[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. 

[Wade Whitehead]

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.

[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...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()