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

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

Among other things, that one's not necessarily true at all.

I have never been to a PGA Tour event, so cannot comment, but have been to quite a few European Tour events. I have even helped with the organisation of some of them. At every single one of them, the fairways were narrowed on both sides by at least a few yards. Of course, there are exceptions on some holes but overall there is less fairway to hit amateur set up v tour set up.

Oh and they are also harder to hit because they are usually (unless it rains prior to and during the tournament) drier. Tournament organisers stop watering the fairways as much in the build up to the tournament.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I have never been to a PGA Tour event, so cannot comment, but have been to quite a few European Tour events. I have even helped with the organisation of some of them. At every single one of them, the fairways were narrowed on both sides by at least a few yards. Of course, there are exceptions on some holes but overall there is less fairway to hit amateur set up v tour set up.

Oh and they are also harder to hit because they are usually (unless it rains prior to and during the tournament) drier. Tournament organisers stop watering the fairways as much in the build up to the tournament.

The flip side to that is that you will get lots of roll on your drives, so a 250 yard average turns into a 275 yard average when going from soft to firm fairways.  Makes some of the par 5's reachable, and allows you to hit shorter irons in, even from the rough.

And don't think that every tour stop has ghastly rough like the US Open.  They don't.  I've been to PGA, Champions, and Nationwide tour events in Washington, Nevada, California, Louisiana and Florida.  At none of those non-major events was the rough so high that you routinely had to chunk it back to the fairway.  You could go at the greens.  The main worry would be about catching a flyer.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

The flip side to that is that you will get lots of roll on your drives, so a 250 yard average turns into a 275 yard average when going from soft to firm fairways.  Makes some of the par 5's reachable, and allows you to hit shorter irons in, even from the rough.

And don't think that every tour stop has ghastly rough like the US Open.  They don't.  I've been to PGA, Champions, and Nationwide tour events in Washington, Nevada, California, Louisiana and Florida.  At none of those non-major events was the rough so high that you routinely had to chunk it back to the fairway.  You could go at the greens.  The main worry would be about catching a flyer.

That's assuming the first bounce is in the fairway, because if it isn't it is sticking in the rough much shorter than normal. Anyway, any added distance the scratch golfer might get will be lost with the overall extra distance added to the golf course. I have played amateur events and seen tour events played at the same course, and one thing is as an amateur playing from the tips and quite another where the best pros play from.

I never said the rough was US Open-like at every tour stop, I was trying to make the point that COMPARED to what the scratch golfer is used to the rough is thicker. Usually, the scratch golfer playing his normal course won't have to deal with any rough as courses are set up for players of all handicaps. I know this from my local course, the greenkeeper forgets to cut the rough one week and all the seniors and women are complaining like nobody's business.

We could go back and forth on this all day, we'll just have to disagree. But, I admit, you have made some good points that have made me think and perhaps a 15-shot difference is a tad excessive. But I stick to it being nearer 12, than 8.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

We could go back and forth on this all day, we'll just have to disagree.

You keep saying that and then you keep continuing! I've seen plenty of balls bounce 30 yards in the rough. Particularly when they land in areas where the gallery is. There's an advantage the average scratch player doesn't have: he'll virtually never lose a ball and if he misses the fairway by more than a little, he'll be playing from trampled down gallery area. He'll get "line of sight" relief all the time, too, if he's as wild as you seem to think.

The average PGA Tour course is not nearly as difficult as you seem to think it is. I've played several of them. They often aren't lengthened - the tees are there, and good players can play them. They might only shut them down a month before the event comes to town.

I guessed 8 and when I put the question to Dave, who has played in PGA Tour events, and had status on the Nationwide Tour, he agreed as well, with the caveat that the guy's not a nutcase. So I'm going to stick with 8. You stick with whatever number you ended up at, and we'll move on. :-)

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

He'll get "line of sight" relief all the time, too, if he's as wild as you seem to think.

OK, we'll move on, but please don't twist what I'm writing to exaggerate your point. I never said scratch golfers were wild. Missing a fairway by an inch, is still missing the fairway.

[Jmdmbike]

Read this thread with interest. Read something that says that 1/2 of 1% of golfers are scratch or +, of golfers that keep a handicap. Still represents a large absolute number when you think about it - 5,000 per 1 million golfers who keep a handicap. If that is in fact true, to get to tour level on any pro tour is a significant leap over scratch. And, as the number suggests, getting to scratch is a pretty amazing achievement in it's own right. You scratch guys are already elite golfers ;-)

[x129]

I would be pretty confidant in saying that a  PGA pro playing on your course would have a handicap in the +5-+8 range. Reports come out all the time about casual golf rounds among pros and you never see a score that suggest something like a +15. For example take Tigers 62 at Medalist. If he was a +15, he (or any of the dozen other PGA pros at the club) would be shooting a score like that on a regular basis rather than it being a 1 in a 100 round.

The only documented attempts of "amateur" guys playing in tour conditions I am aware of was when golf digest had people play after the US open to test Tigers claim that a 10 couldn't break a 100 on a specific setup. Most of them really struggled (if you can only drive 200 you can't make the fairways on a lot of the holes). But the gap between a legit 0 and 10 handicap is huge. And the US Opens are routinely some of the hardest couses of the year(Oakmont was won at +5). I am not sure any of the top amateurs (i.e. the ones invited to the masters) have legit/updated handicaps but that would be another way of trying to get some correlations.

Originally Posted by iacas

You keep saying that and then you keep continuing!  I've seen plenty of balls bounce 30 yards in the rough. Particularly when they land in areas where the gallery is. There's an advantage the average scratch player doesn't have: he'll virtually never lose a ball and if he misses the fairway by more than a little, he'll be playing from trampled down gallery area. He'll get "line of sight" relief all the time, too, if he's as wild as you seem to think.

The average PGA Tour course is not nearly as difficult as you seem to think it is. I've played several of them. They often aren't lengthened - the tees are there, and good players can play them. They might only shut them down a month before the event comes to town.

I guessed 8 and when I put the question to Dave, who has played in PGA Tour events, and had status on the Nationwide Tour, he agreed as well, with the caveat that the guy's not a nutcase. So I'm going to stick with 8. You stick with whatever number you ended up at, and we'll move on. :-)

[saevel25]

but were not talking about tiger, were talking about the average pro. I mean you can go ahead and take a top 10, and he might be 12-15, but the average pro, who's average scoring is 70.80..

[sean_miller]

Some of the comments in this thread remind me of another thread (something about diminished claims). We seem to have a difference of opinion of what constitutes a "scratch golfer".  I picture a scratch golfer as one who can play to a differential of 0.0, or darned close to it, on any track regardless of the length, because that's what the rating and slope are for. Someone who can't break 80 (not "doesn't" - I mean literally " can't ") isn't really a scratch golfer, are they?!?

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Some of the comments in this thread remind me of another thread (something about diminished claims). We seem to have a difference of opinion of what constitutes a "scratch golfer".  I picture a scratch golfer as one who can play to a differential of 0.0, or darned close to it, on any track regardless of the length, because that's what the rating and slope are for. Someone who can't break 80 (not "doesn't" - I mean literally "can't") isn't really a scratch golfer, are they?!?

I think an accepted definition of a scratch golfer is someone with a 2 handicap or better.  I agree that the handicap, if properly calculated, should be relatively equal between courses due to adjustments for course rating and slope.  Although I'm not sure on this, as the primary factors which go into course rating and slope are distance and obstacles, but scores for tour-caliber players are going to be much more affected by green conditions--these guys are typically hitting their lines and controlling their distance.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Some of the comments in this thread remind me of another thread (something about diminished claims). We seem to have a difference of opinion of what constitutes a "scratch golfer".  I picture a scratch golfer as one who can play to a differential of 0.0, or darned close to it, on any track regardless of the length, because that's what the rating and slope are for. Someone who can't break 80 (not "doesn't" - I mean literally "can't") isn't really a scratch golfer, are they?!?

You're right. We've all agreed on the average pro having a scoring average of 71, but our definitions of a scratch golfer vary. However, I'm sure we all agree that if a golfer can't break 80 he's not a scratch golfer, unless his home course is set up tougher than a US Open. Scratch golfers do shoot over 80 from time to time though. I posted my scoring average for my last 20 rounds above and included are an 80 and an 85. It sucks, but it happens!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I think an accepted definition of a scratch golfer is someone with a 2 handicap or better.

Accepted by who?

When I was a 1.8 I was not a scratch golfer, and what's more, I knew how far away from it I was (quite a ways away - farther than even an 8.0 index was from me).

[zeg]

"Scratch golfer" has a perfectly clear definition.

Quote from the USGA Handicap Manual:

A " scratch golfer" is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer , for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots at sea level. A female scratch golfer , for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 210 yards and can reach a 400-yard hole in two shots at sea level.

A 2.0 handicapper is a 2.0 handicapper, not a scratch golfer. We can debate what "near scratch" means, but there's no reason to argue about what scratch means.

[zipazoid]

I always thought scratch meant a 0 handicap.

It's an extremely bastardized term - I've heard it used to describe simply good golfers - I got an old friend that brags that I'm a "scratch golfer" simply because I can hit it semi-decently. Well, I'm not. I'm a 7. And this thread has shown the confusion over what - I always thought - was a simple definition. Zero handicap.

[TourSpoon]

And then someone points out that there is a difference between a zero index and a zero course handicap.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

And then someone points out that there is a difference between a zero index and a zero course handicap.

Actually, no, scratch is the only case where the two are the same.

Course Handicap = Handicap Index * Slope Rating / 113.

If the Index is 0, the Course Handicap is 0.

(Ok, for the purists, they're also the same if the slope rating is 113, or possibly in funny cases due to rounding.)

[michaeljames92]

I remember I heard that the former Australian cricket captain Ricky Ponting beat Aaron Baddeley about 4 years ago in a matchplay game at one of the tournament courses over east. Gary Player was there that day and has played with him a few times and thinks he could turn pro after his cricket career. FWIW Ponting is a 2-3 handicap and rarely plays.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I think an accepted definition of a scratch golfer is someone with a 2 handicap or better.

Now I really have heard (read) it all.  Who accepts this nonsense?

Can't say I've ever met an golfer who would call a 2 handicapper a scratch player. I have known many 1 or two markers who have at times been down to scratch. They do not call themselves scratch players.They are 1 or 2 markers.

So is a 6 handicapper a 4 handicapper?

Is a 12 marker a 10 marker.

Scratch means zero. Nought.