Plnnr:
Wow, you’re confident. Easily? How easily?
I’ll go on record as saying I think she’ll shoot 144, and miss the cut. Remember that he course is par 70, while it was par 71 for the women. That probably means one of the women’s par 5s is a par 4 for the men.
Yeah, she’s used to pressure, but this’ll be 10x what she’s ever had before. I’m shaking myself just thinking how she’ll feel on the first tee on Thursday!!
Saw several photos in the paper. What impressed me most was the huge smile she had on her face in every photo. I appreciate the effort she is making to be positive about this, but I have to think that effort will be exhausting over time.
If she does well, it will be an incredible testimonial to her ability and mental strength.
And she was wearing long pants.
I think the placement and added distance of the tee boxes will have a more dramatic impact on her performace than just the raw yardage increase will.
From my experience, the fairways look like a longneck beer bottle with the opening facing you. In the PGA, they play from the tips (or bottlecap of the beer bottle). This means they are 30+ yards further back before the fairway opens up than the womens tee box. She’s one of the best off the tee in the LPGA but that’s a far cry from the PGA.
I predict she’ll be in the high 60% range for fairways hit because she’ll be swinging harder and because of the narrower fairways from the tips. Errant tee shots will probably cost her 2 strokes a round.
Still can’t wait to see it.
Yeah, I think she’ll have more bogie opportunities than birdie opps. I wish her the best, and hope to see more in the future of women taking on the men.
IMHO, BF’s stats don’t say diddly about Annika. What they do say is that sponsors rroutinely put guys in their tournaments who can’t play well enough to make the cut, and whatever complaints there have been about it have been pretty muted. So the golf world should be able to deal with a sponsor putting a woman into a tournament, even if she doesn’t play well enough to make the cut.
I, too, wish that there was some way to deal her in for a sequence of four or more PGA tournaments, so there wouldn’t be quite so much riding on just this one. But we’ll see how it goes. She may well miss the cut. But I don’t think she’s going to shoot any 77, like the over/under odds suggest. I don’t think you win the way she’s winning, without a fair degree of mental toughness. She’ll need it this week.
Well, if she makes the cut perhaps it’ll happen. If she finishes in the top 20 you can bet it will happen. Somewhat ironic, though in that her 13 wins from last year ropes her into 13 weeks that she can’t compete on the PGA tour.
If Michele Wei does well when she plays on the Nationwide Tour, perhaps we’ll see more women play there as well. Although the tiny prize winnings are unlikely to attract the top women players.
RTFirefly said:
Does this analysis assume that the ONLY difference between men and women is how long they can hit the ball with a given club? If so, then it doesn’t mean much, because it’s entirely possible that women aren’t as good at the short game and putting as well. I posted the stats for Straight Pool, which shows that in a game with no strength component at all women still do significantly poorer than men. Allison Fisher tried to play on the men’s snooker tour, and couldn’t break the top 100, despite dominating the female tour to a greater degree than Annika is dominating women’s golf. Clearly, there are other factors at work than just raw strength.
I hope she does well. I hope she wins. That would be great.
But my guess at a score is 150. She won’t make the cut.
One problem with statistical comparison from tour to tour is the difference in slope and the preparation of the golf courses. Only golf geeks are going to follow me here, but it’s a fact that one 7,000 yard course is not like another, necessarily. Sometimes courses play longer or shorter than their yardages dependent upon altitude, among other things. The slope refers to the severity of the placement of the hazards–and a whole lot more that would bore most people to tears.
To simplify, as a rule the PGA Tour plays tougher courses in addition to longer courses.
The course. By PGA Tour standards, not that long or penal. By LPGA standards, absurdly long.
Here is the LPGA stop (Corning CC in NY) this week for comparison.
A one thousand yard difference.
Annika’s press conference from the Golf Channel
It’s David, ah, Annika versus Goliath, ah, a bunch of pampered millionaire weenies.
I’m fired up. You can tell by the number of cites. 
I was probably being generous at 144. You’re more likely closer to the truth.
Anyway, this is going to be fun.
It’s getting so hyped, there was a press conference with the two guys who are playing with her. One of the Golf channel guys who hosts The 19th Hole (can’t remember his name) has promised to wear a skirt next week if she makes the cut.
Look at the Colonial CC. Thursday when Annika plays 3,4, and 5 we’ll know something. Those holes are hard for anyone.
John, I think 150 is generous. The Vegas line is the smart way to bet, and it’s 153.
I think that, more telling than her performance against PGA players, the fact that pitcher John Smoltz beat her by 2 strokes in her practice round with Tiger Woods makes her chances look slim.
I hope she does as well as she hopes to but I can’t see her breaking 150.
Since all the PGA Tour events donate such huge amounts to local charities who can begrudge them any marketting edge they can get.
So IOW, the course ratings that Boswell refers to, includes all that golf-geek stuff that would bore the rest of us to tears. Since his analysis used those ratings as its starting point, all that stuff you mention appears to be built into his discussion.
It’s quite obvious at this point that inviting Sorenstam was a smart move, isn’t it? The Colonial’s getting as much attention as the Masters. How wise of them to give Sorenstam a sponsor’s ticket. And unless she plays the worst golf of her life, Sorenstam has raised her own marketability.
Course rating is not the slope. Moreover, golf is not a science. Did I mention pin positions? Stimpmeters? Collar mower heights? Good, it’s boring, as promised.
First, a disclaimer: this is an actual QUESTION, not an accusation! I’d like to know if the following charge I’ve heard has any merit, or if it’s simply malicious gossip being spread by male chauvinist pigs!
Quite a few of the male golfers on the PGA tour have been telling reporters- almost always off the record- that the statistics you see for most female golfers are highly inflated. And quite a few who’ve seen Annika practicing this week are, to put it mildly, unimpressed. They’re telling reporters (again, mostly off the record) that she doesn’t drive NEARLY as far as her stats indicate. Nor, some claim, do most of the LPGA’s top drivers (Laura Davies being an exception).
Mind you, this sentiment is NOT shared by all of the leading males. John Daly (no slouch as a driver himself!), for instance, insists that the best women he’s played with ARE quite capable of driving with all but a few of the men. (And if a redneck like Daly is willing to side with the women, that says something.)
So, my question is… is there anything to the charge of inflated stats for the women? Or is this just cowardly sniping?
RTF:
Rating and slope are used to to figure your handicap for a given course. In simplistic terms, the rating is what a “scratch” (or zero handicap) player should shoot. A par 72 course may be rated 74, meaning you get add 2 pts to your golf index* for your handicap. The slope is hard to explain but has nothing to do with the “phsyical slope” of the course. It’s a way of figuring out what a bogey golfer (index = 18) would shoot on that course. It’s a second adjustment that you make to your index to calculate your handicap if you’re playing a tournament. 113 is the neutral slope number. Higher is harder, lower is easier.
But as has been said before, there are many, many other variables that go into trying to figure out what a golfer will shoot, especially in a PGA tournament where the courses are “toughened up” from their usual conditions (faster greens, thicker rough, more difficult pin placements).
*golf index is what most people mean when they ask what your handicap is. It’s a course-neutral handicap that tells you how well you should shoot approximately 25% of the time on a course where rating = par and slope = 113.
“thicker rough” should’ve been “taller rough” in the 3rd paragraph. My mistake.
To try to answer Astorian’s question, first I have to ask as to where this information is coming from? As an avid golfer and student of the game, I have yet to read or hear anything like this. And I follow golf news fervently.
BTW, according to a newspaper article in this mornings paper, when Annika was teeing it up on the first hole, (with Jesper and Sergio) Jesper asked her how many strokes a side she wanted.
I’ve never heard this and would be surprised if it were true for driving distance, which is pretty straightforward. However, other stats like greens in regulation and putts per round are like comparing apples and oranges since they depend a lot on the type of course you play. Easier courses = better stats. A women who hits 60% of the greens in regulation on the LPGA tour might hit only 40% of the greens in reg on a PGA course (making exact numbers up, but the idea is the same), for example.