Can an LPGA player win on PGA tour?

[Zekez]

3 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

You don't get it. The men get those advantages too. Not every course has heavy rough, that makes it THAT much easier for the MEN playing too. Do you see this? Got it? Ok, good..so once again. No chance an LPGA player can win on the PGA. No chance. Zero.

Gee thanks for being a rude jerk.  Have a nice day my man.  

[Vinsk]

3 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Gee thanks for being a rude jerk.  Have a nice day my man.  

LOL! Come on man, take it easy. Sorry bro...didn't mean it to come out that way.

Edited June 29, 2017 by Vinsk

[NJpatbee]

I won't try to predict the future but given the abilities of today's LPGA and PGA Tour players I believe players like Michelle Wie and Lexi could possibly make the cut on courses less than 6800 yards, which are few on the PGA Tour.  Like others have said, it is not just the driver but the next club for the second shot and the short game that give the men a big advantage.   

That being said, the purses for today's LPGA tour events are getting better - I believe the 2017 US Women's Open winner will get about $850,000.  This discussion is a nice hypothetical but it is not worth it for the ladies to play on the PGA Tour.  However, I do enjoy watching the LPGA for what it is and it can be exciting.  Actually, as far as football, most of us would agree that the New England Patriots would beat Ohio State or Alabama.  But for many of us the college game is so much more exciting based on spirit and rivalries.   Enjoy the LPGA for what it is - the best female players on the planet.

[kpaulhus]

2 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

I won't try to predict the future but given the abilities of today's LPGA and PGA Tour players I believe players like Michelle Wie and Lexi could possibly make the cut on courses less than 6800 yards, which are few on the PGA Tour.  Like others have said, it is not just the driver but the next club for the second shot and the short game that give the men a big advantage.   

That being said, the purses for today's LPGA tour events are getting better - I believe the 2017 US Women's Open winner will get about $850,000.  This discussion is a nice hypothetical but it is not worth it for the ladies to play on the PGA Tour.  However, I do enjoy watching the LPGA for what it is and it can be exciting.  Actually, as far as football, most of us would agree that the New England Patriots would beat Ohio State or Alabama.  But for many of us the college game is so much more exciting based on spirit and rivalries.   Enjoy the LPGA for what it is - the best female players on the planet.

3

Well said.

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, NJpatbee said:

Enjoy the LPGA for what it is - the best female players on the planet.

Right. Exactly. Unfortunately there are those (like the interviewer with John McEnroe) who are clueless about sports and simply don't understand that males performing at a higher level is is simply biological,physiological and that's just the way it is.

For example. Is it sexist that there is no balance beam event in men's gymnastics? Do men say or think they're better than the women at it? Of course not. Just as there are no rings events in women's gymnastics.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, zipazoid said:

I just reject absolutes like "Will never happen." You can't prove a negative anyway. You can try, and some are making compelling points to do so, but I just disagree with "never." Highly unlikely? Sure, and I've admitted as such. And the 'will never happen' people's points confirm that it's highly unlikely as well. That's as far as I can go with agreeing. 

The question implies a time frame, because in 100 years (or 150+ like my example) may as well be "never." Whether you consider the time frame 20 years (because golf rules and technology and whatnot could change a bit in that time frame), your lifetime (because "never" is almost equivalent to that if you die before it happens), or some other period of time… there's still a period of time implied. Nobody's ever literally talking about "forever." Human beings can't even grasp the concept of "forever."

The choices in the poll are bad, but if you're only holding out voting for "never" because once in 300 years it might happen, you should just change your vote to "never."

I've created a second poll. Everyone can click "Show Vote Options" and add their vote to the second poll (and/or change their first vote if they wish). I tried to stick closely to the original question wording.

If I were to create a poll on this topic, I would set the parameters and have discrete choices. Maybe something more like… "If the best LPGA Tour player at any given point in time competed against a full field of PGA Tour players over 10,000 regular PGA Tour events, how many times would she win?" The poll choices would be "0" and then "1-2" and "3-5" with "6-10" and "10+".

Most people would likely vote 0.

(Poll added. I can always remove it later…)

[Piz]

A woman has the same chance of winning a PGA Tour event as I have winning an LPGA Tour event.  

[Valleygolfer]

41 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Gee thanks for being a rude jerk.  Have a nice day my man.  

Wow.

[No Mulligans]

Pretty hard to answer the new 10,000 rounds question without crunching some numbers.  I answered 1-2 but starting to think 0 is more probable.

Here's the thing, a LPGA pro certainly has a shot at a birdie on most of the holes of a PGA course.  Therefore, there is some probability (super super small) she could birdie maybe all but the longest par fours... maybe 15 under?  It's possible, might be a 1 in a billion though, I have no idea.

I shot even par on a local executive course (Balboa Park 9 hole executive) a few weeks ago.  I said to my playing buddies, "that was a 1 out of a 100 round".  Let's assume that's true, 1 out of a 100.  What are the chances I could string two of those rounds together for 18 holes... 1/100 * 1/100 = 1 out of 1,000 !  There is a huge difference between me being even for 9 which I've done several times, and me being even for 18 which I've never come close.

Back to the LPGA player; say they are actually in 1st place after the first round and that is a 1/200 round for them (I think the odds would actually be higher given a field of 140 PGA players).  What are the odds they could string 4 equally good rounds together given the assumption of 1/200. 1/200 * 1/200 * 1/200 * 1/200 = 1 out of 1.6 billion.  Never going to happen.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Pretty hard to answer the new 10,000 rounds question without crunching some numbers.  I answered 1-2 but starting to think 0 is more probable.

0 is way more probable.  You can change your vote, too…

6 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Therefore, there is some probability (super super small) she could birdie maybe all but the longest par fours... maybe 15 under?  It's possible, might be a 1 in a billion though, I have no idea.

Her odds are significantly smaller than a PGA Tour player's odds, and there are 143+ of them…

6 minutes ago, No Mulligans said:

Back to the LPGA player; say they are actually in 1st place after the first round and that is a 1/200 round for them (I think the odds would actually be higher given a field of 140 PGA players). What are the odds they could string 4 equally good rounds together given the assumption of 1/200. 1/200 * 1/200 * 1/200 * 1/200 = 1 out of 1.6 billion.  Never going to happen.

Yep. So you've already changed your vote, right?

[Zekez]

49 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

Wow.

Wow what?  His response or mine to his rude comment?

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

LOL! Come on man, take it easy. Sorry bro...didn't mean it to come out that way.

Nice.  Respond like a jerk, then do the old "passive aggressive apology".

Sorry but I'm not rude and dismissive towards others for no reason.

[lastings]

33 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Wow what?  His response or mine to his rude comment?

Nice.  Respond like a jerk, then do the old "passive aggressive apology".

Sorry but I'm not rude and dismissive towards others for no reason.

This thread should end. 

[Wally Fairway]

Never, nope, none - some one PM me when more polls are added to the thread

[BamaWade]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

...Nobody's ever literally talking about "forever." Human beings can't even grasp the concept of "forever."

The choices in the poll are bad, but if you're only holding out voting for "never" because once in 300 years it might happen, you should just change your vote to "never."

If we start getting into multiverse theory, where we're pitting an infinite number of Lexi Thompsons (and maybe throw in ∞Lydia Ko and her ∞caddies³) against an infinite number of fields/courses/conditions, I'm going to have to bow out!

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, Zekez said:

Wow what?  His response or mine to his rude comment?

Nice.  Respond like a jerk, then do the old "passive aggressive apology".

Sorry but I'm not rude and dismissive towards others for no reason.

Must be a millennial. Dude, you made a comment suggesting a defense to your argument which didn't have logic. I clarified, you got butt-hurt. 

[BaconNEggs]

^^^^ Can both of you just end it? As a side-note, the whole "millennial snowflake" thing is so stupid and overused. Some older, particularly conservative, generations are quite possibly the most touchy people out there. Harry freaking Potter is offensive to these people. Two men kissing makes their knees quiver. Fun stuff.

To the questions...

Is it possible? Yes, from a purely logical standpoint it is possible.

Can an LPGA pro win in the next 20 years? Well, there goes that word can. Yes.

How many times would the best LPGA pro win over 10,000 PGA tour events? Probably zero. Like, 99.999%... with so many more 9s after it that you'd be scrolling for quite a while. So that's what I answered. But there's an above 0% chance of at least one win.

The questions are what they are!

Fun discussion. Typically, though, I think across most sports women compete at approximately elite 13-14 year old boys levels, physically. I know in hockey, 16 year old boy's teams have demolished elite women's national teams. I think an under-15 boys soccer team just beat the US women's soccer team this past spring.

A more entertaining question to me would be, realistically, how young could a male win an LPGA event? My guess is 12, but that would probably require a very developed (early puberty) teenager. I think Tiger was driving around 270 when he was 14... that was around the late 80s, early 90s, and he was skinny as a twig. I bet some 12 year olds out there today could probably poke it 300 on occasion with modern equipment.

 

Edited June 29, 2017 by BaconNEggs

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, BaconNEggs said:

My guess is 12, but that would probably require a very developed (early puberty) teenager.

12 isn't a teenager.

[chspeed]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

The question implies a time frame, because in 100 years (or 150+ like my example) may as well be "never." Whether you consider the time frame 20 years (because golf rules and technology and whatnot could change a bit in that time frame), your lifetime (because "never" is almost equivalent to that if you die before it happens), or some other period of time… there's still a period of time implied. Nobody's ever literally talking about "forever." Human beings can't even grasp the concept of "forever."

The choices in the poll are bad, but if you're only holding out voting for "never" because once in 300 years it might happen, you should just change your vote to "never."

I've created a second poll. Everyone can click "Show Vote Options" and add their vote to the second poll (and/or change their first vote if they wish). I tried to stick closely to the original question wording.

If I were to create a poll on this topic, I would set the parameters and have discrete choices. Maybe something more like… "If the best LPGA Tour player at any given point in time competed against a full field of PGA Tour players over 10,000 regular PGA Tour events, how many times would she win?" The poll choices would be "0" and then "1-2" and "3-5" with "6-10" and "10+".

Most people would likely vote 0.

(Poll added. I can always remove it later…)

Lol!

Yes, the poll answers are not good. Why? Because I didn't think about it all that much. But if the point of poll was to create enlightening conversation,  it did a good job (at least IMO). That is until some people started analyzing the meaning of the words could and never.