next »

[Richard Choi]

I just read something interesting in Golf Digest. In the "Ask Stina" section, a reader asks Stina (a former LPGA player) if a 4 handicap guy who drives 300 yards can beat an LPGA player on a 7000+ yard course.

Stina answers that not only the top LPGA players would beat that long hitter (which I agree), but ANY LPGA player PLUS alternates would beat that guy on a long course.

To me, that last statement makes very little sense to me. A guy who drives 300 yards will have a fairly easy time playing a 7200 yard course, hitting mid to short irons on almost every par 4 and able to reach the par 5's at least half the time. There are many LPGA players who can barely drive 230 yards. For them, almost all par 4's will be par 5's and par 5's will be barely reachable in 3. Some par 3's may even be a par 4 for them. For those short hitters, a par 72, 7200 yards course will really be a par 78 or par 80 which negates any advantage that they may had.

A prime example against Stina's argument would be Golf Digest Challenge. Rothlisberger (3 handicap) scored 81 on Bethpage Black (albeit with wet and receptive greens). Does anyone think that a majority of LPGA players could have beaten that score? I don't think so.

So, what are the effects of distance on short, but accurate players with very good short game versus long hitters who are not quite as accurate? How much does distance affect one's game? How much advantage do you have when you can drive 25% longer than your opponent?

What about the toughness of the course? Does having narrow fairways with tall rough (like Golf Digest Challenge) favor long hitter even more because they have a better chance of advancing their ball?

[John K. Moore]

This is a tough call. I think the average LPGA player would struggle on a 7000+ yard course. Someone like Lorena, Michelle Wie and the other longer players would be somewhat OK. But as a rule, I think LPGA players would struggle on a long course.

No, I don't think the majority of LPGA players would shoot less than 81 at Bethpage, however, that being said, Rothlisberger is not an average 3 handicap. The pressure of playing wouldn't get to him as much; I think 85 or so would be a good score for a normal 3 handicap player.

A tough course will not favor a long hitter as much as it will favor someone who has above average strength; those two are not always seen together.

[George Pazin]

I think all of those LPGAers would KILL a 4 handicapper at just about anything other than a long drive contest.

But the thread does raise some interesting questions. I've always thought length was very overrated as a defense, unless coupled with other more important things: firmness, speed of greens, amount of rough, hazards, etc. I think length is more of a magnifier than anything else; if the bare bones aren't there, it doesn't matter that much.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the women at Oakmont next year. I plan on spending as much time as possible, to see if there's anything to be learned from the differences.

Nice thread, Richard.

[John_Conley]

Stina is right.

Suzy Whaley's scores at the TPC in Hartford weren't too bad (upper 70s?) and she was a rung or two below an LPGA Tour player.  A 4 handicap male is a FAR CRY from a scratch.  This 4 handi at 7000 yards is usually out of the 70s.

Handicaps are meaningless in college golf because to be competitive you have to get the "throwouts" (non-counting scores for handicap purposes) down near par.  If a Division I player's scores are considered for handicap you are easily looking at a +2/+3 or better.

Stina probably knows that a 4 handicap player just isn't very good when you are talking about this level of competitiion.  

[Garland Bayley]

Thank you George! What do you guys think? That as the course gets longer the 4 handicapper will continue to shoot  his average score?

Golf Digest was wondering how the ladies would do on a PGA tour setup before Annika played in TX. They got Christy Kerr to play the tour setup in Phoenix the Monday after the PGA was there. She shot 73. Your 4 handicapper wouldn't break 80!
 
 

[Jamie Barber]

I would favour the tour pro.

Course where I play here in the UK is around 6800 yds off the medal tees. The daughter of one of our members plays (or at least did play) on the WPGA tour here in Europe (and a former Curtis Cup player). The Christmas before last she came for a game with her dad, used his clubs and shot level par from the medal tees. Very few of our Cat1 men score level par

[Richard Choi]

OK, so most think that the distance is not that big of a difference maker. What do you think the effect of the distance are? Is it a stroke for every 200 yards or so if the person outdrives you by 10%? Or is there at somepoint where further distance does not matter? Will it make a bigger difference if you are playing an LPGA versus 4 handicap playing on an 8000 yard course versus 7000 yard course? Or would it start to even out after awhile?

[George Pazin]

I think you need to start by comparing the effects of distance among the same levels of golfers. Trying to wed out one variable between players of vastly different skill levels is borderline impossible, imho.

There might be a rare case of a long erratic guy playing out of his mind beating an extremely short player who has a really bad day, but generally speaking, the better player will win out regardless of length.

I love Big Ben, but he wouldn't have beaten an LPGA tour pro playing that same day. His score - and everyone else's - were greatly helped by the very wet conditions.

[Tom Birkert]

.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the women at Oakmont next year. I plan on spending as much time as possible, to see if there's anything to be learned from the differences.

Nice thread, Richard.

Having seen them up close last year for The Women's British Open at Sunningdale and being able to compare their shots to how I would normally play, I found it amazing how straight and consistent they were. That said, their short game and putting left a lot to be desired when compared to the top men, and the course was deliberately set up to encourage low scoring, as they want the tour to be seen as marketable and the players as shooting low scores.

Given what I saw last year, if Oakmont is in anything like it's usual condition it will be an utter bloodbath. I just don't think they'll be able to cope with the greens or the rough.

As for their length, I think most - if not all - would struggle at Bethpage Black. It's a beast of a golf course, and most of the women wouldn't be able to reach a lot of fairways.

[Garland Bayley]

The only way the long player is going to have a chance to catch up is if the course is very wide with little or no penalty for "off road" excursions. Otherwise just adding length makes the 4 handicappers score go up faster than the LPGA tour pro.

REMEMBER. LENGTH IS THE #1 COMPONENT THAT INCREASES THE BOGEY RATING.

[Jason Walker]

Richard-
Interesting topic.  IMO, the LPGA Pro (plus alternates, and most mini-tour players) will beat the 4 hcap'er 99 times out of 100.  From some first hand experience, I had a friend when I was at the Univ. of Georgia back in the early 90's who dated a girl on the golf team.  We would often times go out with her and one or two others from the team and play.  My buddy and I were low-mid single digit players and I can't recall a single time we ever beat the women--and we always played from either the men's tees or the championship tees.  The difference between the elite competitive golfer--man or woman-- and the 4 hcap'er is HUGE, and I just don't see how distance changes it.  The consistency of golf shots from the elite player is mind-boggling.  Garland nails it in regards to length, but in regards to the comment about the average LPGA player beating Ben's 81--I would say the vast majority of them would do it.   

[Brent Hutto]

I have my doubts about comparing let's say the 30th-best player on the LPGA Tour to a good, competitive male player in terms of short-game, putting and playing out of rough. Not to mention the missing distance and other results of lacking clubhead speed. But that said, I play golf not infrequently with club golfers carrying handicap indexes in the 4-6 range and they're not going to be remotely in the running with a Touring professional on a course of any length. Not in stroke play and certainly not over 72 holes.

[Ken Moum]

I think the original question might be an interesting one if comparing about a +1 man to a veteran LPGA Tour player at 7,000 yards. But there's way more difference in a +1 and a 4 than there is between the 4 and myself (bogey golfer).

Tis true.

I caddied in three LPGA pro-ams with guys two guys who were low single digits.

Based on watching those three rounds, I think on their best rounds they could have stayed with a middling LPGAer, but probably not on their bad days.

And I think a top player was on her game would be impossible for them to handle.

[Jason Topp]

I recall Michael Wharton Palmer giving the opinion that Annika Sorenstam would kill him head to head.  He is/was a +4 or so at the time. 

In my city league events there are plenty of 3 handicaps who hit it 300 yards.  Average score is around 82 on courses that average around 6800 yards in length.

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

[David Stamm]

I think distance does make a difference. Kerr playing Phoenix, which is a very easy course for the PGA tour, skews this a tad. Same thing for Whaley and River Highlands. Why did Annika play Colonial? Because the distance was not a huge factor there, and she admitted as much. I do think the 4 handicap would struggle as well, but for different reasons, if he in fact can hit the ball 300 yds. I think if the player was in fact a solid 4 and regularly hits it 300, I think he COULD beat a low ranked LPGA player on courses such as Quail Hollow, Muirfield, Congressional etc. Now, if you had a solid 2 handicap hitting it 300, I think he would stand a very good chance on a long course of beating most players on the LPGA. But what do I know....

[Jason Walker]

What is a "solid" 2?  You're either a 2, or you're something else.   But regardless of that, I think you're crazy to think anyone with a minus index could compete with an LPGA player on ANY course in the US played at ANY distance.  It would literally be lightening in a bottle stuff to beat the pro.   A 4 index or even a 2 index is a pretty good player at whatever club they're a member, but I would guess their ESC adjusted stroke average would be somewhere in the 77-82 range--LIGHT YEARS away from even the bottom of the LPGA.  Of course, multiply all of this in a tournament setting where the 4 index just crumbles.

[Richard Choi]

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.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

All 4 handicaps are not created equal.  If we're talking about a 4 handicap that plays long, difficult golf courses regularly from the back tees then i think you'd have a helluva match with the lower half of the LPGA.  If you're talking about a 4 that plays from 6400 yards regularly then, it wouldn't even be close.  i've played some golf with some former LPGAers and their games honestly did not impress me all that much.  Maybe it was just the event or an off-round...

[JMEvensky]

The problem with trying to draw comparisons between Sorenstam/Colonial or Kerr/Phoenix is that they were playing against Tour Pros' scores.The difference between a 4 handicap and a Tour Pro is the difference between a house painter and Vermeer.

A 4 handicap is merely a good club player,not remotely an elite amateur.

The 4 handicap gets smoked all day/every day by a Tour Pro of either gender.

[George Pazin]

David, did you happen to watch Annika during the Tavistock Cup?

No chance any 2 or 4 beats an LPGA pro other than an absolute bizarro fluke.

[Jason Walker]

Jay--
I actually disagree more with your premise of the 4 hcap who plays a long, difficult course... in 2008 I was a 4.6 index at a course with a 73.1/141 rating from the blues and 74.5/145 from the blacks and my ESC stroke average was 83!  My hcap traveled well to easier courses but nothing to the extent of me going out and shooting an under par number.  There's a Duramed Futures tour player that plays and practices at my course and she regularly shoots sub 75 scores from the blue tees.  It's simply NOT EVEN CLOSE.

[Richard Choi]

And George, I don't think anyone would argue that a 4 handicap would have a chance in hell beating a player like Annika. I think things get more interesting when you compare players at the bottom of LPGA rank and alternates.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Jason --

I guess my example is more an indictment of the handicap system than anything.

I've got a buddy that was a very good jr player, played Div. I golf briefly, quit the game, and now plays a fair amount.  His index is just under 4, but he plays every golf course (often ridiculously hard ones) from the tips.  Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up.  If you take him and a lower tier LPGAer and throw them on the back tees of Quail Hollow in Charlotte, I give him even odds that he prevails at the end of the day.  He'll shoot 76-82 max and I just don't think a lower-tier LPGAer would do much better under normal conditions.

Also, there are several extreme courses around us that create great travelling players.  I'll put guys that play to a 4 from those courses up against 1s at any of the other courses in the area.

Perhaps I'm just a chaveunist pig... in fact, thats probably the most logical reason for my answer.

[George Pazin]

The difference between Annika and the lower ranks isn't nearly as great as the difference between any tour pro and any normal 4.

I will grant that there may exist somewhere out there a 4 who used to be a +3 that doesn't play much anymore and might catch lightning in a bottle, but to steal from Jay, that merely highlights the shortcomings in the handicap system.

[Jason Walker]

Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up.

Remind me to never bet with said friend.   I actually have no issues with the handicap system for those that strictly adhere to it.  Seems to work well with all of the people I golf with.  All I can say is you're telling me your just under 4 index friend breaks par on a 6700 yard course of any difficulty....well, like I said, just remind me not to bet.

I actually did some digging and I started 2008 as a 7 index so my 83 ESC Avg is misleading---slightly.  Maybe it was 81 the second half of the year.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing.  Once again, that may be my malecentric bias coming out in full bloom, but I have a hard time thinking that some of the young college kids from decent programs couldn't dominate on a 6400 yard course.  It would have turned into pitch and putt for many of them, and with the grooves nowadays, rough only presents a minor disadvantage (see spin-induced fiasco at Bethpage).

[Jason Walker]

You're probably closer there...the top end of the elite amateur male golfers who play competitively could have held their own, no question.  But we're not talking about those guys.   Here's something--go look at any regional golf association's mid-am tournament qualifiers.  See how many 0.4's and 1.1's and 2.3's shoot mid-high 80's in a tournament format on a course not playing from the back tees and certainly not set up with any exceptional difficulty.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

Throw him on a 6700 yard golf course and he's almost always around even par or better... he just never plays courses from there so his handicap stays up.

Remind me to never bet with said friend.   I actually have no issues with the handicap system for those that strictly adhere to it.  Seems to work well with all of the people I golf with.  All I can say is you're telling me your just under 4 index friend breaks par on a 6700 yard course of any difficulty....well, like I said, just remind me not to bet.

I actually did some digging and I started 2008 as a 7 index so my 83 ESC Avg is misleading---slightly.  Maybe it was 81 the second half of the year.

Funny thing is that he's the most honest golfer I've every played with... he putts everything out and counts every penalty stroke no matter the game.  He hits it a long way and is somewhat sporadic with the driver.  When he gets on a sub 6700 yard golf course, he just takes three wood or hybrid and doesnt' worry about hitting it out of play -- something he can't do on most of the golf courses he plays.

[George Pazin]

I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing.

How many of those guys are 4s?

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

You're probably closer there...the top end of the elite amateur male golfers who play competitively could have held their own, no question.  But we're not talking about those guys.   Here's something--go look at any regional golf association's mid-am tournament qualifiers.  See how many 0.4's and 1.1's and 2.3's shoot mid-high 80's in a tournament format on a course not playing from the back tees and certainly not set up with any exceptional difficulty.

I here you there.  I've played many a qualifier with a 1 handicap that couldn't break an egg.  Then again, I've played with guys that actually play much better in tournament conditions.  It just gets back to my theory that al 4 handicaps aren't created equally, and that tournament golf is a 'crazy' thing.  A couple weeks back, I made 3 doubles in a qualifier... something I haven't even come close to doing in any recreational round in probably a year.

[Brent Hutto]

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.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

I will say that, as I watched the Womens Open sporadically yesterday, I did think that there are many a good amateur in my state (NC) that could have won that thing.

How many of those guys are 4s?

None.  Don't confuse my arguments here... I've already probably pissed enough people off.

I think many elite male amateurs could make a good living on the LPGA.  Heck... Mike Goodes, a formerly elite NC amateur, is making a great living on the Champions Tour.  He had great success in the Carolinas Amateur ranks for many years, but never really seriously contended at a national level to my (limited) knowledge.

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.

[Kalen Braley]

Any way you slice it....Womens professional Basketball and Golf are in the same league...

Put a very good male High School Team/Player up against them and it would be good competition.

[Jason Walker]

Kalen-
I actually don't disagree with you.  But in this context, Jay is confusing a 4 handicap index with someone who could--even on rare occasion--compete with an LPGA golfer.  There is absolutely no way.   I think even less so for the "high-quality" 4, whatever that means.  The more scores that 4 index has posted, the further away he gets from the LPGA pro.  And to tie all of this back to the original question in the thread--distance--IMO, it has nothing to do with enormous gap in golfing skill between these two sets of golfers.

[John_Conley]

Jay, you seem to be comparing your friend to female touring pros, but are saying "a 4 hcp".

If your friend played Division I golf anytime recently he is nowhere close to a 4.  Shoot 79 every now and then on a 7,000+ yard course and you probably have an index of 4.something and a course handicap of 6.  A four handicap on a course where the rating is 72.0 (which is probably 6,500 yards in Florida) will shoot 76 or better just one in five rounds.  (Do it more often than that and he's not a 4.)

Also, your hypothetical player probably becomes a 0 or 1 handicap if he plays golf all summer daily.  The truth is that a 4 hcp just isn't very good when you are talking about playing high-level amateur golf.

My scale:

Tiger Woods - +10
Top 10 Tour pro - +8
Normal Tour pro - +6-7
Top college player - +4-5
Normal D1 college player +2-3
Competitive amateur golfer at state level +1-2
Competitive club player (may win club champ)0 or +1
Solid mid-am golfer (not going to win state event) 2-3
Good golfer 4-5

There are so many rungs between the 4 and an LPGA tour player that it isn't even close.  An LPGA Tour player is probably a +3 hcp on the men's scale.

All that said, handicaps doin't matter in competitive golf for the reason I gave above.  You COUNT your bad rounds in competition.