next »

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

The "young college kids from decent programs" that I've met were plus-handicaps when they graduated High School. Past that point the handicap index doesn't mean much.

The USGA Handicap System, whatever its flaws, does a decent job making it possible for golfers with indexes from Scratch or so up into the 20's have somewhat enjoyable matches. It was not designed to accurately rate players who play in handicapped competition with those who regularly compete in straight-up tournaments over 72 holes of stroke play. If it did, there would not be the idea of using the best half of the scores and the numerical difference between me and some Top 100 college golfer wouldn't be 25 strokes it would be more like 35.

That's why these hypothetical "Pro against a so-and-so handicapper" questions are ill-formed IMO. There's a set of abilities needed to play and count all your bad shots, day in and day out, and seldom be totally out of it. Most 4 (or 2, or 1) handicappers have never been tested in terms of those abilities and a numerical USGA index certainly does not capture that potential.

Fair enough, but, the argument remains that there are 3-4 handicap golfers that I believe could hang with LPGAers under the right conditions.  The Rothelisberger example atleast illustrates that a little...

[Sean Arble]

I fall heavily on the side of the LPGA touring pro.  In fact, the more difficult and tighter the setup, the greater the odds of the touring pro.  Half the time in a tournament setup a 4 handicap can't play his way out of a paper bag.  I would say a 4 capper making the cut at a LPGA event would be a great success.

Ciao

[JMEvensky]

That's why these hypothetical "Pro against a so-and-so handicapper" questions are ill-formed IMO. There's a set of abilities needed to play and count all your bad shots, day in and day out, and seldom be totally out of it. Most 4 (or 2, or 1) handicappers have never been tested in terms of those abilities and a numerical USGA index certainly does not capture that potential.

Exactly.Hence Jones' "There's golf...".

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

I think some of you guys are missing the point of the thread.  The thread has to do with distance and whether or not it, under the right conditions, can negate handicap.  I say, unequivacally, yes.  These women yesterday (the creme de la creme of womens golf) were shooting 80s on a 6300 yard (albeit tricky and hard) golf course.  Throw them on a 7200 yard golf course with a 4 handicap that hits it 280-300 yards and you've got yourself a match.  The 4 may not win, but I think he (or she) would give a lower-tier female pro a run for their money in at least 3 out of 10 head-to-head matches

[JMEvensky]

I think some of you guys are missing the point of the thread.  The thread has to do with distance and whether or not it, under the right conditions, can negate handicap.  I say, unequivacally, yes.  These women yesterday (the creme de la creme of womens golf) were shooting 80s on a 6300 yard (albeit tricky and hard) golf course.  Throw them on a 7200 yard golf course with a 4 handicap that hits it 280-300 yards and you've got yourself a match.  The 4 may not win, but I think he (or she) would give a lower-tier female pro a run for their money in at least 3 out of 10 head-to-head matches

Jay Kirkpatrick,you have a very inflated view of 4 handicaps.Simply put,neither length nor any other factor would ever narrow the gap between a 4 and someone who plays for a living.If you want to make a Tour Pro(either gender) laugh,ask how close their respective skill levels are.

Tour Pro's can SCORE,it's what they do.Irrespective of the course or conditions,they either learn to score or they go broke.If your mythical,consistently 300-yard driving 4 handicap could score,he wouldn't be a 4 handicap.

[Bob_Huntley]

A week ago we held the California Girls Championship on the Dunes Course.

One of the finalists, was a tall elegant Korean girl who looked something like Michelle Wie and had a beautiful swing and a magic touch with the putter. The other girl was much shorter, stockier and very athletic. I watched the first hole of the final and the last. On the first hole of the Dunes, for those who have played it know that it is somewhat uphill and plays longer than the yardage. The shorter player hit it past the bunkers on the right and had a sand wedge into the green. On the 17th and last hole of the match the same player hit the drive something like 270 yards, chipped on and three putted to lose the match.

The winner was 14 and the loser 15 and both had plus handicaps. I cannot see a 4 handicapper beating these two kids from say, the 6800 yard markers let alone an LGPA member.

As an aside I remember playing with Kelly Leadbetter in 1992 when the US Open was being held at Pebble Beach. She hadn't played much and went out from the tips and shot even par. She was more than six months pregnant!

Bob 

[Brent Hutto]

The fallacy lies not in how difficult a wet, long, narrow 7,000 golf course is for an LPGA pro whose carry distance is 230 off the tee and maybe 200 on a good day from the fairway. They're going to have trouble keeping it anywhere close to par under those conditions. Something in the 75-80 range is likely. Stipulated.

The fallacy is saying "Drives it 300 yards" as those he's going to be walking 300 yards up the fairway 14 times a round and dropping the ball a short-iron from the green in a perfect lie. Not any big-hitting 4-handicapper I've ever seen. He's going to get three or four holes where he just "schools" the short-hitting lady pro. Drives it within wedge distance, hits it close and has 10-15 feet for birdie. He'll even make one or two of them if he's lucky.

It's what he does on the 6, 8, 10 holes where he a) does not get 300 yards out of it and b) is not in the fairway. And at least one or two of those 300-yard (potential) drives will be in the deep shit on a tournament setup. And unless he's a serious sandbagger, several of those bad drives (and BTW hitting it that long on most 7,000 yard tournaments setups it doesn't take much error to get screwed for your second shot) are going to be the occasion of an 8 or 9 or 10 on a hole. Assuming we're talking stroke play, our hypothetical lady pro will be tallying pars and bogeys with maybe the odd double somewhere along the line.

So her scorecard looks like a boatload of 4's and 5's with the odd three and a couple 6's. His scorecard looks an even mix of 3's, 4's, 5's, 6's, 7's and 8's with at least one "blow up" hole of 10 or 11 strokes. He can have the round of his life, make four birdies to her zero and still lose by half a dozen strokes. More likely he makes one birdie on a Par 5 (she pars them all) and shoots 85 with at least a couple of "others".

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

If all handicaps are created the same, then maybe we should frame the argument differently.  Perhaps another way to assess the distance issue is how an LPGA tour player would do at, say, the US Am.  US Ams are set up long and tough -- much more so than US Womens Opens.  Where do you think these elite LPGA players would fall in the mix?  I think they would struggle mightily (with maybe 5 in the overall top 10)... yet the LPGAers would far surpass their college counterparts on almost all levels of skill (short game, putting, iron play).  I just think distance makes too big of a difference in the current game, and that is a shame.

As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here.  Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread?  As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases."  I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

[George Pazin]

As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here.  Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread?  As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases."  I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

You're reading anger into simple disagreement. Just because I think you're crazy doesn't mean I hate you.

In all seriousness, you seem to be citing the rare exception to disprove the rule. I mentioned this thread to a friend of mine not even an hour ago. He's a legit 4, just lost in his club championship this past weekend to a guy who's dominated his club championship (a real name club, btw) for some 30 years now. He absolutely laughed at the premise of the thread and said there's simply no way to compare. He felt the guy he lost to - who's probably a +1 or so - could compete with an LPGA tour pro on a 7000 yard course, but knew that he would get killed.

Apples and oranges.

I once had a job interview that required sitting in a room all by my lonesome and figuring out a math problem that sounded easy but proved somewhat problematic. It wasn't until I went back to my roots and remembered to simplify that I figured it out, took me about 45 minutes. No one I know since has figured it out, btw. I don't add that to brag, just to illustrate the difference between doing it when it counts, and doing it off the cuff. You have to compare apples to apples and not get confused by the chaff.

Brent would figure it out it maybe 30 seconds...but he's a stat guru.

 

[JMEvensky]

As an aside, I don't get all the anger towards my arguments on here.  Isn't disagreement what makes a healthy thread?  As my dad often says, "I've worked hard to earn my biases."  I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

Apologies if I came across as angry and yes,disagreement does make for a healthy thread.Just type "Merion" and see how healthy things will soon get.

It's a pet peeve of mine that 4 handicaps really believe they've really got game.They don't.

I think your question regarding an LPGA player in the US Am is interesting on a couple of levels.I don't know that the course set up really matters;it's impossible for everyone equally.What would matter,IMO,is that it's match play.Purely speculating but my guess is that the really high-level male amateur player would be able to offset the LPGA player's consistency with power and birdie opportunities gained from shorter approaches.In match play,it wouldn't surprise me if a high-level amateur could hang with a mid-level LPGA pro.

[Jason Walker]

It's a pet peeve of mine that 4 handicaps really believe they've really got game.They don't.

Agreed.  It's also a pet peeve of mine when a 4 handicap shoots around even par on a 6700 yard course. 

[George Pazin]

It wouldn't surprise me either, but those guys in the US Am are plus 2,3,4+, not 4 handicappers.

[Kenny Baer]

Anyone who thinks a 4 index could hang with an LPGA tour pro has rocks in their brain.

I am a 5.1 index and have been as low as a 2.8 index.  MY BEST ROUND EVER!!!! is 73.

EVER!!!!!  That was from about 6,700 yds; my best round ever from 7k + is 75.

Any LPGA tour pro would be disappointed with my BEST ROUND EVER.

I could beat an LPGA tour pro....a bad one at that.....one who misses more than 1/2 her cuts.......1 out of 75-100 times.....if that.

I would literally have to play my very best and she would have to play her very very worst.

I agree that a top level Amateur is about the same caliber as an LPGA tour pro.  Probably a +1-+3 handicap index could play with them.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

The handicap shouldn't make a difference... thats the point.  Given the earlier scale, I assume there would be some agreement that a lower-tier LPGAer equates to a +3 handicap.  Using that scale, do you think a long-hitting 7 handicap could hang with a scratch short-hitting player on a long golf course at least some of the time?  How about a 10 vs. 3 or a 15 vs. 8?  I think extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill".  When we have "tough day" at our course, we have short-hitting 2-4 handicaps that can barely finish, much less contend. Meanwhile, long-hitting 10s shoot similar scores...

By the way, in the US Am example, I wasn't even considering the match play format.  I think the Ams would more than hold their own in a stroke play event on a difficult golf course...

[Brent Hutto]

The handicap shouldn't make a difference... thats the point.  Given the earlier scale, I assume there would be some agreement that a lower-tier LPGAer equates to a +3 handicap.

There's the root of the problem. I've seen those silly computations in the magazines and where ever that assign some sort of Course and Slope ratings to PGA Tour courses and compute that Greg Norman was playing to a +6.3 or whatever their numbers said. The LPGA Tour player doesn't equate to any number of the handicap scale, any more than Greg Norman did. It's a qualitative difference.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Anyone who thinks a 4 index could hang with an LPGA tour pro has rocks in their brain.

I am a 5.1 index and have been as low as a 2.8 index.  MY BEST ROUND EVER!!!! is 73.

EVER!!!!!  That was from about 6,700 yds; my best round ever from 7k + is 75.

Any LPGA tour pro would be disappointed with my BEST ROUND EVER.

I could beat an LPGA tour pro....a bad one at that.....one who misses more than 1/2 her cuts.......1 out of 75-100 times.....if that.

I would literally have to play my very best and she would have to play her very very worst.

I agree that a top level Amateur is about the same caliber as an LPGA tour pro.  Probably a +1-+3 handicap index could play with them.

its almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 with a low round of 73.  you must be very consistent and shoot a lot of 75-77s.  if thats the case, i think you'd be surprised how often shorter-hitting (and less talented) lpga tour players would shoot scores of that quality on a 6700 yard course.  i'm not saying they would be happy with them, but i think we overestimate the length and difficulty of the courses that they normally play (and the champions tour).  you have to be really good with long irons to shoot under par consistently if you drive the ball 230 yards.  most of them are, thats what makes them top tier pros, but you only have to excel in a handful of events/year to stay on tour. 

by the way, the shortest hitter on the lpga AVERAGES 220 yards/drive. assuming that the par 3s average 180yds on a 6700yd course and the par 5s avg 500yds, that leaves the avg par 4 at 400 yds.  if you are hitting 230 yd drives, that means you are probably hitting hybrids into over half the holes on the course.  its hard to make a living doing that... though pavin (and others) certainly have managed just fine.

[Jason Walker]

Jay-
Please explain to me how it's almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 hcap index with a low round of 73.  Sounds pretty typical to me.  I'm not positive you understand how the hcap system works, but I'm absolutely sure your friend with the 4 index who plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses doesn't.

And while I can see where you're coming from regarding the player whose driving average was 220 yards--what does that prove?  To me, it shows she must have an amazing array of shots with long irons and fairway woods and is probably an unbelievable putter. 

[wwhitehead]

It's important to separate the possible from what's likely, especially considering how handicaps are figured.

Possible: The 4 wins.
Likely: The LPGA pro stomps him.

WW

[Garland Bayley]

The Women's US Open was just contested at 6750 set up tough.  7000 might add a shot or two but not more.

They kept setting the course shorter as the days went by. I believe the only day when they played over 6700 was on Thu. By Sunday, the course setup was 6350.

The course was over 6700 on both Thursday and Friday. Buf with greens running at 13, your 4 handicapper would have trouble breaking 90. With fast greens at Torrey Pines the 4 to 6 handicapper had trouble breaking 100.

[Garland Bayley]

...
I think a "high quality" 4 handicap could, on occasion, hang with a lower-tier short-hitting female pro on a long, hard golf course.

Theres a big difference in the two.

Definition: high quality, aka sand bagger.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Jay-
Please explain to me how it's almost statistically impossible to be a 2.8 hcap index with a low round of 73.  Sounds pretty typical to me.  I'm not positive you understand how the hcap system works, but I'm absolutely sure your friend with the 4 index who plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses doesn't.

And while I can see where you're coming from regarding the player whose driving average was 220 yards--what does that prove?  To me, it shows she must have an amazing array of shots with long irons and fairway woods and is probably an unbelievable putter. 

if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low.  its certainly not impossible (i'm not calling anyone a liar), it just shows that the person is consistent when they play well and don't have a lot of low rounds to skew the cap.

[Jason Walker]

if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low.  

HUH?  Are you saying that 25% of his 30 scores are 75 or better?  Where in the world did this come from?

Jay, please go to:  http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/

Scroll down to Section 11.

This may help you understand why people are a little confused with your reasoning.

[Jason Walker]

Section 10, sorry.

But Section 11 is worthwhile too.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

off-topic, but if you guys think all 4 (or 10s or 18s or 36s) handicaps are created the same, then you're crazy...  

that comment doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is a sandbagger.  you've got legit 4s that putt everything out and play "real" golf... then you have 4s that take 4 fters and write down bogies when they were destined to make doubles.  maybe the former is the exception but i see it all the time.

[Jason Walker]

of course you're correct.  And those are the 4's we all love to play.  Nothing better than a vanity 4.  But you're trying to tell us your 4 index friend plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses.  That, Jay, is statistically impossible.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

if 25% of your 30 scores are 75 or lower, then it would be rare that you would have 73 as a low.  

HUH?  Are you saying that 25% of his 30 scores are 75 or better?  Where in the world did this come from?

Jay, please go to:  http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/

Scroll down to Section 11.

This may help you understand why people are a little confused with your reasoning.

if you are a 3 handicap, it would stand to reason that roughly 25% (actually .96 of .25) of your scores are below that number since a handicap is essentially the modified avg of your best 10 (out of 20 scores).  assuming you have 20 scores in the system, that means that generally 5 of them are 75 or better (or all 10 could be 75 which would show impressive consistency).  like i said, that certainly isn't impossible.  its just a sign that half the time that person is really close to their handicap b/c there isn't a low score to skew the result.

[Jason Walker]

Jay-
Read the link.  You may learn something this evening. 

It isn't score.  It's differential which is computed using score adjusted for ESC.  A huge difference. 

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

of course you're correct.  And those are the 4's we all love to play.  Nothing better than a vanity 4.  But you're trying to tell us your 4 index friend plays to par or better on 6700 yard courses.  That, Jay, is statistically impossible.

statistically unlikely perhaps, but not impossible.  i'm telling you, this guy is legit.  he plays 7200yd golf courses and shoots between 78-84 all the time (2-3 doubles with lots of pars).  probably 17 of his 20 handicap scores are at 7000+yd courses.  put him on a short course, and he'll shoot 70-75 every time.  

[Garland Bayley]

Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.

And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "

Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Jay-
Read the link.  You may learn something this evening. 

It isn't score.  It's differential which is computed using score adjusted for ESC.  A huge difference. 

Jason -- I'm very aware of what the differential is... I get my update every 2 weeks and serve on our version of the handicap committee for my club.  Look at the example on the website, we're talking about a .2 differential on the score described.  Obviously, I'm assuming a golfer that plays his home course 20 times with a rating of 72 and an average slope.  If the golfer shoots a 75 on a really hard golf course, it could mean just as much as a 72 on an easy one... i get that.  i stand by my statement that it would be rare for a golfer with a handicap of 2.8 to have a low round of 73.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.

And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "

Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.

you are going under the assumption that slope and rating are properly determined.  thats an impossibility.  you can't mathematically compare courses... you can try and the usga does... but the system is flawed.

[Garland Bayley]

Richard's original question was, "What are the effects of distance on players of different length?What are the effects of distance on players of different length?" Actually if you have deep knowledge of the USGA handicap system, you could probably do the algebra on their formulas to figure it out, at least for courses with no other hazards besides length.

And trust me Jay. I am certain it will not be anything near "extreme length in a golf course can offset 4-6 strokes of "skill". "

Perhaps popeofslope.com would have this kind of information in a FAQ.

you are going under the assumption that slope and rating are properly determined.  thats an impossibility.  you can't mathematically compare courses... you can try and the usga does... but the system is flawed.

No offense Jay, but that is the kind of statement I usually hear from golfers with vanity handicaps. Technically you are correct. You can't mathematically compare courses. However, statistically you can make great approximations.

[Andy Troeger]

I've been everything from a 2 to a 9 hcp depending on how hard I've worked at it and other factors between the ears. When I was a 2 it was as a fairly erratic one that shot 69 a couple times and high scores other times. Heck even this year I shot a 48-35--who knows.

Anyway--when I was at my best I could play well enough to beat the LPGA Tour pro--maybe one of 20 rounds (as a 2 hcp). I'd get hammered most of the time. As a 4 hcp I think my chances would be significantly less--there's a big difference in those two shots.

I've played with a good friend of mine probably 50 times--he's probably just below scratch and not a very long hitter. I've beat him once, on an easy course where I shot 73 and he shot 74. The tougher the course, the more likely he is to beat me badly. Same here--making the course longer actually beats up the erratic but longer male worse than the fairway hitting LPGA pro. I don't think it would be close most of the time.

[Ben Sims]

I don't know much about how the LPGA sets up their courses vs. what the PGA guys see every weekend.  I also don't know how strength is a direct correlation to quality and creative short game.  

What I'm told by those that know, is that the cutoff is not necessarily the length.  I will say that, IMO, a 7000+ isn't where I would put the threshold.  I would place the threshold of competition for a 4 handicapper against a female tour player at 7500.  I think when you start throwing in 480+ yard par 4's, it starts getting tougher for the short hitter to make pars.  

[Chris DeNigris]

Ben,

As straight and accurate as most of the LPGA'ers are I would guess that if one played 10 480 yd holes(kinda like their short 5s) her avg score would probably be about 4.6...say one double, 5 bogeys, 3 pars and a birdie. A legit 4 doing the same would likely make 2 doubles, 5 bogeys, 2 pars and a birdie, stroke avg of 4.8.  Overall accuracy and skill around the greens completely negates any distance advantage, especially a somewhat crooked one. You could use 8500 yards and the results would only get worse for the hacker, IMO.