How bad can a plus capper play? AKA I played with a very delusional man today

[Gerald]

Quote:

Comparing any touring pro to amatuers, save for an elite amatuer playing his very best, is silly. Course rating is one thing, tournament conditions with 1000s of people watching is another. And the opposite, a tour pro coming to your club for a friendly 18 under member conditions? Prepare for the course record to be most likely broken, plus the "holy crap, I'm playing against tiger" factor ie the extra pressure that you have to play your best ever to even hang around. Smart money bets on pro 99 out of 100 times.

I don't think so .... we have had Tour pro's playing at our course, maybe not the best of the best, but lowest score was 67 (which was 5 under, or if you compare it to the course rating 7 under par), a few in the 68-70 level, but most of them were around par or a little above.

Even at a 7000 CR 73 or 74 course there are no guarantees for a string of birdies .....

Further the Tour Pro's play in course conditions that are 1000% better than most amateurs are playing in, a course it optimal prepared for them, sand is near new and soft, there is a fairway, a first cut, a second cut and rough (and even most rough is shorter or thinner than under the normal conditions amateurs have to play in all year). Some area's are marked as GUR, while these areas are no GUR when we play the course. If a Tour pro hits his ball in the rough, there are always front caddies or spectators or camera's, so a ball is normally never lost. And when a tour player hits it ball way off line into the gallery, not seldom there is a nice dropping zone .......

SO of course the courses are so much harder and longer in tour players conditions, they also got a lot of relief.......

Taking all of the above in account, you might conclude its is not silly to compare amateurs to Tour Pro's

I say that if a tour player isn't getting the relief they get, there are no guarantees a ball in the rough will be found, etc. he will also loose maybe two balls in a round and playing from bunkers with hardly any sand in them or heavy sand or from a not harked bunker, they will have a hard time getting it close, and putting at a slow uneven green will also cost them a few strokes ......

In all there are no guarantees a tour pro will blast an amateur course under the average amateur conditions !

[arogolf]

Logical thoughts, but local pros "trying to make it" versus a travelled touring pro is different. The above example was joe schmo against tiger woods. You can have joe and a dozen shots and I will take tiger. I don't care if they play in a parking lot with broomsticks, tiger will dominate. And, are they wagering at all? Tour pros make their living off the game, ams do not. There are other factors to consider than just average score and course conditions. This would make a good golf channel show!

[Harmonious]

I am of two minds on this.  On the one hand, I know firsthand how great the tour players are, having played with several, and having watched them at many tour events.  Their talent is far above even what is seen on TV.  On the other hand, it would not be a given that they would shoot a course record every time they stepped onto a golf course.

For example, take a standard course with both a par and a rating of 72.0.  Certainly far easier than the tour pro is used to playing on tour, but not a pitch and putt, either.  Let's not use Tiger, as he was far outside the norm of the tour at one time.  Let's just take a really good tour player with a handicap, if actually calculated, at +7.0.  He should then be expected to average 65 on this imaginary course half the time. Let's assume that 3 of the par 5's are reachable in two for him.  He gets birdie on those 3.  That puts him at 3 under.  On the other 15 holes, he has to shoot 4 under.  Not unreasonable, perhaps, but certainly not a given, either.  And, if he makes just one bogie, he must then shoot 6 under on the remaining 14 holes, which would be a great accomplishment. And that's on the half of his "good" days.

An amateur golfer at scratch is at 0.0.  Half of his scores should average 72.  It's not unlikely to assume that he might make a couple of birdies, maybe 2 of the par 5's are reachable for him.  He makes a couple of bogies elsewhere, and doesn't sink any other birdie putts, although he probably would have 8 chances or so. That's a 72.

In this scenario, which I don't think is too unreasonable, the scratch amateur (given 7 strokes) would make a decent game of it with the tour pro.  Certainly not saying he would win every time, but it wouldn't be just 1 in 100 either.

[arogolf]

Again, that sounds logical.  But, are we talking about a head to head match for money?  I am sure the pro wouldnt even do it unless there is serious money on the line.  The extra pressure of betting, intimidation, etc gives the advantage to the pro.  We cant discount the experience of actually playing for money in this scenerio.  If the same pro X played the same am Y 100 times in simulation, the law of averages might come into play.  But if its just a random pro against a random am, the pro will win almost everytime.  We are talking about an "extra gear" that pros possess that am golfers, even scratch - do not consistently have.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

An amateur golfer at scratch is at 0.0.  Half of his scores should average 72...

Don't forget the multiplier the handicap system uses - half of his scores on a course rated 72 should average 72/0.96 = 75.

[Leftygolfer]

I think the experience of playing under extreme pressure would give the generic tour pro a huge edge.  In real life, this would probably be a huge match for the generic scratch player and for the tour pro, this would be no presure at all.  No one in this discussion ever played golf for a living and sure tournement golf is a different game at local levels, but nothing compared with the pressure of having to perform to provide for their families and live up to their own expectations on and off the course.

No I don't think it is a given that a PGA tour pro is going to light up an average course, but I think that is far more likely than the scratch player playing well in that match.  I'll take the PGA tour player everytime against a scratch player giving him 6 to 7 shots.  I'd say a 70% chance the tour pro wins.  In poker, that is about as good as it gets.  Sure you loose sometime, but that is getting your money in good.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Don't forget the multiplier the handicap system uses - half of his scores on a course rated 72 should average 72/0.96 = 75.

The .96 number is multiplied by the average of the differentials, not the score.  A player whose 10 best scores out of 20 averages 75 on a 72.0 rated course (ignoring the slope) has a handicap of (75-72) * .96 = 2.88. A player who averages 72 on the same course has a handicap of 0.0.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

The .96 number is multiplied by the average of the differentials, not the score.  A player whose 10 best scores out of 20 averages 75 on a 72.0 rated course (ignoring the slope) has a handicap of (75-72) * .96 = 2.88. A player who averages 72 on the same course has a handicap of 0.0.

You're right of course... I should never post before breakfast.

[ND Fan]

I just realized that many golfers have no idea just how good these guys are or how tough the courses they play are.

If you think a PGA tour player is a +5 at best  so be it.  I can accept that your wrong.

Marc Leishman and Dean Wilson are currently tied for the 100th spot on the tours scoring average, their average is a respectable 71.36 playing on courses that rate typically higher than 75.  Take into consideration that tournament pressure and tour set up makes the scoring that much more difficult I would conservatively up the course rating one shot.

Since they average 71.36 their top ten scores out of twenty are more likely to be an average of of up to 2 shots less, round up to the nearest half point and you have 69.5 playing a rating conservatively estimated at 75.  The 100th ranked pga tour pros are +6 handicaps and these are the guys fighting to keep their card every year.  Steve Stricker currently leads scoring at 69.45. So he's more like a +8 or +9

I rest my case

A plus handicapper can shoot mid to high 70's but rarely in the 80's.  The last time I shot in the 80's was over two years ago. I play a wide variety of golf courses through out the year.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by ND Fan

Since they average 71.36 their top ten scores out of twenty are more likely to be an average of of up to 2 shots less, round up to the nearest half point and you have 69.5 playing a rating conservatively estimated at 75.  The 100th ranked pga tour pros are +6 handicaps and these are the guys fighting to keep their card every year.  Steve Stricker currently leads scoring at 69.45. So he's more like a +8 or +9

A plus handicapper can shoot mid to high 70's but rarely in the 80's.  The last time I shot in the 80's was over two years ago.  I play a wide variety of golf courses through out the year.

So....If you were to have a game against Steve Stricker, how many strokes do you think you should get?  If he gave you 4 a side, could you give him a match?  Many folks say no, you would have no chance, I think you would hold your own, at least.

[johnny2balls]

I played at Whisper Rock in AZ. One of the coolest things is that they post all of the handicap printouts in the locker room just like any other club would.  They must have at least 15+ Tour pros who belong and play there regularly.  I took a good hard long look at the caps when I was there.  Phil was by far the lowest handicap with a +6.3 the day I was there.  The next was about a +2.9 and all of the rest were +1 point somethings to +2 point somethings.  Gary McCord, I remember was the lowest pro I saw with maybe about a zero.

Anyways, these are tournament winning tour pros with caps of +1.8.

I will be my house, car and guitar collection on any amature with a +1.8 who wants to play one of the pros who also has a +1.8.  The amature will lose every single time.  The leap between pro golfers and high caliber amatures is WAY beyond handicap numbers.

I play regularly with a +1 amature golfer.  I've seen him shoot 65 and I've seen him shoot 79.  I've never seen him shoot above 79.  I also play with several 1,2 and once in a revision scratch caps and have seen them shoot 69 and have seen them shoot 89.  what does all that mean.  I have no idea as I type.  But my point is, the pros are good. Way beyond good. Way beyond amatures.

I'll take oh let's say Ted Purdy.  He has played in 6 Nationwide events this year and is 197 out of 206 on the $ list.  I will again bet my house, car and guitars that Ted will beat any Club Champion from any club in America 9 out of 10 times. I give the 1 out of 10 win to some of our countries extremely good amature club champions. The vast majority of amature club champs will never ever stand a chance against him. And he is bottom of the barrel Nationwide Tour.

[johnny2balls]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Quote:

I don't think so .... we have had Tour pro's playing at our course, maybe not the best of the best, but lowest score was 67 (which was 5 under, or if you compare it to the course rating 7 under par), a few in the 68-70 level, but most of them were around par or a little above.

Even at a 7000 CR 73 or 74 course there are no guarantees for a string of birdies .....

Further the Tour Pro's play in course conditions that are 1000% better than most amateurs are playing in, a course it optimal prepared for them, sand is near new and soft, there is a fairway, a first cut, a second cut and rough (and even most rough is shorter or thinner than under the normal conditions amateurs have to play in all year). Some area's are marked as GUR, while these areas are no GUR when we play the course. If a Tour pro hits his ball in the rough, there are always front caddies or spectators or camera's, so a ball is normally never lost. And when a tour player hits it ball way off line into the gallery, not seldom there is a nice dropping zone .......

SO of course the courses are so much harder and longer in tour players conditions, they also got a lot of relief.......

Taking all of the above in account, you might conclude its is not silly to compare amateurs to Tour Pro's

I say that if a tour player isn't getting the relief they get, there are no guarantees a ball in the rough will be found, etc. he will also loose maybe two balls in a round and playing from bunkers with hardly any sand in them or heavy sand or from a not harked bunker, they will have a hard time getting it close, and putting at a slow uneven green will also cost them a few strokes ......

In all there are no guarantees a tour pro will blast an amateur course under the average amateur conditions !

I just read this one after my post. I'm sorry Gerald but just about everything you posted here is dead wrong. I've been to many golf tournaments N-Wide and PGA on both sides of the ropes. More times than not there are not loads of people to see and find your ball.  Many times you get out there and there is no gallery. No one cares to see what Ken Duke of Richard Johnson are doing besides their spouses. There are no "front caddies" or cameras. Not unless you are #1 a high ranked player, #2 friends with the Golf Ch/CBS/NBC producer, #3 leading or close to it.

The rough is always longer and thicker than normal play.  Tell me one course where they set up the rough to make it easier on the pros than for the regular players. I can't think of any course I have visitied and seen this.

If a tour player hits into the gallery, they play it where it lies. Why would they get a nice dropping zone as you say.

Do you think the courses the Nationwide guys play on are as pristine and perfect as you say. Or the Hooters guys who are also breaking 70 four out of four rounds? No way. And not every PGA course is a pristine and perfect as you want to believe with all of this new sand and everything. Hooters, N-Wide, PGA course all get set up much harder for tournament play.

So, I will say it absolutely is foolish to compare amature to pros if you know what you are talking about. Like ND Fan just said above..."I just realized that many golfers have no idea just how good these guys are or how tough the courses they play are. "  I too now just realized it myself.

[Gerald]

bla-bla-bla-bla

All championship courses are optimum prepared for those tournaments, commities of the PGA will come to check roughs and will advise to do this and to do that etc..... and you can be sure of the fact all is done...... to please the officials.

At every few or even every hole a referee is availble to judge if a lie etc.....

every hole has front caddies, helping to locate off the fairway balls.

Not seldom there are spectator stands behind the greens and as you cannot play from a spectator stand, there will be many dropping zones, so in the case the tour player gets a flier from the riygh shooting over the green in there, they will escape mostly, while we are in deep trouble, etc.

Just believe what you want to believe, but I am not running to the shop after a tournament to buy what the winner played ..... but lots of people do, just ask what the sales and marketing managers do if their new toys wins a tournament, yep dancing around their desk like an ape with 7 dickies ...... because next monday the telephones will be ringing whole day..... like hell .....

[TourSpoon]

Sorry, I have to go with Johnny.

I had a friend that was top 10 Canadian Tour in the 90s that stopped by the club I was working at to play a practice round before he made his way to play in a few PGA events later in the season. Now you have to realize that before playing in Canada, he had played the Australasian Tour, the Tommy Armour Tour, Golden Bear, Hogan, etc. The point is this guy had been around and had a swing that stopped people in their tracks. He was built like Ogilvy and had the tempo of Els. I set up a match on our course that was playing about 6700 yards (again in the 90s where we played the old school metal drivers with balata balls) and he had a mere 7 birdies from imperfect bunkers, wirey lies, bare fairways, and greens running about 7s on a course he had never seen before. The only blemish was on a blind tee shot that I gave him a bad line because I didn't realize that he could hit it so far and he hit it in a lake and had to drop behind a tree for double and final score of 67. He went on to play a few PGA events, Nationwide, etc and never made the big time. The point is you don't know how good these guys are when a Tour hopeful can have a day like that on an imperfect course sight unseen. These guys aren't good, they are %^&*#! good.  I played with him on a few other occasions and saw him shoot just under par on a day with the wind blowing 20, gusting to 30.  There is where I saw him a lot of "Quail High" draws under the wind that literally blew us away. Another acquaintance is a Florida mini-tour player and is no where near the caliber of this guy. He routinely shoots low to mid 60s on local courses that he knows from the tips which are usually playing @ 7000. Again, this guy is not even tour material, but he can play serious golf on the plus side.

Now to be honest, I have also met guys who claim to have game and can't play to a 5 on a regular basis. No one would ever mistake one of these posers for either of the two players mentioned above even on their worst days.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by ND Fan

If you think a PGA tour player is a +5 at best  so be it.  I can accept that your wrong.

Since they average 71.36 their top ten scores out of twenty are more likely to be an average of of up to 2 shots less, round up to the nearest half point and you have 69.5 playing a rating conservatively estimated at 75.  The 100th ranked pga tour pros are +6 handicaps and these are the guys fighting to keep their card every year.  Steve Stricker currently leads scoring at 69.45. So he's more like a +8 or +9

75-69.5 = 5.5 .

5.5 * 113/140 = 4.44 .

4.44 * 0.96 = 4.3 .

The example you gave works out to a 4.3 index with a fairly conservative slope of 140 for a PGA Tour level course.

Please read this article again: http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros . ;-) You'll note that we calculated Tiger's handicap at +7.9. Jim Furyk's was +6.7. Tom Pernice (#30 that year) was +4.9 and #130 was +4.0. Pretty much inline with the numbers you've suggested here. And that's using the Buick Invitational for many with a course rating of 78.1.

Stricker's not a +9.

[TourSpoon]

Going back to Tour Quality, the biggest difference that you will see when you play with a Tour Quality player (besides the unreal ballstriking) is their ability to make par from anywhere. If you go to a Tour event you will see the same tee shots, approaches, etc., but what really separates the guys at this level is around the greens, and we are not talking much here but maybe a stroke a round. Golf at the highest level is a game of making the best mistake when a mistake happens. I have friends that play to scratch who may have quite a few birdies a round, but they also card some bogeys. Granted the ballstriking is not on par with the best, but it would be considered local elite. They are still not playing the game the guys on TV are playing, but next to the average Joe, they are impressive in their own right. And again, it is easy to separate the players from the posers!

[Leftygolfer]

One thing I believe (no real facts to back this up) is that as you get better it is harder to improve.  It heck of a lot easier to improve from a 8 to a 6 than from a 2 to a 0.  I'm not saying it is easy but there are more places to save strokes thus more room for improvement.  When you get down to the very high quality amateur player it is going to be very hard to shoot much better than there standard 73-74 consistantly.  To move your index down to the +2 level, your going to have to through in a bunch of sub 70 rounds and change your standard round to 71-72. They are already making putts, hitting quality shots, never making doubles, getting up and in from the slight miss all the time.  So the difference between a 0 and a plus 4 (let's just say that is a standard tour player) is huge.  It is so hard to get that much better when your already playing at a high level.  Each stroke gets so much more important as you get better and better.  If your scoring average on tour is 73, your not on tour, if it is 71.5, you are making a great living with no worries of loosing your card.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by trickymicky69

I played with a scratch golfer yesterday (I know this as he is my club pro)

I have seen him play before and the guy is brilliant.

I swear to god he must have hit about 20 duck hooks (irons and woods)

He didnt make any excuses either apart from (I seem to be clearing my hips too quickly etc etc)

It can happen to the best of us

So he hit some bad shots...but how did he score?

I've seen Anthony Kim and Graeme McDowell hit a bunch of hooks in a round and still play close to par or better.  Everybody hits bad shots, but when it comes to these anecdotes, I'm more interested in knowing how they scored amongst all of those poor shots.  In theory, that should be what separates them from us.

Brandon