Could a decent touring pro beat the average "scratch" golfer, if he had to use 20 year old equipment?

[Ernest Jones]

Would this hypothetical match be played on a PGA Championship course or a standard course set up for mortals? Seems to me that a PGA pro would absolutely destroy par on a regular course and a club-pro would have serious disadvantages on a PGA caliber course, so either way you slice it the club pro is gonna have a hard row to hoe.

[MSchott]

I think it depends on the Tour Pro having some time to practice with the older equipment. If the golf ball is part of the 20 year old equipment, it would react differently, especially around the greens than the modern ball so they'd have to modify how they play the short game. If they can practice, I think they would beat the club pro most of the time. They just do everything better than a scratch golfer.

[Mr3Wiggle]

I'll take Tiger with a persimmon driver, blade irons (which he already plays), and a balata ball.  I would imagine he'd need to spot the scratch golfer 2 or 3 a side to even make it interesting.  When he came on tour he was playing a 90 compression tour balata, the original King Cobra driver with steel shaft, Mizuno blades and a Ping putter.  He was still hitting 300+ yard drives and destroying fields.

[trickymicky69]

nice explanation of how you arrived at your answer, makes sense to me

[iacas]

The Tour Pro wins almsot every time.

[pumaAttack]

The difference in clubs wouldn't affect the touring pro enough to lose against a scratch golfer...

Maybe if they were forced to use mahogany shafts...

[tristanhilton85]

Yeah, I'd say the tour pro wins at least 9 of 10... and I really don't think the change in the equipment really plays into it at all.

[MEfree]

I agree with those who go with the touring pro as long as he had a bit of time to adjust to the change.  In fact, I would bet that many tour pros could beat or be competitive with an average scratch golfer using only 2,3 or 4 clubs, particularly if it was on a course they were familiar with.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by iacas

The Tour Pro wins almsot every time.

Yep.

Not when he breaks his ankle on the 3rd tee or when he has a heart attack on the 12th green.

[trickymicky69]

Originally Posted by MEfree

I agree with those who go with the touring pro as long as he had a bit of time to adjust to the change.  In fact, I would bet that many tour pros could beat or be competitive with an average scratch golfer using only 2,3 or 4 clubs, particularly if it was on a course they were familiar with.

thats a whole different question!

Driver, Sand wedge, putter and (           )

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Not when he breaks his ankle on the 3rd tee or when he has a heart attack on the 12th green.

I dunno. If it's match play there's still a chance he won the second match already. :)

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by trickymicky69

thats a whole different question!

Driver, Sand wedge, putter and (           )

sure, but everyone seemed to agree on the original questions, so I figured I`d throw in a curve ball.

FWIW, when I was a teenager, our club champ (who finished 2nd in the Jr Worlds in SD) used to try to hustle people by playing with just two clubs- a 4 wood which he could cut a lot to take off distance and sand wedge (which he was a reasonable putter)...I never saw him play 18 holes, but he could be pretty close to par for the handful of holes he did play that way.

[TourSpoon]

Hands down the Tour Pro wins. Make it hickory shafts and now it gets interesting.

[Rudyprimo]

The tour pro would win and it would be by 10 strokes or more.  The equipment from 20 years ago is not that outdated.  A touring pro is about 15 strokes better than a scratch golfer.  I was looking for quotes about the difference, besides Tiger saying a 10 handicap wouldn't break 100 on an U.S. Open course.  Larry Nelson said in an interview with Golf Digest,around 10-12 years ago,  that there's about a 15 stroke difference between a scratch amateur and a touring pro.  I also found that there was a guy who played hockey for the French Olympic Team who tore up his ankle and couldn't play anymore.   He went golfing with a friend and shot in the 70's his first time. He said that hitting a golf ball was a lot like a slapshot.  He became a scratch golfer pretty fast.  He mentioned to his friend, Jean Van de Velde, that he wanted to turn pro.  Van de Velde told him not to quit his day job and that there's about an 18 stroke difference between a tour pro and scratch golfer.  And then there's Tom Coyne, author of Paper Tiger, who got down to a +.4 handicap and said there's a huge difference between a scratch golfer and a tour pro.

I think it's reasonable to say there's easily a 10-15 stroke difference between the two and the equipment won't make any difference.  Some of the top pro golfers have been capable of hitting 300+ yards for a long, long time.  Jack Nicklaus won the long drive competition held between the pros with a 340 yard drive back in the early 60's.  Arnold Palmer could hit 300+ when he wanted to.  Someone mentioned Bobby Jones hitting 300 yards.  Harry Vardon could hit his longest drives around 280 yards and his buddy, Ted Ray, could hit 300 yard drives and this was with hickory shafts and the first wound balls made.  Golf was played differently until Tiger changed things.  It wasn't that they couldn't hit it long, it's that the game was about control, shaping shots and keeping the ball in play.

I'm just trying to point out the scratch golfer wouldn't necessarily have a length advantage over a tour pro using 20 year old equipment.  The swing is more important.  The tour pros iron shots and short game would be much, much better than the scratch golfer.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

He mentioned to his friend, Jean Van de Velde, that he wanted to turn pro.  Van de Velde told him not to quit his day job and that there's about an 18 stroke difference between a tour pro and scratch golfer.

Van de Velde also thought he could clear the Barry Burn, and we all know how that turned out. He's full of crap. I could see a pro routinely shooting 65 on a typical course. If Rory Mcilroy gave an 18 handicapper 36 strokes I'd bet on the hacker even on Rory's best day. You're saying a tour pro, even an elite pro, could shoot 54? And do that routinely? Even on a very easy course the pro would be hard pressed to break 60. And that's assuming he takes care of the par 5s. TPC Sawgrass, which is tough enough to host a major, plays to 76.8 course rating from the TPC tees. Greg Norman shot an all time tourney record of -24 for the tournament in 1994, averaging -6 per day. The usual score to par is about half that, -3. Even if you based Norman's handicap on that tournament which isn't realistic, he'd be 10.8 strokes ahead of a scratch in theory. The average score for the tournament is 7.8 strokes better than a scratch would theoretically shoot, and that's based on the winning scores for the past few years. In this case, it shows that the +8 figure for a pro in winning form is accurate at a glance.

An elite touring pro does not fit into the handicap system, but even a hall of famer at his peak would not be able to get more than +8, most being closer to +6. If you think the courses are that much harder than regular ones, watch a pro am. The amateurs still manage to shoot respectable scores if they're good. The difference between a complete beginner and a bogey golfer, the difference between a bogey golfer and scratch, and the difference between a scratch and a pro aren't the same amount. I'd give the scratch the older equipment and the pro modern clubs and still bet the difference is less than 18 strokes. Maybe over a 4 day tourney, but not one round. some players will mention if they shoot a low score in practice, like Bubba did some time last year; he shot 60 at his home course and saw fit to boast; that indicates it's unusually low even for them on an easy course.

It's not that a scratch player couldn't lose by 18, but I highly doubt he'd lose by more than 5 strokes, especially with the slight technology advantage.

[Rudyprimo]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

Van de Velde also thought he could clear the Barry Burn, and we all know how that turned out. He's full of crap. I could see a pro routinely shooting 65 on a typical course. If Rory Mcilroy gave an 18 handicapper 36 strokes I'd bet on the hacker even on Rory's best day. You're saying a tour pro, even an elite pro, could shoot 54? And do that routinely? Even on a very easy course the pro would be hard pressed to break 60. And that's assuming he takes care of the par 5s. TPC Sawgrass, which is tough enough to host a major, plays to 76.8 course rating from the TPC tees. Greg Norman shot an all time tourney record of -24 for the tournament in 1994, averaging -6 per day. The usual score to par is about half that, -3. Even if you based Norman's handicap on that tournament which isn't realistic, he'd be 10.8 strokes ahead of a scratch in theory. The average score for the tournament is 7.8 strokes better than a scratch would theoretically shoot, and that's based on the winning scores for the past few years. In this case, it shows that the +8 figure for a pro in winning form is accurate at a glance.

An elite touring pro does not fit into the handicap system, but even a hall of famer at his peak would not be able to get more than +8, most being closer to +6. If you think the courses are that much harder than regular ones, watch a pro am. The amateurs still manage to shoot respectable scores if they're good. The difference between a complete beginner and a bogey golfer, the difference between a bogey golfer and scratch, and the difference between a scratch and a pro aren't the same amount. I'd give the scratch the older equipment and the pro modern clubs and still bet the difference is less than 18 strokes. Maybe over a 4 day tourney, but not one round. some players will mention if they shoot a low score in practice, like Bubba did some time last year; he shot 60 at his home course and saw fit to boast; that indicates it's unusually low even for them on an easy course.

It's not that a scratch player couldn't lose by 18, but I highly doubt he'd lose by more than 5 strokes, especially with the slight technology advantage.

And Van de Velde was good enough to nearly win a major except for a brain malfunction.  18 might be a tad high, but it's very close to what Tiger, Larry Nelson and Tom Coyne said.  Tiger saying a 10 handicap couldn't break 100 on an U.S. open course means there's about a 30 stroke difference between them and about a 15 stroke difference between scratch.  I'm quoting three tour players and a guy who tried getting into Q school as a scratch.  They know a lot more than you or me on the difference.  Unless you played on tour you don't really know.

There can a be a difference between one scratch golfer and another. Butch Harmon said there's the scratch golfer who plays his home course all the time and a scratch golfer who competes and plays different courses with the latter being much better.    Lee Trevino said if a golfer can play the 5 toughest courses in his area, with his right foot hanging off the back of the furthest tee box, and if he could shoot 68 or better, he MIGHT have a chance of making the tour.  That's a lot better than scratch.

I'm giving opinions of people who should know.  I've never read or heard anyone with credibility, like a pro golfer or top instructor,  saying there's only a few strokes difference between a scratch amateur and a tour pro.  I don't think the equipment would make a difference either,  it's the swing and short game.  They had the Big Bertha, The Whale, Ping irons and other very good equipment 20 years ago.

The PGA are the best golfers in the world.  They are much better than a scratch golfer.  That's comparable to during the football season where there's always some idiot in the media who says the #1 team in the NCAA could beat the worst team in the NFL.  I laugh every time I hear that.  The third stringers from the worst team in the NFL would blow out the #1 college team, it wouldn't be close.

We're talking about the best 120 golfers in the world compared to thousands and thousands of scratch amateurs who are very good in their own right, but not comparable to the elite.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

And Van de Velde was good enough to nearly win a major except for a brain malfunction.  18 might be a tad high, but it's very close to what Tiger, Larry Nelson and Tom Coyne said.  Tiger saying a 10 handicap couldn't break 100 on an U.S. open course means there's about a 30 stroke difference between them and about a 15 stroke difference between scratch.  I'm quoting three tour players and a guy who tried getting into Q school as a scratch.  They know a lot more than you or me on the difference.  Unless you played on tour you don't really know.

There can a be a difference between one scratch golfer and another. Butch Harmon said there's the scratch golfer who plays his home course all the time and a scratch golfer who competes and plays different courses with the latter being much better.    Lee Trevino said if a golfer can play the 5 toughest courses in his area, with his right foot hanging off the back of the furthest tee box, and if he could shoot 68 or better, he MIGHT have a chance of making the tour.  That's a lot better than scratch.

I'm giving opinions of people who should know.  I've never read or heard anyone with credibility, like a pro golfer or top instructor,  saying there's only a few strokes difference between a scratch amateur and a tour pro.  I don't think the equipment would make a difference either,  it's the swing and short game.  They had the Big Bertha, The Whale, Ping irons and other very good equipment 20 years ago.

The PGA are the best golfers in the world.  They are much better than a scratch golfer.  That's comparable to during the football season where there's always some idiot in the media who says the #1 team in the NCAA could beat the worst team in the NFL.  I laugh every time I hear that.  The third stringers from the worst team in the NFL would blow out the #1 college team, it wouldn't be close.

We're talking about the best 120 golfers in the world compared to thousands and thousands of scratch amateurs who are very good in their own right, but not comparable to the elite.

There's a big skill difference between a low handicap, a scratch, and a pro. The pro would look like night and day compared to a scratch player. I also think if they played anywhere near themselves they'd win by 5 strokes or so. But theres a skill difference and a stroke difference, and they're not the same thing. The amount of skill difference can be huge without there being that big of a stroke margin. Plus the pro has the advantage of being a superior competitor; and being forced to compete at that level makes you develop a superb game. But you don't get to scratch by shooting in the 80s, nor do pros shoot in the 50s. The stroke average, long term, levels off for the better players. It's simply unrealistic to think anyone, even a pro, could shoot a -18 on any 18 hole course. And to do that consistently, with some rounds even lower? Maybe from the ladies tees on a great day. Even a lollipop of a course would be a huge challenge to birdie all the holes, and I don't think it could be done. Too many putts that could lip out. Birdie on half the holes, maybe.

Every stroke the lower you get is harder to keep off and there is a lot of maintenance to keep them off when you get to the plus cap. Plus a fair bit of talent is required in addition to hard work to become a pro. But Van de Velde and Tiger don't have their heads screwed on straight. And they don't really have an idea of the amateur game, nor should they be expected to. I'm sure they look at anyone and think they suck. That ego is to be expected, but Tiger whines when he shoots over a 67 and probably wouldn't report his high rounds for a HC anyway. His definition of sucking is 3 strokes behind the leader. A scratch golfer might fare poorly on a US open layout with their setup, but he's in the 80s for sure unless he has a really bad day. That sucks hard for most pros, who need to shoot around par to stay in contention, and the amateur would never make the cut, but it's a bit unfair to force a player to play a course like that without the same preparation and acclimation to the conditions the pros have. In fact the crappy conditions by tour standards at a public course would make some pros baffled and hilarious to watch. That may well throw off their game by a couple strokes, especially in the short game.

[AmazingWhacker]

My clubs are 20 years old - IMO - there's really not that much difference between clubs from 1992 and today.  Using old clubs might cost the tour player a stroke or 2 but not enough to lose the match.

The other week I was at a group lesson with my wife.  She has graphite shafted lady irons with huge soles.  Our instructor, trying to demonstrate proper arm/hand action, hit an arms-only shot with her 7 iron (he had never touched her clubs before and took no warm up swings) that was a low, penetrating draw.  Much better and farther than any of the guys in the group could hit with thier normal full swings - regardless of thier clubs.  So it's a lot about technique and only a little about equipment, in my opinion.