What is the average handicap of a PGA tour player?

[ram01002]

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

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

[NCHACK85]

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

I don't think it is. When they used to have the Virginia Beach Open at the TPC there. The course rating on the championship tees was like 77.5, and I have played it day after and it was totally harder than under normal conditions. The rough alone was like triple the length and they cut the greens a little bit shorter causing true greens to become rock hard. It's also a Pete Dye course, and Stewart Cink helped planned it out.

[b.helts]

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

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

OK.

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

I don't think it is. When they used to have the Virginia Beach Open at the TPC there. The course rating on the championship tees was like 77.5, and I have played it day after and it was totally harder than under normal conditions. The rough alone was like triple the length and they cut the greens a little bit shorter causing true greens to become rock hard. It's also a Pete Dye course, and Stewart Cink helped planned it out.

I have no doubt that there are difficult courses that are played on the web.com tour. Perhaps I should have said I think the average web.com course difficulty is being overestimated.

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

 

I can only speak to my home course - I can tell you that it certainly plays at least to the SAME level of difficulty that it is rated, and the numbers I provided above (+6.3 AVERAGE for two days misses the cut, +9.9 wins it) were based just off of the stated rating for USGA handicap purposes. I actually don't think our course plays harder than that. The only course alteration is speeding up the greens a bit from their normal 10.5 to something a touch faster. Pins are pretty stock.

[NCHACK85]

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

 

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

 

I can only speak to my home course - I can tell you that it certainly plays at least to the SAME level of difficulty that it is rated, and the numbers I provided above (+6.3 AVERAGE for two days misses the cut, +9.9 wins it) were based just off of the stated rating for USGA handicap purposes. I actually don't think our course plays harder than that. The only course alteration is speeding up the greens a bit from their normal 10.5 to something a touch faster. Pins are pretty stock.

I think it also has to do with the course lay out as well. VB national (used to be TPC VB) is fairly open its main defense is its length and the wind, so they had to grow the rough and make the greens faster to make it break more. Since it's the buy.com tour, the length wasn't a great defense since the pros bombed it out there. If I remember correctly it played around 7150-7200 during the tournaments. They stopped playing there because they couldn't get a crowd there and the last 3 years you didn't need a ticket or anything, you just had to show up and walk in.

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

 

I can only speak to my home course - I can tell you that it certainly plays at least to the SAME level of difficulty that it is rated, and the numbers I provided above (+6.3 AVERAGE for two days misses the cut, +9.9 wins it) were based just off of the stated rating for USGA handicap purposes. I actually don't think our course plays harder than that. The only course alteration is speeding up the greens a bit from their normal 10.5 to something a touch faster. Pins are pretty stock.

I think it also has to do with the course lay out as well. VB national (used to be TPC VB) is fairly open its main defense is its length and the wind, so they had to grow the rough and make the greens faster to make it break more. Since it's the buy.com tour, the length wasn't a great defense since the pros bombed it out there. If I remember correctly it played around 7150-7200 during the tournaments. They stopped playing there because they couldn't get a crowd there and the last 3 years you didn't need a ticket or anything, you just had to show up and walk in.

 

My course is a wide open links course. It's long by regular player standards at 7,200 yards, but that's no issue for them. So basically they can just whip out driver on every tee and crank it because they hit it too accurately to have to worry about the fairway bunkers and minimal rough. It is defenseless against them to say the least. The main factor I would consider to be a universal challenge is the wind, which is 1-2 clubs at its lowest and regularly 3-4 clubs. But as I noted above, one guy a couple years ago shot 61 in a day with 20+ mph winds - and I mean real 20+ mph winds like we get here in Kansas.

 

I think the main thing that would provide some teeth is narrower fairways and deeper rough. But if you give those guys wide open angles, smooth greens, and a normal length course, they will just demolish it. I like to spend a lot of time watching them on the range and can tell you that the thing that is far more impressive than their distance is their accuracy. Good shots hit the target - I mean on the nose. Average shots deviate less than 3 yards. Bad shots are 5-10 yards off target. Only the worst of the worst are more offline than that. As is common knowledge, there is also a level of chipping and putting magic that is difficult to comprehend until you watch it for a while.

 

My favorite thing to do is pick random groups with guys I've never heard of and go watch them play just to understand how good they are. I have a very vivid memory of walking 9 holes with Lee Janzen, Mark Hensby? (PGA Winner), and a guy I'd never heard of named Won Joon Lee. In that 9, they were somewhere around -10 collectively. Won Joon Lee - who obviously isn't a household name - actually hit it very badly and ended up in all kinds of trouble. He was out of play on at least 3 holes, and totally botched a couple of easy shots. He also hit the pin twice - once on a 210 yard par 3 and once from about 160 in the fairway - and got it up and down from everywhere. The reason this is so memorable to me is that even though he played awful, had trouble keeping it in play, was in big trouble multiple times in 9 holes - HE SHOT 32. That's when I realized how good they are. My personal best on that 9 is a 34, and I think I've maybe played with somebody who shot 33. But those were nice solid efforts with little funny business out of near-scratch or plus golfers. So Won Joon Lee - who is no longer on the tour - can totally hack it around for 32, and me playing that 9 with multiple good club level golfers about 50 times (often from one set of tees up) has never seen it matched in person.

[flopshot99]

Plus 4 to plus 9

[golfdad907]

I read a while back need to be at least a plus 4, some of the top players are like plus 9 or so.

[iteachgolf]

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

 

How is it being exaggerated? The argument here is that the web.com courses are being played at a difficulty similar to when the course was rated for handicap purposes. Are you saying that a web.com PGA Tour setup is easier than when it was rated by a state golf committee? If so, I'd like to introduce you to 13 stimpmeter greens and 4 days of tour pin sheets.

OK.

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

I don't think it is. When they used to have the Virginia Beach Open at the TPC there. The course rating on the championship tees was like 77.5, and I have played it day after and it was totally harder than under normal conditions. The rough alone was like triple the length and they cut the greens a little bit shorter causing true greens to become rock hard. It's also a Pete Dye course, and Stewart Cink helped planned it out.

I have no doubt that there are difficult courses that are played on the web.com tour. Perhaps I should have said I think the average web.com course difficulty is being overestimated.

 

Average course rating of 75 is pretty accurate imo. Even if it was 74. You could AVERAGE 4 shots under the course rating and lose your card and make 50% or fewer of your cuts. And that's average, their handicap would still be +6 EASILY and they'd lose their card. The numbers are what they are. Averaging 70.5 you're more likely to lose your card than to keep it on the Web.com tour. I'd say a +7 is the bare minimum you'd need to be to have success at the Web.com level and you'd need to be extremely consistent.

[BobbyDPlaysGolf]

I know a guy who lost his card last year. He is +5

[b.helts]

Average course rating of 75 is pretty accurate imo. Even if it was 74. You could AVERAGE 4 shots under the course rating and lose your card and make 50% or fewer of your cuts. And that's average, their handicap would still be +6 EASILY and they'd lose their card. The numbers are what they are. Averaging 70.5 you're more likely to lose your card than to keep it on the Web.com tour. I'd say a +7 is the bare minimum you'd need to be to have success at the Web.com level and you'd need to be extremely consistent.

It may be. I sure as hell am not going to go through each of the courses and find out what the average rating is for this year coming up. I was just spouting my unsupported gut feeling. That's what the internet is for, yeah?

 

I do feel, rather strongly, that there is a lot more to success or failure than what GHIN says. A guy could absolutely shoot 75-75 10 weeks in a row and go out and shoot 66 four days in a row and keep his card. An extreme example, yes, but the handicap system that I use so I can play money games with my buddies while we drink beer is not the best way to judge, rate or qualify professionals that play for a living.

[iteachgolf]

Average course rating of 75 is pretty accurate imo. Even if it was 74. You could AVERAGE 4 shots under the course rating and lose your card and make 50% or fewer of your cuts. And that's average, their handicap would still be +6 EASILY and they'd lose their card. The numbers are what they are. Averaging 70.5 you're more likely to lose your card than to keep it on the Web.com tour. I'd say a +7 is the bare minimum you'd need to be to have success at the Web.com level and you'd need to be extremely consistent.

It may be. I sure as hell am not going to go through each of the courses and find out what the average rating is for this year coming up. I was just spouting my unsupported gut feeling. That's what the internet is for, yeah?

 

I do feel, rather strongly, that there is a lot more to success or failure than what GHIN says. A guy could absolutely shoot 75-75 10 weeks in a row and go out and shoot 66 four days in a row and keep his card. An extreme example, yes, but the handicap system that I use so I can play money games with my buddies while we drink beer is not the best way to judge, rate or qualify professionals that play for a living.

 

nobody is saying it is the key to success. It's simply a way to put a numerical value to skill level. And as multiple people have said the anti cap is probably more important. And btw if the four 66s didn't win the event you wouldn't keep your card soley on that one finish. If you did it at the course Callawaylefty is a member at you would have finished tied 3rd and made $25,650. 75th on the money list made over $87,000. So it'd take 3 finishes equally as good (t3) and another between 10-13th to finish top 75 on the money list. And that was one of the higher purses. There are quite a few events where you'd earn even less.

 

 

Btw just looked up all the course ratings. All but a handful are 74.3 or higher with more over 75 than under 74.

[ram01002]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

[snapier]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

[b.helts]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

[iteachgolf]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

 

Except when the player isn't the one entering them and there are zero casual scores posted making handicap irrelevant and invalid.

[NCHACK85]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

What's debatable is that lefty and Casey probably have better handicaps than what is published because the Tour conditions are a lot harder than the posted course rating.

[iteachgolf]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

 

How were you right? Is 74.42 not around 75? And I showed even at 74 as average guys playing to a +6 lost their cards. You said we were grossly exaggerating the difficulty level. The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated. And I showed how shooting 66 for four rounds in row would hardly guarantee you keep your card and could only get you 150th on the money list or worse.

 

The difficulty of the courses wasn't being overstated at all.

[ram01002]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

 

lol, i"ll let iteach handle this one

[NCHACK85]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

 

How were you right? Is 74.42 not around 75? And I showed even at 74 as average guys playing to a +6 lost their cards. You said we were grossly exaggerating the difficulty level. The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated. And I showed how shooting 66 for four rounds in row would hardly guarantee you keep your card and could only get you 150th on the money list or worse.

 

The difficulty of the courses wasn't being overstated at all.

I agree with Iteach. If the TOUR played the courses at the course rating. They would tear up that course instead of shooting a 72, the norm would be mid to low 60s.

[pinhigh27]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

 

yeah I mean everyone knows your run of the mill +2 is better than tom lehman, a guy who still makes a million a year in winnings alone on the champions tour.

[b.helts]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

 

How were you right? Is 74.42 not around 75? And I showed even at 74 as average guys playing to a +6 lost their cards. You said we were grossly exaggerating the difficulty level. The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated. And I showed how shooting 66 for four rounds in row would hardly guarantee you keep your card and could only get you 150th on the money list or worse.

 

The difficulty of the courses wasn't being overstated at all.

 

First of all, I did not say they were being grossly exaggerated. To be honest, I'm actually surprised, the ratings are harder than I thought.

 

Secondly, you gave an example of a guy shooting 4 66s still losing his card, but surely I could find an example of one who didn't. Here's one: first event of the year. Goggin won, he shot 269. 4 66s would have won enough for him to keep his card, not to mention the victory would allow him to keep his card.

 

Thirdly, you said "Web.com courses play much closer to how course was playing when rated." But now you say "The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated." Perhaps they do, but given that a course is rated with a guy that hits his driver 250 in mind, I think the courses probably play a bit easier than rated for guys bombing it like they do on web.com.

 

But I've gone off the reservation. I don't have a vested interest. You being right and me being right are not mutually exclusive.

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

I went on to clarify that "Perhaps I should have said I think the average web.com course difficulty is being overestimated."

 

Seems those statements are both true. By less than I thought, but true nonetheless.

 

 

I think you've made a lot of good points in this thread. Many that I cannot argue against.

[b.helts]

I agree with Iteach. If the TOUR played the courses at the course rating. They would tear up that course instead of shooting a 72, the norm would be mid to low 60s.

 

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with Dan. He's made many, many valid points in this thread. My point is that Course Rating, and therefore, handicap is not a viable way to accurately predict success or failure on any professional golf tour.

[snapier]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

What's debatable is that lefty and Casey probably have better handicaps than what is published because the Tour conditions are a lot harder than the posted course rating.

 

Mickelson's and Casey's scores are all posted as Tournament (T) scores. The tournament course ratings of 76.3/152 for Conway Farms, for example, is higher than the normal black tee rating. There is an adjustment made for tour (Tournament) conditions.

[iteachgolf]

Don't you hate it when iteach uses facts to rebut unsupported gut feelings?? The Internet has no place for facts!!

 

The average course rating for the web.com tour's 2015 schedule was 74.42.

 

That excludes Club de Golf Mapocho and El Bosque GC in Leon because I couldn't get ratings from the back tees (or ratings at all).

 

74.42 was using the hardest rating for each course. Highest was Victoria National at 77. Lowest was Sao Paulo GC at 71.6.

 

As it turns out, my hunch was right. And you're wrong, there's a lot of room for facts on the internet. I love facts. I also love to opine. Weird, doing so on an internet forum, I know.

 

How were you right? Is 74.42 not around 75? And I showed even at 74 as average guys playing to a +6 lost their cards. You said we were grossly exaggerating the difficulty level. The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated. And I showed how shooting 66 for four rounds in row would hardly guarantee you keep your card and could only get you 150th on the money list or worse.

 

The difficulty of the courses wasn't being overstated at all.

 

First of all, I did not say they were being grossly exaggerated. To be honest, I'm actually surprised, the ratings are harder than I thought.

 

Secondly, you gave an example of a guy shooting 4 66s still losing his card, but surely I could find an example of one who didn't. Here's one: first event of the year. Goggin won, he shot 269. 4 66s would have won enough for him to keep his card, not to mention the victory would allow him to keep his card.

 

Thirdly, you said "Web.com courses play much closer to how course was playing when rated." But now you say "The courses certainly play harder during the event than when rated." Perhaps they do, but given that a course is rated with a guy that hits his driver 250 in mind, I think the courses probably play a bit easier than rated for guys bombing it like they do on web.com.

 

But I've gone off the reservation. I don't have a vested interest. You being right and me being right are not mutually exclusive.

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

I went on to clarify that "Perhaps I should have said I think the average web.com course difficulty is being overestimated."

 

Seems those statements are both true. By less than I thought, but true nonetheless.

 

 

I think you've made a lot of good points in this thread. Many that I cannot argue against.

 

Much closer to how they played when rated but you conveniently left out where I said they still play harder than when rated. The greens are considerable firmer and faster with the rough deeper than normal and some very tough hole locations (sometimes borderline stupid). Not to the extent that the PGA Tour goes to but they definitely set the course up more difficult than regular play.

 

What I've said has been consistent from get go. And showing the average course rating is a half a stroke below where I said it was "around 75" when the courses play harder during the event isn't an overestimation or exaggeration. And to use the fact they hit it further as an excuse for the rating is total bs. The top ams and college kids hit it just as far. Yet the rating system works for them and the thousands of plus handicaps around who the overwhelming majority of hit it past 250.

[iteachgolf]

I agree with Iteach. If the TOUR played the courses at the course rating. They would tear up that course instead of shooting a 72, the norm would be mid to low 60s.

 

As I said, I'm not disagreeing with Dan. He's made many, many valid points in this thread. My point is that Course Rating, and therefore, handicap is not a viable way to accurately predict success or failure on any professional golf tour.

 

Nobody said it was. It's a good way to show the minimum requirement to succeed. After you reach that minimum your success will depend on many variables. But to keep your card realistically and have a CAREER not a cup of coffe on the Web.com or PGA Tour you better at a bare minimum be a +6 or better. Ultimate success will have little to do with handicap but handicap is good rule of thumb to see if you even have the potential to succeed

[CallawayLefty]

Here's one small example - for the last 9 years, Tom Watson has hosted an annual tournament in Kansas City where he invites the BEST local players - high level Ams, USGA qualifiers and national match play participants, winners of local Am events, the best local college players, and local club pros. Without quantifying it, I would put the average handicap around +3, and most of them having established it under tournament conditions. Even that is likely somewhat generous, as there are players that are certainly better than that.

 

Here are the results (and bear in mind Tom Watson was 56 years old when this started):

 

2007 - Tom Watson wins

2008 - Tom Watson finishes second to a very good club pro (+5 handicap)

2009 - Tom Watson wins

2010 - Tom Watson wins

2011 - Tom Watson wins

2012 - Tom Watson finishes 4th. Won by a local mini tour player. Finished also behind a guy who played in the finals of the USGA Senior Am a couple years ago and is one of the best Ams in the country

2013 - Tom Watson wins

2014 - Robert Streb wins, Tom Watson finishes second

2015 - Best local collegiate player wins, Tom Watson finishes second

 

So in 9 years at the age of 56 to 65, Tom Watson has beaten the best local players his city has to offer 5 out of 9 times, and came in 2nd 3 times - one of those seconds to a guy who won on the PGA Tour last year. Also, where in order of importance do you think "The Watson Challenge" ranks on Tom's list of important things going on that year? He's just playing a few casual rounds and still absolutely dusts everybody. And Mr. Watson, as good as he remains to this day, is obviously just a touch past his playing prime.

 

EDIT - sorry math sucks

[snapier]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

 

Except when the player isn't the one entering them and there are zero casual scores posted making handicap irrelevant and invalid.

 

Tom Lehman's scores include casual rounds and he likely posts them. His rounds are a mix of T, H, A and C

[b.helts]

Much closer to how they played when rated but you conveniently left out where I said they still play harder than when rated. The greens are considerable firmer and faster with the rough deeper than normal and some very tough hole locations (sometimes borderline stupid). Not to the extent that the PGA Tour goes to but they definitely set the course up more difficult than regular play.

 

What I've said has been consistent from get go. And showing the average course rating is a half a stroke below where I said it was "around 75" when the courses play harder during the event isn't an overestimation or exaggeration. And to use the fact they hit it further as an excuse for the rating is total bs. The top ams and college kids hit it just as far. Yet the rating system works for them and the thousands of plus handicaps around who the overwhelming majority of hit it past 250.

 

You guessed it would be between 75 and 76. So a shot to a shot and a half overestimated. And the fact that the course plays slightly (your word) harder than rating should not have an effect on handicap. There is no adjustment for conditions in the handicap system. Further proof that the handicap system is not the best way to judge professional golfers.

 

That's why PGA Tour scoring statistics are adjusted to field scoring, because that more accurately reflects the conditions of the course. It also judges the quality of the player's play better than the rating of the course which does not take into account pin placements or length of rough.

[iteachgolf]

Actual USGA handicaps for any golfer (amateurs and tour players) should not be debatable since they are published. For instance, I looked at a few AZ handicaps this morning:

 

Phil Mickelson +5.6

Paul Casey +6.2

Tom Lehman +1.7

Alice Cooper 5.4

Dan Quayle 10.4

 

Except when the player isn't the one entering them and there are zero casual scores posted making handicap irrelevant and invalid.

 

Tom Lehman's scores include casual rounds and he likely posts them. His rounds are a mix of T, H, A and C

 

Casey and Mickelson's aren't and are 100% posted by the head pro not them.

 

If you think Tom is a +1.7 you'd be foolish. His AVERAGE last year on Champions Tour was 69.8 in tournament conditions.