Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[Lihu]

Or another example: 74,71,76,78,72,75,75,73,76,76,73,77,77,72,74,69,75,71,78,73 That's a scratch golfer (handicap of .17) on a course with a 72 CR, with a scoring average of 74.2, with only 25% of scores at 72 or better, and standard deviation of about 2.6. And keep in mind we haven't considered ESC, either. If we add to the above scores for handicap purpoese, that out golfer has one or two holes in 20 rounds where he scored worse than double bogey, that won't change his handicap, but will increase his average score a bit.

I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to shoot 69, then 75 the next day. The odds of someone who normally shoots 74.2 getting a 69 are not high at all. Looks unrealistic. . .odds are about 379:1 http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html

[acerimusdux]

I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to shoot 69, then 75 the next day.

The odds of someone who normally shoots 74.2 getting a 69 are not high at all. Looks unrealistic. . .odds are about 379:1

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html

That says it's 1:57.

Remember, he's scratch, so a 69 is only about  a -3 differential. And that was the only 1 in 20 that was a -2 differential or better (I had no 70 there).

So if you like, just make that 69 a 70, and it's still a handicap of .25, average score now 74.3, and standard deviation now 2.4.

Moreover, assume three stokes are gained in his 10 handicap rounds due to ESC, say a 74 is recorde as a 72 and a 72 as a 71 for handicap purposes, and then that handicap is truly down to 0.

[Golfingdad]

I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to shoot 69, then 75 the next day. The odds of someone who normally shoots 74.2 getting a 69 are not high at all. Looks unrealistic. . .odds are about 379:1 http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html

How does somebody "normally shoot 74.2???" You're confusing average score with handicap I think. Pretty sure those odds are for a guy shooting 5 strokes under his handicap. A guy who averages 74.2 is going to have some 70's and maybe some 69's in his normal rounds to also account for the 78's. It's not uncommon at all. That's actually how averages work.

[acerimusdux]

Lihu,

I think the guy you are imagining is maybe also possible as well. I was going off what are supposed to be the typical "average" scratch golfer, but since we're talking about a subset of truly competitive tournament golfers here, maybe they do have to be more consistent.

Take this set of 20 scores (I won't bother randomizing the order this time): 70,71,71,72,72,72,73,73,73,73,73,73,74,74,74,75,75,75,76,77

This golfer is still a 0 handicap. But his standard deviation is only 1.75, and his average score is now down to 73.3.

I think this would be considered very consistent, and you wouldn't get too many more consistent that that, but certainly there are some of these guys are out there. And they'd be more likely to make those cuts than the "average scratch" guy I was imagining.

[Shorty]

I'm not sure you understand how difficult it is to shoot 69, then 75 the next day.

It is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from a scratch golfer.

And by scratch I don't mean someone who breaks 80 occasionally.

I go by the definition offered by the @ mvmac and myself.

[Lihu]

How does somebody "normally shoot 74.2???"

You're confusing average score with handicap I think. Pretty sure those odds are for a guy shooting 5 strokes under his handicap. A guy who averages 74.2 is going to have some 70's and maybe some 69's in his normal rounds to also account for the 78's. It's not uncommon at all. That's actually how averages work.

Right, the keyword is "maybe", which is what I doubt. Even 57:1 odds is kind of slim IMO.

Lihu,

I think the guy you are imagining is maybe also possible as well. I was going off what are supposed to be the typical "average" scratch golfer, but since we're talking about a subset of truly competitive tournament golfers here, maybe they do have to be more consistent.

Take this set of 20 scores (I won't bother randomizing the order this time): 70,71,71,72,72,72,73,73,73,73,73,73,74,74,74,75,75,75,76,77

This golfer is still a 0 handicap. But his standard deviation is only 1.75, and his average score is now down to 73.3.

I think this would be considered very consistent, and you wouldn't get too many more consistent that that, but certainly there are some of these guys are out there. And they'd be more likely to make those cuts than the "average scratch" guy I was imagining.

It's easier for me to believe that someone is scratch if he doesn't shoot 69 then 75 all the time. We doubted Dan (from the Dan Plan), being a 3 handicap because that is more or less the way he got down to that handicap. So, why would we suddenly allow a scratch player that kind of inconsistency?

It is exactly the sort of thing I would expect from a scratch golfer.

And by scratch I don't mean someone who breaks 80 occasionally.

I go by the definition offered by the @mvmac and myself.

Right, and I was just going by the odds calculated by USGA to estimate a scratch golfer's scores***.

I'll take look at your and Mike's definitions a little more carefully. . .

***Of course as a roughly 12 handicap, I have shot a couple differentials in the 7 to 8 range in my last 20 scores which are 120:1 odds for each time. Not saying it can't happen, but not sure that someone shooting 69s and 75s is going to be scratch for that long. It seems like more of a crap shoot to make a few birdies one day then a few bogeys the next.

[acerimusdux]

Right, the keyword is "maybe", which is what I doubt. Even 57:1 odds is kind of slim IMO.

It's easier for me to believe that someone is scratch if he doesn't shoot 69 then 75 all the time.

But we're looking at samples of 20 scores. A 1:60 event will occur in one in every three such samples. It was only a 69 in this sample due to randomness, which was included to make the scores look more realistic. It doesn't really change the argument if you make it a 70 instead.

Also, look even at PGA players, and you will see 69 then 75 (or vice-a-versa) isn't that uncommon.  Look at Bay Hill this weekend:

Ryo Ishikawa: 70 69 69 75

Blayne Barber: 72 65 74 73

Kevin Kisner: 69 71 69 75

Keegan Bradley: 68 70 69 77

Vijay Singh: 71 70 76 69

Hunter Mahan: 68 74 69 75

These are only 4 round samples, and I just found 6 guys who did it who all ranked in the 40s to 50s.

As for which type of "scratch" golfer is more likely, the example I gave of the guy with the 74.2 average had an anti-handicap of 3.6.  I don't think that's all that high, not at all Dan Plan territory (and I never questioned whether his handicap was honest, either).  The more consistent golfer, with the 73.3 average, and 1.75 SD, had an anti-handicap of 2.2. I think that would be considered very low.

I'd like to have better data though. Do we know what the average anti-handicap or the average standard deviation of scores is for a scratch golfer?

I'm going mainly on what I've read about the average scores for scratch golfers still being 2+ strokes above the handicap, plus something I saw that had a scratch golfer with a 2.0 standard deviation labeled a "Steady Eddie".  The graph here for example shows that even for a zero handicap golfer the odds of shooting a zero differential are supposed to be only one in four. That would make the odds of doing that two rounds in a row only 16:1.

[x129]

I disagree, and don't feel as though you've really read this thread.

Your argument above boils down to "because I think so" and doesn't respond to or acknowledge the points made by others.

Again, men's handicap ratings are about six strokes better than women's from the same yardages (or vice versa, depending on how you want to think of it). The guy is effectively a +6 women's golfer. +6s (men) do reasonably well on the PGA Tour.

The fall-off in talent is steep on the LPGA.

P.S. Michelle Wie played her home course and still MCed. Annika played a short course that minimized her disadvantage and… still MCed. Additionally nobody is talking about the best of the best on the LPGA Tour or saying the guy would WIN or CONTEND for events.

How do +6 woman do on the LPGA tour? Just because they do well on the PGA tour does not mean they would do the same on the LPGA.

The first LPGA event of the year was held at Golden Ocala Gold at 6541 which would give a rating of about 72.8/136 (mens).   Our male golfer can go out an shoot 73s and be scratch. How would he have done in the tournament? Winning score was -16. The cut was 148.  Shooting 292 would have gotten you 53rd place. I wouldn't call that remotely competitive. I have looked at and seen other tournaments done and they all work out about like this.

Lets see what the guy needs to do to make the tour. It plays about 70.7/137 from 6240 yard. The woman played from 6389.  Qualifying required 4 rounds of par.  That is definitely a possibility  but it isn't a sure thing by any mean.

Yes Wie and Annika missed the cut. Given them 20+ opportunities a year and they will get 2 good rounds in a row and make a cut. Do you think a scratch golfer would have any chance?

Care to post any evidence that a scratch golfer would be anything other than a bottom feeding LPGA pro struggling to make cuts?

[Lihu]

But we're looking at samples of 20 scores. A 1:60 event will occur in one in every three such samples. It was only a 69 in this sample due to randomness, which was included to make the scores look more realistic. It doesn't really change the argument if you make it a 70 instead. Also, look even at PGA players, and you will see 69 then 75 (or vice-a-versa) isn't that uncommon.  Look at Bay Hill this weekend: Ryo Ishikawa: 70 69 69 75 Blayne Barber: 72 65 74 73 Kevin Kisner: 69 71 69 75 Keegan Bradley: 68 70 69 77 Vijay Singh: 71 70 76 69 Hunter Mahan: 68 74 69 75 These are only 4 round samples, and I just found 6 guys who did it who all ranked in the 40s to 50s. As for which type of "scratch" golfer is more likely, the example I gave of the guy with the 74.2 average had an anti-handicap of 3.6.  I don't think that's all that high, not at all Dan Plan territory (and I never questioned whether his handicap was honest, either).  The more consistent golfer, with the 73.3 average, and 1.75 SD, had an anti-handicap of 2.2. I think that would be considered very low.     I'd like to have better data though. Do we know what the average anti-handicap or the average standard deviation of scores is for a scratch golfer? I'm going mainly on what I've read about the average scores for scratch golfers still being 2+ strokes above the handicap, plus something I saw that had a scratch golfer with a 2.0 standard deviation labeled a "Steady Eddie".  The graph [URL=https://www.myscorecard.com/cgi-bin/knowledgecenter.pl?mode=article&category;=golf_handicap&file;=probabilities&article;=Score-Probabilities]here[/URL] for example shows that even for a zero handicap golfer the odds of shooting a zero differential are supposed to be only one in four. That would make the odds of doing that two rounds in a row only 16:1.

I have to admit, I'm not as much a stats observer as you or others on this site. I was only looking naively at the math, and looked up the odds fact for my post. Interesting. . .

[14ledo81]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/27302/male-scratch-golfer-on-the-lpga-tour/486#post_1118543"]   I disagree, and don't feel as though you've really read this thread. Your argument above boils down to "because I think so" and doesn't respond to or acknowledge the points made by others. Again, men's handicap ratings are about six strokes better than women's from the same yardages (or vice versa, depending on how you want to think of it). The guy is effectively a +6 women's golfer. +6s (men) do reasonably well on the PGA Tour. The fall-off in talent is steep on the LPGA. P.S. Michelle Wie played her home course and still MCed. Annika played a short course that minimized her disadvantage and… still MCed. Additionally nobody is talking about the best of the best on the LPGA Tour or saying the guy would WIN or CONTEND for events. [/QUOTE] How do +6 woman do on the LPGA tour? Just because they do well on the PGA tour does not mean they would do the same on the LPGA. The first LPGA event of the year was held at Golden Ocala Gold at 6541 which would give a rating of about 72.8/136 (mens).   Our male golfer can go out an shoot 73s and be scratch. How would he have done in the tournament? Winning score was -16. The cut was 148.  Shooting 292 would have gotten you 53rd place. I wouldn't call that remotely competitive. I have looked at and seen other tournaments done and they all work out about like this.  Lets see what the guy needs to do to make the tour. It plays about 70.7/137 from 6240 yard. The woman played from 6389.  Qualifying required 4 rounds of par.  That is definitely a possibility  but it isn't a sure thing by any mean.    Yes Wie and Annika missed the cut. Given them 20+ opportunities a year and they will get 2 good rounds in a row and make a cut. Do you think a scratch golfer would have any chance? Care to post any evidence that a scratch golfer would be anything other than a bottom feeding LPGA pro struggling to make cuts?

Did you read the whole thread? What you stated here is basically what has been said.

[David in FL]

How do +6 woman do on the LPGA tour? Just because they do well on the PGA tour does not mean they would do the same on the LPGA. The first LPGA event of the year was held at Golden Ocala Gold at 6541 which would give a rating of about 72.8/136 (mens).   Our male golfer can go out an shoot 73s and be scratch. How would he have done in the tournament? Winning score was -16. The cut was 148.  Shooting 292 would have gotten you 53rd place. I wouldn't call that remotely competitive. I have looked at and seen other tournaments done and they all work out about like this.  Lets see what the guy needs to do to make the tour. It plays about 70.7/137 from 6240 yard. The woman played from 6389.  Qualifying required 4 rounds of par.  That is definitely a possibility  but it isn't a sure thing by any mean.    Yes Wie and Annika missed the cut. Given them 20+ opportunities a year and they will get 2 good rounds in a row and make a cut. Do you think a scratch golfer would have any chance? Care to post any evidence that a scratch golfer would be anything other than a bottom feeding LPGA pro struggling to make cuts?

Come back when you've read through the entire thread.... .....where your questions have been answered several times.

[acerimusdux]

How do +6 woman do on the LPGA tour? Just because they do well on the PGA tour does not mean they would do the same on the LPGA.

The first LPGA event of the year was held at Golden Ocala Gold at 6541 which would give a rating of about 72.8/136 (mens).   Our male golfer can go out an shoot 73s and be scratch. How would he have done in the tournament? Winning score was -16. The cut was 148.  Shooting 292 would have gotten you 53rd place. I wouldn't call that remotely competitive. I have looked at and seen other tournaments done and they all work out about like this.

I think your disagreement with Erik is mainly over the word "competitive",  if you think making cuts and finishing 53rd isn't competitive.

But I don't think anyone is really arguing that the scratch golfer would be in the top 50 on the LPGA Tour.  If you look at the LPGA scoring averages though, the falloff from there is pretty steep, and a good scratch male (who can play to that level in tournament golf and maybe has above average consistency), should easily be competitive enough to keep a tour card, make a good number of cuts, and likely rank in the top 100.

On Golden Ocala, the 72.8 rating is from 6707 yards, and according to the LPGA site they played it at 6541 yards, so the CR was likely around 72. But even two rounds of 74, for a 148, was just enough to make the cut there. And yes, averaging 1 over CR for 4 rounds had you tied for 53rd. This weekend, for the Founders Cup, I would estimate the CR was more like 69.9 (it was rated 70.3 from 92 more yards then they set it up). But you needed to average just a stroke over the CR each round, a 142, to make the cut. If you did that for 4 rounds, you would have shot a 284 and finished T64.

On the other hand at Pure Silk in the Bahamas, The Ocean Club Course was rated 72.9 from 6676 yards, and the ladies played it at only 32 yards less than that. So you would think a CR around 72.75. But to make the cut you had to score only .75 above that each round, for a 147. A stroke above CR wouldn't have made it. But averaging a stroke over for 4 rounds still had you with a 295, finishing T68.

So there is going to be some inconsistency week to week, partly because we can only estimate course ratings for the LPGA setups, partly because course ratings are going to have some inconsistency anyway, and partly because different conditions may make a course play a little differently than it's rating one particular week.  But on the whole, it appears that a golfer who can shoot 1 over the CR fairly often is going to have some success there, not winning tournaments, but regularly making cuts and keeping a tour card.

[iacas]

How would a scratch golfer fare against LPGA pros? Not well.

---

Various keyboard warriors have suggested a typical scratch golfer would be able to compete on the LPGA. The evidence suggests otherwise.

1. This topic is 13 years old. The LPGA has gotten better in the last 13 years.
2. This tournament was the Tournament of Champions.
3. There's still about six shots between a male and a woman from the same tees at the bottom end of the scale.
4. I still think that a scratch golfer could keep his card on the LPGA Tour, but due to #1 in particular, I'd amend that to say that he'd have to be a scratch golfer at the beginning of the year and would have to make golf his full-time gig like it is for the women, and play and practice and work out and train… and he'd end the year as a +1 or +2 or something.

[Vinsk]

Damn, Mardy Fish a +2.8 and cards an 80 and 82? 

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Damn, Mardy Fish a +2.8 and cards an 80 and 82? 

Yeah, that wasn't good.

[boogielicious]

8 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Damn, Mardy Fish a +2.8 and cards an 80 and 82? 

Well he did have to wear a sweatah cuz it was a wee bit chilly for the fellah! 😜

[Ty_Webb]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Yeah, that wasn't good.

Yeah - I've seen handicap indexes like these. I wonder what the Californian is for "only posts the good scores". Either that or has only played two rounds in 2.5 years, might explain the 80 and the 82.

As to the original point, I've only read the first and last pages of the thread because there's 500 posts in between and I'm supposed to be working, so with that in mind, my thoughts:

I believe that a typical average score would be about 3 shots worse than your index. Perhaps that's a little lower the lower your handicap gets, so let's say 2 shots worse for a scratch. That means if you're playing a course with a rating of 70, you're likely to be averaging about 72. If the slope is high, perhaps 73. I'm not particularly familiar with LPGA course setups, but I would imagine they are not tucked away like they are for the PGA tour. I'd still expect them to be more hidden away than a typical daily setup, but perhaps similarly with state level men's amateur setups. 

So, for an example, I present myself. My index is +0.6. The new system is definitely a little more generous than the old one was (8 of 20 rather than 10 of 20 with the 0.96) since both benefit me. Here's my last 20 scores starting with the oldest first with course rating, slope and differential

79 72.2/130 5.9*

73 71.8/132 1.0*

75 77.5/155 -1.8

75 74.4/143 0.5

78 76.7/148 0.2* (this had a +1 PCC)

82 76.7/148 3.3* (another +1 PCC)

89 76.7/148 8.6* (another +1 PCC)

81 77.5/155 2.6*

76 71.1/136 4.1*

74 71.9/130 1.8

77 74.1/144 2.3*

75 71.7/137 2.7*

77 72.7/131 3.7

72 74.8/131 -2.4

72 73.9/129 -1.7

72 72.5/136 -0.4*

76 74.6/138 1.1*

78 74.6/138 2.8*

77 77.5/155 -0.4

82 73.1/138 7.3*

Handicap +0.6, anticap (worst 8 of last 20) 4.8, average differential 2.1. The scores with an asterisk are tournament scores. The others are practice rounds or friendly games. 14 different courses represented here. I played two at one course, three at another and four at another. The +1 PCC scores were all at one course. The second two rounds were on the same day. It was 90+ on both temperature and humidity and I was carrying my own bag. It was windy and the course was bouncy and if you missed the playing corridors you lost your ball. It was ridiculously hard. The +1 PCC was a joke, because I went and checked and about half the +5s in the field that shot low-mid 80s didn't post their scores. It should have been +3 probably if everyone posted their scores. But I digress.

I don't play a whole lot. I have two small kids and they eat into my potential golf time substantially. The above represents about 80% of the golf I played in 2021. I had one stretch in September where I played 14 rounds in 12 days. Most of those were foursomes (alternate shot), which is why they're not in the list above. By the end of that I was playing substantially better. The three 72s in a row were two in the middle of that and one a week after I got back. That was my best stretch of golf during the period. I do think if I was playing most every day and practising/working on my game every day then I would improve over the course of a year. 

I took a look at the LPGA tour rankings for 2021. The 120th ranked player (assuming that's the cut off for keeping your card) was Caroline Inglis. She played 21 events during the year and made 9 cuts. A few events that jumped out at me:

11/11/21 she finished Tied 11th and won almost half the money she won in the year - she shot 68, 70, 64, 66. I know nothing about the course, but even if it's 6,000 yards, that's some impressive scoring. She missed the three cuts before that with 146, 150 and 142. 50th spot looks like it pays around 4,000-6,000. The higher amounts presumably would be the higher profile events with stronger fields. Her stats: scoring average 72.15, 18 rounds under par, 8 rounds in the 60s, she won $77,778 in the year. Driving average distance 250.32 and 77.17% fairways hit with 68.69% GIRs and 1.83 putts/GIR. Sand saves 42%.

So, given I'm playing as often as I do right now, she's shorter than me, but more accurate. Hits more greens and has fewer putts when she hits them and fewer overall. She's playing courses probably quite a bit shorter than I do, which will be a chunk of the difference in the scoring average, but I doubt if it's all of it. If I played 20 events in the year, I doubt if I'd make more cuts than her, so I'd need to have a high finish or two somewhere along the way. Her four round total of 268 in November is definitely better than I could do. In all honesty, I don't think I'd finish high enough in any event to win enough money to keep my card.

Having said that, if I did play and practice every day, starting the year where I am now, I would definitely improve (if my back allowed me to). I think I'd make a few cuts and if I got really hot one week I might be able to string some results together. I still don't think I'd be good enough to shoot 268 for four rounds. That's impressive. My vote is no. I do know a few people who could do that and would probably keep their cards, but they're not scratch.

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Either that or has only played two rounds in 2.5 years, might explain the 80 and the 82.

Bingo. Missed by everyone saying "look, a +2.8 shot 80/82 from the same tees as the LPGA Tour players."

5 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

I'm not particularly familiar with LPGA course setups, but I would imagine they are not tucked away like they are for the PGA tour. I'd still expect them to be more hidden away than a typical daily setup, but perhaps similarly with state level men's amateur setups.

They're getting better, but there are still a number of courses that could host an LPGA Tournament tomorrow… if they lightened up on the setup slightly. The bottom half of the LPGA Tour isn't that good.

And remember, the topic dates back to 2009. The LPGA Tour has gotten better since then. It's now around, in my rough estimate, late 1970s on the PGA Tour level… 🙂