the question - I think that a scratch player who is a top amateur - one of the best guys in a region that everyone knows about - would need 7 shots a round over 4 rounds to be anywhere near say, Kaymer when he's shooting mid to high 60s.

I love this line because I have done the math, and for me to be on a large tour (web.com even) I feel like I would need to take off 7 strokes per round. At 7 strokes per round I would basically be dominating every tournament I play in by 3 to 4 strokes over a couple of days, on average. Only 7 strokes away lol.

On a side note- I think that you have to take in the competitive nature of tournament golf for anyone who would have to compete for money on a week to week basis to make a living like they do on the LPGA Tour as well. Which is why I would stick at that +2 level IMO. Maybe we could get Blair O'Neal to come to St. Louis again and I could get in a round with her?

http://ghintpp.com/maga/TPPOnlineScoring/ResultsStroke.aspx?id=180

73, 80 on that course for 5th place in a qualifier is not very good though I will say. But I think she lost her LPGA card maybe.

[GHIN0011458]

After hearing people talk about their experiences in how much harder championship courses and their setup is compared to local setups and courses.

A scratch at the local muni would probably have a bunch of mid 70's and a few low 80's listed in their scores.

How would this player fare in Florida, Pennsylvania, Mid Amateur State championship?  I would guess their probably score jump up to be around 80 to 85.

How would this player fare in the national Mid Amateur championship?  I would guess their probable score to be 85 to 95.

How would this player fare in the Final Qualification of the US Open?  I would guess their probable scores to be 85 to 100.

One year I think Tiger said the average scratch player would not score under 100 on the US Open setup.  Big ben a great professional quarterback and really good golfer shot under 100.

And this scratch muni player is really good when we see him at our local course.

But we have to realize that pros playing on the tours aren't good,  they are great beyond anything I can comprend.

A scratch golfer wouldn't jump up to an average of 80 to 85 at a state amateur level..

[Pretzel]

A scratch golfer wouldn't jump up to an average of 80 to 85 at a state amateur level..

Unless their name happens to be Dan (with a poor plan)... Anyways, back on topic, I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Were discussing someone who plays to scratch for men in the tournaments, not someone who got to scratch in isolation and then blows up in tournaments. LPGA tournaments are set up crazy easy compared to the PGA ones, and are only as hard as the boys high school golf tournaments where you see some scratch golfers shooting 67 to 70 with consistency.

[iacas]

A scratch at the local muni would probably have a bunch of mid 70's and a few low 80's listed in their scores.

How would this player fare in Florida, Pennsylvania, Mid Amateur State championship?  I would guess their probably score jump up to be around 80 to 85.

No, to all of that.

One year I think Tiger said the average scratch player would not score under 100 on the US Open setup.  Big ben a great professional quarterback and really good golfer shot under 100.

Ben was a single digit handicapper (not scratch) and shot 81 at a U.S. Open course (Bethpage Black). This setup was MUCH more difficult than what the LPGA Tour plays, even in their U.S. Open.

But we have to realize that pros playing on the tours aren't good,  they are great beyond anything I can comprend.

The LPGA Tour is significantly less so, and having worked with Tour players… I can comprehend it.

Big difference.  Thanks Vinsk for clarifying that.

But I hope my point about course setup getting harder isn't lost?

They aren't significantly harder on the LPGA Tour. I've played LPGA Tour courses, and often the course is set up easier than it is for member play.

[Shorty]

While I completely agree with the rest of your assessment, I think there is only about a 25% difference in handicap values due to the method of calculation. If we use a running average your handicap will essentially be your average raw differential while with the USGA method it will be 96% of the best half of your differentials or a fraction more than 26%.

So, a 3 handicap here would be roughly a 4 handicap there, and an 10 handicap will be a 13 over there. A 2 handicap will essentially be a 2 handicap with both methods. By the time you get to scratch, there is 0 difference, and plus handicaps will be identical (assuming they get rid of the 0.96 factor for negative numbers).

I can see an 8-9 handicap being a 10-12, but I don't see it possible that a 3-5 handicap would be a 10-12 handicap over there as long as they play by the standard ROG all the time.

I am talking about DIY handicappers who make up their own rules and give each other putts and take mulligans - the ones we read about here who say they had 79 when their partner (the poster here) says they wouldn't have broken 90. Or the ones where someone here says their boss or their father or father in law rolls the ball, knocks back putts  etc. and essentially cheats, claiming a low handicap and never scoring near it.

A newcomer to the game could think he played with a a scratch marker but didn't think he was that good.

[DrvFrShow]

At least my 24 is in league play where we play by ROG - OOB? you walk back and re-hit. No mulligans. I suck and I'm under no illusion.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

While I completely agree with the rest of your assessment, I think there is only about a 25% difference in handicap values due to the method of calculation. If we use a running average your handicap will essentially be your average raw differential while with the USGA method it will be 96% of the best half of your differentials or a fraction more than 26%.

So, a 3 handicap here would be roughly a 4 handicap there, and an 10 handicap will be a 13 over there. A 2 handicap will essentially be a 2 handicap with both methods. By the time you get to scratch, there is 0 difference, and plus handicaps will be identical (assuming they get rid of the 0.96 factor for negative numbers).

I can see an 8-9 handicap being a 10-12, but I don't see it possible that a 3-5 handicap would be a 10-12 handicap over there as long as they play by the standard ROG all the time.

I am talking about DIY handicappers who make up their own rules and give each other putts and take mulligans - the ones we read about here who say they had 79 when their partner (the poster here) says they wouldn't have broken 90. Or the ones where someone here says their boss or their father or father in law rolls the ball, knocks back putts  etc. and essentially cheats, claiming a low handicap and never scoring near it.

A newcomer to the game could think he played with a a scratch marker but didn't think he was that good.

I rarely see this being done with the folks I play these days, but yes, I have seen it done in the past especially when playing on the weekends.

All the club golfers around here play strictly by all the rules.

[iacas]

[acerimusdux]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretzel


Unless their name happens to be Dan (with a poor plan)...

Anyways, back on topic, I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Were discussing someone who plays to scratch for men in the tournaments, not someone who got to scratch in isolation and then blows up in tournaments.

Yes, I think that was specified many pages back, before Buckeye even joined in the discussion. I think a lot of the discussion recently has really been based on misunderstandings of what we mean by a scratch golfer. There's a big difference between a guy who plays to scratch in competitive tournaments, and many golfers who claim a scratch rating, but haven't proven it in competition.

I thought the Trackman Combine stats here (page13) were interesting.

Now the Trackman Combine test doesn't include any putting, and driver is only one of the ten tests, the other nine are targets ranging from 60 yards (55 meters) to 180 yards (155 meters). The scores are based on how close you get to the targets, 10 shots at each. What's interesting is they have data collected for lots of players on this, and the women are taking exactly the same test as the men, so you can compare scores. And these are the average scores they are showing for various classes of players:

Men

82.9 Tour Professional
80.6 Developmental Tour
77.8 Mini Tour
75.2 Collegiate Golfer
68.1 AJGA
63.9 Amateur

Women

77.5 Tour Professional
74.3 Developmental Tour
72.3 Mini Tour
69.3 Collegiate Golfer
65.3 AJGA
53.9 Amateur

And then they have the amateur golfers broken down by handicap:

Men

74.4 +5 to 0
69.6 1 to 4
63.4 5 to 9
57.9 10 to 12
54.2 13 to 16
49.7 17 to 20
45.1 20+

Women

67.7 +5 to 0
62.6 1 to 4
55.5 5 to 9
46.7 10 to 12
44.2 13 to 16
41.2 17 to 20
29.7 20+

But, there's a catch here:

Quote:

The groupings of the handicaps were chosen based on how amateur golfers see themselves: a scratch golfer, average golfer, bogey golfer, etc.

So this is based on what people self identify themselves as. At any rate, on this particular test, mostly about hitting target from 60 to 180 yards, the women on the top tours are clearly doing better than the men who self-identify as 0 to +5 handicaps.  In fact that group is more similar to the women on developmental tours.

But a true "scratch" tournament golfer is probably more comparable to what they are labelling here a "mini tour" player. The male mini tour golfers had scores very comparable to the women touring professionals.

They have some of these mini-tour events here in FL, the kind where it costs $200 to enter, which includes the cost of the round and cart fee, and if you finish in the top half, you some momey back, in the top 25%, you at least get your entrance fee back, and the overall winner may only get about $1000. With a small field, only about 25 guys, the top prize might only be $800. So this is pretty much the lowest level of competitve tournament golf, with prizes on the line. Anyway, going by the results of the half dozen events I looked at, if you take course rating and round up to the nearest whole number, that's pretty much what you had to shoot to finish in the top half.

Another way to look at it is the USGA definition of a scratch player,  "an amateur player who plays to the standard of the stroke play qualifiers competing in the United States Amateur Championship." So by that definition you would have to actually be good enough to qualify for the US Amateur.  Less than 300 golfers in any year do. And the actual scores shot in the US Amateur Championship in 2014 at the Atlanta Athletic Club averaged 75.02 on a course with a 76.2 rating (the Riverside Course) and 74.71 on a course with a 75.9 rating (the Highlands Course). I'd expect those guys might do well on the LPGA tour.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by acerimusdux

Quote:

The groupings of the handicaps were chosen based on how amateur golfers see themselves: a scratch golfer, average golfer, bogey golfer, etc.

So this is based on what people self identify themselves as. At any rate, on this particular test, mostly about hitting target from 60 to 180 yards, the women on the top tours are clearly doing better than the men who self-identify as 0 to +5 handicaps. In fact that group is more similar to the women on developmental tours.

I doubt that a +5 is worse than the LPGA average. In fact, I doubt that +2 to +5 is worse.

[acerimusdux]

I doubt that a +5 is worse than the LPGA average. In fact, I doubt that +2 to +5 is worse.

No but that was the average for the range, so the average golfer in that group is probably about a +2. And that's a self-identified +2, which might be based on casual rounds on their home course.  That guy whose a +2 handicap on his own course, but hasn't tested it in tournament competition, might well be worse than LPGA average.  He might not actually play to scratch or better if he can't handle the pressure.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

I doubt that a +5 is worse than the LPGA average. In fact, I doubt that +2 to +5 is worse.

No but that was the average for the range, so the average golfer in that group is probably about a +2. And that's a self-identified +2, which might be based on casual rounds on their home course.  That guy whose a +2 handicap on his own course, but hasn't tested it in tournament competition, might well be worse than LPGA average.  He might not actually play to scratch or better if he can't handle the pressure.

There is a lot less data for +2 to +5 handicaps because there are so few golfers with that skill level so I doubt it represents what a +2 averages.

A +2 is a pretty solid golfer without too much of a problem with "pressure" as he puts enough on himself to break par every single round by 2 strokes. This takes length and accuracy. If you compare an LPGA who gets very high scores in the 60 to 160 yard levels to a male +2 who gets a slightly lower score in this range but a much higher one with the two remaining tests that does not really tell you how well they will perform on the course. It tells you of their "potential" with some arbitrary metric.

If, for example, a scratch drives 280 yards and hits within 30 feet from 180 yards, that score is weighted a lot less because there are more categories in the shorter distance. If an LPGA can hit within, let's say 6 feet from 60 yards while the +2 only hits within 8 feet then he will have a much lower score, the putting averages from 6 feet versus 8 feet are not that much different. In fact they are in the same "5-10 foot" statistic category. So, at this level of performance the difference is not very meaningful.

So, if they play on a course together even though they have equal combine results, the +2 player will always be let's say 34 yards longer than the average LPGA (246 yards driving average). For example, if they are playing a 400 yard par 4 the +2 golfer will be driving within 120 yards and the LPGA will be 154 yards. It is doubtful that the LPGA will hit inside the scratch from 34 yards farther away.

Now, if they are playing a 470 yard par 4, which matches the skill level of a +2, the +2 could use a driver and iron (possibly the 6i) while the LPGA would need to use a hybrid. The chances of the LPGA hitting the green are really small, while the male +2 can make a GIR at least some of the time with a shorter and more accurate club.

This is why a +2 would probably have a better chance of beating the average LPGA. Of course my numbers like 280 yard driving distance and 180 yard 6i are somewhat arbitrary as well, but are reasonable as an average from what I have seen.