Once again, amateur wins Pro ladies event. Same amateur!

[David in FL]

What....that one of the best players in the world isn't daubed in mascara and facepaint, begging the public to love her? She's an amazing player. You are implying that she can't be that good, given her age and amateur status.

Not at all. I'm implying that women's professional golf in general isn't very good. I know, I know......

[wils5150]

um Lydia is that good. The lpga might not have the depth of the pga tour but I would say half the ladies on tour  would kick the crap out of 99% of the people here.

[David in FL]

um Lydia is that good. The lpga might not have the depth of the pga tour but I would say half the ladies on tour  would kick the crap out of 99% of the people here.

More than 99%! But sadly, being able to beat me like a drum isn't exactly a defining characteristic of good professional golf.

[MEfree]

Originally Posted by David in FL

More than 99%!

But sadly, being able to beat me like a drum isn't exactly a defining characteristic of good professional golf.

To me that is a public perception problem- if you are capable of beating 90% of male golfers regularly and the 100th best women's golfer will beat you like a drum, then maybe they play pretty well on the LPGA Tour.  Yes, not as well as the men, but to say there is no depth or talent there does not make sense coming from someone who isn't good enough to beat them

[wils5150]

scoring average wise #50 on the mens tour is Rory Sabbatini at 70.553 on the ladies tour is Eun-Hee Ji at 71.94. 1.38 strokes hire for the ladies. # 1 for the men is Tiger at 68.617 for the ladies is Inbee Park at 69.742. 1.125 hire for the ladies. Inbee would rank 9th on the mens list of scoring average. Is 1 to 1.5 shots higher a lot? I don't think so. So don't tell me they are not good pros. In fact most of the ladies would beat a scratch golfer.

[David in FL]

To me that is a public perception problem- if you are capable of beating 90% of male golfers regularly and the 100th best women's golfer will beat you like a drum, then maybe they play pretty well on the LPGA Tour.  Yes, not as well as the men, but to say there is no depth or talent there does not make sense coming from someone who isn't good enough to beat them

A lot of people on this site can't beat me either, that doesn't mean I'm any good though. :-( I should probably say they're not very "entertaining" rather than "good". I watch golf to be amazed. To see people do something I can't even dream of doing. Watching someone hit a 160 yd 7 iron while playing 6,600 yd courses that aren't generally set up all that tough, just doesn't hold my attention.

[wils5150]

lol maybe you could dream about shooting a 64 like that Kid did

[bkuehn1952]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Sorry, but this says a LOT about the depth and quality of women's professional golf.....

If a large number of 15-16 year old girls were succeeding in high level professional women's golf, yes it could be an indication that the ladies need to up their game.  Ms. Ko seems to be an outlier; a very mature and talented golfer who happens to be 16.  Every few years there are similar girls who play beyond their age (Charley Hull, Alexis Thompson, Michelle Wie, Morgan Pressel, etc...).  The fact that these talented girls can compete against the older women says more about the quality of the girl's play and less about the lack of ability or depth on the LPGA tour.

[Jeremie Boop]

Originally Posted by wils5150

scoring average wise #50 on the mens tour is Rory Sabbatini at 70.553 on the ladies tour is Eun-Hee Ji at 71.94. 1.38 strokes hire for the ladies. # 1 for the men is Tiger at 68.617 for the ladies is Inbee Park at 69.742. 1.125 hire for the ladies. Inbee would rank 9th on the mens list of scoring average. Is 1 to 1.5 shots higher a lot? I don't think so. So don't tell me they are not good pros. In fact most of the ladies would beat a scratch golfer.

You have to factor in the length of the courses. If the guys were playing courses as short as the women do the scoring average would most likely be even lower or vice versa the women would have higher scores on longer courses . You aren't comparing them on an even playing field.

[RonTheSavage]

If an amateur wins a tournament, should the prize money go towards amateur sports?

As it stands now all the pros move up, that is Karine Icher takes home first place money for coming in second, and so on. Nothing against these fine athletes.

I wondered this also.........that money she won should go to the charity of her choice. Maybe the 1st tee of New Zealand. Why not put it in an account for Ko and she can access it once she turns pro???

[wils5150]

I think it is a fair comparison. we all know that the women are not as long as the men. should Jack Nicklaus be considered any less of a golfer because courses are set up longer now? the pga and lpga sets up the course based on average player length. a 7 iron is a 7 iron regaurdless if its  150 yard shot or a 190 yard shot.

[Jeremie Boop]

Originally Posted by wils5150

I think it is a fair comparison. we all know that the women are not as long as the men. should Jack Nicklaus be considered any less of a golfer because courses are set up longer now? the pga and lpga sets up the course based on average player length. a 7 iron is a 7 iron regaurdless if its  150 yard shot or a 190 yard shot.

It's not a fair comparison, because even the best women in the LPGA don't make cuts on the PGA tour, or at least haven't yet.

*edit* I shouldn't say the best women, but at least the women that have tried who were considered some of the best

[wils5150]

lol the only thing the men do better is hit it farther which they should since most of them now are 6 foot plus and work out like crazy. the top scoring averages are very close. hence so is there skill level

[Jeremie Boop]

Originally Posted by wils5150

lol the only thing the men do better is hit it farther which they should since most of them now are 6 foot plus and work out like crazy. the top scoring averages are very close. hence so is there skill level

Not exactly the most factual of statements. If that's how you are going to base your discussion I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

[David in FL]

Not exactly the most factual of statements. If that's how you are going to base your discussion I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Agree. Comparing scoring averages is apples and oranges.... To give some additional perspective. Royal Mayfair, where the Women's Canadian Open was played, measured about 6400 yds and carries a course rating/slope of 71.2/128. A pretty modest course by any standard.... Glen Abbey, where the Men's Canadian Open was held, measured about 7250 yds and carries a course rating/slope of 75.5/140. To put that into context.....if you were to shoot an 80 on both courses, your differential at Royal Mayfair would be 7.8. At Glen Abbey it would be 3.6. Of course, that doesn't take into account the more difficult setup in terms of rough, narrowed fairways, pin locations and such.

[9iron]

Originally Posted by wils5150

I think it is a fair comparison. we all know that the women are not as long as the men. should Jack Nicklaus be considered any less of a golfer because courses are set up longer now? the pga and lpga sets up the course based on average player length. a 7 iron is a 7 iron regardless if its  150 yard shot or a 190 yard shot.

wils, I understand the basic premise of your comment here, but I'm not sure if it is exactly true. I'm not exactly sure I am right about what I am going to write either, so I'm open to hearing comments on this subject.

If Player A hits 7 iron from 150 yards, this requires a lesser club head speed than what is required for Player B to reach a green with a 7 iron from 190 yards. I think we'd both agree on this. This noted, suppose both players come thru the contact point with the club face 2 degrees shut or 2 degrees open, isn't the player with the slower swing speed less off line from the target? Wouldn't this have to be the case? If so, the player with the slower swing speed may actually have an easier up and down than the player with the faster swing speed simply by virtue of being closer to the hole.

[wils5150]

i guess everyone can come up with a valid point for there argument

[Dave40]

I thought we were comparing the depth of skill level on the PGA vs LPGA tours, not whether a male player can score better than a woman on a 7,000 yard course.