Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: David Ober on December 31, 2014, 11:08:35 AM
-
If you'll indulge me, I think I can get this thread to the point where it's actually (tangentially) about architecture!
I've long been fascinated by trying to figure out the actual difference between a Tour Pro's game and a "scratch" amateur. Over the last several years, this conundrum has come into sharper focus as I've consistently had the opportunity to play with and around many tour pros at my home club. We host both Champions Tour and Web.com Q-School, and both Rickie Fowler and Tom Pernice, Jr. play at the club regularly.
There have been multiple threads here about more or less the same subject, with one famously being about where one would need to place one's ball in the fairway to play a Tour Pro straight up.
I think that these conversations do matter to architecture, because I think that course distance is such a divisive topic that anything shedding light on the distance or skill-related points of golf is something that should/could be discussed here. I will, however, leave that determination to Ran, of course.
So here goes:
Let's say that Rickie Fowler, Tom Pernice, Jr., and two legit young pros (one a four-time first team All-WCC selection at Pepperdine who made it to the finals of Q-School last year; the other played on the Oklahoma State golf team and just turned pro) were to play four scratch (all of us in our forties or fifties) amateurs in a two best balls of four mini-tournament with no strokes, but with a substantial yardage advantage on each hole.
What do you think the outcome would be if the pros played the blacks (7,157/75.7/146) and we played the whites (6,010, 69.7/128). The venue is the home course for all eight players, so there's no advantage there in terms of "comfort" or "course knowledge." This time of year the greens are extremely firm and fast. So firm that a full wedge shot barely makes an indentation in the greens and they are running 12.5 to 13 on the stimp.
Is that a fair bet? Lopsided? If so, what way? And what, if any, impact does architecture have in the discussion? If this were a "Golden Age" course, would it matter? Does the fact that the course we played on is an early Jack Nicklaus super-penal aerial-only (for the most part) course play a role in your thoughts? If so, why? If not, why not?
Interested to see the responses.
And HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone! :)
-
At thirteen feet, the pros would absolutely dominate on and around the greens and would easily win this bet.
-
I'll take the Euros......
-
My idealist answer?
Would love to see equipment and ball such that you would both play the same tees....say 6650-6950
and the agreed amount of shots given.
How else could a scratch truly compare his game to that of a Touring pros?
Golf once(quite recently) was a sport where handicaps were used to set up fair matches between good players playing the same course.
Now you often play on separate fields and meet on the green.
And while this may be dismissed as idealism,it wasn't long ago that this was reality.
back when golf was growing that is
-
David--
I think this thread comes down to architecture pretty quickly, in that it would seem to depend on the extent to which the yardage advantage the scratch players get off the tee is maintained on the approaches to the greens. There are a lot of courses I've played from multiple sets of tees where my tee shots on a number of holes and up in the same places because a driver from the 400-yard tee is fine while a driver from the 325-yard tee is a bad idea. I guess if your course has relatively few holes where this sort of thing happens, you and your fellow scratches might have a bit better chance.
-
My idealist answer?
Would love to see equipment and ball such that you would both play the same tees....say 6650-6950
and the agreed amount of shots given.
How else could a scratch truly compare his game to that of a Touring pros?
Golf once(quite recently) was a sport where handicaps were used to set up fair matches between good players playing the same course.
Now you often play on separate fields and meet on the green.
And while this may be dismissed as idealism,it wasn't long ago that this was reality.
back when golf was growing that is
We do that all the time, Jeff, and we know what kind of strokes we need for a fair bet. With the yardage thing, we never really tried it that way. This was just a different attempt at "evening things out" for betting purposes. We learned quite a bit....
-
I don't think so Michael. It's essentially a "home" course for all these guys. The scratch amateurs play those greens regularly and earned their scratch handicaps on them.
For handicapping purposes, I would first look at the course ratings. With the black tees listed at 76/146, the rating would suggest it's fair to expect the pros to average around 70 or so at that number. As for the scratch guys, their handicap suggests a reasonable likelihood of shooting 70 or better at 70/128. So it's a reasonably fair fight on paper.
I'd favor the pros because of consistency. Scratch players are good, but assuming they only beat their handicap in one out of every four rounds, they only have a 25% chance each of breaking 70. I would guess the scratch guys will, on average, shoot around 71 or 72. On their home course, I would think the pros could average closer to 70 and are more likely to drop scores below 67 as well. With that in mind, the pros will win more often than not. However, if you play the match 10 times, it's very reasonable to think the scratch amateurs could win 2 or 3 of those.
Did you actually try this?
-
I don't think so Michael. It's essentially a "home" course for all these guys. The scratch amateurs play those greens regularly and earned their scratch handicaps on them.
For handicapping purposes, I would first look at the course ratings. With the black tees listed at 76/146, the rating would suggest it's fair to expect the pros to average around 70 or so at that number. As for the scratch guys, their handicap suggests a reasonable likelihood of shooting 70 or better at 70/128. So it's a reasonably fair fight on paper.
I'd favor the pros because of consistency. Scratch players are good, but assuming they only beat their handicap in one out of every four rounds, they only have a 25% chance each of breaking 70. I would guess the scratch guys will, on average, shoot around 71 or 72. On their home course, I would think the pros could average closer to 70 and are more likely to drop scores below 67 as well. With that in mind, the pros will win more often than not. However, if you play the match 10 times, it's very reasonable to think the scratch amateurs could win 2 or 3 of those.
Did you actually try this?
Yes we did. Three times, actually. :-)
-
My idealist answer?
Would love to see equipment and ball such that you would both play the same tees....say 6650-6950
and the agreed amount of shots given.
How else could a scratch truly compare his game to that of a Touring pros?
Golf once(quite recently) was a sport where handicaps were used to set up fair matches between good players playing the same course.
Now you often play on separate fields and meet on the green.
And while this may be dismissed as idealism,it wasn't long ago that this was reality.
back when golf was growing that is
We do that all the time, Jeff, and we know what kind of strokes we need for a fair bet. With the yardage thing, we never really tried it that way. This was just a different attempt at "evening things out" for betting purposes. We learned quite a bit....
No doubt you do.
I'm just saying there was a time when such a bet was a bit less deflating, and no one felt overwhelmed by the setup 25 years ago as many competitive scratches would on a Tour setup now.
I'm guessing the Tour pros still win-because "these guys are good" bUT that would depend upon if the course still allows the scratch to hit driver into desireable closer to the green favorable places, or you just have a situation where everybody is bottlenecked into the same place, where the pros would kill you.
-
My idealist answer?
Would love to see equipment and ball such that you would both play the same tees....say 6650-6950
and the agreed amount of shots given.
How else could a scratch truly compare his game to that of a Touring pros?
Golf once(quite recently) was a sport where handicaps were used to set up fair matches between good players playing the same course.
Now you often play on separate fields and meet on the green.
And while this may be dismissed as idealism,it wasn't long ago that this was reality.
back when golf was growing that is
We do that all the time, Jeff, and we know what kind of strokes we need for a fair bet. With the yardage thing, we never really tried it that way. This was just a different attempt at "evening things out" for betting purposes. We learned quite a bit....
No doubt you do.
I'm just saying there was a time when such a bet was a bit less deflating, and no one felt overwhelmed by the setup 25 years ago as many competitive scratches would on a Tour setup now.
I'm guessing the Tour pros still win-because "these guys are good" bUT that would depend upon if the course still allows the scratch to hit driver into desireable closer to the green favorable places, or you just have a situation where everybody is bottlenecked into the same place, where the pros would kill you.
Gotcha. Not sure, though, that the difference today is that much different than in the past. We all benefit from the new longer, straighter ball, so I think the difference on a super-penal course today is not that much different than on one from 30 years ago. Not sure about that, though.
Regarding the "bottlenecks": There are some at our course, but not many. The actual difficulty is that it's often better to be 80 to 110 out on certain holes than 40 to 60 because of the firm and raised nature of the greens. In general, it's better to be closer for all players, but not necessarily when you have to hit a half shot to a raised, rock-hard green with super-severe internal contours. LOL
-
David -
Using Peltz's data, at some shorter yardage scratch amateurs will be able to hit approaches inside the pros, thus enabling them to sink more birdie putts. How much shorter that yardage needs to be will depend on the course, no?
I would imagine that for any course - after some trial and error - you could find that yardage.
Bob
-
A couple of years ago this shabby 10 played at Whisper Rock with a Champions Tour winning player. Off the tee we were identical length, his iron play was way better hitting all the greens. On the par fives all around 520 off our tees, he couldn't make the green but was always in prime position 10-20 yards short and made 3 of 4 birdies. Proper education in consistency and course management!
I've already mentioned last year on GCA a Deal team played a match against the French national team. In morning foursomes a scratch and a 70 year old 4 handicapper halved against their top pair. A 4 and 5 handicap pair lost on the 17th to a +5 and +6. Local knowledge really played out especially in foursomes. Singles went more in favour of the French.
-
I think the pros win easily based on your suggested setup.
Even if the pros were to play the full course from the tips and the scratch players just placed every single drive at the 100 yard marker for the approach (ie: first shot on a par three, second shot on a par four or a third shot on a par five), I still think the pros would likely win but it would be a damn fun match to watch. Actually, could go either way and I could see the amateurs maybe winning once in a blue moon if they get hot with their wedge game.
-
If you are only counting two best scores on each hole I would be shocked if the scratch amateurs kept up with the pros. I would think the pros are making too many birdies.
-
.
...
.
We all benefit from the new longer, straighter ball, so I think the difference on a super-penal course today is not that much different than on one from 30 years ago.
I think that's the part that disappoints me.
Pros used to shoot 66-69 on a course the scratch could shoot 73 from the back tees.
Now the scratch would be lucky to break 80 from those tees, and spend a lot of time dealing with the "super penal" part, to say nothing of the effect of that on the 18 handicappers in front of him ;D ::) ::).
Maybe I just need to get better ;)
-
Is ~6000 your normal yardage from where your handicap was established?
If yes then you lose badly as a guy like Fowler is going to play to a +6 or +7 at his home course
If no, say you normally play 6600 then you keep it close as you would probably gain a few shots from the shorter tees. Might even give them a match here and there. Of the three times I'll say they whitewashed you once, beat you in a decent match once and you guys played incredible and beat them one time.
-
It depends on the length of the scratch players to determine if it's an advantage.
I regularly played a 7100 yard course with pros. As a shorter hitting (260 driver, 150 8 iron) +1, I really couldn't hope to keep up. We found that if I played the first set in 6400 I would basically hit the same clubs they would from the tips. 8 iron to 8 iron or wedge to wedge, they were still much better than me. Moving up wasn't any advantage.
Additionally, I play with a number of exceptional amateurs who hit the ball much further than I do. They can hit it as far as the pros, but just not as consistently. For them, moving up will be an advantage, and would make the match closer. Four of those players against the pros would be a match, but I would take the pros 7 times to 3.
-
Based on instinct, my money would be on the professionals. If nothing else, tour pros have produced scores under pressure and I suspect that would tilt the result in their favor.
However, here are some clues as to how it would turn out with the caveat that I am not sure how the format would impact the likely result. We play bet two of 4 all of the time and it leads to some goofy scores so I am setting that aspect aside.
1. The Course rating differs by 6 shots. Most tour pro indexes I have seen are calculated at +5 or better. That difference would suggest an even match.
2. The Mens and Women's US Open at Pinehurst provide a decent analogy.
The men played at approximately 7400 yards and it took 145 to make the cut. http://2014.usopen.com/en_US/scoring/index.html
The women played the course just under 6300 yards in the first two rounds and 149 made the cut. http://2014.usopen.com/women/en_US/scoring/index.html
I am not sure how those numbers would correlate but I suspect a woman making the cut at the US Women's Open would easily handle a 0.0 index amateur man at 6300 yards. Perhaps those that actually play at that level would have a better idea on that front.
-
We play almost all of our golf from the Gold tees (6900ish) or the black tees that the pros played, so our indexes are derived mostly from those two sets of tees. We play the blue tees (6440?) maybe 20% of the time. We had never played the whites before we tried this experiment.
Is ~6000 your normal yardage from where your handicap was established?
If yes then you lose badly as a guy like Fowler is going to play to a +6 or +7 at his home course
If no, say you normally play 6600 then you keep it close as you would probably gain a few shots from the shorter tees. Might even give them a match here and there. Of the three times I'll say they whitewashed you once, beat you in a decent match once and you guys played incredible and beat them one time.
-
It depends on the length of the scratch players to determine if it's an advantage.
I regularly played a 7100 yard course with pros. As a shorter hitting (260 driver, 150 8 iron) +1, I really couldn't hope to keep up. We found that if I played the first set in 6400 I would basically hit the same clubs they would from the tips. 8 iron to 8 iron or wedge to wedge, they were still much better than me. Moving up wasn't any advantage.
Additionally, I play with a number of exceptional amateurs who hit the ball much further than I do. They can hit it as far as the pros, but just not as consistently. For them, moving up will be an advantage, and would make the match closer. Four of those players against the pros would be a match, but I would take the pros 7 times to 3.
So here are the players' ages, swing speeds and (approximate total driver distances):
1) 47 years old. 100 driver swing speed. Average drive 250 to 265 (That would be me)
2) 55 years old. 95 driver swing speed. Average drive 230 to 250
3) 47 years old. 110 driver swing speed. Average drive 270 to 290
4) 44 years old. 107 driver swing speed. Average drive 260 to 280
We are all very close to 0.0 right now, but in the spring and summer months, a couple of us get down below scratch to the +1.5 to +2 range.
-
While most think the pros would win, I fell 1100 yards is a big difference. From 6000 yards, scratch players will be hitting wedges into the greens, and should sink a few birdies. From that distance,mi think the AMs could pull it out.
-
David,
6000 yards is too short for you and your fellow scratch amateurs, as such I dont think that would be a comfortable yardage to play from and as such not breally that big of an advantage.
I think you have a better chance at 6500 actually, but that is my opinion.
That aside, with the two best balls, if you play ten times:
You guys wins 1 or 2
You lose heavily, around 5&4 ,...4 times
Close games where you lose in the area of3/2 2/1.....4 times and one all square.
I know of your game and if it is you and me, I know we are good for 4/5 birdies a round, add two other like players and counting two best ball, I think we can shoot regularly 6/7 under.
That is what I base my opinion upon.
What do you think mate?
-
David,
6000 yards is too short for you and your fellow scratch amateurs, as such I dont think that would be a comfortable yardage to play from and as such not breally that big of an advantage.
I think you have a better chance at 6500 actually, but that is my opinion.
That aside, with the two best balls, if you play ten times:
You guys wins 1 or 2
You lose heavily, around 5&4 ,...4 times
Close games where you lose in the area of3/2 2/1.....4 times and one all square.
What do you think mate?
I think we learned a lot. ;D
We actually played three times over the holidays with a couple things changing each time we played. It was an absolute blast.
-
Hi David
I'll vote for the flat-bellies to win each of these matches, for the following reasons:
1. An average of 65 yards/hole shorter would just mean that the pros would be giving you an advantage of ~30-35 yards per full shot. Not nearly enough. The pros will airmail your drives (if they feel like it) and at the worst, will be playing 2-3 clubs less than you into almost every green.
2. Because of 1. above, the pros will be closer to the pin on most holes.
3. Even if the pros miss the green, they will get up and down more frequently that you.
4. If you and the pro are on the green with a similar length putt, the pro is much more likely to hole it than you are, from any length.
Obviously, the 4-ball better ball format gives you less-than-flat-bellies a change to shine from time to time, but not over 6-matches in aggregate. And, even if you beat them this time, the more times you play, the more you will lose, on average.
I know that you are a fine golfer and have a great short game, David, as we have played a couple of times, but I'd still back Ricky et. al. Hope I am proved wrong!
Rich
-
Rich,
White courtesy phone please ;D
-
David,
6000 yards is too short for you and your fellow scratch amateurs, as such I dont think that would be a comfortable yardage to play from and as such not breally that big of an advantage.
I think you have a better chance at 6500 actually, but that is my opinion.
That aside, with the two best balls, if you play ten times:
You guys wins 1 or 2
You lose heavily, around 5&4 ,...4 times
Close games where you lose in the area of3/2 2/1.....4 times and one all square.
I know of your game and if it is you and me, I know we are good for 4/5 birdies a round, add two other like players and counting two best ball, I think we can shoot regularly 6/7 under.
That is what I base my opinion upon.
What do you think mate?
6/7-under seems like it will lose every time. I would guess that four pros will play the par 5's alone [assuming there are four of them] in 8-under.
But 6/7-under for four amateurs [some of whom get in the + range during the season] on a 6000-yard course seems high. I would guess more like 10-under. At that yardage, players that good can easily make 3-6 birdies/round, and then you just need to make sure they're well distributed!
-
So the stated hcps of the 4 amateurs are based on their play from the 6,900 yd tees (if I've read the earlier post correctly).
I'd be curious to know whether or not the 4 amateurs hcps can be re-calculated based on the 6,000 yd course and if so what they then are?
Atb
-
David,
Having played there recently, this is interesting.
The "kids" shoot so much lower than the old guys there.
BUT, there is a pretty strong group of members that know how to play that place.
I still have to believe the "kids" make so many birdies they would have a big advantage.
But am curious how it went.
-
So the stated hcps of the 4 amateurs are based on their play from the 6,900 yd tees (if I've read the earlier post correctly).
I'd be curious to know whether or not the 4 amateurs hcps can be re-calculated based on the 6,000 yd course and if so what they then are?
Atb
Thomas,
The way indexes work, there is close to no difference for a 0.0 index player regardless of the tees they play. They are almost always (always?) a 0 course handicap.
With the pros, it works the other way. If they are a +6.0 index, then at a course with a 146 slope, they become a +8 for handicap purposes.
-
Following what David said, playing to scratch under USGA guidelines simply means playing to the course rating. At the club in question, scratch scores are roughly 76 from the black tees, 74 from the gold, 72 from the blue, and 70 from the white.
-
I bet you lost overall but beat them on the 3s. If you played well I imagine it was competitive.
-
So here were the results:
Day 1: We actually played the blue tees at 6,410 and they played the blacks. In our group, one of our stronger players was ridiculously hung-over and could barely play that day. He was literally having trouble standing it was so bad. We got trounced 22-under to 8-under. Rickie shot 62, Pernice 72, One of the other pros shot 67 and the other shot 71. We got trounced, but none of us played well and we were feeling the pressure to be sure. We all played very mediocre golf except our hungover friend who was not a factor in at least half of the holes. LOL
Day 2: So we challenged them to a re-match, but this time we wanted to play the white tees at 6,010 yards (the yardage in my original post). We fared much, much better the second day and they edged us by a shot, 15-under to 14-under. I made six birdies that day two others made five, and the other made 4. It was a great match, but we completely gagged down the stretch, once again feeling the pressure and knowing we were close (there were some people following the groups and they would let us know where we stood. Rickie shot 64, Pernice shot 67 and the other two pros were around par.
Day 3: So we paid them again and challenged them to a third match, but this time we played 5 against 5 (2 best balls of the fivesome), again from the white tees, because we knew we could hold our own against them from there. This time we got 'em. We shot 17-under to their 15-under. Rickie shot 68, and I don't remember the other scores, but they were all under par except one of the guys shot 1 or 2 over, I think.
So much more detail to go into, but I thought that would be a good starting point for more discussion. I can tell you about some shots that you just wouldn't believe. One shot in particular from Rickie on our par 5 14th just blew me away.
-
David,
A most interesting exercise and one I'm sure was a bunch of fun to conduct.
Now, a further exercise....
I believe the average hcp for men is about 14 (but if not use whatever the correct hcp number is).
What yardage tees would 4 average hcp men have to play from to achieve the same level of parity with you and your 3 mates that you guys did with Ricky and Co?
Atb
-
So here were the results:
Day 1: We actually played the blue tees at 6,410 and they played the blacks. In our group, one of our stronger players was ridiculously hung-over and could barely play that day. He was literally having trouble standing it was so bad. We got trounced 22-under to 8-under. Rickie shot 62, Pernice 72, One of the other pros shot 67 and the other shot 71. We got trounced, but none of us played well and we were feeling the pressure to be sure. We all played very mediocre golf except our hungover friend who was not a factor in at least half of the holes. LOL
Day 2: So we challenged them to a re-match, but this time we wanted to play the white tees at 6,010 yards (the yardage in my original post). We fared much, much better the second day and they edged us by a shot, 15-under to 14-under. I made six birdies that day two others made five, and the other made 4. It was a great match, but we completely gagged down the stretch, once again feeling the pressure and knowing we were close (there were some people following the groups and they would let us know where we stood. Rickie shot 64, Pernice shot 67 and the other two pros were around par.
Day 3: So we paid them again and challenged them to a third match, but this time we played 5 against 5 (2 best balls of the fivesome), again from the white tees, because we knew we could hold our own against them from there. This time we got 'em. We shot 17-under to their 15-under. Rickie shot 68, and I don't remember the other scores, but they were all under par except one of the guys shot 1 or 2 over, I think.
So much more detail to go into, but I thought that would be a good starting point for more discussion. I can tell you about some shots that you just wouldn't believe. One shot in particular from Rickie on our par 5 14th just blew me away.
;D
-
I can't imagine how awful it would be to look at Rickey's outfit with a hangover...
-
I'll take the Euros......
Whoa not so fast. Who is their manager?
-
The most interesting thing about this thread is that in a "match" like this the result was determined by cumulative score against par. No wonder you guys can't win the Ryder Cup!
-
I can't imagine how awful it would be to look at Rickey's outfit with a hangover...
LOL. Rickie was actually sedately attired all three days in grays and blacks if I remember correctly....
-
The most interesting thing about this thread is that in a "match" like this the result was determined by cumulative score against par. No wonder you guys can't win the Ryder Cup!
YES!! LOL!!
So we discussed various ways to play the contest, with Pernice wanting to split us up and have groups of two pros and two ams, but we really wanted to all play together so we didn't vomit all over ourselves when we had to sink an 8-foot birdie putt, so we opted to play in separate groups. ;D
-
Would playing match play have affected the "match"? Obviously not the first day when they were 22-under or whatever but the other close matches.
-
Would playing match play have affected the "match"? Obviously not the first day when they were 22-under or whatever but the other close matches.
Yes, we would have won two out of three of the matches (instead of one out of three) if we had played match play and matched cards hole by hole.
If we had separated the two group with two pros and two ams in each group, who knows. I'm guessing it would have had a slightly negative affect on us, but you never know....
-
Here you go: http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/index.php/topic,228117.0.html
Sorry link won't work because you need to be a logged in member. Here is the post without the pictures.
"I was playing at Bear Creek CC in Murrieta CA on Saturday. I knew Rickie Fowler was a member there and that he'd been playing over the Christmas break. Was lucky enough to run into him after I finished, he was on 12 and we followed him around for the rest of his round. He was playing with Tom Pernice Jr. and some others from the Web.Com. They were all great to chat with and didn't mind us following them around. I joked with him about his cover he was gaming and he said that he gamed his gold pirate cover on Friday, I would think that would make one less that will ever hit the market for all of you that have one. Anyway, the five of them were playing 5 members, 2 best balls, the pros off the back tees (7100 yards) and the members off the whites (6100 yards) and the pros lost by 2. On Friday they played the same game except the members were off the blue tees (6400 yards) and the members lost by 1. Also on Christmas Eve Rickie tied the course record with a 62"
-
Cool thread and thanks for starting it. But this just proves a few things to me:
1) The gag factor is HUGE. The pros play under tremendous pressure all year. So this exercise was pure fun golf for them, no matter how high you set the stakes. No way the scratches are accustomed to that level of pressure, even assuming you all have played your share of high level amateur golf.
2) The most effective way to swing the odds in your favor would be to narrow the fairways and grow the rough to a ridiculous length. Now the pros will pay a real price for missing the fairways with their 300+ yard drives. From the Whites, the scratches can make wise club selections and hit more fairways. You will win with this type of course presentation. Sadly, this is the US Open formula... and this is what it takes to "properly" set up the average really good private club for a US Open.
3) We can learn little about good golf architecture by thinking about the pro game. Except that we can really screw up our golf courses if we think about the pro game!
-
David:
While this is a cool idea, I think it needs to be emphasized that you are comparing SCRATCH GOLFERS to the pros, or 0's to +6's. It would probably work out similarly if you compared yourselves to 6-handicaps and gave them the same yardage advantage ... which is exactly what the course rating says, incidentally.
The previous discussion here was about how much yardage advantage other players would need to compete. I'm an 11 handicap now, and you would have to put me pretty far forward to contribute three or four birdies per round, which is what it would take to compete with the pros.
Also, I think the result would not have been so even had you played them head to head. Pros play BETTER in competition than otherwise. Some scratch players do, too. The average golfer certainly does not.
-
David:
While this is a cool idea, I think it needs to be emphasized that you are comparing SCRATCH GOLFERS to the pros, or 0's to +6's. It would probably work out similarly if you compared yourselves to 6-handicaps and gave them the same yardage advantage ... which is exactly what the course rating says, incidentally.
The previous discussion here was about how much yardage advantage other players would need to compete. I'm an 11 handicap now, and you would have to put me pretty far forward to contribute three or four birdies per round, which is what it would take to compete with the pros.
Absolutely, Tom. I guess the overall point is that course ratings work very well to even things out. We played a course that was rated six strokes easier than the pros and it was an even match, which is about what I would have expected. The thing is, on golf forums all over the web, you get wildly varying opinions from all kinds of different people as to what the "real" difference is between pros and scratch ams. I'm just happy to shed some light on the discussion. It sure was a blast.
-
2) The most effective way to swing the odds in your favor would be to narrow the fairways and grow the rough to a ridiculous length. Now the pros will pay a real price for missing the fairways with their 300+ yard drives. From the Whites, the scratches can make wise club selections and hit more fairways. You will win with this type of course presentation. Sadly, this is the US Open formula... and this is what it takes to "properly" set up the average really good private club for a US Open.
I disagree with this logic. The scratch players are not going to keep the ball in play under pressure as well as the pros, and they do not have the game to recover and make pars the same way the pros do. In essence you are increasing the rating/slope of the course and that will work to the advantage of the better golfers, unless more strokes are being given.
-
Here you go: http://www.cameroncollector.com/forum/index.php/topic,228117.0.html
Sorry link won't work because you need to be a logged in member. Here is the post without the pictures.
"I was playing at Bear Creek CC in Murrieta CA on Saturday. I knew Rickie Fowler was a member there and that he'd been playing over the Christmas break. Was lucky enough to run into him after I finished, he was on 12 and we followed him around for the rest of his round. He was playing with Tom Pernice Jr. and some others from the Web.Com. They were all great to chat with and didn't mind us following them around. I joked with him about his cover he was gaming and he said that he gamed his gold pirate cover on Friday, I would think that would make one less that will ever hit the market for all of you that have one. Anyway, the five of them were playing 5 members, 2 best balls, the pros off the back tees (7100 yards) and the members off the whites (6100 yards) and the pros lost by 2. On Friday they played the same game except the members were off the blue tees (6400 yards) and the members lost by 1. Also on Christmas Eve Rickie tied the course record with a 62"
This is actually not quite correct. When we played the blue tees, they trounced us, 22-under to 8-under, but that really wasn't a fair estimation of our ability, as one of our players was severely, ahem "incapacited" that day. LOL The second day we played two best balls of four from the whites and lost by one, and the third day we played two best ball of five from the whites and won by two. :-)
-
2) The most effective way to swing the odds in your favor would be to narrow the fairways and grow the rough to a ridiculous length. Now the pros will pay a real price for missing the fairways with their 300+ yard drives. From the Whites, the scratches can make wise club selections and hit more fairways. You will win with this type of course presentation. Sadly, this is the US Open formula... and this is what it takes to "properly" set up the average really good private club for a US Open.
I disagree with this logic. The scratch players are not going to keep the ball in play under pressure as well as the pros, and they do not have the game to recover and make pars the same way the pros do. In essence you are increasing the rating/slope of the course and that will work to the advantage of the better golfers, unless more strokes are being given.
You are correct, Tom. In fact, one of the things that I see all the time at events like the USGA Mid-Am is that my truly elite amateur friends always fare well there even with the LONG rough and super tough green conditions, but my buddies that qualify that aren't quite at that level almost always struggle mightily. The combination of significantly tougher conditions AND pressure is just too much for their games to withstand.
-
Absolutely, Tom. I guess the overall point is that course ratings work very well to even things out. We played a course that was rated six strokes easier than the pros and it was an even match, which is about what I would have expected. The thing is, on golf forums all over the web, you get wildly varying opinions from all kinds of different people as to what the "real" difference is between pros and scratch ams. I'm just happy to shed some light on the discussion. It sure was a blast.
If thinking about it mathematically, you might be right at the sweet spot of where this works out best. Handicaps are only based on the low 50% of scores, so the standard deviation of scores for each player is an important part of the discussion. I would hazard a guess that scratch players have the lowest standard deviation of scores of any class of golfer. +6 handicaps have the potential to go really low sometimes ... Fowler's 62 is what gives him that handicap ... but the other guys were not at peak performance and only had a couple of scores under 70. I doubt your scores show as wide a range unless you are playing "incapacitated".
-
How many scratch players are really scratch players? I do believe the Augusta member who acted as McIlroy's marker and beat him by several strokes is one. I have seen many poseurs make claim to be a scratch man but there are some that are kidding themselves. I consider college players to be apprentice pros and not subject to my comments.
Bob
-
A couple of years ago this shabby 10 played at Whisper Rock with a Champions Tour winning player. Off the tee we were identical length, his iron play was way better hitting all the greens. On the par fives all around 520 off our tees, he couldn't make the green but was always in prime position 10-20 yards short and made 3 of 4 birdies. Proper education in consistency and course management!
I've already mentioned last year on GCA a Deal team played a match against the French national team. In morning foursomes a scratch and a 70 year old 4 handicapper halved against their top pair. A 4 and 5 handicap pair lost on the 17th to a +5 and +6. Local knowledge really played out especially in foursomes. Singles went more in favour of the French.
That match vs France must really have been fun! I can't think of a lot of courses where local knowledge would be more helpful.
-
I think it needs to be emphasized that you are comparing SCRATCH GOLFERS to the pros, or 0's to +6's.
Exactly the point I was going to make.
The nearest I've come to playing with a tour pro is a guy at our place who didn't make the grade on the Euro Pro Tour and so has returned to amateur status. He plays off +4 and is on the cusp of +5. He is SO much better than a scratch player - indeed he is almost certainly the best amateur in Cheshire. And this a guy who by his own admission wasn't good enough to earn a living on a 3rd tier tour!
I suspect that the top pros would have handicaps of +7 or +8 if the were club golfers. Add to that their composure under pressure and I am sure that they would make mincemeat of mere scratch players, even playing from longer tees.
-
Hi David,
That's a fascinating experiment. There would have to be an impact from ham and egging though with the format that you chose. I suspect the best 2 out of 4 helped you a lot more than it helped the pros. I would expect that if you took the combined scores of all the pros and compared them with the combined scores of your group (on the 2nd two days) that they would have beaten you fairly handily. For precisely the reason discussed below:
Tom - I expect that the ranges of scores of the pros would be lower than the scratches. The pros might occasionally throw in a 62, but they'd rarely go over 72 and the bulk of their scores would be in the 66-69 range. The scratches might chuck up a 67-69 (off the white tees), but they could also throw out the odd high 70s score as well. I would think their scores would range from around 69 up to 75 most of the time. The measure there is the "anti-handicap" or the average of the worst 10 of your last 20 differentials. Back in I think 2006, someone calculated Tiger's handicap based on his scores on the PGA tour. It was +8.1. If memory serves, his anti-handicap was +5.3. My index right now is +0.1 and my anti-handicap is 6.9. David might well be more consistent than I have been, but that's a range of 7.0 for me and only 2.8 for Tiger, meaning he is significantly more consistent than I am (or was then anyway).
Another example - Phil Mickelson, who is I think quite inconsistent as pros go, his handicap is on GHIN and right now he's +6.4. His anti-handicap is +2.3, so a range of 4.1.
Curiously David is currently 1.0 and his anti-handicap is 4.9, so his range is only 3.9, so he's pretty consistent. No idea about the other guys in his group or indeed, Mr Fowler.
-
Thanks for sharing David. That had to be a lot of fun.
-
Hi David,
That's a fascinating experiment. There would have to be an impact from ham and egging though with the format that you chose. I suspect the best 2 out of 4 helped you a lot more than it helped the pros. I would expect that if you took the combined scores of all the pros and compared them with the combined scores of your group (on the 2nd two days) that they would have beaten you fairly handily. For precisely the reason discussed below:
Tom - I expect that the ranges of scores of the pros would be lower than the scratches. The pros might occasionally throw in a 62, but they'd rarely go over 72 and the bulk of their scores would be in the 66-69 range. The scratches might chuck up a 67-69 (off the white tees), but they could also throw out the odd high 70s score as well. I would think their scores would range from around 69 up to 75 most of the time. The measure there is the "anti-handicap" or the average of the worst 10 of your last 20 differentials. Back in I think 2006, someone calculated Tiger's handicap based on his scores on the PGA tour. It was +8.1. If memory serves, his anti-handicap was +5.3. My index right now is +0.1 and my anti-handicap is 6.9. David might well be more consistent than I have been, but that's a range of 7.0 for me and only 2.8 for Tiger, meaning he is significantly more consistent than I am (or was then anyway).
Another example - Phil Mickelson, who is I think quite inconsistent as pros go, his handicap is on GHIN and right now he's +6.4. His anti-handicap is +2.3, so a range of 4.1.
Curiously David is currently 1.0 and his anti-handicap is 4.9, so his range is only 3.9, so he's pretty consistent. No idea about the other guys in his group or indeed, Mr Fowler.
Michael,
You're absolutely right about everything except a couple small things:
1) Our low scores from the whites would all be in the mid-60's. Probably 65 or 66. Maybe a bit lower. I've shot 8-under 64 twice and have posted several 65's and 66's over the years on courses that are considerably tougher, but my best years are definitely behind me. Everyone else in our group is capable of (and has shot) similar scores, some of them even in competition (my low in competition being 66 on a 71.9/128 course). Still, though, on a course of only 6,010 yards, 69.7/128, we could all definitely shoot in the mid 60's when the conditions were a bit warmer and the fairways a bit more "friendly" than they are in the winter at Bear Creek.
This time of year our low scores would probably be closer to 67, though, so you're not far off.
2) I'm currently a 1.0, but that's typically as high as I get in any month. I may go up to a 1.2 or 1.3, but that's during the winter, and then when we head into the season, my index will get back into the +1.0 to +2.0 range. I only say that for full disclosure's sake. On another thread on a different website, some guys were getting mad at me because I said we were all "scratch golfers," when in reality we all pretty much live in the + range for 6 - 8 months of the year. He said that made a big difference as to how he would have handicapped the match. One other player in our group has played in 10 USGA Championships, and another played some mini-tour golf for a few years, so we're all a bit better than the average scratch player, but at our advancing ages, certainly not much better.
You're dead on about the "anti-handicap" thing. I'm typically very consistent, as are two of the others in our group. One of the guys, though, definitely has a higher "anti-handicap" than the rest of us, and the pros certainly have very close anti-handicaps to their actual handicaps, I'm sure (that's one of the (many) reasons that allows them to play for a living -- their amazing consistency).
Finally, you're also spot on about the best two of four balls favoring us. If we had played a straight 4 balls vs. 4 balls match, we would have gotten beaten fairly handily. I think with a couple more times of playing them, though, we all would have settled down a bit a played more consistently, making even that match fairly close, but with the pros definitely having an advantage (75/25? 80/20?). We did definitely play a bit more "aggressive" golf due to the match's format, and I'm not sure they pros played much differently than normal because I think they may have had some bets within their group that they had to pay attention to, though I'm not certain about that.
Regardless, it was an absolute BLAST to play them, and we can't wait for a re-match!
-
Thank you for sharing David.
When will you or your partners be playing from the white tees again?
Cheers
-
How many scratch players are really scratch players? I do believe the Augusta member who acted as McIlroy's marker and beat him by several strokes is one. I have seen many poseurs make claim to be a scratch man but there are some that are kidding themselves. I consider college players to be apprentice pros and not subject to my comments.
Bob
Mr. Huntley, I believe you are referring to Jeff Knox who is currently a +2.2 index.
-
At thirteen feet, the pros would absolutely dominate on and around the greens and would easily win this bet.
Do you think this is the case? If 13 is a normal speed for the club, it could be the case that 4 scratch amateurs are more used to this green speed than the pros. I dont believe pros play these speeds regularly on the Tour. Case in point would be Jeff Knox showing Rory McIlroy how to put at the 2014 Masters.
-
Thank you for sharing David.
When will you or your partners be playing from the white tees again?
Cheers
The next time we do "the bet." ;D
Although I enjoyed playing the whites, most of the guys at my club don't even like to play the blues at 6,410, let alone the whites at 6,010. We typically play the golds at 6,880 or the blacks at 7,157. I only hit driver 250 to 265 and I'm 160 to 200 on almost every par 4 from the blacks and that gets a bit old. The whites are too short (I'm hitting wedge into virtually every hole), but the blues are right about where I feel comfortable most of the year.
-
Agree on all the comments about fake scratch vs. real scratch. I am a 1.5 but play a very easy and very short home course and shoot a lot of low numbers but can't score nearly as well on a "real" layout at 6800 yds.
As far as distance, I think there is no chance that a group of amateurs beat a group of pros if they are playing anything like the same clubs into the greens. It needs to be at least 7 iron vs. wedges for the amateurs to have any chance at all.
I was roommates with Tim Heron in college and he let me play white tees vs. blacks and always killed. It's not the distance advantage, it's on and around the greens. So architecturally, the better the course, is suspect the better the advantage to the pros. If you wanna beat pros, play a simple course with greens that stimp at 7.
-
Agree on all the comments about fake scratch vs. real scratch. I am a 1.5 but play a very easy and very short home course and shoot a lot of low numbers but can't score nearly as well on a "real" layout at 6800 yds.
As far as distance, I think there is no chance that a group of amateurs beat a group of pros if they are playing anything like the same clubs into the greens. It needs to be at least 7 iron vs. wedges for the amateurs to have any chance at all.
I was roommates with Tim Heron in college and he let me play white tees vs. blacks and always killed. It's not the distance advantage, it's on and around the greens. So architecturally, the better the course, is suspect the better the advantage to the pros. If you wanna beat pros, play a simple course with greens that stimp at 7.
I was thinking the same thing I always think when people say you should score better from the whites than the blues. It's all about the short game and getting the ball in the hole. I am always amazed by how many 20-30' putts the pros make.
-
Thank you for sharing David.
When will you or your partners be playing from the white tees again?
Cheers
The next time we do "the bet." ;D
Although I enjoyed playing the whites, most of the guys at my club don't even like to play the blues at 6,410, let alone the whites at 6,010. We typically play the golds at 6,880 or the blacks at 7,157. I only hit driver 250 to 265 and I'm 160 to 200 on almost every par 4 from the blacks and that gets a bit old. The whites are too short (I'm hitting wedge into virtually every hole), but the blues are right about where I feel comfortable most of the year.
David, don't you think it the fairways were really narrow and the rough really high, from the whites you guys could take less club, maximize the number of fairways hit, and still have short irons to all the greens? If the pros are hitting drivers (or even 3 woods) from the back tees, I think the advantage would swing to your team. Don't you?
-
Thank you David
What about practicing from the whites for the next time you have "the bet"?
Have you ever played a mixture of tees in the same round; white, blue, gold & black?
Wouldn't that be more fun as you'd need to vary up your average approach shots?
Cheers
-
Interesting story and "research", thanks very much for sharing it.
If I may ask, David, did you vary your strategy for the shorter tees? For instance, did you play irons off the tee to hit more fairways, or did you continue to hit drivers so your approaches were much shorter? Did you notice what your fellow scratch golfers did?
-
Interesting story and "research", thanks very much for sharing it.
If I may ask, David, did you vary your strategy for the shorter tees? For instance, did you play irons off the tee to hit more fairways, or did you continue to hit drivers so your approaches were much shorter? Did you notice what your fellow scratch golfers did?
George,
I hit driver on most holes and 3-wood on a couple. Two of the longer hitters in our group hit 3-wood or iron a couple times, but at our course you can hit driver on most holes even from the up tees, which is one of the reasons the bet was so close against the pros. On a course where the amateurs had to lay back quite often due to doglegs and cross-hazards, the bet would swing the pros' way very quickly, as we wouldn't be able to take advantage of the distance gap.
-
Thank you David
What about practicing from the whites for the next time you have "the bet"?
Have you ever played a mixture of tees in the same round; white, blue, gold & black?
Wouldn't that be more fun as you'd need to vary up your average approach shots?
Cheers
Mike,
I love playing a mixture of tees, but getting my buddies to agree to it is difficult. In our weekly skins game we usually move a tee or two around a bit to create a driveable par 4 and shorten one par 5 maybe, but that's about it.
I like to play a game where the person who holds the tee gets to choose what tee to play from. I choose the red tees sometimes just to piss off my opponent. ;-)
-
Thank you for sharing David.
When will you or your partners be playing from the white tees again?
Cheers
The next time we do "the bet." ;D
Although I enjoyed playing the whites, most of the guys at my club don't even like to play the blues at 6,410, let alone the whites at 6,010. We typically play the golds at 6,880 or the blacks at 7,157. I only hit driver 250 to 265 and I'm 160 to 200 on almost every par 4 from the blacks and that gets a bit old. The whites are too short (I'm hitting wedge into virtually every hole), but the blues are right about where I feel comfortable most of the year.
David, don't you think it the fairways were really narrow and the rough really high, from the whites you guys could take less club, maximize the number of fairways hit, and still have short irons to all the greens? If the pros are hitting drivers (or even 3 woods) from the back tees, I think the advantage would swing to your team. Don't you?
Bill,
Yes, I agree with you on that, but our course is rarely, if ever, set up that way. Our driving areas are fairly ample, it's the approaches that give the golf course such a high (146) slope. The greens are almost all elevated a bit and misses are severely punished on at least two thirds of our holes.
David
-
Thank you David
Good luck on your next bet and making your friends play from the red tees.
Cheers