What is the average handicap of a PGA tour player?

[CallawayLefty]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

[Coalminecanary]

I think one of the challenges is how to factor in the non-course playing conditions, that are almost impossible to replicate outside of a PGA Tour event. How do you factor in the difficulty of playing in front of fans? Or on TV? Or for your mortgage? Some guys might thrive under this pressure (and play better) and some may crack. How does finely-tuned equipment factor in? How about course scouting by your caddie?

[cardoustie]

Lefty

Good post. I played (as an Am) for the first 2 days of a Nationwide event .. and shred is a good word indeed sir

[PJ72]

this was googled

 

<H2 class="h2header ontheblog">On the Blog - Latest Article</H2>

Handicap Indeces of the Pros

By Bryan on February 8th, 2007 | Be the first to comment

 

David Mosher over at The Sand Trap recently posted a very interesting article about the handicap index ratings of the pros. Check out the full article here, but here is a summary of what was written.

 

 

Normally we apply a 0.96 multiplier to a person's average differential in calculating handicaps. This is to help figure in the "potential" of a player. A golfer with an un-adjusted handicap index of 5 becomes a 4.8 index after the 0.96 multiplier is applied. It would make little sense, however, to take a plus-5 handicap to +4.8, so we must instead divide by 0.96. That would make a +5 golfer a +5.2 golfer, again figuring in the "potential."

 

At the Top: Tiger Woods

What does it take to be the top golfer in the world? I did a lot of number crunching and came up with this chart and these shocking figures:

 

Used | Date | Score | CR/Slope | Diff. | Tournament---- ---- ----- -------- ----- ---------- * |

01/28/07 | 66 | 78.1/143 | 15.3

| Buick Invitational * | 01/27/07 | 69 | 78.1/143 | 11.5 | Buick Invitational | 01/26/07 | 72 | 78.1/143 | 7.7 | Buick Invitational |

01/27/07 | 66 | 78.1/143 | 8.3

| Buick Invitational * | 09/04/06 | 63 | 74.8/143 | 14.9 | Deutsche Bank * | 09/03/06 | 67 | 74.8/143 | 9.9 | Deutsche Bank | 09/02/06 | 72 | 74.8/143 | 3.5 | Deutsche Bank * | 09/01/06 | 66 | 74.8/143 | 11.1 | Deutsche Bank | 08/27/06 | 68 | 75.1/128 | 8.0 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. | 08/26/06 | 71 | 75.1/128 | 4.6 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. * | 08/25/06 | 64 | 75.1/128 | 12.6 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. | 08/24/06 | 67 | 75.1/128 | 9.2 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. * | 08/20/06 | 68 | 78.1/151 | 13.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/19/06 | 65 | 78.1/151 | 17.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/18/06 | 68 | 78.1/151 | 13.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/17/06 | 69 | 78.1/151 | 12.2 | PGA Championship | 08/06/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/05/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/04/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/03/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open---- -------- ----- -------- ----- ----------

 

Average Differential: 10.6Best 10 Average Differential: 13.2Handicap Index: +13.75

 

Now, take a deep breath and read that again. +13.75.

 

Tiger's worst ten differentials average out to +8.05.

 

Something like 10% of golfers ever reach single digit handicaps. Tiger's not only done that (while still in the womb, no doubt), but he's blown through the single digits on the other side of scratch and is in heretofore unexplored territory at +13.75. That may be the single best handicap index ever!

 

I've bolded a part that I didn't understand. How did he have two identical scores, yet his hcp differential (or whatever you call it) was 7 shots different?

[iteachgolf]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

[iteachgolf]

this was googled

 

<H2 class="h2header ontheblog">On the Blog - Latest Article</H2>

Handicap Indeces of the Pros

By Bryan on February 8th, 2007 | Be the first to comment

 

David Mosher over at The Sand Trap recently posted a very interesting article about the handicap index ratings of the pros. Check out the full article here, but here is a summary of what was written.

 

 

Normally we apply a 0.96 multiplier to a person's average differential in calculating handicaps. This is to help figure in the "potential" of a player. A golfer with an un-adjusted handicap index of 5 becomes a 4.8 index after the 0.96 multiplier is applied. It would make little sense, however, to take a plus-5 handicap to +4.8, so we must instead divide by 0.96. That would make a +5 golfer a +5.2 golfer, again figuring in the "potential."

 

At the Top: Tiger Woods

What does it take to be the top golfer in the world? I did a lot of number crunching and came up with this chart and these shocking figures:

 

Used | Date | Score | CR/Slope | Diff. | Tournament---- ---- ----- -------- ----- ---------- * |

01/28/07 | 66 | 78.1/143 | 15.3

| Buick Invitational * | 01/27/07 | 69 | 78.1/143 | 11.5 | Buick Invitational | 01/26/07 | 72 | 78.1/143 | 7.7 | Buick Invitational |

01/27/07 | 66 | 78.1/143 | 8.3

| Buick Invitational * | 09/04/06 | 63 | 74.8/143 | 14.9 | Deutsche Bank * | 09/03/06 | 67 | 74.8/143 | 9.9 | Deutsche Bank | 09/02/06 | 72 | 74.8/143 | 3.5 | Deutsche Bank * | 09/01/06 | 66 | 74.8/143 | 11.1 | Deutsche Bank | 08/27/06 | 68 | 75.1/128 | 8.0 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. | 08/26/06 | 71 | 75.1/128 | 4.6 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. * | 08/25/06 | 64 | 75.1/128 | 12.6 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. | 08/24/06 | 67 | 75.1/128 | 9.2 | WGC - Bridgestone Inv. * | 08/20/06 | 68 | 78.1/151 | 13.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/19/06 | 65 | 78.1/151 | 17.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/18/06 | 68 | 78.1/151 | 13.5 | PGA Championship * | 08/17/06 | 69 | 78.1/151 | 12.2 | PGA Championship | 08/06/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/05/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/04/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open | 08/03/06 | 66 | 74.3/133 | 9.8 | Buick Open---- -------- ----- -------- ----- ----------

 

Average Differential: 10.6Best 10 Average Differential: 13.2Handicap Index: +13.75

 

Now, take a deep breath and read that again. +13.75.

 

Tiger's worst ten differentials average out to +8.05.

 

Something like 10% of golfers ever reach single digit handicaps. Tiger's not only done that (while still in the womb, no doubt), but he's blown through the single digits on the other side of scratch and is in heretofore unexplored territory at +13.75. That may be the single best handicap index ever!

 

I've bolded a part that I didn't understand. How did he have two identical scores, yet his hcp differential (or whatever you call it) was 7 shots different?

 

Because he didn't. Someone's math is poor. They list his 72 with virtually the same differential.

[CallawayLefty]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

 

Agreed - it's a sight to behold. I just calculated - the guy who won last year was Martin Pillar. He shot a 62, two 65s, and a 66 for a total of -26. His "handicap" for the event was +9.9 (with a +11.6 and a +9.1 as his two low scores). His "anticap" was a +8.7 (with a +9.1 and a +8.3 being his two worst scores). Now I get that he was the guy who won that week, so was clearly the "hottest" player out there. But as iteach correctly pointed out, you had to play to basically a +6.3ish to even make the cut. The ONLY caveat I will give on these numbers is that there are a couple of holes I can think of where they don't play the tips. As noted above, they play one par 5 as a par 4, and they play from the blues which is about 10 yards up. There is also a par 3 where they play the blues to allow for exciting shots coming in to a grandstand. So MAYBE that course rating is a quarter point high, but still...

[juststeve]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

 

Agreed - it's a sight to behold. I just calculated - the guy who won last year was Martin Pillar. He shot a 62, two 65s, and a 66 for a total of -26. His "handicap" for the event was +9.9 (with a +11.6 and a +9.1 as his two low scores). His "anticap" was a +8.7 (with a +9.1 and a +8.3 being his two worst scores). Now I get that he was the guy who won that week, so was clearly the "hottest" player out there. But as iteach correctly pointed out, you had to play to basically a +6.3ish to even make the cut. The ONLY caveat I will give on these numbers is that there are a couple of holes I can think of where they don't play the tips. As noted above, they play one par 5 as a par 4, and they play from the blues which is about 10 yards up. There is also a par 3 where they play the blues to allow for exciting shots coming in to a grandstand. So MAYBE that course rating is a quarter point high, but still...

 

I agree with Iteach generally but would suggest that calculating a handicap for the winner of a tournament based upon four rounds doesn't tell us much about average handicaps of tour players.

 

Steve

[TheCityGame]

Here's a real "back of the envelope" calculation.

 

YOUR handicap is close to the average of the top HALF of your scores (your differentials, that is). You throw out the bottom half, and then average the rest. That's why people say you'll beat your handicap 25% of the time.

 

So, if you treat "THE TOUR" as if it's one golfer with multiple rounds, you can try to average the top HALF of tour pros. To do this, I used "scoring before the cut". We don't want to use total scoring since it can be weighted toward the better players since they play more rounds because they make the cut. Anyway, for all of 2015, the average of the top half of golfers scoring before the cut was roughly 70.24.

 

Now, I don't KNOW what PGA courses are rated on average, but generally in the 78 range. That's going to get you a handicap in the +8 range.

 

That's PROBABLY too low for most pros. . .maybe the HDCP of the "worst" guys. Keep in mind, also, that Day's scoring average last year (before the cut) was 68.9. Matt Every's was 72.9. That's 4 strokes right there from top to bottom.

 

But, at some point, it doesn't make sense to extrapolate to the pros. I don't think that the additional difficulty of moving tees hurts them as much. . .at a course I play a lot, I could see a pro being a +8 if all he did was play the up tees, and a +10 if all he did was play the back tees? Why? -- he's just going to be playing effectively to the exact same positions on most tee shots. A lot of holes the fairway runs out, or pinches, or dog legs, or there's a speed slot that he's going to find whether he's playing 430 or 460. So, the SLOPE/RATING which corrects for ME playing that course (I CAN get to good positions from the blues. I can't always get there from the blacks) is really just going to drive a pro's handicap closer to scratch if he plays up.

 

Or CallawayLeftty's course. . .it's rated 76 (as he said) and guys are going -20 there. Well, sometimes they play on courses rated 78 and shoot even par, so which one do you want to look at? There's so much more that goes into scoring. One tournament isn't enough to go on.

[iteachgolf]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

 

Agreed - it's a sight to behold. I just calculated - the guy who won last year was Martin Pillar. He shot a 62, two 65s, and a 66 for a total of -26. His "handicap" for the event was +9.9 (with a +11.6 and a +9.1 as his two low scores). His "anticap" was a +8.7 (with a +9.1 and a +8.3 being his two worst scores). Now I get that he was the guy who won that week, so was clearly the "hottest" player out there. But as iteach correctly pointed out, you had to play to basically a +6.3ish to even make the cut. The ONLY caveat I will give on these numbers is that there are a couple of holes I can think of where they don't play the tips. As noted above, they play one par 5 as a par 4, and they play from the blues which is about 10 yards up. There is also a par 3 where they play the blues to allow for exciting shots coming in to a grandstand. So MAYBE that course rating is a quarter point high, but still...

 

I agree with Iteach generally but would suggest that calculating a handicap for the winner of a tournament based upon four rounds doesn't tell us much about average handicaps of tour players.

 

Steve

 

75th scoring average on web.com tour is 70.45. Player finished 90th on the money list and lost his card. Todd Baek averaged 70.35 while finishing 77th on money list and losing full status as well. Top average was 68.6. Would guess average rating on Web.com courses is 75-76.

[CallawayLefty]

I agree that looking at a winner from one tournament isn't a good representation - more just food for thought.

 

I would also suggest that anticap is far more important for pros than handicap, and is also the thing that the guy who's a +4 at your home course doesn't have. Successful pros can shoot 61 but also rarely shoot 78 - at least if they want to keep their card. A guy who shoots 65 two days and 75 two days isn't as "good" on tour as the guy who shoots 70, 70, 70, 69, although the first guy's handicap would be substantially lower. And there are MANY players at the developmental tour level that do exactly that. They can go out one day and play like a major champion and go out the next day and play like a guy who your average club scratch could keep up with. That's not going to be the case with anybody that has kept a PGA tour card very long. They are too steady and too well rounded. If their driving isn't working one day, their irons are. Or if their irons aren't, their chipping is. Or if their chipping isn't, their putting is. Regardless, they typically find a way to keep it well under the course rating every single time they play, which puts them into a category of player that you simply don't find in the "normal"/amateur handicap system. There are a ton of + players in my local amateur associations - they can just as easily shoot 80 as they can 70. And these are the guys who win local state and city Ams, qualify for USGA national events, win at the college level, etc. Pros just don't do that.

[ram01002]

Iteach is spot on - I read an article where Jimmy Walker plays as a +10 in a club event. +4 full of tournament scores is a top-level amateur at the state level. +4 full of casual scores is DONATING to the amateur field, imo.

[DavePelz4]

Mickelson is currently a +5.6 at Whisper Rock. The course rating for many of his rounds is 77/152.

[iteachgolf]

Here's a real "back of the envelope" calculation.

 

YOUR handicap is close to the average of the top HALF of your scores (your differentials, that is). You throw out the bottom half, and then average the rest. That's why people say you'll beat your handicap 25% of the time.

 

So, if you treat "THE TOUR" as if it's one golfer with multiple rounds, you can try to average the top HALF of tour pros. To do this, I used "scoring before the cut". We don't want to use total scoring since it can be weighted toward the better players since they play more rounds because they make the cut. Anyway, for all of 2015, the average of the top half of golfers scoring before the cut was roughly 70.24.

 

Now, I don't KNOW what PGA courses are rated on average, but generally in the 78 range. That's going to get you a handicap in the +8 range.

 

That's PROBABLY too low for most pros. . .maybe the HDCP of the "worst" guys. Keep in mind, also, that Day's scoring average last year (before the cut) was 68.9. Matt Every's was 72.9. That's 4 strokes right there from top to bottom.

 

But, at some point, it doesn't make sense to extrapolate to the pros. I don't think that the additional difficulty of moving tees hurts them as much. . .at a course I play a lot, I could see a pro being a +8 if all he did was play the up tees, and a +10 if all he did was play the back tees? Why? -- he's just going to be playing effectively to the exact same positions on most tee shots. A lot of holes the fairway runs out, or pinches, or dog legs, or there's a speed slot that he's going to find whether he's playing 430 or 460. So, the SLOPE/RATING which corrects for ME playing that course (I CAN get to good positions from the blues. I can't always get there from the blacks) is really just going to drive a pro's handicap closer to scratch if he plays up.

 

Or CallawayLeftty's course. . .it's rated 76 (as he said) and guys are going -20 there. Well, sometimes they play on courses rated 78 and shoot even par, so which one do you want to look at? There's so much more that goes into scoring. One tournament isn't enough to go on.

 

The guys averaging 70.5 which is 5 shots below course rating on AVERAGE, are losing their cards. Their handicap would be considerably lower. They are +7 at least and are losing their card. Pretty easy to extrapolate that a +4 will get absolutely steamrolled in professional golf.

[CallawayLefty]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

 

Agreed - it's a sight to behold. I just calculated - the guy who won last year was Martin Pillar. He shot a 62, two 65s, and a 66 for a total of -26. His "handicap" for the event was +9.9 (with a +11.6 and a +9.1 as his two low scores). His "anticap" was a +8.7 (with a +9.1 and a +8.3 being his two worst scores). Now I get that he was the guy who won that week, so was clearly the "hottest" player out there. But as iteach correctly pointed out, you had to play to basically a +6.3ish to even make the cut. The ONLY caveat I will give on these numbers is that there are a couple of holes I can think of where they don't play the tips. As noted above, they play one par 5 as a par 4, and they play from the blues which is about 10 yards up. There is also a par 3 where they play the blues to allow for exciting shots coming in to a grandstand. So MAYBE that course rating is a quarter point high, but still...

 

I agree with Iteach generally but would suggest that calculating a handicap for the winner of a tournament based upon four rounds doesn't tell us much about average handicaps of tour players.

 

Steve

 

As noted in my post - I included the winner and what it took to just make the cut. The range was +6.3 to +9.9. I would say if you can maintain a +6 with a reasonable anticap under tournament conditions on the web.com, that you'll probably make just about enough money to pay for a studio apartment and car insurance on your 1999 Toyota Camry that your parents bought you before you went out to play pro golf.

[iteachgolf]

Mickelson is currently a +5.6 at Whisper Rock. The course rating for many of his rounds is 77/152.

 

That's not his handicap. I've covered this in the past. The head pro there inputs all the Tour guys that play there scores from their tour events in the computer. They are only tournament scores and don't reflect the true difficulty level of the courses being played. Also don't reflect any casual rounds at all.

 

Only 4 rounds are 77.2/152. That was the PGA Championship. It's not a legitimate handicap at all and he's not the one posting the scores.

[TheCityGame]

Here's a real "back of the envelope" calculation.

 

YOUR handicap is close to the average of the top HALF of your scores (your differentials, that is). You throw out the bottom half, and then average the rest. That's why people say you'll beat your handicap 25% of the time.

 

So, if you treat "THE TOUR" as if it's one golfer with multiple rounds, you can try to average the top HALF of tour pros. To do this, I used "scoring before the cut". We don't want to use total scoring since it can be weighted toward the better players since they play more rounds because they make the cut. Anyway, for all of 2015, the average of the top half of golfers scoring before the cut was roughly 70.24.

 

Now, I don't KNOW what PGA courses are rated on average, but generally in the 78 range. That's going to get you a handicap in the +8 range.

 

That's PROBABLY too low for most pros. . .maybe the HDCP of the "worst" guys. Keep in mind, also, that Day's scoring average last year (before the cut) was 68.9. Matt Every's was 72.9. That's 4 strokes right there from top to bottom.

 

But, at some point, it doesn't make sense to extrapolate to the pros. I don't think that the additional difficulty of moving tees hurts them as much. . .at a course I play a lot, I could see a pro being a +8 if all he did was play the up tees, and a +10 if all he did was play the back tees? Why? -- he's just going to be playing effectively to the exact same positions on most tee shots. A lot of holes the fairway runs out, or pinches, or dog legs, or there's a speed slot that he's going to find whether he's playing 430 or 460. So, the SLOPE/RATING which corrects for ME playing that course (I CAN get to good positions from the blues. I can't always get there from the blacks) is really just going to drive a pro's handicap closer to scratch if he plays up.

 

Or CallawayLeftty's course. . .it's rated 76 (as he said) and guys are going -20 there. Well, sometimes they play on courses rated 78 and shoot even par, so which one do you want to look at? There's so much more that goes into scoring. One tournament isn't enough to go on.

 

The guys averaging 70.5 which is 5 shots below course rating on AVERAGE, are losing their cards. Their handicap would be considerably lower. They are +7 at least and are losing their card. Pretty easy to extrapolate that a +4 will get absolutely steamrolled in professional golf.

Are you saying that guys averaging 70.5 are losing their cards or guys on the web.com? This is 2015. . .

 

 

[CallawayLefty]

Mickelson is currently a +5.6 at Whisper Rock. The course rating for many of his rounds is 77/152.

 

Would love to see Phil play your average scratch and only give them 6 shots. I would be impressed if that scratch could very frequently shoot a NET score within 5 shots of Phil's gross.

[TheCityGame]

I agree about a +4 getting steam rolled.

[CallawayLefty]

By the way, for all those guys that don't think tournament golf adds anything, why don't you go test your handicap at your local am event and report back. Those that regularly play tournaments can usually attest that it's a whole different ball game. Like, for example, the first time you can't just pick it up after you've reached your gentlemen's double and have to play out the hole while all your partners sit there looking at the ground trying to not make eye contact and embarrass you while you make your 12. Been there done that. And I'm just playing for "fun," not money.

 

At the am level, I'm pretty impressed by guys that can regularly keep it in the 72-75 range (EDIT - and I mean in TOURNAMENTS). There are lots of + handicaps who can't do that.

[iteachgolf]

The web.com tour plays an event at my home course. The winner usually shoots around -25 playing the course as a par 71 (it's actually a par 72, and a short par 5 converts to a par 4). It's rated 76.2/138 from the tips, and the lowest score I have ever seen a member shoot is 68 - and he's a +4. In the years I have been watching, there has been a 60 and multiple 61s. One of the 61s was shot in what basically amounted to a wind storm (Kansas). The cut line last year was -4, so back to back 69s didn't make it.

 

And this is the tour where maybe 5-10 people per year ever go on to do anything noteworthy on the PGA Tour.

 

EDIT - And as an aside, I obviously play the course regularly, and I have never heard anyone call it an "easy" course for amateur golfers. It's a 7,200 yard Jack Nicklaus design. It has pretty wide landing areas off the tee, but other than that is pretty well defended. I regularly follow web.com groups, and they just shred that place. It's a joke to them, and I have never seen anything like it from any other amateur I have played with.

 

And people think I'm crazy when I say the successful web.com guys are +8 or better and a +6 is losing his card. In your example a +6 would miss the cut and that's if he actually played to a +6 in the event. And it's not uncommon. 3-5 under par is often the cut in Web.com events. 2 or 3 years ago -4 was the average cut on the EGolf Tour full of guys most people have never heard of.

 

Agreed - it's a sight to behold. I just calculated - the guy who won last year was Martin Pillar. He shot a 62, two 65s, and a 66 for a total of -26. His "handicap" for the event was +9.9 (with a +11.6 and a +9.1 as his two low scores). His "anticap" was a +8.7 (with a +9.1 and a +8.3 being his two worst scores). Now I get that he was the guy who won that week, so was clearly the "hottest" player out there. But as iteach correctly pointed out, you had to play to basically a +6.3ish to even make the cut. The ONLY caveat I will give on these numbers is that there are a couple of holes I can think of where they don't play the tips. As noted above, they play one par 5 as a par 4, and they play from the blues which is about 10 yards up. There is also a par 3 where they play the blues to allow for exciting shots coming in to a grandstand. So MAYBE that course rating is a quarter point high, but still...

 

I agree with Iteach generally but would suggest that calculating a handicap for the winner of a tournament based upon four rounds doesn't tell us much about average handicaps of tour players.

 

Steve

 

As noted in my post - I included the winner and what it took to just make the cut. The range was +6.3 to +9.9. I would say if you can maintain a +6 with a reasonable anticap under tournament conditions on the web.com, that you'll probably make just about enough money to pay for a studio apartment and car insurance on your 1999 Toyota Camry that your parents bought you before you went out to play pro golf.

 

Not even. Likely lose money after travel and caddy. Let's assume a +6 would average 71 in tournament rounds. He's only play to a +6 roughly 25% of the time. Meaning if he plays well he'd make a handful of cuts and miss many of them.

 

Tyler McCumber is extremely good and averaged 71 and lost his card. So did Casey Wittenberg who averaged 70.95. He finished 133rd on the money list with $35,320 in 20 events. Casey was on the PGA Tour in 2013 and has multiple Web.com wins.

 

$35k in 20 events out there will lose you money. With Caddy, airfare, hotel, food etc it cost $2k a week on tour EASY. So in 20 events he averaged under 71 and spent more money than he made playing golf.

[iteachgolf]

Here's a real "back of the envelope" calculation.

 

YOUR handicap is close to the average of the top HALF of your scores (your differentials, that is). You throw out the bottom half, and then average the rest. That's why people say you'll beat your handicap 25% of the time.

 

So, if you treat "THE TOUR" as if it's one golfer with multiple rounds, you can try to average the top HALF of tour pros. To do this, I used "scoring before the cut". We don't want to use total scoring since it can be weighted toward the better players since they play more rounds because they make the cut. Anyway, for all of 2015, the average of the top half of golfers scoring before the cut was roughly 70.24.

 

Now, I don't KNOW what PGA courses are rated on average, but generally in the 78 range. That's going to get you a handicap in the +8 range.

 

That's PROBABLY too low for most pros. . .maybe the HDCP of the "worst" guys. Keep in mind, also, that Day's scoring average last year (before the cut) was 68.9. Matt Every's was 72.9. That's 4 strokes right there from top to bottom.

 

But, at some point, it doesn't make sense to extrapolate to the pros. I don't think that the additional difficulty of moving tees hurts them as much. . .at a course I play a lot, I could see a pro being a +8 if all he did was play the up tees, and a +10 if all he did was play the back tees? Why? -- he's just going to be playing effectively to the exact same positions on most tee shots. A lot of holes the fairway runs out, or pinches, or dog legs, or there's a speed slot that he's going to find whether he's playing 430 or 460. So, the SLOPE/RATING which corrects for ME playing that course (I CAN get to good positions from the blues. I can't always get there from the blacks) is really just going to drive a pro's handicap closer to scratch if he plays up.

 

Or CallawayLeftty's course. . .it's rated 76 (as he said) and guys are going -20 there. Well, sometimes they play on courses rated 78 and shoot even par, so which one do you want to look at? There's so much more that goes into scoring. One tournament isn't enough to go on.

 

The guys averaging 70.5 which is 5 shots below course rating on AVERAGE, are losing their cards. Their handicap would be considerably lower. They are +7 at least and are losing their card. Pretty easy to extrapolate that a +4 will get absolutely steamrolled in professional golf.

Are you saying that guys averaging 70.5 are losing their cards or guys on the web.com? This is 2015. . .

 

 

 

Web.com which is painfully clear in my post. Web.com courses play much closer to how course was playing when rated. Most PGA Tour venues close down WEEKS before to toughen them up for the event. Web.com events are basically setup like your club championship. So slightly harder than rating would reflect. And averaging 70.5 loses your card. 70.45 average in 20 events got you 90th on money list and a trip to Q school. With that average he only made 50% of his cuts.

[ram01002]

By the way, for all those guys that don't think tournament golf adds anything, why don't you go test your handicap at your local am event and report back. Those that regularly play tournaments can usually attest that it's a whole different ball game. Like, for example, the first time you can't just pick it up after you've reached your gentlemen's double and have to play out the hole while all your partners sit there looking at the ground trying to not make eye contact and embarrass you while you make your 12. Been there done that. And I'm just playing for "fun," not money.

 

At the am level, I'm pretty impressed by guys that can regularly keep it in the 72-75 range (EDIT - and I mean in TOURNAMENTS). There are lots of + handicaps who can't do that.

 

+10000000

[CallawayLefty]

 

Not even. Likely lose money after travel and caddy. Let's assume a +6 would average 71 in tournament rounds. He's only play to a +6 roughly 25% of the time. Meaning if he plays well he'd make a handful of cuts and miss many of them.

 

Tyler McCumber is extremely good and averaged 71 and lost his card. So did Casey Wittenberg who averaged 70.95. He finished 133rd on the money list with $35,320 in 20 events. Casey was on the PGA Tour in 2013 and has multiple Web.com wins.

 

$35k in 20 events out there will lose you money. With Caddy, airfare, hotel, food etc it cost $2k a week on tour EASY. So in 20 events he averaged under 71 and spent more money than he made playing golf.

 

Oh you don't have to convince me. I was being generous for the doubters. I've played in enough am tournaments with "club" plus players and have watched enough web.com with my own two eyes to know exactly how good they are. It's the whole "the best golfer you know" thing. As in the "the best golfer you know ain't sh*t."

 

There's only a few hundred guys on the planet making a decent living playing golf. Until you either (a) play with one of them or (b) study one of them closely and really understand how good they are, you'll just never get it. Of course your average 8 handicap doesn't understand how good a pro is. A better guy to ask is a guy who's a +4 and has actually played with them. And I love it when you hear that +4 guy get asked why they didn't go pro. In most cases they are very quick to reveal that they thought about it or tried, and gave up pretty quickly when they realized they'd need 2 a side from some no name on the web.com tour who makes $38,000 a year.

[Evil Ecstasy]

So we've established +6 gets cut from web.com, what about +8? Does a +8 get cut from the PGA tour ITeach?

 

[CallawayLefty]

So we've established +6 gets cut from web.com, what about +8? Does a +8 get cut from the PGA tour ITeach?

 

I'm not iteach, but my gut feeling is that +6 to +7 is the cut off. +7 with a reasonable anticap can probably make some cuts and survive on the web, +8 can probably earn on the web, and +9 probably can probably succeed and move on to the PGA tour. This is all dependent on anticap, which I noted above is in my opinion probably as important as handicap. A guy with a +7 handicap but a +6 anticap is probably far better off than a guy with a +9 handicap but a +4 anticap. Handicap is just a really imperfect measurement for these guys.

[Evil Ecstasy]

So we've established +6 gets cut from web.com, what about +8? Does a +8 get cut from the PGA tour ITeach?

 

I'm not iteach, but my gut feeling is that +6 to +7 is the cut off. +7 with a reasonable anticap can probably make some cuts and survive on the web, +8 can probably earn on the web, and +9 probably can probably succeed and move on to the PGA tour. This is all dependent on anticap, which I noted above is in my opinion probably as important as handicap. A guy with a +7 handicap but a +6 anticap is probably far better off than a guy with a +9 handicap but a +4 anticap. Handicap is just a really imperfect measurement for these guys.

 

Wow so +9 handicap with +7 anticap necessary to make PGA tour?

[CallawayLefty]

So we've established +6 gets cut from web.com, what about +8? Does a +8 get cut from the PGA tour ITeach?

 

I'm not iteach, but my gut feeling is that +6 to +7 is the cut off. +7 with a reasonable anticap can probably make some cuts and survive on the web, +8 can probably earn on the web, and +9 probably can probably succeed and move on to the PGA tour. This is all dependent on anticap, which I noted above is in my opinion probably as important as handicap. A guy with a +7 handicap but a +6 anticap is probably far better off than a guy with a +9 handicap but a +4 anticap. Handicap is just a really imperfect measurement for these guys.

 

Wow so +9 handicap with +7 anticap necessary to make PGA tour?

 

Depending on your view on course ratings, perhaps. Put it this way - something significantly better than a +6 is required, as +6 appears to put you in a very likely missed cut on the web.com tour. And EDIT - my jumps may be too big, as I don't think that there's really a 2 shot difference between the best and the middle on the web.com. It's probably more like +7, +7.75, +8.5 or something like that.

[chrisgilly09]

Seems legit

[b.helts]

I think the difficulty of web.com courses is being exaggerated.