Pros vs. Ams.....What's the difference?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I already used my three words to describe the difference -

Scratch ain't sh*t.

It's 50 miles ahead of 7.3 though. right?!?

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

It's 50 miles ahead of 7.3 though. right?!?

Well said.  Lots of "scratch bashing" going on here, you'd think we were asking whether we could make the tour if we just put our minds to it. Scratch may be sh*t to a couple thousand tour players or tour wannabe's, but it's still pretty damn good to millions of golfers who will never sniff it.

[colin007]

i think one thing we can take from this thread is that to get an average player better, they need to work on the long game.  enough of this "short game is whats keeping you back" crap thats spread in the mags and on the golf channel...

[rustyredcab]

Originally Posted by colin007

i think one thing we can take from this thread is that to get an average player better, they need to work on the long game.  enough of this "short game is whats keeping you back" crap thats spread in the mags and on the golf channel...

By observation, getting to single digits can be done with a great short game as long as the long game is not killing you. Lots of older guys have lost their youthful long games but still score well. Getting to low single digits requires the whole package day in and day out.

Being a Pro is an entire new level of excellence that seems more like a gift (cultivated with work) than a result of some strategy that any good golfer can execute.

To try another analogy, think graphic design. I am not a designer but have interviewed and hired many over the years. With the advent of computers, almost anyone can learn the programs and "do" graphic design. But people either have "it" or they do not. If they do not have that thing that allows them to see things in a design way, they can not get "it" by more hard work. They can train themselves to copy elements of good work, but great original design is a gift -- IMHO. Those with "it" need to study and work to use their gift. But they have the gift. I do not have that gift but can see it in others. I think whatever it is that makes a Pro golfer a pro-level talent is the same kind of thing.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

Over a legit scratch, I'm going with 8.

PGA Tour scoring averages are still almost 71. Give a legit scratch guy more than, say, four rounds to get a true average and he's not going to average 86. Upper 70s, but not 85-86.

I guess is depends on your definiton of a "legit scratch". My definition of a legit scratch is one averaging 74-75 over his last 20 rounds (his best 10 giving him his 0.0 handicap). If he is averaging 74-75 at home, I doubt very much he's going to average 79 on tour. I think he's going to be at least 10 shots more than his home average. That puts him 13-14 shots off the tour average.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

Well said.  Lots of "scratch bashing" going on here, you'd think we were asking whether we could make the tour if we just put our minds to it. Scratch may be sh*t to a couple thousand tour players or tour wannabe's, but it's still pretty damn good to millions of golfers who will never sniff it.

2.0 is not scratch! There is no scratch bashing going on, more like PGA Tour pro admiration. I think some of the low handicappers are getting their knickers in a twist because of the comparison with a PGA Tour player. Compared to a PGA Tour player, it's true, we ain't sh*t (I consider myself a scratch golfer as I was off 0.2 when I turned pro and haven't really improved since). Obviously, compared to the millions of high handicappers that struggle to break 90 we ARE the sh*t.

[saevel25]

A true scratch player, i think i agree with Iacas on this one, about 8 strokes over a pro, on the same course.

Quote:

If he is averaging 74-75 at home, I doubt very much he's going to average 79 on tour

Depends on the home course. What if the scratch who's home course is Firestone Country club and he's playing the tips. To me it depends on the player. If its someone who can play the tips, who plays a course thats decently tough, at least 130 slope, then he would be giving less strokes than someone else. So i don't like this generalization, because golf is to varied. There are probably some scratch players out there who could play scratch on a pro golf course.

I have been on golf courses with a 135 slope before and shot my handicap. I have been on courses that have 120 and shot horrible. Depends on the course, how it matches my golf game, and if i am playing good that day. I think its the same for Pro's. Look at Rory, he lit up the Old Course when it was a calm day, get the wind and rain gonig and he shot a round in the 80's.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Depends on the home course. What if the scratch who's home course is Firestone Country club and he's playing the tips. To me it depends on the player. If its someone who can play the tips, who plays a course thats decently tough, at least 130 slope, then he would be giving less strokes than someone else. So i don't like this generalization, because golf is to varied. There are probably some scratch players out there who could play scratch on a pro golf course.

You make some goods points and yes it is tough to agree on the definition of a scratch golfer. That's why I said in an earlier post that there are different types of 0.0 handicappers! If somebody is shooting level par at FCC from the tips, they are probably better than 0.0.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Look at Rory, he lit up the Old Course when it was a calm day, get the wind and rain gonig and he shot a round in the 80's.

This is my point. I am not saying the scratch golfer won't shoot a 72 or even under par at some point if he played an entire season on tour. However, his average would be mid-80s due to the number of tough tracks on tour. He could possibly not break 90 on his first trip to Augusta and imagine the nightmare he could have at the US Open, assuming he could play in these events.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

2.0 is not scratch!  There is no scratch bashing going on, more like PGA Tour pro admiration. I think some of the low handicappers are getting their knickers in a twist because of the comparison with a PGA Tour player. Compared to a PGA Tour player, it's true, we ain't sh*t (I consider myself a scratch golfer as I was off 0.2 when I turned pro and haven't really improved since). Obviously, compared to the millions of high handicappers that struggle to break 90 we ARE the sh*t.

You're right, 2.0 isn't scratch.  I should probably change my profile handicap, since I'm currently at +0.4, but since it changes every couple of weeks, I don't see the need.

If anything, the low handicaps are the ones saying there is a large difference.  It seems the higher the handicap, the more people seem to think there isn't much difference.  15 strokes?  Not that much.  I'm in the 6-8 stroke range.  Look, if the handicap system works the way it should, my best 10 rounds out of the last 20 at a 76 rated course should average 76, just like a pro with a +6 should average 70.  That's assuming the course is set up to play at it's rating.  If it was toughened up for a pro tournament, that shouldn't affect the rating too much, as that is based mainly on yardage. Let's say the rating would be increased a couple of strokes to 78, but unless there are holes that require 280 yard carries over water, I should be able to shoot 78 half the time.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

If it was toughened up for a pro tournament, that shouldn't affect the rating too much, as that is based mainly on yardage. Let's say the rating would be increased a couple of strokes to 78, but unless there are holes that require 280 yard carries over water, I should be able to shoot 78 half the time.

But toughening the courses up for a pro tournament DOES affect the rating and by quite a lot. So you won't be shooting 78 half the time, you'll be shooting more. And God knows what you'll be shooting the other half of the time. Hence, the high average score.

Read this great article from this very forum for more information:

http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I guess is depends on your definiton of a "legit scratch". My definition of a legit scratch is one averaging 74-75 over his last 20 rounds (his best 10 giving him his 0.0 handicap). If he is averaging 74-75 at home, I doubt very much he's going to average 79 on tour. I think he's going to be at least 10 shots more than his home average. That puts him 13-14 shots off the tour average.

I'm not even legit scratch (I don't play enough or I think I would be) and my average isn't that high. My bad rounds are 73s or 74s. My good rounds are 70s or 71s. "Legit scratch" in my mind is someone who is a +0.1 to 0.0 with an anti-handicap index of about 1.0 to 1.1, give or take a little. Not a guy who is a 0.3 with an anti-handicap of 4.5 like you seem to believe.

So I disagree and I think you're using circular logic to an extent. You've not defined a scratch golfer, you've defined a 1 or 2 handicapper.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'm not even legit scratch (I don't play enough or I think I would be) and my average isn't that high. My bad rounds are 73s or 74s. My good rounds are 70s or 71s. "Legit scratch" in my mind is someone who is a +0.1 to 0.0 with an anti-handicap index of about 1.0 to 1.1, give or take a little. Not a guy who is a 0.3 with an anti-handicap of 4.5 like you seem to believe.

So I disagree and I think you're using circular logic to an extent. You've not defined a scratch golfer, you've defined a 1 or 2 handicapper.

For someone that doesn't play very much, you are extremely consistent. I am more erratic, not helped by current swing changes but generally always have been, and that's possibly why I've come to my conclusion. The scratch golfers I play with, let's say between +0.4 and 0.4, not to disagree over a decimal point or two, definitely have bad rounds WELL over 73-74. Some occasionally shoot in the 80s. My stroke average for my last 20 rounds played from the tips on various golf courses in my area is 74.9 (best 10 rounds = 72.3, worst 10 rounds = 77.5).

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

But toughening the courses up for a pro tournament DOES affect the rating and by quite a lot. So you won't be shooting 78 half the time, you'll be shooting more. And God knows what you'll be shooting the other half of the time. Hence, the high average score.

Read this great article from this very forum for more information:

http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

I have read that article (several times over the past couple of years), and it proves my point.  The hardest course listed there had a rating of 78, others were 73,75,etc.  In other words, not all of the courses are impossible.  Difficult? Sure.  But not impossible for a true scratch player to play to his handicap.

I've played several tour courses in my earlier days (Torrey Pines, TPC Sawgrass, Spyglass Hill) and they were tough for sure, but I don't think I would ever shoot 90 on them. Frankly, I would be disappointed if I shot anywhere in the 80's.  There would be some holes that would be hard to hit in regulation due to their length, but most would be OK. And those that weren't hit in regulation should be an up-and-down around half the time for a legitimate scratch player.

Remember, a 420 yard par four is still a driver-mid iron whether it's at your local muni or on tour.  A scratch player should par it almost every time.  Same goes for all par fives. I just don't see your reasoning that a scratch player would turn those holes into bogeys just because there is high rough or fast greens.  It just doesn't make sense.

[Domenic]

simlest terms: one gets paid to golf, one doesn't.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I have read that article (several times over the past couple of years), and it proves my point.  The hardest course listed there had a rating of 78, others were 73,75,etc.  In other words, not all of the courses are impossible.  Difficult? Sure.  But not impossible for a true scratch player to play to his handicap.

I've played several tour courses in my earlier days (Torrey Pines, TPC Sawgrass, Spyglass Hill) and they were tough for sure, but I don't think I would ever shoot 90 on them. Frankly, I would be disappointed if I shot anywhere in the 80's.  There would be some holes that would be hard to hit in regulation due to their length, but most would be OK. And those that weren't hit in regulation should be an up-and-down around half the time for a legitimate scratch player.

Remember, a 420 yard par four is still a driver-mid iron whether it's at your local muni or on tour.  A scratch player should par it almost every time.  Same goes for all par fives. I just don't see your reasoning that a scratch player would turn those holes into bogeys just because there is high rough or fast greens.  It just doesn't make sense.

78 was the hardest they could rate a course based on the handicapping system, but the fact is the courses are set up even harder than that. The 73s and 75s were the ratings that were listed, but the courses for those events were set up tougher.

You are comparing a course set up for a tour event as if it were a round at the local muni. That doesn't make sense to me. A 420-yard par 4 is NOT the same on tour as on the local muni. There are the nerves to begin with. It is also harder to hit the fairways as they are tigher, the rough is much thicker, the greens hard and fast, and if you start missing a lot of fairways you will struggle to reach the greens. Plus, on tour missing a green does not equal an U&D; %age of 50. That's what the pros average.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

[zeg]

Talking about absolute scores is a needless distraction. You can't say a legit scratch will average around 74 except on a course with a rating of 73 or so (depending on his variance / anti-handicap). I'm with Erik that "legit" means it's not specific to a course---it travels.

It seems to be a reasonable estimate that pro scores tend to be in the -6 to -10 differential range, based on the various estimates I've seen of pro handicaps. A scratch playing to his handicap will be in the ballpark of 0 differential. So on average, that's going to be about the difference between their scores. There'll be variations.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

It's 50 miles ahead of 7.3 though. right?!?

Well, it's exactly 7.3 better than 7.3.

You would have to read my first post in this thread for context - when I said scratch ain't sh*t it was in relation to a tour pro. Here - I'll do the work for you -

Quote:

Bear in mind that not only is a tour pro around a plus-6 handicap, but that is on courses on tour, under tour conditions, and under tour pressure. The scratch may (and should) have competitive rounds included in their handicap calculation, but I am pretty sure it's not the Bay Hill Classic. From the tips, 7,400 yards. Greens rolling at 13 stimp & the rough jacked up.

So what's the difference? Bulletproof swings, for one. Even a scratch will have the occasional heel or snap hook, and again - put a scratch in a tour event & guess what - they ain't a scratch anymore. More like a 5.

Short game is a huge difference. And that's kinda strange, given that anyone can practice it. I mean, why should a pro be better from 20 feet than a scratch? It's not like it requires some superior level of technique or fitness.

Ah, but what's the main difference? Pros do it for a living. Every day is a day at their office - 500 balls, couple hours of short game, mix in 9 or 18. A scratch doesn't do it for a living.

As they say on tour, scratch ain't sh*t.

I bolded the key phrase.

So, from my vantage point at a 7.3 (and at one time a 2 when I was younger), I am in awe of scratch players. They ain't sh*t to me. They're damn good.

But in comparison to a tour player? Not even in the same zip code.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

It is also harder to hit the fairways as they are tigher...

Among other things, that one's not necessarily true at all. Some courses have tighter fairways, but consider that the U.S. Open has some of the "tightest" and they often play at 20-30 yards in width.

Lake View Country Club has a par five with a fairway 17 yards wide. Trees RIGHT to the edge. The average fairway width there is about 21 yards. Average .

A lot of courses guys play on are packed in a bit and have smaller fairways than the average PGA Tour stop. I've been to Muirfield Village plenty of times. You can hit the ball all over the lot and still crank out 10 of 14 fairways. They like to talk up how "tight" a course is on TV, but show up at some of these courses and you think you've got all the room in the world.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

It's 50 miles ahead of 7.3 though. right?!?

Well, it's exactly 7.3 better than 7.3.

You would have to read my first post in this thread for context - when I said scratch ain't sh*t it was in relation to a tour pro. Here - I'll do the work for you -

Quote:

Bear in mind that not only is a tour pro around a plus-6 handicap, but that is on courses on tour, under tour conditions, and under tour pressure. The scratch may (and should) have competitive rounds included in their handicap calculation, but I am pretty sure it's not the Bay Hill Classic. From the tips, 7,400 yards. Greens rolling at 13 stimp & the rough jacked up.

So what's the difference? Bulletproof swings, for one. Even a scratch will have the occasional heel or snap hook, and again - put a scratch in a tour event & guess what - they ain't a scratch anymore. More like a 5.

Short game is a huge difference. And that's kinda strange, given that anyone can practice it. I mean, why should a pro be better from 20 feet than a scratch? It's not like it requires some superior level of technique or fitness.

Ah, but what's the main difference? Pros do it for a living. Every day is a day at their office - 500 balls, couple hours of short game, mix in 9 or 18. A scratch doesn't do it for a living.

As they say on tour, scratch ain't sh*t.

I bolded the key phrase.

So, from my vantage point at a 7.3 (and at one time a 2 when I was younger), I am in awe of scratch players. They ain't sh*t to me. They're damn good.

But in comparison to a tour player? Not even in the same zip code.

I agree. Scratch is much better than me. I can make any shot a scratch player can - but not over all 18 holes. Over several entire rounds, they're miles ahead of me. So if scratch players (and even those slightly in the + range) say they're nowhere close, maybe I should defer to their experience.