Could an amateur guy compete on the LPGA ?

[Wazmankg]

Could any of you ? How good would he have to be ? Scratch ? +1 ? By compete I mean make cuts regularly.

[JungleJ]

I'd say +4 at a minimum. Even now some amateurs over here are turning pro at +4, +5 and then struggle for a good while.

FWIW Sergio Garcia was +5.6 when he turned pro, and still improving at the time

[deronsizemore]

Yeah I think I could compete and make cuts very regularly. Take the current tournament for example, I just did a quick search on the LPGA site and right now 71st place is +9 to par. The course is only 6400 yards which means it's around 800 yards less than what I'm used to playing (and shooting around even to a few over on regularly).

I wouldn't be winning any because even at a shorter 6400 yard course, those girls are putting some some real low numbers, but yes I'd make the cut frequently I think.

I really don't think you'd have to be a +4 or +5 to compete (make cuts) regularly on the LPGA tour. I think if you're right around a scratch golfer, you'd "compete"

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

I'd say +4 at a minimum. Even now some amateurs over here are turning pro at +4, +5 and then struggle for a good while.

FWIW Sergio Garcia was +5.6 when he turned pro, and still improving at the time

LPGA JungleJ, the ladies aren't that good (they're pretty good). I would think that a good solid consistent +1 could make a comfortable living on the LPGA. The top ladies I would guess at roughly equivalent to a +3 male amateur. I'm totally guessing though.

[deronsizemore]

Just checked a previous tournament that was in June. It wasn't a major and just one of the "average" tournaments. Course was 6300 yards and last place finisher that made the cut was +12 to par.

[deronsizemore]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

LPGA JungleJ, the ladies aren't that good (they're pretty good). I would think that a good solid consistent +1 could make a comfortable living on the LPGA. The top ladies I would guess at roughly equivalent to a +3 male amateur. I'm totally guessing though.

Yeah it's really hard to tell. That's probably a close analogy. The distance of the course is what would really become a factor. Some of the ladies bomb it out there, but that's not the norm. For the normal LPGA hitter, a 7200-7500 yard course would just be to much for them I think to go out and play to their usual +3 or whatever they are.

[JungleJ]

AAAAGH I must learn to read...

I agree with Ty - a solid scratch player on full length courses would be able to hang with the ladies on 6400 yard courses.

Waz - you should suggest a challenge to the Golf Channel or whoever covers the LPGA, they could market it as golf's Bobby Riggs moment.

[rodney_c]

Originally Posted by deronsizemore

Yeah I think I could compete and make cuts very regularly. Take the current tournament for example, I just did a quick search on the LPGA site and right now 71st place is +9 to par. The course is only 6400 yards which means it's around 800 yards less than what I'm used to playing (and shooting around even to a few over on regularly).

71st place was +9 because only about 71 players had started their rounds. So last place was +9 at that time.
By the time the cut is made after two rounds, the cut will be at about +3.

[deronsizemore]

Originally Posted by rodney_c

71st place was +9 because only about 71 players had started their rounds. So last place was +9 at that time.
By the time the cut is made after two rounds, the cut will be at about +3.

You're right, I didn't look closely enough.

At any rate, I could still compete I think.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by JungleJ

I agree with Ty - a solid scratch player on full length courses would be able to hang with the ladies on 6400 yard courses.

See this is where I disagree, because the length of the course is relative when it comes to figuring a handicap. 6400 yard courses are going to be rated at around 71 for men. So a scratch golfer is going to average a couple of strokes over that on that layout, depending upon the slope, in order to be a scratch golfer. Using last week as an example the cut was -1. The course was only 6230, but that's still a 70+ rating. So a scratch golfer is going to have to put 2 very good rounds together to even make the cut.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

See this is where I disagree, because the length of the course is relative when it comes to figuring a handicap. 6400 yard courses are going to be rated at around 71 for men. So a scratch golfer is going to average a couple of strokes over that on that layout, depending upon the slope, in order to be a scratch golfer. Using last week as an example the cut was -1. The course was only 6230, but that's still a 70+ rating. So a scratch golfer is going to have to put 2 very good rounds together to even make the cut.

You've not said what par was, but if par was 72, then with a 70 rating, 72, 71 is good for the cut, which is playing to his handicap on neither occasion. I would say a good round for a scratch would be at or about 68 or so, while average might be 72.
I am a lot more familiar with the UK handicapping system where such scores would be about right. Under the US system, the scores may be higher, but only because a scratch golfer in the UK might be a +2 in the US.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

See this is where I disagree, because the length of the course is relative when it comes to figuring a handicap. 6400 yard courses are going to be rated at around 71 for men. So a scratch golfer is going to average a couple of strokes over that on that layout, depending upon the slope, in order to be a scratch golfer. Using last week as an example the cut was -1. The course was only 6230, but that's still a 70+ rating. So a scratch golfer is going to have to put 2 very good rounds together to even make the cut.

The point you are missing here is that a male "scratch golfer" has attained that level on longer courses. I think it's a safe bet to say that the male scratch player would play better than his average on such short courses.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

The point you are missing here is that a male "scratch golfer" has attained that level on longer courses. I think it's a safe bet to say that the male scratch player would play better than his average on such short courses.

I think you're missing the point. A male "scratch golfer" may have attained that level on longer courses.... say the 7000-ish yard Fieldstone in Auburn Hills for example. That particular layout carries a 74.4 rating. So a male "scratch golfer" who has attained that level at Fieldstone has done so because the last best 50% of his scores averaged around 75 and counting all of his scores would average a couple more than that there.. say 77 as a rough guesstimate. Put him on a 6400 yard course and sure he'd shoot better than his 77 average.. probably a couple over the course rating on average regardless of the length. That's why handicaps are somewhat portable.

[huskyhater]

A pro-even the women, have so much more of a short game than anyone on here. I've seen how straight the girls hit it-I could see a bomber from here waiting while the LPGA player (in the fairway) hits her 2nd shot tight while 'the bomber' waits to punch back out to the fairway. Pros are pros for a reason-anybody who thinks they can compete CONSISTENTLY against ANY pro is living in a dream world.

[straightshooter]

There is more to competing on the LPGA than the ability to shoot a few under on a 6400 yard course. There is a lot of competitive pressure, there are spectators and press (who may pay a lot of attention to the only guy there!), there is a lot of travel, there is a hectic schedule, there are all sorts of misc. commitments on ones time, etc.! Being a great golfer with an ability to consistently go low is just 1 requirement for being able to make it on the tour.

[Walker]

I think the skorts he would be wearing would be messing with his head so bad he would shoot 10 over.

[HackBlack]

50th on the money list for '08 has $193K. If LGPA expenses are on par with PGA Tour expenses, those would be about $100K...for a grinder. Ya, I know Steve-O makes the top125 based solely on caddie earnings. But, were not talking about dethroning Ochoa. We're talking about "making a living".

The 50th person is Kristy McPherson, whose scoring average is 72.23 (46th), on courses like previously mentioned that are 6200-6500 yards.

I think a male scatch golfer would definitely compete from those yardages. Wazmankg and I recently went over how Rating is determined in another thread.

Just based on yardage, a 6300 yd course would have a rating of 75.9 for women. For men, it would be 69.5. I think a scratch golfer could shoot even par on a regular basis at that yardage, which would put him middle of the pack every week.

He may never take his driver out of the back, except for par 5's, where he'd have 2-3 eagle putts each round.

[PA PLAYA]

I'd figure that maybe after 4 months, which would be about the length of time it would take for me to adjust to the pressure of playing in that environment -- I might actually put two good rounds together and make a cut.

Do it consistently? LOL....

It's not just about the distance. It's also about playing well under pressure, and regardless of it being men or women, or how long the course is, the pressure is still there. A 50-yard worm burner on a 450 yard par4 has the same value as a 50-yard worm burner on a 385 yard par4 -- one stroke.

[JungleJ]

Originally Posted by HackBlack

I think a male scatch golfer would definitely compete from those yardages. Wazmankg and I recently went over how Rating is determined in another thread.

Just based on yardage, a 6300 yd course would have a rating of 75.9 for women. For men, it would be 69.5. I think a scratch golfer could shoot even par on a regular basis at that yardage, which would put him middle of the pack every week.

Thank HackBlack - I was about to go off to crunch some numbers.

The thing with the distances is that the putative guy would be longer with every club in the bag, so even if he hit irons off the tee he would be holding a more lofted club for his second shot to the green. Also many greens would be reachable with his driver.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by HackBlack

50th on the money list for '08 has $193K. If LGPA expenses are on par with PGA Tour expenses, those would be about $100K...for a grinder. Ya, I know Steve-O makes the top125 based solely on caddie earnings. But, were not talking about dethroning Ochoa. We're talking about "making a living".

The 50th person is Kristy McPherson, whose scoring average is 72.23 (46th), on courses like previously mentioned that are 6200-6500 yards.

I think a male scatch golfer would definitely compete from those yardages. Wazmankg and I recently went over how Rating is determined in another thread.

Just based on yardage, a 6300 yd course would have a rating of 75.9 for women. For men, it would be 69.5. I think a scratch golfer could shoot even par on a regular basis at that yardage, which would put him middle of the pack every week.

He may never take his driver out of the back, except for par 5's, where he'd have 2-3 eagle putts each round.

Se Ri Pak is having an off year. She's currently ranked 70th on the scoring list at 72.83. I took her best 10 of her last 20 tournament rounds and calculated her handicap. They were played on courses ranging from 6459-6673 yards so I assigned them a rating of 71.5. That's about right for a mens rating for that yardage range. Her handicap based on that is +0.9. Extrapolating from that.. and this is is just a single case estimate... male scratch would be a scoring average of around 73.5 or good for 110th place on the scoring list. That's Kim Hall who's made 6 of 15 cuts, 1 top 10 and $56k so far this year. IMO there's your average male scratch player on the LPGA.

[PA PLAYA]

Since when did being a scratch golfer equate to how far one hits the ball?