Could an amateur guy compete on the LPGA ?

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Those ratings seem really high to me. My courses back at home, one is 6,550 and rated 71. The other two are about 7,050 and 7,200 and rated 74. I'm still guessing this is the difference in the handicapping system, so take my comments with that in mind.

My home course is 6472 and it's rated 71. Course ratings used to be strictly tied to length. There still is a strong link but they apparently take other things into consideration now, according to this explanation.

[deronsizemore]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

Those ratings seem really high to me.

I thought the same. My home course is one of the top courses in the state and at 6700 yards the rating is 71 I believe.

Just finished playing three days in Myrtle where each day the course length was 7200 yards and all three played right around a 74.5 rating.

Which, like was pointed out though, length isn't the only factor in determining rating.

[JPsuff]

.

There's "scratch" and there's "scratch".

Most people play one course exclusively and they keep their handicap there. So if someone gets to scratch level or even a plus handicap, they're certainly playing well, but they're playing well on that course. The issue here; Could an amateur guy compete on the LPGA ? can't be based solely upon carrying a scratch or plus handicap on just one course.
If a player can carry that handicap to multiple courses, then I'd say he has a fair chance at competing in an LPGA environment. But just getting to scratch on one course would likely fall short of that goal. I think that Lee Trevino's "formula" fits very nicely into this argument: Go out and play five courses that you've never seen before and play them from the championship tees. If you can average one under par for all five rounds, you're ready to take a shot at professional golf.

He said that about the PGA Tour and he said it many years ago. I suspect that the number would be considerably lower today as applied to the PGA Tour, but I think that formula would be just about right for today's LPGA Tour.


-JP

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by deronsizemore

I thought the same. My home course is one of the top courses in the state and at 6700 yards the rating is 71 I believe.

Just finished playing three days in Myrtle where each day the course length was 7200 yards and all three played right around a 74.5 rating.

Which, like was pointed out though, length isn't the only factor in determining rating.

They look at hazards and other obstacles too. My home course is just under 6500 yards and is rated at 71. I've taken a penalty stroke on every hole at least once, though.

[droogy33]

A "scratch" golfer would not consistently make cuts on the LPGA Tour. He would likely miss more cuts than he made.

And this would bring the psychological element more into play. A "scratch" golfer, who is struggling to make cuts regularly, would likely start pressing and tanking.

And we haven't even considered pin placements. A "scratch" golfer has acquired his ranking or standing playing into much more friendly hole locations than he would see regularly on the LPGA Tour.

[DonnaKay]

Seems to me that there are two definitions of "amateur" guys, as well as of "scratch" golfers.

First you have those guys who play the same 3 or 4 local courses (in some cases, less) on a very regular basis and probably play in a league or two and the local amateur tourneys. Like my son-in-law, who is one of these, these guys carry low or scratch handicaps and fairly regularly score and win. However, they are not playing pro setups nor are they playing for their living nor are they playing in front of thousands. I think most of these guys would have a hard time competing on the LPGA tour.

Then you have the amateurs who play the big amateur events, run by the USGA and subsidiary organizations. Some of these are college students good enough to have won golf scholarships, some are golf nuts who can afford to play more than they work a real job, and some are what I call professional amateurs (i.e.: Trip Kuehne, for many years). I would think that a good portion of the best of these could easily compete on the LPGA and a few could also have success on the PGA.

But what do I know.....maybe some of you scratch guys on here would fool me!

[droogy33]

Spot on, DK!

[huskyhater]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

Take a closer look at the "rough" on your average LPGA setup - my back yard is more of a hazard.

I don't know what cow pasture you might be referring to, but on some golf courses there are obstacles called trees. You can make what you want out of the rough, go ahead and twist that around-and maybe you can hit through trees. But the guy who taught me how to play always said 'straight is better than far'.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by huskyhater

I don't know what cow pasture you might be referring to, but on some golf courses there are obstacles called trees. You can make what you want out of the rough, go ahead and twist that around-and maybe you can hit through trees. But the guy who taught me how to play always said 'straight is better than far'.

I don't have cows in my yard, and apparently there are some major obstacles to coherent thought around here as well. There are trees on PGA Tour setups as well as rough higher than the inch found on the LPGA - do you see those guys "punching out" into the fairway?

[OnePutt]

I don't think making around $81K on tour would be making a decent living. Last I read, it costs over $100K just for expenses. If you earn $81K on tour with over $100K in expensed, I believe that's known as "losing money"

As for those of you that THINK you could compete on tour, why not play 10 rounds this summer from the forward tees, say an average of 6400 yards, and see how well you score? Then come back and tell us how much money you could make on tour against the top ladies.

I"m also not sure I'd say a "decent amatuer" golfer would equal a scratch golfer. More like a GREAT amatuer golfer.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by OnePutt

I don't think making around $81K on tour would be making a decent living. Last I read, it costs over $100K just for expenses. If you earn $81K on tour with over $100K in expensed, I believe that's known as "losing money"

I wonder how many of them do it. That goes for the Nationwide tour, too. Some of them have their husbands or wives on the bag. I imagine that would be the biggest expense. They could live out of an RV to cut down on food & shelter. I'm sure it could be done for a lot less than $100k, but still $81k is not much of a living on the road regardless of how many corners they cut.

[HackBlack]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

I wonder how many of them do it. That goes for the Nationwide tour, too. Some of them have their husbands or wives on the bag. I imagine that would be the biggest expense. They could live out of an RV to cut down on food & shelter. I'm sure it could be done for a lot less than $100k, but still $81k is not much of a living on the road regardless of how many corners they cut.

$100K is probably a high estimate for a N'Wide player. Also, most of their stops have Host Families for the players.

30 tourneys year
Hotel: 130/nt * 7 nights = $1K (Total $30,000)
Airfare: $400 ($12,000)
Meals: b'fast & lunch provided. dinner $30/nt = $180 ($5,400)
Caddy: $500 min/wk (assuming no top 10's or better) $15,000

Rought estimate: $63,000

Host families would reduce the hotel & dinners. But, you gotta figure some decent checks causing the Caddy fee to go up, right?

[Bulls9999]

Not the intent you probably meant for the thread, but....is this a valid way to get some increased viewership for the LPGA? ...much the way the small PGA venues were trying to increase viewership/attendance with Annika or Michelle Wie?

Imagine, guy golfers who don't normally watch the LPGA tuning in to see how the token male guy that is allowed to play on the LPGA tournie this week is doing....and next week, and the week after. I'd watch it for the comparative fun it would be.

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

My home course is 6472 and it's rated 71. Course ratings used to be strictly tied to length. There still is a strong link but they apparently take other things into consideration now, according to this explanation.

[C-Tech]

I played the same course the ladies played last year for the one LPGA Tournament in Arkansas. I played it about a month before they came to town. They played it at about the same length as the normal men's tees (where I played from). On my best day of the year, I shot 79 and I was amazing myself with some of the shots I pulled off.

If I had to play that same course four days in a row, I probably couldn't average 85. Not to say that I am a scratch player, at the time I think I was playing to a 9.9, but looking at how well you would have to place your tee shots and how precisely you would have to hit your irons for 4 days in a row, it made me appreciate just how good these women are.

Perhaps the middle of the pack on the Nationwide tour could compete successfully with the women week after week, but I don't think a scratch golfer could do it over time. It's not all about length, if it was then a lot of guys on the Nationwide would be in the top 10 on the big tour.

[Wazmankg]

Oh I think the Nationwide guys would do very well on the LPGA. There is a considerable drop-off between the fully qualified guys on the PGA and the also-rans and Nationwide guys though. It's even apparent when watching the PGA events the past couple of weeks. These guys are not as sharp. I've kidded about Kenny Perry and he's having a fantastic year, but when he's dominating and finishes 4 back in an event where he was admittedly not playing well, you're not talking about the best professional golf has to offer.

[OnePutt]

I'm sure the Nationwide guys would do real well on the LPGA tour. But who every said those guys were amateur golfers? Those guys are pros working on getting their tour cards and learning how to win on tour, not your average amatuer golfer.

[HackBlack]

Originally Posted by C-Tech

I played the same course the ladies played last year for the one LPGA Tournament in Arkansas. I played it about a month before they came to town. They played it at about the same length as the normal men's tees (where I played from). On my best day of the year, I shot 79 and I was amazing myself with some of the shots I pulled off.

If I had to play that same course four days in a row, I probably couldn't average 85. Not to say that I am a scratch player, at the time I think I was playing to a 9.9, but looking at how well you would have to place your tee shots and how precisely you would have to hit your irons for 4 days in a row, it made me appreciate just how good these women are.

Perhaps the middle of the pack on the Nationwide tour could compete successfully with the women week after week, but I don't think a scratch golfer could do it over time. It's not all about length, if it was then a lot of guys on the Nationwide would be in the top 10 on the big tour.

A "middle of the pack on the Nationwide tour"???? Those guys would demolish the LPGA. They're +3, +4 from 7200 yards. On a 6300 yard course those guys wouldn't need any club longer than a 5-iron. Imagine being great at your shot game AND being able to carry 6 wedges.

Lots of "experts" have weighed in that the N'Wide is a stronger tour than the European Tour. Even if that is not the case, any tour that has a strong enough field to be compared to the European Tour would win every event Ochoa wasn't in.

[Bigvivec]

Personally I think the girls would take the scratch guy down...competing is a whole different story than just posting handicap numbers, and total length of courses doesn't mean much if you have doglegs, trees, bunkers and the rest that defend a shorter course with something other than distance...

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by HackBlack

A "middle of the pack on the Nationwide tour"???? Those guys would demolish the LPGA. They're +3, +4 from 7200 yards. On a 6300 yard course those guys wouldn't need any club longer than a 5-iron. Imagine being great at your shot game AND being able to carry 6 wedges.

Lots of "experts" have weighed in that the N'Wide is a stronger tour than the European Tour. Even if that is not the case, any tour that has a strong enough field to be compared to the European Tour would win every event Ochoa wasn't in.

I think a middle of the pack Nationwide guy would be in the top 10 consistently and win a few, but not dominate to that extent. If he was that good with his wedges and putter he wouldn't be a middle of the pack Nationwide guy.

[Bolt Fore]

Could an amateur guy compete on the LPGA ?. Sure if all the pros forgot to sign their cards but him.