Pros versus scratch amateurs and distance advantage

[David Ober]

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!  

[Michael Moore]

At thirteen feet, the pros would absolutely dominate on and around the greens and would easily win this bet.

[jeffwarne]

I'll take the Euros......

[jeffwarne]

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

[Tim Gavrich]

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.

[David Ober]

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....

[Jason Thurman]

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?

[David Ober]

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. :-)

[jeffwarne]

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.

[David Ober]

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

[BCrosby]

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

[Mark Chaplin]

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.

[Matt Bosela]

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.

[Tim Bert]

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.

[jeffwarne]

.

...

.

 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 .

Maybe I just need to get better

[Greg Tallman]

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.

[Will Peterson]

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.

[Jason Topp]

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.   

[David Ober]

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.

[David Ober]

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.

[Carson Pilcher]

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.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

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 Ober]

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. 

We actually played three times over the holidays with a couple things changing each time we played. It was an absolute blast.

[Rich Goodale]

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

[jeffwarne]

Rich,
White courtesy phone please