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

[TourSpoon]

The more that I think about it the more the equipment piece lessens. Here is some equipment from the 90s that rocks.

Driver - Cally Big Bertha, King Cobra, Taylor Made Bubble Burner

3 Wood - Taylor Burner

Utility - Cobra Baffler, Taylor Raylor

Irons - Ping Eye 2, TA 845s, Titleist DCI, Hogen Apex

Wedges - Cleveland 588s

Putter - Ping Anser

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by 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...

I don't know all of the details but on Monday in New Orleans a handful of pros played a 3-hole tournament for charity using equipment and clothes (not sure about the ball) from 1912.  1912!  And a couple of the guys were 1-under after those 3 holes.

Certainly equipment that was 20 years old is not going to make enough difference for a club pro to beat the touring pro most of the time.  Obviously, tour players have bad days and club pros have good days so just like my Padres can occasionally beat the Phillies, there will be days when the scratch golfer beats the tour player.

If I had to throw a random number out there, I would say the tour player wins 88 times out of 100.

[wolfsburg2]

I just want to point out that we are using Tiger Effin Woods and Lee Westwood as examples of "decent touring pro", LAWLS. You are talking about to of the best players in the world, not Paul Goydos.

[trickymicky69]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I don't know all of the details but on Monday in New Orleans a handful of pros played a 3-hole tournament for charity using equipment and clothes (not sure about the ball) from 1912.  1912!  And a couple of the guys were 1-under after those 3 holes.

Certainly equipment that was 20 years old is not going to make enough difference for a club pro to beat the touring pro most of the time.  Obviously, tour players have bad days and club pros have good days so just like my Padres can occasionally beat the Phillies, there will be days when the scratch golfer beats the tour player.

If I had to throw a random number out there, I would say the tour player wins 88 times out of 100.

I disagree.

I would say 8.8 times out of 10

[x129]

The difference between Tiger and the guy that loses his card is about 3 strokes.  I expect the pro to lose 1 or 2 strokes due to equipment which makes him 2-3 shots better than the scratch guy. I think that means he should win about 80% of the time.

Originally Posted by wolfsburg2

I just want to point out that we are using Tiger Effin Woods and Lee Westwood as examples of "decent touring pro", LAWLS. You are talking about to of the best players in the world, not Paul Goydos.

[Gioguy21]

i love people who try to quanitify the use of old equipment, stroke averages and percent chances to win. honestly? if we're using lee westwood using old clubs i'll take the scratch golfer...the man is as erratic at times as a coked up squirell. i was watching a special on golf channel of johnny miller going against jack and johnny shot 8 over thru 14...(i left the clubhouse then) i think based on how far he was hitting his driver and irons...a scratch golfer with todays' equipment could definitely have given him a run for his money...why not a pro today using 20 year old clubs?...

[PeteHurrikane]

I think a tour pro could beat an average scratch golfer with three old hickories, a standard blade putter and an old feathery ball.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

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.

That is a weak argument for a couple of reasons.  First of all, I am told by my daughter who interned at a senior event, that in the pro-am they do not play from the tournament tees.  Secondly, at the pro-am they do not use tournament-difficulty pin placements.  And at the pro-am the pro will frequently frequently read putts and give advice to his partners.  All three tend to contribute to those decent scores you are talking about.  I don't think scratch players and club pros have very many opportunities, if any, to play courses that are set up at current PGA Tour standards.  They are going to have a hard time hitting fairways and then they are going to have an even harder time hitting out of PGATour rough.  And they are not used to playing greens that have been speeded up to 12 or 13.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by turtleback

That is a weak argument for a couple of reasons.  First of all, I am told by my daughter who interned at a senior event, that in the pro-am they do not play from the tournament tees.  Secondly, at the pro-am they do not use tournament-difficulty pin placements.  And at the pro-am the pro will frequently frequently read putts and give advice to his partners.  All three tend to contribute to those decent scores you are talking about.  I don't think scratch players and club pros have very many opportunities, if any, to play courses that are set up at current PGA Tour standards.  They are going to have a hard time hitting fairways and then they are going to have an even harder time hitting out of PGATour rough.  And they are not used to playing greens that have been speeded up to 12 or 13.

The pro reads the putts for them and gives advice? *Gasp*! Oh, that's sort of like having a caddy, which can be the case for either pros or amateurs at nice courses. It would only be a fair test if both the scratch and the pro had pro level caddies to assist them in strategy and reading greens anyway. Those things might add up to a couple strokes, but not 18. Seriously? 18 strokes? You're telling me you agree with that figure? Even on an easy course, no human being can shoot -18. Even in mini golf or Tiger Woods '13 it's hard as hell to shoot that low. Pro players in a damn scramble don't even get below 60 usually! (Because they don't cheat.)

I will also say there are a decent amount of courses on tour that just aren't that hard. Many scratch golfers would be able to shoot around par on a number of them. It's only the really hard courses that challenge the pros, but even on the low scoring courses where the best pros have their best rounds, you just don't see anything below -8 except in rare circumstances. In fact, you almost never see more than one player on any given day break 65. Tournament setup and major championship setup are not the same.

Remember these are scratch golfers. Not 18 handicappers who miss a lot of fairways: they can expect to hit at least half and not have many bad misses. And remember scratch players need a decent short game and putting so they'd save bogey or maybe par on slight misses. Plus the pro would have equipment that isn't as straight so for pros who aren't really accurate drivers they'd be penalized even more by the rough. Then the ball wouldn't be as long, so the heroic 4 iron out of the rough would be really tough to hit as well. Hitting into the rough sucks, but wedging out isn't out of the question given that the scratch player is used to pars and bogeys and it really wouldn't hurt his chances at either to miss a fairway; pros try to birdie nearly every hole and have a different mindset. And the scratch is likely to get a birdie or two, while the pro is very unlikely to get an eagle in a single round.

The pins might as well be easy, since the tougher locations would hurt the scratch a bit more than it would help the pro. And if the greens are fast it only really matters if the pins are tucked. There are a fair number of courses in my area that stimp around 10 regularly, and some that get to 11 or 12 in good conditions. People like them because they roll truer, and don't necessarily hurt people's approaches. The tees being longer would be a bit tough, but remember the equipment difference in the situation, though not as large a difference as one might think, would contribute to the pro's distance advantage being cut. At any rate the tees are only a real difference in certain circumstances; for shorter hitting players, on holes with a great deal of hazards, or on holes that it's hard to reach and hold the green as it is. You could move the tees at any tour event up or back by a decent chunk, probably 400 yards, which is about 20 yards a hole, and it wouldn't affect the scores by a whole lot. Maybe it would affect the way certain players attack the holes, but they'd score the same within a stroke.

There's a big difference between the pro and scratch, but it isn't 18 strokes at all. Not in a million years.

[Rudyprimo]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

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.

The course they played on would have a lot to do with it.  The easier the course, the closer the scores would be but then it wouldn't be giving a true indication of how much better the tour pro is.  It would just show they both could shoot a great score on an easy course.  Golf is different than other sports because you play against the course and then compare scores.

If you wanted to compare two NBA teams where they couldn't play head to head, you wouldn't get a true measure of each team if they both played against a high school team and compared the scores.  They would both dominate the HS team and win a blow out.  If you wanted a true measure you would have them both play against the best team in the NBA and then compare what they did.  That's the same reason a football player can dominate in college, win the Heisman and be a bust in the NFL.  He can dominate lesser competition but can't play with the toughest competition in the world.

If you wanted a true measure between a scratch golfer and a tour pro they would have to play on a long tough course.  That's where you would see a 15 stroke difference.

[LuciusWooding]

Originally Posted by Rudyprimo

The course they played on would have a lot to do with it.  The easier the course, the closer the scores would be but then it wouldn't be giving a true indication of how much better the tour pro is.  It would just show they both could shoot a great score on an easy course.  Golf is different than other sports because you play against the course and then compare scores.

If you wanted to compare two NBA teams where they couldn't play head to head, you wouldn't get a true measure of each team if they both played against a high school team and compared the scores.  They would both dominate the HS team and win a blow out.  If you wanted a true measure you would have them both play against the best team in the NBA and then compare what they did.  That's the same reason a football player can dominate in college, win the Heisman and be a bust in the NFL.  He can dominate lesser competition but can't play with the toughest competition in the world.

If you wanted a true measure between a scratch golfer and a tour pro they would have to play on a long tough course.  That's where you would see a 15 stroke difference.

I agree with you but again, it wouldn't be that big of a margin. It would be more like half that, and maybe a stroke or two different because of equipment. The margin just isn't that huge when we're talking about stroke play. If the scratch plays terrible you might see a decent margin, but at the same time he could win if the pro has a crappy day with the putter. There's a course near me that's 7035 yards, 72.7 course rating, and greens stimp at 11-12. There are courses on the PGA tour that can play that easy. You see scratch players shoot par at that course routinely, maybe a stroke or two higher or lower being the norm. But pros on such a course still don't shoot anywhere near 60 unless they have the round of their lives.

Now, if we're talking about a course that's a major championship venue, it's not totally fair to expect the scratch to be equipped. But even then, at the hardest courses with the toughest setups possible, you see the pros shoot around par on good days. And that's with all the help they can get equipment wise. Take 3 courses near me; Montauk Downs, Bethpage Black, and Long Island National. Any of them could be a tour venue, and Bethpage has been recently, featuring one of the toughest layouts around. Personally Montauk is the most ridiculously hard course I've ever seen in my life based on the layout and the winds and I'd gladly take Bethpage if I wanted to score lower. But all 3 are public. Bethpage hosted US opens and dressed the greens and grew the rough out, but scratch players still broke 80 those seasons if they knew the course somewhat and played solidly. The rough isn't magically trucked in from Scotland for the tournament, it's like that most of the time. The tees are over 7300 yards any day, though they are lengthened a bit for the Open by 4-500y. The greens are firmed up and rolled for the open, but the super doesn't let them grow wild all year and keeps them quite fast. So everything about the course except perhaps the pins is not too far off tournament conditions most of the time. I'd say a scratch at that course who knew it fairly well and played solidly could shoot about 80 most of the time in conditions where pros would shoot around par. And even if you dropped a scratch out of a helicopter in the middle of the fourth round of the 2009 US Open, unless he forgot how to play golf he'd be able to break 90. The winning player was at -4 for the tournament, and only 5 players broke par for the tournament, so that's quite tough by any standards.

The course conditions at those tournaments don't make it impossible to score, they put stress on those that are struggling. Those that are able to manage their game usually are fine, but those who miss their shots get punished and eventually stare down the cut line. It's more about playing steady than playing well, and the big scores often come from taking unnecessary risks where safe play can break 80. Obviously that's quite terrible by tour standards, but it's not 18 strokes terrible.

EDIT: (And as for the college vs pro level team sports, it depends on the sport. College football teams don't play defense so the pros would win hands down. Baseball, the average pitcher would annihilate a college lineup. Basketball, I totally believe college players would win because NBA players aren't used to trying unless they're in contention for a title. Basketball is more about individual effort and though it wouldn't be a blowout, the best college teams are tighter knit and have better talent than a bad NBA team, who by the way only come in last in the standings if there's a serious teamwork/coaching issue. Talent wise it might average out closer, and the NBA would have a better bench.)

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by LuciusWooding

The pro reads the putts for them and gives advice? *Gasp*! Oh, that's sort of like having a caddy, which can be the case for either pros or amateurs at nice courses. It would only be a fair test if both the scratch and the pro had pro level caddies to assist them in strategy and reading greens anyway. Those things might add up to a couple strokes, but not 18. Seriously? 18 strokes? You're telling me you agree with that figure? Even on an easy course, no human being can shoot -18. Even in mini golf or Tiger Woods '13 it's hard as hell to shoot that low. Pro players in a damn scramble don't even get below 60 usually! (Because they don't cheat.)

I will also say there are a decent amount of courses on tour that just aren't that hard. Many scratch golfers would be able to shoot around par on a number of them. It's only the really hard courses that challenge the pros, but even on the low scoring courses where the best pros have their best rounds, you just don't see anything below -8 except in rare circumstances. In fact, you almost never see more than one player on any given day break 65. Tournament setup and major championship setup are not the same.

Remember these are scratch golfers. Not 18 handicappers who miss a lot of fairways: they can expect to hit at least half and not have many bad misses. And remember scratch players need a decent short game and putting so they'd save bogey or maybe par on slight misses. Plus the pro would have equipment that isn't as straight so for pros who aren't really accurate drivers they'd be penalized even more by the rough. Then the ball wouldn't be as long, so the heroic 4 iron out of the rough would be really tough to hit as well. Hitting into the rough sucks, but wedging out isn't out of the question given that the scratch player is used to pars and bogeys and it really wouldn't hurt his chances at either to miss a fairway; pros try to birdie nearly every hole and have a different mindset. And the scratch is likely to get a birdie or two, while the pro is very unlikely to get an eagle in a single round.

The pins might as well be easy, since the tougher locations would hurt the scratch a bit more than it would help the pro. And if the greens are fast it only really matters if the pins are tucked. There are a fair number of courses in my area that stimp around 10 regularly, and some that get to 11 or 12 in good conditions. People like them because they roll truer, and don't necessarily hurt people's approaches. The tees being longer would be a bit tough, but remember the equipment difference in the situation, though not as large a difference as one might think, would contribute to the pro's distance advantage being cut. At any rate the tees are only a real difference in certain circumstances; for shorter hitting players, on holes with a great deal of hazards, or on holes that it's hard to reach and hold the green as it is. You could move the tees at any tour event up or back by a decent chunk, probably 400 yards, which is about 20 yards a hole, and it wouldn't affect the scores by a whole lot. Maybe it would affect the way certain players attack the holes, but they'd score the same within a stroke.

There's a big difference between the pro and scratch, but it isn't 18 strokes at all. Not in a million years.

The 18 strokes was OBVIOUSLY hyperbole.

[Rip24]

No tour pro would "need a couple weeks to prepare" so they could learn the old equipment. This is ridiculous....they would need about a half a bucket of balls to adjust and then they would be on. Those guys are machines...the difference between scratch and +5 or better is miles apart. The tour pro would deliver an epic beat down. To quote the book Paper Tiger, about that old PGA slogan These guys are good...how good? You've got no f'n clue...

[Ernest Jones]

Originally Posted by Rip24

No tour pro would "need a couple weeks to prepare" so they could learn the old equipment. This is ridiculous....they would need about a half a bucket of balls to adjust and then they would be on. Those guys are machines...the difference between scratch and +5 or better is miles apart. The tour pro would deliver an epic beat down. To quote the book Paper Tiger, about that old PGA slogan These guys are good...how good? You've got no f'n clue...

I agree. This thread should almost be closed, it's like those threads titled " I love golf and I'm a hard worker. How long do you think it will take me to turn pro?" . Their short game alone would destroy a scratch. Epic beat down indeed. I don't think that people realize that the average tour pro could absolutely rape a regular "Joe" course and a scratch would embarrass himself on a course set up for PGA.

No chance at all...

[TourSpoon]

I agree. This thread should almost be closed, it's like those threads titled " I love golf and I'm a hard worker. How long do you think it will take me to turn pro?" . Their short game alone would destroy a scratch. Epic beat down indeed. I don't think that people realize that the average tour pro could absolutely rape a regular "Joe" course and a scratch would embarrass himself on a course set up for PGA. No chance at all...

Mega-Epic Beat Down! Certainly the old irons with those Dynamic Gold S300/400, X100, etc shafts would take so much time to get the feel of...wait, they still use these shafts on Tour. Good points fellas.

[Aging Boomer]

20 year old equipment is hardly antique, anyway.  I have clubs of my own going back to 1959, and I have the MacGregor Tommy Amour woods and Wilson Staff Dynapowered irons that my uncle bought in 1954.

Twenty years ago was yesterday.  My first TaylorMade"Pittsburgh Persimmons" are thirty years old.

I never sold or traded anything, and only gave a few things away.  My "man cave" looks like a golf club museum with bags tucked between speakers, recliners, wide screen, and book shelves.  It's probably a disgrace if you want to know the truth, but I can't part with this stuff..

Plus, it's a good history lesson.  A 23° fairway wood is called a #9 today.  The first TaylorMade 5-wood was 23°.