next »

[Kenny Baer]

Jay,

Do you have a handicap?

If you did you wouldn't make such as asinine comment as the one you made about it being statistically impossible for a 2.8 for their best round to be a 73.

When I was a 2.8, last summer, the 73 wasn't even figured into my scores since I shot that 73 about 5 years ago. I believe the lowest score was 75.  The highest score that counted to my index was an 81.

My average score was 80.2 when my index was 2.8; I played probably 1/2 my rounds at 139 slope and 73.9 CR and the other 1/2 at 145 Slope and 74.5.

A couple of weeks ago I shot 81 at Hammock Dunes; 74.7/142; the differential was 5.0.  I am not sure exactly how the system works but I would bet I would be a 3.5 if I shot 10 81's at that CR and slope; if I had one round that was as low as 73 it would be an annomaly.
 

When I was 2.8 it was the best I ever was; for 2.8 who that is in the middle of their range I would bet most do have lower rounds then 73.  My mean index over the past 10 years would be probably 4.5.

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.

[Kenny Baer]

Right now my index is 5.0

I have 1 rd that is better than 77 of my last 20.
3 rd's better than 80 although 1 of those is a tournament score.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Lighten up, Francis.  

You're talking about playing all your golf on two VERY hard golf courses.  I get all the equations, and I understand how you could have a 2.8 with a low of 73.  I still think it is a rarity though.  Most people don't play golf courses that hard on a regular basis.  I can't think of anyone that I know with a 3 handicap that hasn't shot par at least once.  That doesn't mean it hasn't happened.  My choice of "statistically impossible" was poor in hindsight.  It obviously ruffled some feathers, and that wasn't my intent.

And yes I do have a handicap...  my highest differential on a round that counts towards my handicap is 1.7 so I'm in a tight range myself.

Edited to say:  Good grief, play an easy course once in a while. 

[John_Conley]

 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.  

Okay, here's the bet I'm all over.  I take the bet if your friend shoots 74 or higher.  73 is a push.  You win at par or better.  6,700 yards on a 'normal' course (has some hazards) at 1,500 feet of elevation or less.

Warning:  I won a lot of Wie bets when she played in the Public Links about four years ago.  LPGA Tour pros may not generate a lot of clubhead speed, but the good ones will plop it down the center of the fairway and get a good deal out of their drives when you factor in roll.  At 7,000 yards most single digits would be better off walking one out 225 in the center than they'd be playing their own drives.  

Twenty years ago the LPGA players weren't even close to as good as they are now.  Do you follow them at all?

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

John -- The guy is no longer a 4 unfortunately.  He went the first part of the year unemployed and managed to reduce his handicap to a 2.  Will probably be back to a 4 by year-end though as he is working harder than ever now...

To add another level of complexity to the conversation, how does one adjust for the seasonality of the handicap.  As a father of three young children, I play very little golf in late Fall and Winter.  As such, my best scores from late Summer stay in the system til early summer of the next year -- deflating my handicap.  Yet in early summer, my handicap typically goes up briefly as my best scores from the previous year fall off and my winter scores hold more weight.  I know there is a trend number that you can use, but my handicap rarely represents how I'm playing at that point in time (mid-late summer being the exception).  Its not that big of a deal since it doesn't fluctuate a whole bunch, but I'd imagine it probably does for some...

[John_Conley]

The guy is no longer a 4 unfortunately.  He went the first part of the year unemployed and managed to reduce his handicap to a 2. 

To add another level of complexity to the conversation, how does one adjust for the seasonality of the handicap.  As a father of three young children, I play very little golf in late Fall and Winter.  As such, my best scores from late Summer stay in the system til early summer of the next year -- deflating my handicap.  Yet in early summer, my handicap typically goes up briefly as my best scores from the previous year fall off and my winter scores hold more weight.  I know there is a trend number that you can use, but my handicap rarely represents how I'm playing at that point in time (mid-late summer being the exception).  Its not that big of a deal since it doesn't fluctuate a whole bunch, but I'd imagine it probably does for some...

So the 4 in question is really a 2.  That certainly changes things, doesn't it.  Yes, you may carry a 4 handicap before shooting low scores that drag it down to 2.  Hence your assertion "a good 4".  By that reasoning anyone trending down is "a good" whatever their handicap is.  I think this only confirms the points expressed by those who responded.  HE'S NOT A FOUR!

If a top college player quit golf for five years and then played once a month for two years - and posted the scores - he could easily carry a 7 handicap.  Then imagine said player practices a lot and plays 9 holes each week for a few months.  Then he goes to play.  Yes, his card says 7, but he's not a "7 handicap" in the eyes of me or probably anyone else on the board.  THat clearly does not describe his skill level.

To reply to your question - yes, their is an ebb and flow to the handicap you carry.  As I once heard, "you make money on the way down and lose money on the way up."

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

John -- According to the handicap system we all operate under, he was a 4 for a long time and it was done in accordance of the rules.  If he posts every score legitimately and happens to be playing at a level above a 4, does that make him a sandbagger?  If the seasonal adjustments I described above makes my handicap temporarily inaccurate to my current playing level, does that make me a cheater?  Handicap doesn't always accurately portray skill level... it just doesn't.  That guy could pull off shots that I'd put up against PGA tour pros, but he can also top it off a tee on the next shot.  I get the sense that some of the guys on here play with robots that have very little variabilty to their games.

[Jason Walker]

Handicap doesn't always accurately portray skill level... it just doesn't.  That guy could pull off shots that I'd put up against PGA tour pros, but he can also top it off a tee on the next shot.  I get the sense that some of the guys on here play with robots that have very little variabilty to their games.

Yet this is the same guy who shoots par or better on sub-6700 yard courses?  Jay--enough!

I have TONS of variability in my game.  My last 20 scores--high of 94, low of 78, last 20 differentials--high of 16.7, low of 3.4.  Makes for a 6.2 index. 

[John_Conley]

John -- According to the handicap system we all operate under, he was a 4 for a long time and it was done in accordance of the rules.  If he posts every score legitimately and happens to be playing at a level above a 4, does that make him a sandbagger? 

Jay, he's not a sandbagger.  He's also not beating an LPGA Tour player if he carries a 4.

You are very argumentative on the thread for some reason, then commented you felt hated.  If your assertion is that your friend can beat Leta Lindley, I guess you went about it wrong.  How about:

My friend played a little in college, but he's not at the level he once was.  Still, he can pull off shots that the LPGA players can't.  His handicap is now 4.  Still, I'd take him over any of these girls on a tough course.

The truth is a 4 handicap would not do well in a match with a lady pro.  That's not an opinion.

The USGA handicap system is designed to allow for fair matches when players are at a different level.

[George Pazin]

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...

First off, all bets are off when you start climbing in the numbers - I wouldn't want to guess on comparing a long hitting 15 versus a short hitting 8 on some random long course.

But I think you're kidding yourself if you think a legit long hitting 7 beats a short hitting scratch player on any course from any tees more than once in a blue moon. Sure, there's a chance of someone playing the round of his life while another plays his worst, but at some point you have to chalk that up to just being a fluke, not that it was the distance that made it happen.

Anything that makes a course "harder" - length, hazards, firmness, sped of greens, etc - makes it proportionately harder for the lesser golfer, regardless of the length of the respective players, unless you are talking about 2 relatively similar levels of golfers with very specific strengths and weaknesses (i.e. something silly like comparing a straight hitting 15 to a wild but good scrambling 12).

[JMEvensky]

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

Agreed.I'd never refer to 4's as "high level" amateurs.

[Brent Hutto]

Many times over the years I've heard my teaching-pro buddy advise players who want to improve to find or make or take advantage of every opportunity to play with "good players". A couple times people have asked if "good player" means like a 2 or 3 handicapper and his answer is always the same. A "good player" is someone who can shoot around par or better two days in a row from the back tees playing for serious stakes. And he will point out that "good player" can not be measured by a handicap index computed off friendly Nassaus with your usual foursome. It's a variation on the old "golf vs. tournament golf" dichotomy.

There's a reason that virtually all top-level competition is stroke player over 36-72 holes. That's really the only way of measuring ability such that the "good players" are separated from the guys who can break par on a good day and the guys who can post a 73 or 74 with two off the first tee and a few gimmes.

[Ross Tuddenham]

A four handicap player will have a relatively very bad short game and will only shade the pro in greens in regulation despite hitting longer clubs.  Not sure about the exact number but about 70% of shots are played within 100 yards.  This is the range that the LPGA player would really beat the 4 handicapper.

I think the LPGA player even on a long course would win relatively easily.

[Tom Huckaby]

This is kinda funny to me....

I am a four handicapper.  Current index is 4.4.  Ok that makes me a 5 on most courses right now, but hey, it gets lower than that quite often.

I have seen LPGA players play this game.

Unless they have a HORRIBLE day, they would kick my ass sideways.  It's not even close.  And it doesn't matter what course we played, what length, whatever.  They are better than me at every aspect of the game.

Now guys like Jamie Slonis, Jim Sullivan, Andrew Biggadike, Matt Cohn, etc... truly top-level plus handicap male amateurs, I believe they could hang with the LPGA gals.  They'd need to be on their best games, and they do not play the game for a living and these women do, but I think they could win often enough.

But us four handicappers?  Fuggeddaboudit.

[Jim Sullivan]

I'll take Jamie over Sarah Lee (currently #75)...

[Tom Huckaby]

I'll take Jamie over Sarah Lee (currently #75)...

I'll take her in a bake-off.
 

But yeah, I think you truly big boys could keep right up with the ladies, particularly those farther from the top of the rankings. 

But man the question was us hack 4 handicappers... and well... no way.

TH

[Jim Sullivan]

My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...

[Tom Huckaby]

My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...

Exactly.  She'd kick my ass sideways for sure.
But I still want to have the bake-off.

[Scott Szabo]

This is kinda funny to me....

I am a four handicapper.  Current index is 4.4.  Ok that makes me a 5 on most courses right now, but hey, it gets lower than that quite often.

I have seen LPGA players play this game.

Unless they have a HORRIBLE day, they would kick my ass sideways.  It's not even close.  And it doesn't matter what course we played, what length, whatever.  They are better than me at every aspect of the game.

Now guys like Jamie Slonis, Jim Sullivan, Andrew Biggadike, Matt Cohn, etc... truly top-level plus handicap male amateurs, I believe they could hang with the LPGA gals.  They'd need to be on their best games, and they do not play the game for a living and these women do, but I think they could win often enough.

But us four handicappers?  Fuggeddaboudit.

I too am a 4 handicap, and wouldn't stand a chance against these ladies.  My misses could get me in a lot of trouble...

For the record, I played Sand Hills a week or so ago and had one round stop short due to weather at one-under through 16, played another nine at 2-under, and also had rounds of 77 and 82.  Consistent I am not, and that's one of the things the ladies definitely are.  And that is the difference between a 4 handicap and a true scratch golfer, consistency.

Scott

[Jim Sullivan]

My home course has a ranking of about 73.5 so we have plenty of 4's that rarely break 80 if they play the back tees...I think Sarah Lee could handle that...

Exactly.  She'd kick my ass sideways for sure.
But I still want to have the bake-off.

I'll be the taste tester...

[PPallotta]

Technique.

The wonderful fighter Alexis Arguello (RIP) won his first title as a featherweight - that is, at about 125 pounds. I weigh about 210. I would've lasted half a round, and then only if I had ingratiated myself to him before the fight...

Peter

[Doug Siebert]

I'm a 5 right now and I regularly drive it 300 yards.  My home course is about 7050 yards 74.1/134, with bluegrass rough 'mow to 3" grow to 5"' when there's regular rain.  Give me one shot to get me to 4 handicap and let's say I take on an LPGA player on my home course - I know it like the back of my hand, she's never seen it before.  Only way I win is if I push her down a hillside and she twists her ankle.  And I better do that in the early holes, if I wait until the back nine it might be too late

Those who are thinking the 4 has a chance are in a fantasy world.  Michelle Wie and Annika may not be average LPGA players, and they may not have made the cut on tour but they came pretty damn close.  Let's say you add TEN strokes to what they did on the PGA tour events they played in to more than correct for the fact they are better and longer than the average LPGA player.  A scratch golfer on a really good day might shoot 10 strokes above what they did on those layouts (in practice rounds, I'm not talking about subjecting them to the pressure of TV and gallery) so what the hell chance to do you think a 4 handicap would have?