Biggest difference between PGA pro and a +6

[Ghost of Snead]

Monte, what's the airmailed the green on 13 story? Jazzed up because you were in the lead?

 

I played one little fun tournament last year and was shocked what adrenaline did to my swing. Very old traditional layout with wicked greens that all slope back to front, so long is dead. I'm long all day and hence dead.

 

Back 9 Sunday. Had an eagle putt on 10 to take the lead outright from about 8 feet. 360, so I'm tied.

 

Pared 11 and 12, one back.

 

13 was uphill into the wind and 200-210 to the hole. I was a little jacked up, so I hit 5. It was still going up when it was flying over the pin. It was right at it...lol. That is what too much shaft lean combined with speed gets you.

 

It was up against a tree, had to take an unplayable, pitched on and 2 putted for double. 4 back.

 

Only played 1 under (birdied 18) coming in. 5th.

 

Can't believe your caddie made you hit 5 when you wanted to hit 6. Hope you fired his sorry arse ...

[MonteScheinblum]

Monte, what's the airmailed the green on 13 story? Jazzed up because you were in the lead?

 

I played one little fun tournament last year and was shocked what adrenaline did to my swing. Very old traditional layout with wicked greens that all slope back to front, so long is dead. I'm long all day and hence dead.

 

Back 9 Sunday. Had an eagle putt on 10 to take the lead outright from about 8 feet. 360, so I'm tied.

 

Pared 11 and 12, one back.

 

13 was uphill into the wind and 200-210 to the hole. I was a little jacked up, so I hit 5. It was still going up when it was flying over the pin. It was right at it...lol. That is what too much shaft lean combined with speed gets you.

 

It was up against a tree, had to take an unplayable, pitched on and 2 putted for double. 4 back.

 

Only played 1 under (birdied 18) coming in. 5th.

 

Can't believe your caddie made you hit 5 when you wanted to hit 6. Hope you fired his sorry arse ...

 

I was going to hit 4. It was playing about 215-220. I hit 4 the previous day.

[iteachgolf]

A good +6 who isn't a PGA player probably doesn't really want to be one.

 

A couple thousand mini tour players, Web.com guys, Challenge Tour, Asian Tour, could go on and on would all disagree with you. Many are grinding their butts off, racking up massive debt, and are never home chasing the dream. Desire isn't the issue

I meant no disrespect with that post. But I stand by it. I played hockey with a lot of guys who were definitely good enough to make it to the NHL. Like the +6, they were all missing an ingredient. Often they knew what the ingredient was....heart, killer instinct, whatever....but chose not to develop that inner part that was keeping them from what they thought they wanted more than anything. In the end, someone with good enough game to make the bigs but doesn't, really doesn't want to be there. For some, as an example, developing killer instinct is not inherent in their personality and it never will be because in their heart of hearts they don't want it as a part of their makeup. In the end, it is that choice that keeps them from moving forward.

I realize that this is my opinion, but it is one based on much experience, including my very own.

 

And I'd argue being a +6 in and of itself isn't good enough. There are thousands of +6 level golfers and only 156 guys on the PGA Tour playing each week. A +6 is the bare minimum to have success on the Swingthought Tour (formerly Hooters/NGA), Canadian Tour and PGALA. Playing to a +6 a lot of weeks on the Web.Com tour will miss the cut. A handicap is only based on your best 50% of your round. In professional golf the 50% that aren't counted are more often than not more important than the ones that are. A players anti cap is as important or even more so to his success than what his handicap would be.

 

Your hockey analogy simply doesn't hold any water. It's not even close. The NHL allows 23 active players per team and 50 players under contract per team. That is 690 active players and 1500 players that are under NHL contracts. There are 60 NCAA Division 1 college hockey teams and almost half of those are DII or DIII schools "playing up". There are currently 1,172 D1 college hockey players.

 

Lets compare that to D1 college golf. There are 299 mens D1 college golf programs. Thats 5x as many golf programs as hockey programs. There are almost 3x as many college golfers as college hockey players yet the odds of a high school golfer playing college golf is about HALF the odds of a high school hockey player playing college golf. So the number of high school golfers in the US (152,647) dwarfs the number of high school hockey players (35,393) making the odds of making it to college golf let alone the PGA Tour is way lower. So you have 5x as many guys going after 10% of the available spots teams have in the NHL. The odds of making it on the PGA tour is literally 50x worse than making it in the NHL.

 

Golf has the worst ratio of highly skilled athletes vs available number of spots in all of professional sports.

 

I don't want to disagree with the example of how difficult it is to get to the PGA tour, but re: the hockey stats, only 10% of NHL players actually come from the U.S. colleges. The primary supplier of talent is still Canadian major junior hockey (OHL, WCHL, and the QMJHL). Then you need to add in the Russians, Czechs, Finns, Swedes, and Germans, plus a few outliers. When you consider that, the odds of a kid from an NCAA program making it all the way to the NHL gets a lot closer to the golf numbers. Great topic...great comments!

 

Except for the fact that golf is played more than hockey worldwide and in virtually every country. Especially by the time you get to high school/ college aged. Professional golf is far more diverse than the NHL where an overwhelming majority come from a few countries. NHL is 51% Canadian and 24% American. 75% of the league is made up of athletes from 2 countries. Add in Sweden at 9% and Russia at 4% and nearly 90% of the league is from 4 countries. And a good number of americans play in candian juniors. Canadian major junior hockey players have about a 4% chance at making it the NHL. NCAA hockey players have about a 2% chance at making it.

 

The top 50 golfers in the world have been represented by 17 different countries in recent years. A ton of the US college spots are taken by foreigners. Golf is played by exponentially more people in more countries. The chances of a college golfer making the PGA Tour is 1 in 5,104 or 0.0196%. A canadian junior hockey player has a 204 times more likely chance to be make the NHL than a college golfer does to make the PGA Tour. You can double that for the US college hockey player.

[sjt4718]

I walk this lonely street on the boulevard of broken dreams.

[JustTheTips]

 

 

Except for the fact that golf is played more than hockey worldwide and in virtually every country. Especially by the time you get to high school/ college aged. Professional golf is far more diverse than the NHL where an overwhelming majority come from a few countries. NHL is 51% Canadian and 24% American. 75% of the league is made up of athletes from 2 countries. Add in Sweden at 9% and Russia at 4% and nearly 90% of the league is from 4 countries. And a good number of americans play in candian juniors. Canadian major junior hockey players have about a 4% chance at making it the NHL. NCAA hockey players have about a 2% chance at making it.

 

The top 50 golfers in the world have been represented by 17 different countries in recent years. A ton of the US college spots are taken by foreigners. Golf is played by exponentially more people in more countries. The chances of a college golfer making the PGA Tour is 1 in 5,104 or 0.0196%. A canadian junior hockey player has a 204 times more likely chance to be make the NHL than a college golfer does to make the PGA Tour. You can double that for the US college hockey player.

 

Sure but it all depends where you start the stats. Want to compare the odds of a 6 year old mite making the NHL to a 6 year old first tee kid making the PGA tour? You will find the odds are close to the same (0). I have no clue how hard for those 6 year olds to be come college golfers in either sport. Or skip a niche sport like hockey and look at things like basketball, baseball, and football. How many kids tried those seriously versus golf?

 

And if you want a truelly difficult sport look at something like track and field. You need to be top 10 in the US to make money (and we are talking a couple hundred k, not millions ) in most events and the talent recruitment for events like the 100m is about as close to 100% as possible. Makes golf look like a cake walk. I am sure that all the other winner take all individual sports are similiar. Makes golf look like a cake walk when you can be the 100th best guy and still make 800k.:)

 

 

Seriously this whole discussions comes down to the limits of the handicap system for tournament golf.

[dap]

The hardest part for a +6 is getting on the PGA tour itself. I'm guessing if you took a +6 and have him play an entire year on tour without having to qualify, he would not finish last on the money list.

[Gamble Gamble]

There is also the element of "good fortune" and the ability to take advantage of it.

 

Jim Albus - excellent club professional player - qualified for some SR Tour Events in Florida in early 91. Made some decent money. Went back to his club job in the spring (NY Met Section). Did a Monday Q for the SR Tour event at Sleepy Hollow. Was 1st alternate. Someone got sick at last moment and WD. Jim gets in plays well and makes enough money to get in the Ford SR Players CH in Dearborn, MI. Shoots 279 and wins tournament - beating Lee Trevino.

 

Goes on to have a successful career on the SR PGA Tour with multiple wins.

 

Who knows what would have happened if he had not gotten in at Sleepy Hollow or made enough money to get in The FSP CH.

 

I think great short game and being a great putter can lead to success even if an average ball striker.

 

I find this topic enthralling. I would never pretend be able to tell the difference between a MLB player vs a great college baseball player if they were both masked and showing off their skills. The nuanced difference is beyond my level of recognition. I think this is just as true in golf for the average person.

 

However I would imagine that luck, or better yet randomized occurrences play a factor. Take Jamie Lovemark for instance. All the talent in the world but gets injured and falls off the map. Now thanks to a stellar web.com year he is regaining his foothold, but what if that injury didn't heal in the correct way. He would just be another "+6" that missed his chance.

 

Again, I would default to those that have been there, Monte/Dan to confirm or deny this, but it seems plausible that a significant portion revolves around luck. But above all else talent and work ethic get you into a position where luck can get you over the tipping point.

 

[CallawayLefty]

The hardest part for a +6 is getting on the PGA tour itself. I'm guessing if you took a +6 and have him play an entire year on tour without having to qualify, he would not finish last on the money list.

 

Yes he probably would. We beat this to death on another thread. It took slightly better than a +6 average (not handicap) to make the cut at the web.com event at my no-name home course in suburban Kansas City. I suppose if your handicap was +6 and your anticap was +5, then you might have a chance to not finish DFL on tour. But you'd have to miraculously make it to the tour first, which won't happen with those numbers.

 

You have no idea how good these guys really are. People like Monte and Dan who've played with them, coached them, etc. are qualified to talk. I suggested this a few times in the other thread - go watch a web event up close and personal. Spend some time at the range. Walk around with a random group full of guys you've never heard of. Compare the scores being shot to the course rating/slope for that course. Marvel in awe of how gifted, grizzled, and amazing those guys are.

 

Then snap your fingers and remember that MAYBE 5-10 guys out at that web event will ever stay on the PGA for more than a single season.

[iteachgolf]

 

 

Except for the fact that golf is played more than hockey worldwide and in virtually every country. Especially by the time you get to high school/ college aged. Professional golf is far more diverse than the NHL where an overwhelming majority come from a few countries. NHL is 51% Canadian and 24% American. 75% of the league is made up of athletes from 2 countries. Add in Sweden at 9% and Russia at 4% and nearly 90% of the league is from 4 countries. And a good number of americans play in candian juniors. Canadian major junior hockey players have about a 4% chance at making it the NHL. NCAA hockey players have about a 2% chance at making it.

 

The top 50 golfers in the world have been represented by 17 different countries in recent years. A ton of the US college spots are taken by foreigners. Golf is played by exponentially more people in more countries. The chances of a college golfer making the PGA Tour is 1 in 5,104 or 0.0196%. A canadian junior hockey player has a 204 times more likely chance to be make the NHL than a college golfer does to make the PGA Tour. You can double that for the US college hockey player.

 

Sure but it all depends where you start the stats. Want to compare the odds of a 6 year old mite making the NHL to a 6 year old first tee kid making the PGA tour? You will find the odds are close to the same (0). I have no clue how hard for those 6 year olds to be come college golfers in either sport. Or skip a niche sport like hockey and look at things like basketball, baseball, and football. How many kids tried those seriously versus golf?

 

And if you want a truelly difficult sport look at something like track and field. You need to be top 10 in the US to make money (and we are talking a couple hundred k, not millions ) in most events and the talent recruitment for events like the 100m is about as close to 100% as possible. Makes golf look like a cake walk. I am sure that all the other winner take all individual sports are similiar. Makes golf look like a cake walk when you can be the 100th best guy and still make 800k.:)

 

 

Seriously this whole discussions comes down to the limits of the handicap system for tournament golf.

 

I could go on and on about how you're wrong. At 6 years old on up still exponentially more kinds play golf to hockey. If you wanna use baseball, basketball, or football I can blow that up too. Those require very specific genetics to play at the professional level. Therefore exponentially decrease the pool of potential players. Therefore once you get to teenage years most who don't fit those genetic makeups don't try to play professionally. Same goes for track and field. No matter what I do I'm not going to beat Usain Bolt. No matter what I did I couldn't play those sports professionally due to my genetics. Golf excludes virtually no one and is played by a larger number of kids competitively once you get to college aged and there are far fewer spots. The fact that PGA Tour players make a ton of money is exactly why it's so competitive. If PGA tour players made what professional bowlers made it'd be a lot easier to be on tour. Because many greats would choose something more lucrative, which is exactly what happened in golf until the 1960-70s. Most guys in golf know that whoever won the Web.com event that week would have likely finished top 5 in the PGA Tour event that same week if he had the opportunity. Which is why you'll see some of those guys do well in majors or after Monday qualifying. Same goes for the Swingthought Tour guys (hooters). The winner there who shot -19 to -28 under on a given week would have likely done very well in the PGA Tour event that week. What separates the 999th ranked player in the world from number 100 is extremely small. That's why golf at the professional level is so hard. You also only get paid based on actual results. Not potential. There is no draft in golf. Everyone has to earn their way out there. You know how many top 5 college players never make it, who in any other sport would have been drafted top 5 and made millions of dollars simply based on potential? Golf is the only high dollar sport that doesn't have a draft and is 100% individual and isn't auto racing.

[dap]

The hardest part for a +6 is getting on the PGA tour itself. I'm guessing if you took a +6 and have him play an entire year on tour without having to qualify, he would not finish last on the money list.

 

Yes he probably would. We beat this to death on another thread. It took slightly better than a +6 average (not handicap) to make the cut at the web.com event at my no-name home course in suburban Kansas City. I suppose if your handicap was +6 and your anticap was +5, then you might have a chance to not finish DFL on tour. But you'd have to miraculously make it to the tour first, which won't happen with those numbers.

 

You have no idea how good these guys really are. People like Monte and Dan who've played with them, coached them, etc. are qualified to talk. I suggested this a few times in the other thread - go watch a web event up close and personal. Spend some time at the range. Walk around with a random group full of guys you've never heard of. Compare the scores being shot to the course rating/slope for that course. Marvel in awe of how gifted, grizzled, and amazing those guys are.

 

Then snap your fingers and remember that MAYBE 5-10 guys out at that web event will ever stay on the PGA for more than a single season.

I have no question the guys on the PGA tour are unbelievable. My point is a genuine +6 is no mug either. The difference could be just a lucky break here or there, having a purple patch at the right time around Q school. Tim Herron carries a + 4.8 at Whisper Rock and he's won 4 times on tour.

[ezpz]

I have no question the guys on the PGA tour are unbelievable. My point is a genuine +6 is no mug either. The difference could be just a lucky break here or there, having a purple patch at the right time around Q school. Tim Herron carries a + 4.8 at Whisper Rock and he's won 4 times on tour.

 

The point is not that a +6 can't shoot similar scores to a tour pro, they obviously can and probably even on on difficult courses. However their handicaps are based on the best 50% of their rounds, to play on tour they would have to shoot their handicap on any (extremely difficult) course 4 days in a row. That combination is close to impossible to achieve. This isn't even regarding the difficulty of making it through q school. You have to be consistently good, peak at the right moments (aka combine skill with some luck) on any course, in any condition. And that isn't even taking into account the mental stress the traveling can have on both your play and family life.

[dap]

I have no question the guys on the PGA tour are unbelievable. My point is a genuine +6 is no mug either. The difference could be just a lucky break here or there, having a purple patch at the right time around Q school. Tim Herron carries a + 4.8 at Whisper Rock and he's won 4 times on tour.

 

The point is not that a +6 can't shoot similar scores to a tour pro, they obviously can and probably even on on difficult courses. However their handicaps are based on the best 50% of their rounds, to play on tour they would have to shoot their handicap on any (extremely difficult) course 4 days in a row. That combination is close to impossible to achieve. This isn't even regarding the difficulty of making it through q school. You have to be consistently good, peak at the right moments (aka combine skill with some luck) on any course, in any condition. And that isn't even taking into account the mental stress the traveling can have on both your play and family life.

Not saying any +6 would be successful on tour. There are plenty of plenty of struggling pros. Not all of them are Jordan Spieth. Even Spieth doesn't shoot his handicap every round. His scoring average is around 69.

 

Have a look at the guys who miss the cut at tournaments. The ones at the bottom of the leaderboard probably has an 80 to his name.

[Plus5]

Threads a little over the top making it out like Pros are some sort of GODS. Lol yea they're really good but a lot of nutswingin in here

[Kuuuch]

Threads a little over the top making it out like Pros are some sort of GODS. Lol yea they're really good but a lot of nutswingin in here

 

I wouldn't say so much as Gods but I catch your drift. I think it shows how tough it can be to get to the next level even if you have the skill set to do so and also how timing plays a huge role in ones ability to showcase that skill.

[br61]

Mental capacity and consistency would be the biggest difference in my opinion. Don't forget GHIN of +6 doesn't mean that he did that almost every time and could've shot that very good score once out of every few rounds with other rounds being in mid 70's. Rounds of low to mid 70's won't get you very far in any professional tournaments.

[RichieHunt]

From a statistical standpoint, one of the biggest issues is play from the Red Zone (175-225 yards). I am helping out Matt Dobyns, who won the PGA Club Pro Championship and is currently playing at Riviera this week (as part of the package of events he's exempt for). Matt also played at U. of Texas. He generates 118-119 mph club speed and is an excellent driver of the ball and a pretty darn good putter. But, he has big issues from 175-225 yards which is so important on Tour. He wins club pro and mini-tour events quite often...but, the issue for him is that he rarely faces those approach shots in those events. He also can't practice that often because of his day job, but it helps to get to play those shots in actual events if you really want to get better. Yesterday at Riviera, he had 8 of those shots thru 15 holes. In a mini-tour or club pro event, he tells me that he may have 1-3 of those shots from that distance in a round.

 

Other than that, legit mini-tour players that can't make the Tour usually have struggles in at least 1 big area. They are either too short off the tee or they are horrendous putting or they struggle to hit those approach shots at a Tour level. And I would say that the lack of club speed and inability to hit Tour level approach shots is more common than not being able to putt well.

 

I think the mental stuff can be an issue, but it really starts to show up more when it comes to making a cut at a PGA Tour event or if they have a few good days and are getting into contention come Sunday. Obviously, there can be guys that are completely head cases and never stand a chance, but most of them are not head cases. They just struggle with fear and confidence at critical moments and need to learn to 'bet on themselves' at those critical moments instead of thinking there are insurmountable odds against them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[ironcat]

Probably the wife, the car and the bank balance :swoon:

[CallawayLefty]

Threads a little over the top making it out like Pros are some sort of GODS. Lol yea they're really good but a lot of nutswingin in here

 

Jordan Spieth averaged a +9.1 at Kapalua. His handicap was a +9.9 and his anticap was a +8.3. Yeah he's the best golfer on the planet, and had one of his best weeks in his career. But that's pretty unbelievable. He'd have a course handicap of +12 and have to give a true traveling scratch 6 shots a side. Think about that for a minute - the guy who wins your club championship every year needs 12 shots a round from Jordan Spieth. He's better than everybody else right now, but it's not like he wins every week - it's a rotating cast of characters on the PGA tour. There are guys who are incrementally better over the season, but any given week, it's all about who gets hot. And handicap is a measurement of what you can do when you're hot.

 

I have said it before though - the anticap is more impressive. Lots of guys on the web.com shoot 60-62. They just can shoot 72-74 the very next day.

[hankmoody]

Part of the difference is discussed in the famous Tom Kite story from one of Rotella's books (Golf is not a Game of Perfect?). (It's been over fifteen years since I've read the book so my recollection may not be spot on.)

 

Kite recounts a story of playing a round with top college golfers, who hit it as long (or even longer) than Kite, and played the round almost shot for shot with him. At the conclusion one of them asked in effect "I don't get it Mr. Kite, what's the big difference?"

 

Kite famously responded to the effect that he had the ability to do that and concentrate on each shot over 4 rounds. He was able to make very few mistakes per round. Those couple of loose shots or mistakes per round made by the college players, he advised, add up to 6-8 or even more shots over the course of a tournament. At golf's highest level, that's a make the cut or even make the Tour difference.

 

Call that ability what you will. My guess is that it comes easily to only a very few golfers in the game, even the ones with incredible talent.

[kowalgolf]

Just want to mention one man who has IT whatever IT is. Patrick Reed. Qualified for PGA tour through monday qualifiers then played 4 rounds of golf week after week till he made it. You can't teach that. You have to want it and dream it and know you belong out there.

[blehnhard]

Yesterday's round had to hurt JS's "anti cap" just a little.

[nbg352]

 

Been around a bunch of +6's or better, I ncluding myself to didn't care what it took, we were going to do it. There was a stretch in 1992 I was a +10. For me, I couldn't throw 70-72 on the board when I was struggling. It was a swing issue and a mechanical issue with my putting. Went to the ends of the earth to find it, went to sports psychologists when people told me it was mental, took Ritalin because people said there was lack of focus, went to short game gurus, swing gurus, got hypnotized...wasn't cuz I didn't want to be there.

 

I had friends whose marriages broke up in the search.

 

You're making broad generalizations about a sport you're not as familiar with as the one where you excelled and being dismissive of myself and some good friends who were great players and didn't make it.

I'm not at all being dismissive. If I seem to come across that way, then I apologize. While you may be right about my not being as familiar with golf as I am about hockey, I felt that there had to be similarities at the top tier for those who are or can be good enough but don't quite make it. You and Iteach have both made me rethink this. In Canada we don't have the same ladder to the top as you do in the U.S. Which is why the best young Canadian golfers go to the States to prepare for a future in that sport. In our rather large hockey system though, high school and college are not normally where our great players come from. They usually come through elite leagues and our Junior hockey programs. The players who don't quite get there play high school and college. They are very good but second tier talent. Usually. Anyway, you and Iteach have convinced me. I'll keep my preconceived opinion in check and just lurk and learn.......

[AdamB.]

After reading all these posts, it seems disheartening for someone to have an ambition to try to make the Tour and never have a shot to make it or have that lucky break. In a post above about a Web.com Tour Event with the final score being -18 to -24, give Jordan,Rory,Jason and Rickie that course and do you think they WILL or COULD post a lower score? Whats the difference between someone on the Web.com Tour shooting -18 to -24 at that course and say Bethpage or Valhalla? I really think it matters on what courses your play and how your handicap was established, is that +6 only a +6 from playing his home course or several courses around the US?

[Kuuuch]

Threads a little over the top making it out like Pros are some sort of GODS. Lol yea they're really good but a lot of nutswingin in here

 

Jordan Spieth averaged a +9.1 at Kapalua. His handicap was a +9.9 and his anticap was a +8.3. Yeah he's the best golfer on the planet, and had one of his best weeks in his career. But that's pretty unbelievable. He'd have a course handicap of +12 and have to give a true traveling scratch 6 shots a side. Think about that for a minute - the guy who wins your club championship every year needs 12 shots a round from Jordan Spieth. He's better than everybody else right now, but it's not like he wins every week - it's a rotating cast of characters on the PGA tour. There are guys who are incrementally better over the season, but any given week, it's all about who gets hot. And handicap is a measurement of what you can do when you're hot.

 

I have said it before though - the anticap is more impressive. Lots of guys on the web.com shoot 60-62. They just can shoot 72-74 the very next day.

 

Holy crap...when you put it like that, I now feel like I suck at golf ha!

[SHIVAN]

It seems like the one commonality I hear when the GC has the long successful pros on their shows is putting, and chipping in to the hole when you need to save par or have to have a birdie/eagle.

 

Pretty sure Lehman, Player, Daly, O'Meara, Faxon, Furyk, etc all said the biggest thing between the guys who hadn't made it, and the guys who had was the ability to get the ball in the hole "on command".

[MonteScheinblum]

After reading all these posts, it seems disheartening for someone to have an ambition to try to make the Tour and never have a shot to make it or have that lucky break. In a post above about a Web.com Tour Event with the final score being -18 to -24, give Jordan,Rory,Jason and Rickie that course and do you think they WILL or COULD post a lower score? Whats the difference between someone on the Web.com Tour shooting -18 to -24 at that course and say Bethpage or Valhalla? I really think it matters on what courses your play and how your handicap was established, is that +6 only a +6 from playing his home course or several courses around the US?

 

You could interchange the bottom 50 on the tour and the top 50 on the web.com and no one would know the difference. Except those 100 guys.

[Ghost of Snead]

Yesterday's round had to hurt JS's "anti cap" just a little.

 

Bruce - when you played the Sr Tour, did everyone cash and was it enough to cover expenses ?

[chrisgilly09]

Yup, no difference at all Monte

[starsail85]

The U.S. Handicap system is mental . Garcia who was the best amateur handicap at plus 6 Rory was plus 5 half the Ryder cup team turned pro off +3 for the euro team

 

I would say that on harder courses it is where the better players separate score wise

[blehnhard]

Ghost - All players in 78 man field made money. Most events in 93 were $600K events with winner getting $90K. Last place was about $600. I played 30 events (all I was eligible for) and won about $135K in official money. I had a small club deal with TM and along with unofficial money (Pro Ams etc), I probably made about $180K. More than enough to cover my expenses.

 

I went out on "my own money" - no financial backers.

 

For my total of 6 yrs - 93 thru 98, I had a little over $330K in official money. My 2 best paydays were about $40K each (tie for 2nd on Long Island in 93 and 5th place in Tampa in 95 after "4 spotting" on Monday.

 

Had I made it thru Q school at the end of 98, I would have continued on, but had enough of Monday Q's and minis by that time. Had more money in the bank then when I started (not even counting the amounts I had accumulated in the Tour Retirement program), so I called it a day. Worked for Soft Spikes / Pride Tee for a little more than 10 years and retired in July of 2009.

 

I would say that the biggest difference between me (and others like me) was the ability to make the 15' to 25' putts and the ability to "ride the wave" when things are going good and shoot some really low numbers. Good days for me might be 4 or 5 under, but I would always seem to only get one of those per event.

 

Bruce