What is the average handicap of a PGA tour player?

[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

 

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.

 

Maybe TL is a sandbagger. I'm only providing actual, posted, USGA handicaps, not what I think they are or what they should be.

[iteachgolf]

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.

 

Your completely missing the point. Guys losing their card AVERAGED 4 shots under the course rating, which didn't accurately reflect true difficulty. To be successful on the Web.com level you need to AVERAGE 70 or below in tournament conditions. The whole point of the discussion is so ams at home can see how far off they are. A +6 is a very conservative baseline for the MINIMUM skill level needed to compete.

 

If you can't average 70 or better from greater than 7,000 yards on likely the hardest course in town you won't succeed. Even that doesn't guarantee success. But it's a starting point.

[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

 

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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

 

He must just sandbag so he can win more pro shop credit in the 4th of July modified shamble at his home course.

[b.helts]

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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

 

Surely you guys aren't saying the handicap system isn't a good way to judge the quality of a professional golfer?

 

Maybe he plays the whites, rated 68.5 and averages a bit over 66. But from the blacks he averages a bit over 69 and would be a +5.

 

The handicap system is not designed for professional golfers.

[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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

 

It doesn't matter what I think unless I was playing him for money. +1.7 is his official USGA handicap.

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

 

Surely you guys aren't saying the handicap system isn't a good way to judge the quality of a professional golfer?

 

Maybe he plays the whites, rated 68.5 and averages a bit over 66. But from the blacks he averages a bit over 69 and would be a +5.

 

The handicap system is not designed for professional golfers.

 

It certainly isn't, as evidenced by the fact that Tom Lehman carries a +1.7 handicap and would have to give your typical +1.7 handicap 3 shots a side to even make it a game.

[CallawayLefty]

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

 

do you really think one of the best players on the champions tour is a +1.7?

 

It doesn't matter what I think unless I was playing him for money. +1.7 is his official USGA handicap.

 

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

[CallawayLefty]

You know one other interesting thing that I hadn't thought about is course handicap. If you take what it took to make the cut at my home course last year - which was an AVERAGE of +6.3, per the USGA this computes to a +8 course handicap. With me at a 1.7 which converts to a 2 course handicap at that same course, those guys who just trickled by the cut would have to give me 5 shots a side to keep it interesting. Honestly, it's probably not that far off. I would consider 76-78 to be pretty ho-hum for me, and 66-68 to be about the same for them. If I really burn it up, I can shoot 70-73, with 60-63 being about right for them - again, as evidenced by the scores they shot last year.

 

And those are just the guys that squeaked by the cut line, computed off of their average, not their handicap.

[snapier]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

[CallawayLefty]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

 

I really wish I knew Tom Lehman so I could set this up. Not sure what you play off of but this would be hilarious. On a non-tournament course set up, he's probably as likely to shoot 62 or better as you are to shoot your handicap.

 

People just have no idea. My dad used to play in a league that included the esteemed PGA player Mike Hulbert from the late 80s and early 90s. Ever heard of him? Of course you haven't. On the regular "men's" course there in town, he would regularly shoot in the 50s. Don't for a second be fooled that these guys just go out and shoot 69 or 70 every weekend like they do in huge tournaments at very difficult courses on TV in front of millions of people playing for millions of dollars in on and off course money.

[ram01002]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

 

lolllllllllllll

[snapier]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

 

I really wish I knew Tom Lehman so I could set this up. Not sure what you play off of but this would be hilarious. On a non-tournament course set up, he's probably as likely to shoot 62 or better as you are to shoot your handicap.

 

People just have no idea. My dad used to play in a league that included the esteemed PGA player Mike Hulbert from the late 80s and early 90s. Ever heard of him? Of course you haven't. On the regular "men's" course there in town, he would regularly shoot in the 50s. Don't for a second be fooled that these guys just go out and shoot 69 or 70 every weekend like they do in huge tournaments at very difficult courses on TV in front of millions of people playing for millions of dollars in on and off course money.

 

I have heard of Mike Hulbert and have seen him play in person. I also know Tom Lehman. I see him socially 3 or 4 times a year. I have seen him golf many times, He would easily beat me 9 out of 10 times playing at handicaps. I would play a $10 Nassau against him for that 1 out of 10 chance!

[CallawayLefty]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

 

I really wish I knew Tom Lehman so I could set this up. Not sure what you play off of but this would be hilarious. On a non-tournament course set up, he's probably as likely to shoot 62 or better as you are to shoot your handicap.

 

People just have no idea. My dad used to play in a league that included the esteemed PGA player Mike Hulbert from the late 80s and early 90s. Ever heard of him? Of course you haven't. On the regular "men's" course there in town, he would regularly shoot in the 50s. Don't for a second be fooled that these guys just go out and shoot 69 or 70 every weekend like they do in huge tournaments at very difficult courses on TV in front of millions of people playing for millions of dollars in on and off course money.

 

I have heard of Mike Hulbert and have seen him play in person. I also know Tom Lehman. I see him socially 3 or 4 times a year. I have seen him golf many times, He would easily beat me 9 out of 10 times playing at handicaps. I would play a $10 Nassau against him for that 1 out of 10 chance!

 

"He would easily beat me 9 out of 10 times playing at handicap." Doesn't that pretty much prove that he's better than a +1.7? This is a guy that had an average score last year of 69.81 in professional golf tournaments and has made over $30,000,000 on the course in his career. My guess is Tom Lehman could play to a +1.7 with just a 7 iron, lob wedge, and putter.

[SadTrombone]

My best index was +2.3 and I was the 38th best player in my PGA Section. There are 41 Sections. That would put me at #1600 of 27,000 PGA Professionals & Apprentices. There are an equal number of skilled amateurs in my area. So, now I am #3200 in the country. +500 men who play golf full time. So now I am #3700.

 

I finished 11th (+2) in the state open, but was 9 shots behind the leader (-7) for 72 holes. The guy who won the State Open has played in about 20 Tour events and has made the cut twice.

 

So, my best performance was 2.2 shots / round away from a guy who is about 1 shot / round from being on tour.

 

So, I'd guess you'd need to be at least a +4 to keep your card.

 

 

Not even close. Aaron Baddeley lost his card last year with a scoring average of 71.2. 71.2 was 125th on the PGA Tour. Courses on Tour average about 77/140. And that's not including the fact that the rating system doesn't factor in how tough they make the setup for your events. His average would make him a +5. Now you throw out the worst of his scores and he's more like a +8. And he lost his card. A +4 would he in massive debt on mini tours and have no shot on web.com let alone PGA Tour

 

Good thing Phil and his +5 is a lifetime member already.

[snapier]

So, more to the point of this thread, if you were going to play Tom Lehman for money, what handicap would you make him use? Seriously - is +1.7 even close in your mind?

 

I'd be OK playing at handicaps on a non Tournament course set up.

 

I really wish I knew Tom Lehman so I could set this up. Not sure what you play off of but this would be hilarious. On a non-tournament course set up, he's probably as likely to shoot 62 or better as you are to shoot your handicap.

 

People just have no idea. My dad used to play in a league that included the esteemed PGA player Mike Hulbert from the late 80s and early 90s. Ever heard of him? Of course you haven't. On the regular "men's" course there in town, he would regularly shoot in the 50s. Don't for a second be fooled that these guys just go out and shoot 69 or 70 every weekend like they do in huge tournaments at very difficult courses on TV in front of millions of people playing for millions of dollars in on and off course money.

 

I have heard of Mike Hulbert and have seen him play in person. I also know Tom Lehman. I see him socially 3 or 4 times a year. I have seen him golf many times, He would easily beat me 9 out of 10 times playing at handicaps. I would play a $10 Nassau against him for that 1 out of 10 chance!

 

"He would easily beat me 9 out of 10 times playing at handicap." Doesn't that pretty much prove that he's better than a +1.7? This is a guy that had an average score last year of 69.81 in professional golf tournaments and has made over $30,000,000 on the course in his career. My guess is Tom Lehman could play to a +1.7 with just a 7 iron, lob wedge, and putter.

 

My point is that his official USGA handicap is +1.7, that's all.

[CallawayLefty]

 

My point is that his official USGA handicap is +1.7, that's all.

 

Would be a good guy to have as your partner in member-member. Plays off a +1.7 until he's playing in a tournament, where his handicap miraculously becomes +7. I can only imagine how much pro shop credit he has accumulated. It may rival his $30,000,000 on the various tours he's played.

[cardoustie]

I just emailed my head pro who was not happy to learn I am bringing Tom Lehman as my member guest partner this year (sorry little twin brother)

 

Hey giving two shots back isn't bad me thinks.

 

I'm thinking his back to back 64's (10 under the course rating) may help our team score just a titch or a smidge

 

I can sit in the cart with the tunes on smoking cigars and sipping martini's and act like an air traffic controller.

 

"Tom, you want a 3-knuckle draw to 10 feet short right of this pin with your 3 iron. Easy eagle putt from there pardsy !"

[snapier]

My best index was +2.3 and I was the 38th best player in my PGA Section. There are 41 Sections. That would put me at #1600 of 27,000 PGA Professionals & Apprentices. There are an equal number of skilled amateurs in my area. So, now I am #3200 in the country. +500 men who play golf full time. So now I am #3700.

 

I finished 11th (+2) in the state open, but was 9 shots behind the leader (-7) for 72 holes. The guy who won the State Open has played in about 20 Tour events and has made the cut twice.

 

So, my best performance was 2.2 shots / round away from a guy who is about 1 shot / round from being on tour.

 

So, I'd guess you'd need to be at least a +4 to keep your card.

 

 

Not even close. Aaron Baddeley lost his card last year with a scoring average of 71.2. 71.2 was 125th on the PGA Tour. Courses on Tour average about 77/140. And that's not including the fact that the rating system doesn't factor in how tough they make the setup for your events. His average would make him a +5. Now you throw out the worst of his scores and he's more like a +8. And he lost his card. A +4 would he in massive debt on mini tours and have no shot on web.com let alone PGA Tour

 

Baddeley's official USGA handicap is +5.2. His last twenty scores include 18 -T and 2-H

[cardoustie]

One other comment. I think that as a player who need to have played with a +4 and a tour pro to really understand the gap in skills and scoring ability

[CallawayLefty]

I just emailed my head pro who was not happy to learn I am bringing Tom Lehman as my member guest partner this year (sorry little twin brother)

 

Hey giving two shots back isn't bad me thinks.

 

I'm thinking his back to back 64's (10 under the course rating) may help our team score just a titch or a smidge

 

I can sit in the cart with the tunes on smoking cigars and sipping martini's and act like an air traffic controller.

 

"Tom, you want a 3-knuckle draw to 10 feet short right of this pin with your 3 iron. Easy eagle putt from there pardsy !"

 

But how will he shoot back to back 64s? He's only a +1.7 handicap. It says so right on his card.

[ram01002]

One other comment. I think that as a player who need to have played with a +4 and a tour pro to really understand the gap in skills and scoring ability

 

Unfortunately, there are aren't many people who will be lucky enough to do that . . . which leads to wild speculation/unsupported gut feelings that are 1000% in error.

[CallawayLefty]

One other comment. I think that as a player who need to have played with a +4 and a tour pro to really understand the gap in skills and scoring ability

 

It's apparently only like 1.6 strokes. Because Phil Mickelson, the second greatest golfer of his generation, and one of the top 15 golfers of all time, is only a +5.6. It says so right on his card.

[cardoustie]

I just emailed my head pro who was not happy to learn I am bringing Tom Lehman as my member guest partner this year (sorry little twin brother)

 

Hey giving two shots back isn't bad me thinks.

 

I'm thinking his back to back 64's (10 under the course rating) may help our team score just a titch or a smidge

 

I can sit in the cart with the tunes on smoking cigars and sipping martini's and act like an air traffic controller.

 

"Tom, you want a 3-knuckle draw to 10 feet short right of this pin with your 3 iron. Easy eagle putt from there pardsy !"

 

But how will he shoot back to back 64s? He's only a +1.7 handicap. It says so right on his card.

 

It's a risk I am willing to take

[Hstead]

I play with a guy often that has a +4 handicap at his club, which the members make him keep as accurately as they can for their local games every weekend. He still manages quite well with his handicap. He has made it to the final stage of Q school 3 times, Monday qualified multiple times on the PGA Tour, but has never really even gotten a sniff at making a real living at playing golf professionally even though he has been backed and had financing multiple times.

 

You better be better than a +4, ask him.

[Thetid]

I think using the back tee rating for the courses they play would be pretty accurate. Yes, some conditions are going to be harder, but the pros do not also play all back tees, many holes are moved up to make holes play differently thoughout the week. That would pretty much even out with the conditions.

[CallawayLefty]

So what's Spieth's handicap this week? Probably somewhere between +1.7 and +5.6, amiright???????

[pinhigh27]

lol he's about to be 47 shots under the course rating for 4 days assuming he finishes at -30

[Obee]

+4.5 to +7 INDEX. Big difference between index and handicap. In some of their best months, they would get to +7ish index, but not that frequently.

 

On a course with a 149 slope, for instance, an index of +5.7 (Phil Mickelson's index at Whisper Rock) would convert to a course HANDICAP of +8.

 

Most guys have no idea how this works and will ascribe lower indexes to tour pros than they actually have. They will tell you that tour players have indexes of +9 or +10, which just isn't true except maybe in rare instances after a super hot month or two.

 

In addition, most people have no idea how to calculate an index. The leave out the slope portion of the formula, and think that, just because someone shoots a 65 on a course rated 76.0/149, that that converts to a differential of -11 (since the score is 11 strokes below the course rating). It does not. It's actually a -8 differential.

 

So someone who shoots 10 65's and 10 72's on a course rated 76.0/149 would actually have an index of +8.0 (if I'm getting my math right). Seems wrong, but it actually works out, because an index of +8 on an EASY (113 slope) stays as a +8 for course handicap, but goes down to a +11 course handicap on a really tough course (149 slope).

 

Confused yet? :-)

[Obee]

I think using the back tee rating for the courses they play would be pretty accurate. Yes, some conditions are going to be harder, but the pros do not also play all back tees, many holes are moved up to make holes play differently thoughout the week. That would pretty much even out with the conditions.

 

Absolutely correct. The pros rarely play a course completely tipped out. You can usually take around 100 to 200 yards off the total distance they play each day due to tees being moved around for different looks on different holes, etc. It's just not fun to play the same exact course from the same exact tees five days in a row, right? :-)

 

The last time I went to the Farmers at Torrey, the played three or four holes up from the back tee each day for variety. Of course, depending on the tournament, the thicker, nastier rough and the firmer greens more than make up for the (relatively) small amount of lost yardage, so the courses usually play at least the rating from the tips, if not another whole stroke or two harder for the expert player.