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

[Leftygolfer]

The difference in winners and losers is so small at that high of a level as someone else indicated.  But those small differences add up to a few shots a round.

I don't believe that scatch golfers hit the ball as well or as consistantly as the PGA tour pros.  Then if they are off a little, they can hack it around for a 72.  A bad round for a good scratch player is 76-77.  A bad one for a pro on a hard course is 74.

They aren't the same animal.

[poser]

I can promise the difference isn't ballstriking and driving distance.  At least it's not the difference all the time.  I have played with players who hit it better and farther than tour guys but, they aren't out there.  Maybe its a confidence thing of just knowing if they miss one shot they will get up and down.  I play alot with a buddy and his ball flight and how pure he hits it is better than almost anyone I have seen in person.  His putting is another thing though.  You have got to make at least 50% of those 10 footers to even stand a chance.

[zeg]

In terms of results and stats, the differences simply can't be very great. The differences in scores for a scratch golfer and a typical pro are only a few strokes per round. A few strokes is not much---it's maybe a bad shot and a handful of putts that don't drop.

On the other hand, the increase in control and consistency needed to shave those strokes off the round is huge.

Sure, there are plenty of amateurs who can hit a drive as well as a pro. A good shot is a good shot. I'll bet that the pro's miss is a much better shot than an amateur's miss.

Also, even when you hit a good shot, you may end up with a tough lie. I'd wager that there's a much bigger difference between ballstriking on bad lies between pros and scratch amateurs than there is on flat fairway lies. Being able to make solid contact out of a crappy lie will easily save you a stroke.

So, on paper you can certainly make the case that the scratch golfer's stats are close to a pro's, but that doesn't say much about the difference in skill. You see it in many areas, not just athletics: the guys who are good are good, but the guys who are great make the guys who are good look pretty bad.

[saevel25]

Pro Stats:

Driving Distance: 291

Driving Accuracy: 62%

GIR: 65.63%

Scrambling: 58%

Putting (from 3'): 99.31%

Putting (from 6'): 69.49%

Putting (10-15): 29.76%

Putting (15-20): 18.92%

Putting (20-25): 12.16%

Thats the stats for 2011, As you can see its pretty much 60-65% accuracy for drivers and irons, and 60% getting up and down.

But look at the putting, 70% of the time they make 6' putts.

Oh another stat, from 175-200 yards, meaning a pro's 7-5 irons, they are only accurate 55% of the time on average. So nex ttime you pull that 7 iron out and miss the green, pro's only hit the green half the time with those irons in there hands. I think alot of people can really benefit from relaxing. Its good to have goals, but i think to many people have unrealistic expectations of there ability and it puts unwanted pressure on themselves.

So keep stats next year, and see how good you are. If your close on alot and still shooting poorly, its probably management blow up holes.

[Harmonious]

I compare notes with our local touring pro (Hooters and Canadian tour, trying to get on the Nationwide).  He hits it 10-20 yards longer off the tee, almost always in the fairway.  If we both have 150 yards, say, into the green, I usually am left with a 30 footer.  He's in the 20 foot range.  Inside of 10 feet, I generally miss, he generally makes. All of his putts have a good chance of going in, nice end over end roll, finishing just beyond the hole if not going in.

He tracks all his stats, as do I.  He hits 12 greens/round, I hit 11.  His putts/round is about 28, mine is 30.5.  That's about three strokes right there, assuming I don't throw a double in  somewhere. Our last time out, I played very well, but had a double on the back and finished at 72.  He had 17 GIRs, made 7 birdies and one bogey for an easy 66.

This is a guy who is struggling very hard to make it. The guys who have made it on the big tours are even a couple strokes better per round.

[sean_miller]

A professional wouldn't have used apostophes in the thread title.

[Stretch]

This paper has been linked here before a few times, but in it Mark Broadie gives some nice, succinct summations of the differences between good ams and top pros. (PDF link)

http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/broadie_wscg_v_200804.pdf

Quote:

The group Pro1 gains 1.4 shots per round from better putting compared to a scratch golfer. The gain is 7.1 for the long game and only about a half-shot for the sand and short games. The biggest contributor to the difference in scores is the long game – shots over 100 yds to the target. Put another way, if a low-handicap golfer had Tiger Woods do all of the putting, the gain would be about 2.2 shots per round, but having Tiger Woods hit all shots over 100 yds would lower the score by about 9.3 shots per round. If a Pro1 player hit only long tee shots for the Am1 golfer (about 13 or 14 shots per round) the difference would be about 4.3 shots per round.

The PGA tour player’s long game is better because they hit drives longer (about 50 yds) and straighter (about 1.4 deg) and they hit their irons closer to the hole. The PGA tour player’s sand game is also better, but there aren’t enough sand shots to make a big difference in the overall score. Why isn’t putting more important? It is partially because the Am1 golfer has almost 12 putts per round within 2.5 ft that are almost always made. It is interesting to note that the average distance of the initial putt for all five groups is about 17 ft. Even though pros (Pro1) are better putters from every distance than amateurs (Am1), the net effect amounts to 2.2 putts per round – a significant number for sure, but still much less than the long game’s 9.3 shots per round.

[rustyredcab]

I think, in part, because many golfers don't look physically as different from Am to Pro as in some other sports, we forget that they play a different game. It is as different as high school basketball is to NBA basketball. None of us would think that the best basketball players you've played with in high school and NBA players are playing the same game. When a 6'3" guy is small and everyone can dunk, jump, shoot, and run, we don't see ourselves, or buddies, as even playing the same game. Ever play a 4 on 4 pick up game when the other team is four guys over 6'6" tall? But somehow, because we kind of look like them, we can think we are close to being a PGA level player if only we made a putt or two or didn't ...

Perhaps one of the best and most understated tag lines is, "These Guys Are Good."

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by Stretch

This paper has been linked here before a few times, but in it Mark Broadie gives some nice, succinct summations of the differences between good ams and top pros. (PDF link)

http://www.columbia.edu/~mnb2/broadie/Assets/broadie_wscg_v_200804.pdf

And they do it on courses with lower tolerances for bad shots

[BuckeyeNut]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I read that article. Very illuminating. as the difference betw a scratch and a tour pro is vast.

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.

You said it all right there........the difference is HUUUGE!!....scratch ain't sh*t  well said...

[BuckeyeNut]

Originally Posted by Leftygolfer

I don't believe that scatch golfers hit the ball as well or as consistantly as the PGA tour pros.  Then if they are off a little, they can hack it around for a 72.  A bad round for a good scratch player is 76-77.

Actually.......72 is a very good/bordering on GREAT round for a scratch golfer.  ......76-77 is pretty close to an average score.  My average score has never dropped below 77 and I played to as low as a 0.9HC.  Keep in mind the course rating/slope is a huge factor.   If you average 76 on a course with a 145slope/77.5CR....you might be a +2HC!!

[sean_miller]

Meh.

They're statistically more consistent. They're not superhuman.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Meh.

They're statistically more consistent. They're not superhuman.

Yeah, but the skill difference is HUGE.  Take me, sitting around a 10 HC, a scratch amateur, and a PGA pro.  We all (on most courses) hit 14 long tee shots a round.  Take the worst 7 tee shots from each of those 3 players.  We each have some variance of sideways distance between where we aimed and where the ball ended up on those 7 shots per round (lets assume all three players hit approximately the same distance on every shot, not a reasonable assumption, but just for demonstration).

I'd venture that the skill difference between me and the player with the typical variance for a scratch player is WAY less than the skill difference between a player with the typical scratch variance and a player with the typical PGA variance.  That's backed up by the Broadie paper cited above.  Many of us know a guy or two among the best of our golfing friends who can average at least near pro level putting numbers on fast, difficult greens.  How many people know amateurs with ball-striking stats nearly as close to pro level?  I'd say it's far fewer, as backed up by Broadie.

So no, they're not superhuman, but like rustyredcab said, you've gotta remember that while when it's drilled down to stats, the differences might look small, the skill and training required to make that last jump that results in a smallish looking jump from scratch amateur to pro level stats is huge.

As an example, take pitching as an example.  There are tons of guys who can throw 92-94 and have at least a decent second pitch.  Consider a bunch of them with similar arm slots and movement on their pitches.  Say we measured their accuracy like I proposed above for golfers, measuring how far from the glove/target their typical pitch ends up.  Consider the difference in accuracy variance between a guy who didn't get drafted (though of course if you throw 94 someone will draft you a pray you learn how to pitch), a guy crapped out in A ball (not due to injury), a guy who crapped out in AAA (not due to injury), and a guy who had a successful MLB career.  The statistical accuracy difference would probably look super small between the AAA guy and the MLB guy.  But there's some reason there's, how many, 10, 20, 100 guys who made it to AAA but never went to the show for every successful career MLB pitcher.  Just saying the MLB guy's a little more statistically consistent is true, but connotes an excessive disregard for the difference in skill required to achieve that small level of additional consistency.

[sean_miller]

They hit shots a lot of players hit. They just do it way more often.

Everyone knows a few kids who were destined to make it as a professional in whatever sport is big in your neck of the woods. Some make it and others don't. It's not always about talent. You gotta have determination, luck, self confidence, nerves of steel, be clutch when the right people are watching, and more than anything you have to be somewhat coachable. Golf is like baseball in that there are a lot of statistics that seem to be a very good indicator of success.

All I'm saying is there are a lot of "scratch" players (and that's what were talking about, not 10 handicappers who can't break into the 70s let alone the 60s) who have pro skills in all but one or two areas. Sometimes it's important areas like putting or intelligence, but still, a ton of scratch and low index players "can" make the shots the pros make. It's all those "other shots" that add up. The consistency.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

They hit shots a lot of players hit. They just do it way more often.

Everyone knows a few kids who were destined to make it as a professional in whatever sport is big in your neck of the woods. Some make it and others don't. It's not always about talent. You gotta have determination, luck, self confidence, nerves of steel, be clutch when the right people are watching, and more than anything you have to be somewhat coachable. Golf is like baseball in that there are a lot of statistics that seem to be a very good indicator of success.

All I'm saying is there are a lot of "scratch" players (and that's what were talking about, not 10 handicappers who can't break into the 70s let alone the 60s) who have pro skills in all but one or two areas. Sometimes it's important areas like putting or intelligence, but still, a ton of scratch and low index players "can" make the shots the pros make. It's all those "other shots" that add up. The consistency.

In my neck of the woods, scratch is dime a dozen (and there are plenty of Tour Players here too).

The one other ingredient you need is some financial backing.

[k-troop]

Different kinds of scratch, too.  I know guys who consistently shoot in the -2 to +4 range on local courses hitting one shot over and over--usually a low screamer that moves a little right to left.  They couldn't hit a shot that carries 240 and stops in its pitch mark, nor could they hit a punch-cut from out of the trees that carries 100 yards and rolls another 60.

The tour guys can hit every shot.  Or, they can hit at least enough of them that they've always got a chance to make par.

And they can hit them consistently.  I can hit almost any shot a tour player can hit.  (I'm not talking Tiger's fairway bunker shot on the 18th at Glen Abbey.)  I can hit it low or high, draw or fade.  I can hit a sixty yard slinging hook with a 3-iron.  I can hit a 210-yard 4-iron that gets really high really fast.  I could hit any of those shots from anywhere at any time--if you give me 3 balls.

Combine that shotmaking consistency with a stroke average well below 3 from 120 and in, and you've got the difference between a guy whose good day is even par at his home track and a guy who is  finishing 180th in FedEx Cup points.

[Kobey]

What about course variances? (Is that a real word?)  If I play the same two courses all the time, I will probably get pretty good at them, but if I go to a course I have never played before I will probably hit way over what I normally do at my home courses.  We also don't have any real sand traps up here on the courses I play so I never even get to practice bunker shots.

The pros play on so many different courses that they are able to get good at everything.  They have the resources and experience to know what to expect on a course in Texas or one in Australia.  An amateur would be a lot more limited and would take a lot more practice to shoot a very good round on an unfamiliar course.

[GaijinGolfer]

The big difference is shortgame and putting.  Pros usually get up and down when they miss the green, amateurs dont and 4s or 5s quickly turn into 6s and 7s.