Breaking 80 in Golf - The Running Equivalent

A very good point and one I was about to put forth -- How much serious running training and how much serious golf practice would the average non-golfer/non runner have to put in to run 3:00 and golf 100, or run 2:30 and golf 80 or any other combinatin of scores/times. Or you could just say how fast a marathon could a non runner run with 24 weeks of running (averaging 1 hour a day of training) vs a non golfer who golfed 1 hour a day for 24 weeks. To make it equal you would supposedly have to limit the time each practiced, since it is a lot easier for a beginner to spend a lot more time golfing than running

Let's see PB 1:24 1/2 marathon haven't run a marathon yet.

Have shot 3 under for nine holes also half the total.

But have shot 73s 74s and usually under 80. Tournament play which changes everything: 76 PB.

I think its harder running under 3 hours for the marathon although I've never ran one but I knew the work I had to put in to run my 1/2 marathon time. For me the scale looks like this:

80 = 3:15

75 = 2:45

Even par = 2:30

Under par = 2:20 or better

I know for a fact that Nick Willis shoots 73-75 regularly. Would this make him the worlds best miler/golfer?

I agree with you and "Trollie." "Benini's" times and scores are impressive if they are as he states. I never broke 16 for a 5k. I did do a 2:43. Both performances were done during sub 55 miles per week spans. They were in different decades. I did have one week in 1990 when I shot 78 and two days shot 79. I thought I had my game figured out then. I haven't broken 80 since. You can't burn the candle at both ends. One sport will hurt the other unless you are Steve Scott with ample time for both. For myself, breaking 80 is harder. When you are fit, running sub 18 is a tempo run. When you are playing well, breaking 90 is a snap. ( No Mulligans or rakes.)(Only certified courses count and no downhill marathons.)

I'm a high school runner so I don't know what I'd run for a marathon or anythin but I've gone 9:45 and have shot 77 on par 72, i actually golfed my frosh year. I'd say breakin 10 for 2 miles is about equivelent to breakin 80.

I agree completely that tournament play changes everything...but assuming the scores are honest (which I doubt) - I think breaking 80 is about the same as a 3:20, maybe 3:10 if you're playing a legit course. Either way, being competitive at both is next to impossible. I used to be around scratch but didnt run much. Now I am getting hooked on the running - and shot a smooth 83 the other weekend...kind of depressing.

Trollie McSockpuppet wrote:

I really disagree. Over 7,000 golfers every year enter qualifying tournaments trying to qualify for the US Open. To even enter a qualifying tournament, your golf handicap cannot exceed 1.4. There are literally thousands of scratch golfers in the United States.

Now, how many 2:20 marathoners are there in the United States in any given year? Just a few dozen at mnost. I say that being a scratch golfer is like being a 2:40 marathoner. Breaking 80 in golf is more like breaking 2:50 - 2:55 in the marathon.

I agree, but still, there's a missing deal with that 1.4 Handicap. if you don't want to report the score, you don't ave to. I have a relative who rushes into the club house to report his 78 but is very relaxed to bring in those 87s...

Personally, I've shot a 74 (+3) on an easy course (76 on a harder one), and I've broken 31 for the 10k. I think 2:50 is about accurate. It's solid, but not crazy.

Marathon - 2:04:55

Golf - 132

For what it's worth, 1% of marathon entrants broke 3 last year, according to marathonguide.com

Whatever the handicap of a 99th percentile golfer is would be a good place to start. Maybe the USGA keeps track of stuff like that.

oog, you state that you have run sub 31. That's way above average for most runners. Care to extrapolate that time for a marathon? For you,conservatively, it is going to be better than 2:50. Now for a golfer as he gets close to a sub 80 round, which he doesn't shoot all the time, the nerves come into play. I'll bet you got nervous as you contemplated breaking 70. Probably the bowler gets goose bumps as he strings out the strikes. A fit runner, who has done his/her homework, will run a that good marathon time without nerves balling up the results.

What's a scratch golfer? I get handicaps--a 5 handicap is someone shooting 77 on a par-72.

I didn't realize the handicap was only 1.4. That means the max allowable limit to qualify for the PGA tour is 73.4? Or are there other factors too.

thanks.

macker wrote:

For what it's worth, 1% of marathon entrants broke 3 last year, according to marathonguide.com

Whatever the handicap of a 99th percentile golfer is would be a good place to start. Maybe the USGA keeps track of stuff like that.

I believe the stat was 95% of golfers can't break 100. So if 95% of golfers can't break 100, and 99% of runners can't break 3:00, then the equivalent would be like 3:15 or 3:20. I would bet even less than 1% of golfers could break 80, so breaking 80 could be like breaking 3:00.

All I can say is I've attempted both fairly seriously, without much talent in either and being a good golfer takes just as much practice time as being a good runner. That is, you're working on your game every day, sometimes twice a day.

My old running coach, who was a lifelong golfer but not a low scorer, used to equate golf scores with your half marathon time, and it made a lot of sense. World record for half marathon is around 59:00, and the best any pro has shot in a tournament is 59. A lot of ok runners can run 90:00, and 90 for 18 holes is bogey golf which is sort of the standard for "ok".

Personally-2:54 marathon, 3 handicap for a few years. And that was a legit handicap with a fair amount of stroke play tournaments. As for cheating in golf, or bending the rules, that definitely happens but I saw it more with 10-20+ handicappers. When you get down to single digits the last thing you want is a lower handicap because you end up getting less strokes and paying all your buddies every weekend.

Jtupper-good question about how much work it would take to get to certain levels as a runner or as a golfer. For me it was about 4 years from when I started run training (had a decent aerobic background before that and ran some but no formal run training) to a 2:58 marathon and another 6 months after that to my pr. I was only a 50-55 mile a week guy and didn't do a whole lot of running during the winter most of those years. With golf it took me about 5 years to go from a 20 handicapper to a 6, and then another 2 years to get down to a 3. Going from 20 to 12 just took a lot of playing (4-5 days a week after work/weekends). Going from 12 to 6 to 3 meant playing 7 days a week (April-Nov since this is snow country) PLUS spending 5-10 hours a week practicing.

Personally, I think it would be easier to take Joe Couch Potato and turn him into a decent golfer than turn him into a decent runner, and I think you could do it a lot faster too. By "decent" (for a couch potato) I'd say sub 20 5k, or sub 90 on a golf course. I say that because running fast is more dependent on genetics where golf is more learning how to do it and getting it done-training effort being the same for the person trying to learn both sports. Plus, as tupper points out, you can spend a lot more time working on your golf game than running before fatigue sets in. I know a lot of people that no matter how much effort they put in they are never going to run sub 3:00 but I guarantee I could have them breaking 100 in a year.

Just to clarify about handicaps;

your handicap is the average best 10 of your last 20 rounds in relation to the course rating. THe course rating is usually close but a little lower than par for most courses, closer to par for the harder courses.

Bullshiting is rampant in golf. I shoot mid 90's but would play most guys who say they are mid 90's for money since they knock off about 10 strokes at least and few people putt out, play PGA rules etc. I tried to figure out the equivalents like the subject of the initial post to explain a golf game to a friend (female) who runs a 2:54 marathon but doesn't know golf.

I figure since 10% break 100, breaking 80 is an ok club/local runner, about an 18min 5km like someone said sounds right; so a 2:55 marathon.

I would never regret my years running but I would like a computer program to determine what kind of golfer I would be if all my runs had been golfing over the past 20 years.

many golf books advertise that they'll have you breaking 100 in a matter of weeks - guaranteed. ever seen a running book guaranteeing a sub-3 hr marathon? in a few weeks?

Half Marathon PR 1:12:52

Shot 80 on a par 70

and 81 on a par 72

Many, many mid 80 scores on some halfway decent courses.

Recently, I'm lucky to be shooting mid 90's. Not a lot of time for golf with a 10 month old :)

jecht@kent.edu wrote:

I didn't realize the handicap was only 1.4. That means the max allowable limit to qualify for the PGA tour is 73.4? Or are there other factors too.

I was referring to qualifying for the US Open. Qualifying for the PGA tour is an entirely different matter.

The US Open is unique among the US majors in that anyone in the public can try to qualify. Well, not just anyone--as I already stated, you can be no worse than a 1.4 handicap to enter one of the many qualifying tournaments around the country. Last year, almost 8,000 golfers (all of whom had no worse than a 1.4 handicap) entered qualifying tournaments in an effort to make the US Open. If you follow the press at all, you may recall that Michelle Wie was one of the golfers attempting to qualify.

The other majors don't work like this. There is no "open qualifying" to make the Masters, for example. It is an invitation tournament. In reality, only a couple hundred golfers have a shot at getting invited to the Masters in any given year.

Qualifying for a spot on the PGA Tour is actually harder than qualifying for a spot in the US Open. To qualify for "Q-school," the long process that ultimately selects 30 golfers for inclusion on the following year's tour, you need to be at least a scratch golfer. And that is just to *try* to qualify.

Jean's Marines regularly shoot in the 80s on PGA courses.

They just take two mulligans and skip the middle four holes...

d2xccoach wrote:

Personally, I think it would be easier to take Joe Couch Potato and turn him into a decent golfer than turn him into a decent runner, and I think you could do it a lot faster too. .

This is interesting because this spring I decided to run more and practice golf less because I thought I'd get more results from the time I'd put into running vs. golf. I'm in my late 30s, a 12 handicap, and at the time running about 15-20 miles per week for general fitness.

My experience with golf is your scores are more variable regardless of how much time you put in. Some part of your game is always flaky and will sabotage your scores. This summer my ball striking is a bit worse but my handicap is the same.

I increased my miles to 50 miles per week throughout the summer and my 5k time dropped from high 19s to 18:20. For small local races, this is pretty competitive for guys my age. For the larger local races, this fitness level probably puts me at least in the top 100 or so. I doubt I'm one of the top 100 golfers in my area so I think it's easier to improve your running times than your golf scores.