Biggest difference between PGA pro and a +6

[CallawayLefty]

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?

 

Suffice to say, I think Jordan, Rory, Jason and Rickie are better than everyone on the web.com tour. It's hard to say by exactly how much. But if Jordan and Jason won 5-6 times on the PGA tour last year (including 3 of the 4 majors), I think they would have won more than that on the web. It still requires getting hot, and I don't think it's a situation where Jordan would just go out and win every week or anything. But if him and Jason were clearly the best on tour last year, they would have been the best on a full season of the web by an even greater margin.

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

"Ride the wave" - so true and accurate. Every really good golfer I have watched/known can do that. Just get hot and keep the gas pedal to the floor. When I get going, I notice myself starting to try to avoid mistakes rather than apply more pressure. It usually leads to me making a mistake anyway from being too tentative and then wondering why I didn't just keep firing. I always think that watching the web guys here in KC. My course isn't the hardest course I've ever played or anything, but it is a challenge for amateur golfers. They just demolish that place. There are multiple scores of 62 or lower every year. There has been a 60 and a few 61s. I just know somebody will shoot in the 50s sometime soon. It's rated 76.2/138. "Ride the wave" indeed.

[nbg352]

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.

 

Where did you play with a lot of guys who were definitely good enough to be in the NHL? Not in college and not in the minors - those guys aren't good enough to make it. So where are all these players good enough to be in the NHL hanging out?

Like me, they are spending their golden years on the golf course. Remember, I grew up at a time when there were 6 teams in the NHL. Many very good players who might very well make today's NHL toiled in the WHL, AHL, and the like. Many others simply gave up the dream and like me, played on some really good Senior teams or A level tournament teams.

[PJ72]

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.

 

A score of 69 played on courses rated at minimum 75 would be +6. BUT that 69 is his AVERAGE, not his best 10 of 20. Imagine if you took out all of his 74's, 75's etc and looked at it as an actual handicap, his average would be about 66-67, putting him at +8-9 minimum. It's staggering really.

[Dan Drake]

Wait, I thought the answer to the OP was "COP trace."

[thekru]

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.

 

At least 75% of kids playing D1 golf are not +6 caps.

[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.

 

At least 75% of kids playing D1 golf are not +6 caps.

 

And who said they were? I don't recall saying any such thing.

[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?

 

Suffice to say, I think Jordan, Rory, Jason and Rickie are better than the substantial majority of the people on the web.com tour. It's hard to say by exactly how much. But if Jordan and Jason won 5-6 times on the PGA tour last year (including 3 of the 4 majors), I think they would have won more than that on the web. It still requires getting hot, and I don't think it's a situation where Jordan would just go out and win every week or anything. But if him and Jason were clearly the best on tour last year, they would have been the best on a full season of the web by an even greater margin.

 

Now comes the ever important question of "Why is that?". Do you think the same person on the Web.com tour that shot -24 can do that same on a PGA Tour Course or are those courses much harder than Web.com? Is it because the Top 4 are just more consistent then others (ie. multiple wins in a season).

 

+6 is probably good enough for the tour (as I tried to google tour handicaps and they are around +4-+6)

[JustTheTips]

 

 

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.

 

If every kid in the US played golf instead of baseball, football, and the rest, do you think it would be easier or harder to make the tour? Right now 95% of the talent base never even tries. That means we get a tiger every 20 years instead of everyone.

 

Yes making it in Golf is hard. Making in pro football is hard. And so on. Other than being born 7' and being able to tie your own shoes( i.e. about 10% of those guys are in the NBA), making pro sports is insanely hard. And every sport thinks theirs is the hardest. And they all have their reasons. Tennis is probably the closest match to golf (not as much money for the low end people) and it is brutal also.

 

Yes the top web.com guy would have done well on tour that week. But the hot D-League guy might have had a good game in the NBA, hot AAA player might have batted .500 for 1 game, and so on. That is variance.

[Hstead]

Yup, no difference at all Monte

 

I have to disagree. Usually the top 50 from web.com has more combined pga tour wins than bottom 50 lol

[Kuuuch]

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.

 

If every kid in the US played golf instead of baseball, football, and the rest, do you think it would be easier or harder to make the tour? Right now 95% of the talent base never even tries. That means we get a tiger every 20 years instead of everyone.

 

Yes making it in Golf is hard. Making in pro football is hard. And so on. Other than being born 7' and being able to tie your own shoes( i.e. about 10% of those guys are in the NBA), making pro sports is insanely hard. And every sport thinks theirs is the hardest. And they all have their reasons. Tennis is probably the closest match to golf (not as much money for the low end people) and it is brutal also.

 

Yes the top web.com guy would have done well on tour that week. But the hot D-League guy might have had a good game in the NBA, hot AAA player might have batted .500 for 1 game, and so on. That is variance.

 

I think the toughest thing about going Pro in golf is that you're only judged on your performance for a specific period of time. I mean you can be a nobody on a farm in the middle of no where playing by yourself shooting low 60's every day but you've gotta show it in Q school. Basketball, football, baseball you can have an outstanding record and still make it because of that.

[iteachgolf]

The difference is you could finish 30th on the web.com money list and never get your PGA Tour card. You played great all year. Not one week. You be top 200 golfer in the US and literally wouldn't even have an opportunity to play the PGA Tour.

 

There are 446 players in the NBA on opening day. With injuries and 10 day contracts that number swells to over 450 every year. Which is the smallest league in major professional sports. There are 156 guys or fewer that tee it up each week on the PGA Tour. And again there is no draft. Every year there are more top 10 amateurs that turn pro and never make it than that do. In every other sport those kids are making millions guaranteed. In pretty much any other sport if you are ranked top 60 as an amateur you will sign a lucrative contract and be drafted. Almost all of which are guaranteed or partially guaranteed. Tennis is the only sport that parallels. Way way way more top 60 amateurs never even get the opportunity let alone succeed playing on the PGA Tour full time.

[MonteScheinblum]

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.

 

If every kid in the US played golf instead of baseball, football, and the rest, do you think it would be easier or harder to make the tour? Right now 95% of the talent base never even tries. That means we get a tiger every 20 years instead of everyone.

 

Yes making it in Golf is hard. Making in pro football is hard. And so on. Other than being born 7' and being able to tie your own shoes( i.e. about 10% of those guys are in the NBA), making pro sports is insanely hard. And every sport thinks theirs is the hardest. And they all have their reasons. Tennis is probably the closest match to golf (not as much money for the low end people) and it is brutal also.

 

Yes the top web.com guy would have done well on tour that week. But the hot D-League guy might have had a good game in the NBA, hot AAA player might have batted .500 for 1 game, and so on. That is variance.

 

I think the toughest thing about going Pro in golf is that you're only judged on your performance for a specific period of time. I mean you can be a nobody on a farm in the middle of no where playing by yourself shooting low 60's every day but you've gotta show it in Q school. Basketball, football, baseball you can have an outstanding record and still make it because of that.

 

Imagine a few scenarios.

 

1. Baseball-A guy in AAA hitting 500 foot homeruns showing the ability to have some hot weeks hitting for average as well, but strikes out a little too often.

2. Basketball-A guy putting up a few 20-10 games In the D league with a 45" vert and taking off from behind the freethrow line and dunking, but some trouble from the free throw line and defensive lapses.

3. Football-A guy with 4.2 speed scoring long TD's in the CFL, a little sloppy on the route running and inconsistency catching the ball.

 

The 3 pro leagues would be all over these guys. Well, in golf that was me. My short comings were exposed at Qschool big time. Given the chance at a 30 tournament schedule, I wouldn't have made it for sure, but my chances would have been much better.

[chrisgilly09]

^And if youre not a world beater as an amateur who receives sponsor exemptions once you turn pro, no one would ever know if you couldve capitalized on that opportunity. Tragically, your only crime is you peaked too late

[MonteScheinblum]

^And if youre not a world beater as an amateur who receives sponsor exemptions once you turn pro, no one would ever know if you couldve capitalized on that opportunity. Tragically, your only crime is you peaked too late

 

I'm trying to peak at 50

[blehnhard]

Fortunately for me, I did peak in my late 40's and early 50's. I was by far a better player at age 49 than I was in my 20's, 30's, and early 40's.

 

Bruce

[AdamB.]

So it seems that people need more chances to prove themselves? So how does tournaments work....say the Sony Open, you have your PGA Tour guys who are exempt, Sponsor Exemptions, and Monday Qualifiers. What happens if there are 10 spots open due to lack of PGA Tour player appearance, I assume you fill those spots with the other exemptions, do the top 25 people on the Web.com get first dibs on the spots or do they have to have a sponsors exemption or qualify?

 

Other sports, you have your good games and you have your bad games, you still get paid the same, but with Golf, one win could change your life, exemption for 2 years and invites to most of the majors.

[blehnhard]

There is a "pecking" order to get into Tour events with many categories. For "not so popular" events, it can go way down in categories. Vaughan Taylor last week at PB was an alternate by way of "Past Tour Winner Status (2 victories). He got in when enough people withdrew after deadline for entries (Friday 5pm the week before). Boom!! - he wins and has "got a job" for 2 years. VT has gotten into several events each year based upon that status but was never able to take advantage as he did last week.

 

Just another example of "good fortune" and a player taking advantage of it.

 

On the PGA Tour, a top ten gets you into the next regular event (not an invitational like Bay Hill or Colonial). When I was on the Sr Tour, a top ten got you a nice check but did nothing for getting you into any more events - back to Monday Q if did not have any "exempt status".

 

I was able to take good advantage of some kindness by Jack Nicklaus. JN played only 5 or 6 times per year and almost always at courses which had some affiliation with him. When I Monday Qualified for Tampa in 95, I was 4th spot which would normally get me in. Since JN played such a limited schedule when he decided to play, he would be an "addition to the field" which would take away the 4th MQ spot (me). JN said he would not play unless all 4 MQ's got in - teed off with 79 players that week (1 more that usual field). I finished 5th - worth about 40K.

 

Bruce

[RichieHunt]

The difference is you could finish 30th on the web.com money list and never get your PGA Tour card. You played great all year. Not one week. You be top 200 golfer in the US and literally wouldn't even have an opportunity to play the PGA Tour.

 

There are 446 players in the NBA on opening day. With injuries and 10 day contracts that number swells to over 450 every year. Which is the smallest league in major professional sports. There are 156 guys or fewer that tee it up each week on the PGA Tour. And again there is no draft. Every year there are more top 10 amateurs that turn pro and never make it than that do. In every other sport those kids are making millions guaranteed. In pretty much any other sport if you are ranked top 60 as an amateur you will sign a lucrative contract and be drafted. Almost all of which are guaranteed or partially guaranteed. Tennis is the only sport that parallels. Way way way more top 60 amateurs never even get the opportunity let alone succeed playing on the PGA Tour full time.

 

Vaughn Taylor is a good example of this.

 

His scoring was good over the past couple of seasons and his metrics in general were very good.

 

However, he couldn't quite crack into the top-10 in a limited amount of events he was playing and couldn't regain full-time status on Tour.

 

He was playing well enough to keep his card if he was able to play 25-events with a purse size per event at the Tour average. But, he couldn't get into that many events and that size of a purse without recording top-10's. Any Tour is extremely top heavy in terms of prize money. You don't reach a statistically significant amount in earnings versus the rest of the field unless you get a top-25 finish. That increases dramatically with a top-10 finish which increases dramatically from that with a top-3 finish and of course a victory. So, one could finish 30th in an event which means they played noticeably better than the average player, but it simply does not do much for them (unless they are in a big purse size event like Doral, Masters, The PLAYERS, etc).

 

This happened to Matt Weibring a while ago. In 2009 he was 96th in Adjusted Scoring Average out of 184 players. But, because his purse size per event was so small and he didn't record those big finishes...he lost his Tour card and has never regained it again. He was good enough to play with those guys on Tour, but sometimes circumstance kills a player and it's an incredibly small window that one may never regain anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RH

[Shaggie]

In organized sports you have to be good when your young and get decent scholarship. Recognized enough to get drafted for first round guarantee money. If your not good enough to play at that level they will find a way to get rid of you.

In golf you have all the oppurrunies you want don't have to go to college and be a superstar you just need to shoot 65s on 6500 yard courses to win minitour events Get a plan for sponsors who see they might get their money back and more.

People who make it in professional golf deserve it. People who don't ....

 

No tour player keeps handicap. It's all about now. Stats are good for practice schedule

Sam Saunders didn't make pga tour because he was AP grandson he made it because he earned it

It's why I love golf. Virtually no politics. Low score wins for today. You win right before your last defeat and then lose again.

Giving up sucks.

Knowing you can't make it is a gift. Helps the perspective on life of work and family.

 

 

 

[Ghost of Snead]

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

 

Bruce, you must've been out there with Robert Landers, the Roy McAvoy of the Senior Tour. Did you try and qualify for the PGA Tour before you hit 50 ?

[blehnhard]

Yes, I was out there when Robert made his way thru Q School. I never did regular PGA Tour School. Was a Club Professional from 1965 thru 1992. Did qualify 11 times for regular tour events thru PGA Sectional qualifying (Kemper Opens and Anheuser Busch). Also played in 3 PGA Championships (qualified thru finishes in PGA National Club Pro - qualified for a 4th one, but I would have to miss a week on the Sr Tour in 93. Also played in 1 US Open (Merion).

[MaccaRayDudley]

http://espn.go.com/espn/wire?id=5041539

 

Interesting article that might provide some perspective. I'm sure technical ability is a vital component, but there are other more important components that separate top performers from the rest of the pack. Quite hard to define what they actually are, but determination and unlimited amounts of self belief are at the core of this.

 

Check out the swing below. This guy won 4 times on the European Tour and placed 5th at a major. I doubt he listened to anybody who told him he couldn't play. He certainly didn't let a lack technical ability get in his way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MaccaRayDudley]

Here is another one of Eamonn

 

 

 

 

[Boomermike]

Of the possible culprits listed, distance has to be the least common. There are a lot more low cappers who can kill it but fall short in the other categories than there are guys who have the other categories conquered but hit it short.

[JustTheTips]

Of the possible culprits listed, distance has to be the least common. There are a lot more low cappers who can kill it but fall short in the other categories than there are guys who have the other categories conquered but hit it short.

 

In general I agree with that. I have played with guys with PGA tour distance. I have near seen one with PGA tour accuracy let alone short game. But I have to imagine if you took the bottom 25 distance wise on the web.com tour and game them ~30 yards (i.e. they go from the shortest hitters to amount the longest), you would see a lot of them getting tour cards.

 

The other thing to think about is imagine you are a very good teenage golfer but you are only mashing it 230 at 17 (maybe you are like 5'4 or literally have zero FT fibers:)). Will you put in the hours to get your game to the best it can be? Probably not a ton of people in that group either but you never know.

[ImAPrettyGoodPlayer]

There is a "pecking" order to get into Tour events with many categories. For "not so popular" events, it can go way down in categories. Vaughan Taylor last week at PB was an alternate by way of "Past Tour Winner Status (2 victories). He got in when enough people withdrew after deadline for entries (Friday 5pm the week before). Boom!! - he wins and has "got a job" for 2 years. VT has gotten into several events each year based upon that status but was never able to take advantage as he did last week.

 

Just another example of "good fortune" and a player taking advantage of it.

 

On the PGA Tour, a top ten gets you into the next regular event (not an invitational like Bay Hill or Colonial). When I was on the Sr Tour, a top ten got you a nice check but did nothing for getting you into any more events - back to Monday Q if did not have any "exempt status".

 

I was able to take good advantage of some kindness by Jack Nicklaus. JN played only 5 or 6 times per year and almost always at courses which had some affiliation with him. When I Monday Qualified for Tampa in 95, I was 4th spot which would normally get me in. Since JN played such a limited schedule when he decided to play, he would be an "addition to the field" which would take away the 4th MQ spot (me). JN said he would not play unless all 4 MQ's got in - teed off with 79 players that week (1 more that usual field). I finished 5th - worth about 40K.

 

Bruce

 

I won't qualify for the Champions Tour for another 20+ years due to the age restriction, so this question is just for my own personal knowledge. How was JN able to get you into tournaments and how did you benefit from his kindness?

[iteachgolf]

There is a "pecking" order to get into Tour events with many categories. For "not so popular" events, it can go way down in categories. Vaughan Taylor last week at PB was an alternate by way of "Past Tour Winner Status (2 victories). He got in when enough people withdrew after deadline for entries (Friday 5pm the week before). Boom!! - he wins and has "got a job" for 2 years. VT has gotten into several events each year based upon that status but was never able to take advantage as he did last week.

 

Just another example of "good fortune" and a player taking advantage of it.

 

On the PGA Tour, a top ten gets you into the next regular event (not an invitational like Bay Hill or Colonial). When I was on the Sr Tour, a top ten got you a nice check but did nothing for getting you into any more events - back to Monday Q if did not have any "exempt status".

 

I was able to take good advantage of some kindness by Jack Nicklaus. JN played only 5 or 6 times per year and almost always at courses which had some affiliation with him. When I Monday Qualified for Tampa in 95, I was 4th spot which would normally get me in. Since JN played such a limited schedule when he decided to play, he would be an "addition to the field" which would take away the 4th MQ spot (me). JN said he would not play unless all 4 MQ's got in - teed off with 79 players that week (1 more that usual field). I finished 5th - worth about 40K.

 

Bruce

 

I won't qualify for the Champions Tour for another 20+ years due to the age restriction, so this question is just for my own personal knowledge. How was JN able to get you into tournaments and how did you benefit from his kindness?

 

He literally explains how in detail in the post you quoted.

[BrianL99]

I won't qualify for the Champions Tour for another 20+ years due to the age restriction, so this question is just for my own personal knowledge. How was JN able to get you into tournaments and how did you benefit from his kindness?

 

\When I Monday Qualified for Tampa in 95, I was 4th spot which would normally get me in. Since JN played such a limited schedule when he decided to play, he would be an "addition to the field" which would take away the 4th MQ spot (me). JN said he would not play unless all 4 MQ's got in - teed off with 79 players that week (1 more that usual field). I finished 5th - worth about 40K.

 

Bruce

 

 

How did you quote the post and miss what it said?

[BrianL99]

These sorts of threads seem to come up at least once a week on this site. In my opinion, they all start with a flawed premise:

 

"Why isn't this super low handicapper on the Tour" or "How good do I have to be to make it on Tour, I'm a 2 now".

 

"Handicap" has little or nothing to do, with making it on Tour, from what I've seen. Handicaps are for amateurs. They are derived from a formula that means nothing if you're playing for money. There's "averaging". There is the "best 10 out of 20". It's just not like that, playing on Tour. As a couple of guys have mentioned, there are plenty of D1 players who are playing at 1 or Scratch and very few playing at +4 ... yet we watched Spieth walk off his college campus and start winning almost immediately on Tour.

 

It's not about your average score, 10 out of the last 20 times you play golf. It's not even about shooting 64 once or twice month.

 

It's mostly about shooting 68-69 every day, under any kind of conditions, when you have a cold, on courses that are tougher than most any amateur can imagine ... that and some good luck and fortuitous breaks.

 

Ask most any +2, when's the last time they shot 69, 4 days in a row, under tournament conditions. Probably not that often.

 

I know 2 guys who are similar to Bruce, in that they never played the PGA Tour, but qualified the hard way, at Sr. Tour School. For a variety of reasons, they didn't make it on the PGA Tour, but got their game together when they were grown up. Tough way to do it, as the Champion's Tour is about the hardest Tour to qualify for. How many guys qualified at your Qualifying School Bruce? 8 ?