Pros versus scratch amateurs and distance advantage

[Carl Nichols]

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!

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Pat Burke]

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.

[David Ober]

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.

[Jason Thurman]

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.

[Chris DeNigris]

I bet you lost overall but beat them on the 3s.  If you played well I imagine it was competitive.

[David Ober]

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.

[Thomas Dai]

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

[Greg Tallman]

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.

 

[Jason Thurman]

I can't imagine how awful it would be to look at Rickey's outfit with a hangover...

[Tony_Muldoon]

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

Whoa not so fast.  Who is their manager?

[Mark Pearce]

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!

[David Ober]

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....

[David Ober]

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. 

[Philip Hensley]

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.

[David Ober]

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....

[Rob Marshall]

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"

[Bill Brightly]

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!

[Tom_Doak]

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 Ober]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

[David Ober]

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. :-)

[David Ober]

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.

[Tom_Doak]

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".

[Bob_Huntley]

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