What is the average handicap of a PGA tour player?

[Obee]

Another thing most people don't understand about getting your index super low is that the slope formula makes it extremely difficult because it compresses your differentials back towards zero, the lower you shoot and the higher the slope of the golf course. It makes it extremely difficult to get to an index much below +6 or +7.

[markponi]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

[CallawayLefty]

+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? :-)

 

As noted a couple pages up, the indexes for the web.com tour played at my home course ranged from +6.3 making the cut to +9.9 winning it. That's the web.com tour, not the PGA. Course handicaps would be figured off of 138 slope, so much lower. Again, these are the guys of which approximately 5 per year ever do anything on the PGA. I just finished watching the Hyundai and can only imagine what those animals would shoot. Suffice to say, if Martin Pillar can play my course as a +10 index, I'm fairly confident that Jordan Spieth could probably do an order of magnitude better. I realize I'm talking about the winners here, but again if it takes +6.3 to make the cut on the web, +4.5 to "maybe" +7 ain't getting you jack squat on the PGA.

[CallawayLefty]

Another thing most people don't understand about getting your index super low is that the slope formula makes it extremely difficult because it compresses your differentials back towards zero, the lower you shoot and the higher the slope of the golf course. It makes it extremely difficult to get to an index much below +6 or +7.

 

Which makes it all the more impressive that the numbers calculated in this thread utilized the standard handicap calculations of course rating and slope. I think it's been pretty well proven that +6 to +7 is the bare minimum to have any chance at all of succeeding in professional golf.

[Obee]

Another thing most people don't understand about getting your index super low is that the slope formula makes it extremely difficult because it compresses your differentials back towards zero, the lower you shoot and the higher the slope of the golf course. It makes it extremely difficult to get to an index much below +6 or +7.

 

Which makes it all the more impressive that the numbers calculated in this thread utilized the standard handicap calculations of course rating and slope. I think it's been pretty well proven that +6 to +7 is the bare minimum to have any chance at all of succeeding in professional golf.

 

Spieth's performance this week (30-under, right?) are some very low differentials. They would make him a +8.8, even if you used all four scores, which is amazingly low! If you use only his best two or three of four rounds, if would be lower. Let's see what he shoots over his next 16 rounds and then see where that puts him! :-)

 

Rickie's best two of four rounds this week would have him at +7.7 He is the number six ranked player in the world.

 

If we're talking top 100 or 150 in the world, I stand by the lower end of my estimate: +7, though I happy to be proven wrong. :-)

[b.helts]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

lol I might know that guy.

[Obee]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

If a top-10 player in the world played the course 100 times, what do you think their best 50 of 100 scores would average?

 

I have played a LOT of golf with mini tour pros. During those rounds, we have played a lot of golf with a PGA Tour pro or two or three. Or four. It is not uncommon, at all, for the mini tour guys to beat the PGA Tour guy(s) in one round. What they can't do is beat the PGA Tour pro over four straight rounds very often.

[ALIF]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

If a top-10 player in the world played the course 100 times, what do you think their best 50 of 100 scores would average?

 

I have played a LOT of golf with mini tour pros. During those rounds, we have played a lot of golf with a PGA Tour pro or two or three. Or four. It is not uncommon, at all, for the mini tour guys to beat the PGA Tour guy(s) in one round. What they can't do is beat the PGA Tour pro over four straight rounds very often.

 

If they could, they wouldn't be a mini tour player anymore. :)

[Obee]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

If a top-10 player in the world played the course 100 times, what do you think their best 50 of 100 scores would average?

 

I have played a LOT of golf with mini tour pros. During those rounds, we have played a lot of golf with a PGA Tour pro or two or three. Or four. It is not uncommon, at all, for the mini tour guys to beat the PGA Tour guy(s) in one round. What they can't do is beat the PGA Tour pro over four straight rounds very often.

 

If they could, they wouldn't be a mini tour player anymore. :)

 

Exactly! LOL

 

My point was that there are LOTS of mini tour players that, for one round, can go as low as any PGA Tour pro in the world. They simply can't sustain the low scores and inevitably fire a 74 or 75 when it's crunch time. And the reasons that happens are completely different for every mini tour player.

[nandy]

Justin Thomas shot 59 today (and Furyk shot 58 this year). No way those guys are "+6" or even close to that number. Easily +8 or better.

[Darth Leverage]

This thread needs making into a sticky or auto reply for all the "could I go pro?"

 

Dreamers

[1badbadger]

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

 

 

I don't think just going by a player's handicap (or their estimated handicap) really means much. For example, I was looking at Bryson DeChambeau's stats for 2016, and in one tournament he shot -5 and finished T4. Another tournament he shot -6 and placed T27, in another -7 for T38, and +5 and finished T21. Those last two events I mentioned he was 12 shots better but 11 places lower. So depending on the scoring for the tournaments entered and which ones are played well, it's possible for a +5 to lose his card and a +3 to have a good season.

 

This is Mickelson's USGA handicap sheet from 2013 (or at least part of it):

 

 

 

At one point around 2005 or 2006 Tiger's handicap was calculated to be +7.9. Jim Furyk had the next lowest handicap at +6.7. If they were playing in a 4-day handicapped event, Tiger would have to spot Furyk 5 shots for the tournament.

 

Some other examples (from 2013): Aaron Baddeley +6.2; Martin Kaymer +5.8; Kevin Streelman +6.2; Paul Casey +4.6; Billy Mayfair +5.2; Chez Reavie +4.5; and Geoff Ogilvy+6.2. It's been roughly calculated that the guys on the bottom of the money list who barely keep their card are at about +4.0.

[PJ72]

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

 

That's pretty impressive!

 

Mind you he was finishing top 3 in a British during that time too, I think. I think perhaps, that Tom Watson is an exception to many retired tour pros - his longevity is amazing.

[PJ72]

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.

 

I dunno if I've read this right but you're saying that someone shooting a 'ho-hum' round of 66-68 x 4 would JUST make the cut?

[iteachgolf]

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.

 

I dunno if I've read this right but you're saying that someone shooting a 'ho-hum' round of 66-68 x 4 would JUST make the cut?

 

The year he posted that 68-69 missed the cut. So yes 68-68 would just make the cut on the number. 4x 68 would have got you tied 43rd place.

[PJ72]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

Maybe 15 beers is his 'sweetspot'. Like, you know, when you shoot pool, you're always better as you approach 2 pints, then it rapidly goes downhill after that!

[Golfjack]

LOL. I just hope people really understand that pro scores are not your scores. You think you can shoot a 70, two under par on your home course, and you're pretty good (and really you are). But it's 6300 yards, 70/125. Then you say oh we just adjust the course rating for PGA tournaments and then think it'll even the playing field. Sure. You try playing on a 7400 course and only add 5 strokes plus putting on super fast greens. Not to mention the TV, crowds, and thousands of dollars hinging on every shot. Just because some golfers can hit good approach shots from 130 doesn't mean they can hit good approaches from 180. And if you really can consistently shoot 2 under from a difficult 7400 yard course, then why aren't you on tour (at least a mini one)?

 

Or even for amateurs. Say for the Trump National Doral TPC Blue Monster Course rating only goes from a 71.7 white to a 77.4 black. 6334 - 7590. Give a golfer 1200 yards more to cover, and it's way more than 6 strokes (missed greens, longer putts). For many golfers birdie chances quickly become par/bogey chances.

 

It's difficult to extrapolate what pro handicaps are, and scores do compress a lot more at a better player range. I would say it's wiser to take average scores or something else other than handicap system, though its impossible to be fairly accurate unless it's all from the same courses and same tees at least. Pro's are so much more steady and accurate from approach shots it's not even fair.

[ExProGoingBack]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

Was he blindfolded as well?

[golfing_penguin]

I played with a mini tour guy on a 7100 yard course with a 73.7 rating. He shot 64 and drank about 15 beers. Mini tour.

 

Was he blindfolded as well?

 

No, Jonescott

[Shinny2017]

avg tour player is around + 5-7, with the better players around +7-8, with hot players scoring better, but avg around that +7-8 number.

 

Tiger is a one of a kind.

[Shilgy]

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

 

 

I don't think just going by a player's handicap (or their estimated handicap) really means much. For example, I was looking at Bryson DeChambeau's stats for 2016, and in one tournament he shot -5 and finished T4. Another tournament he shot -6 and placed T27, in another -7 for T38, and +5 and finished T21. Those last two events I mentioned he was 12 shots better but 11 places lower. So depending on the scoring for the tournaments entered and which ones are played well, it's possible for a +5 to lose his card and a +3 to have a good season.

 

This is Mickelson's USGA handicap sheet from 2013 (or at least part of it):

 

 

 

At one point around 2005 or 2006 Tiger's handicap was calculated to be +7.9. Jim Furyk had the next lowest handicap at +6.7. If they were playing in a 4-day handicapped event, Tiger would have to spot Furyk 5 shots for the tournament.

 

Some other examples (from 2013): Aaron Baddeley +6.2; Martin Kaymer +5.8; Kevin Streelman +6.2; Paul Casey +4.6; Billy Mayfair +5.2; Chez Reavie +4.5; and Geoff Ogilvy+6.2. It's been roughly calculated that the guys on the bottom of the money list who barely keep their card are at about +4.0.

The only problem with those handicaps is that they are not their tour scores. They are their home course scores in rounds for fun.

[iteachgolf]

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

 

 

I don't think just going by a player's handicap (or their estimated handicap) really means much. For example, I was looking at Bryson DeChambeau's stats for 2016, and in one tournament he shot -5 and finished T4. Another tournament he shot -6 and placed T27, in another -7 for T38, and +5 and finished T21. Those last two events I mentioned he was 12 shots better but 11 places lower. So depending on the scoring for the tournaments entered and which ones are played well, it's possible for a +5 to lose his card and a +3 to have a good season.

 

This is Mickelson's USGA handicap sheet from 2013 (or at least part of it):

 

 

 

At one point around 2005 or 2006 Tiger's handicap was calculated to be +7.9. Jim Furyk had the next lowest handicap at +6.7. If they were playing in a 4-day handicapped event, Tiger would have to spot Furyk 5 shots for the tournament.

 

Some other examples (from 2013): Aaron Baddeley +6.2; Martin Kaymer +5.8; Kevin Streelman +6.2; Paul Casey +4.6; Billy Mayfair +5.2; Chez Reavie +4.5; and Geoff Ogilvy+6.2. It's been roughly calculated that the guys on the bottom of the money list who barely keep their card are at about +4.0.

The only problem with those handicaps is that they are not their tour scores. They are their home course scores in rounds for fun.

 

Actually the opposite. Those are only their tournament scores and not their scores under non tournament conditions which would be lower. They aren't inputting those scores. Someone else is putting them it.

[OTTgolf]

Back in the late 90's I played in a Nike Tour (now the web.com) qualifier in Williamsburg, Va at Kiskiack Golf Club. Its a par 72 with a course rating 72.9/137. Fairways were fast, rough was about 3 inches and greens were pretty fast - 11ish on stimp, so not US open tough, but tougher than the course normally plays. It's not that long its about 6800 yds. and I don't remember the pin placements much, so can't speak on that.

 

There was a 9 man playoff for a spot and you needed a smooth 66 to be in it. LOL need to shoot -6 to be in a 9 man playoff in a qualifier, so yeah I think you need to be pretty good to make it on any pro golf tour.

 

I was about a +2 at that time and played pretty decent that day except 1 hole and think I shot a 71, so right around my cap. I was fairly happy with my results and it was just another eye opening experience to what it takes to play on tour. I live in Va. so it was close enough to give it a shot =).

[Shilgy]

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

 

 

I don't think just going by a player's handicap (or their estimated handicap) really means much. For example, I was looking at Bryson DeChambeau's stats for 2016, and in one tournament he shot -5 and finished T4. Another tournament he shot -6 and placed T27, in another -7 for T38, and +5 and finished T21. Those last two events I mentioned he was 12 shots better but 11 places lower. So depending on the scoring for the tournaments entered and which ones are played well, it's possible for a +5 to lose his card and a +3 to have a good season.

 

This is Mickelson's USGA handicap sheet from 2013 (or at least part of it):

 

 

 

At one point around 2005 or 2006 Tiger's handicap was calculated to be +7.9. Jim Furyk had the next lowest handicap at +6.7. If they were playing in a 4-day handicapped event, Tiger would have to spot Furyk 5 shots for the tournament.

 

Some other examples (from 2013): Aaron Baddeley +6.2; Martin Kaymer +5.8; Kevin Streelman +6.2; Paul Casey +4.6; Billy Mayfair +5.2; Chez Reavie +4.5; and Geoff Ogilvy+6.2. It's been roughly calculated that the guys on the bottom of the money list who barely keep their card are at about +4.0.

The only problem with those handicaps is that they are not their tour scores. They are their home course scores in rounds for fun.

 

Actually the opposite. Those are only their tournament scores and not their scores under non tournament conditions which would be lower. They aren't inputting those scores. Someone else is putting them it.

I see that now-thanks. I saw a few with the same slope and did not examine closely. My thoughts would be that the course ratings under tournament conditions would be higher than the scorecard though.

[Shinny2017]

'These guys are Good'

[cardoustie]

My buddy is a tourney +3 (not a club +3) and has played in the last 2 US Senior Opens (missed cut twice). Tyorke1 knows of whom I speak

 

He has also played in two Canadian Opens. He has won the Cdn Mid Am 3 times I think. Point is, he's no piker. He is the elite of the elite Am's.

 

I think he shot 71-71 at St. George's in the one CDN Open .... and MC'd. On one of those days Carl Petterson shot 60. Seriously. That was a +16 differential for the day !!!

 

I think he did the US Mid Am one year and lost in the final 8 to Richard's buddy Nathan Smith.

 

+6 minimum, +8 more likely

 

I said it earlier in this thread, you need to play with top pro's to have any concept. I've been lucky to do this multiple times and their skills are down right terrifying

[1badbadger]

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

I don't think just going by a player's handicap (or their estimated handicap) really means much. For example, I was looking at Bryson DeChambeau's stats for 2016, and in one tournament he shot -5 and finished T4. Another tournament he shot -6 and placed T27, in another -7 for T38, and +5 and finished T21. Those last two events I mentioned he was 12 shots better but 11 places lower. So depending on the scoring for the tournaments entered and which ones are played well, it's possible for a +5 to lose his card and a +3 to have a good season. This is Mickelson's USGA handicap sheet from 2013 (or at least part of it): At one point around 2005 or 2006 Tiger's handicap was calculated to be +7.9. Jim Furyk had the next lowest handicap at +6.7. If they were playing in a 4-day handicapped event, Tiger would have to spot Furyk 5 shots for the tournament. Some other examples (from 2013): Aaron Baddeley +6.2; Martin Kaymer +5.8; Kevin Streelman +6.2; Paul Casey +4.6; Billy Mayfair +5.2; Chez Reavie +4.5; and Geoff Ogilvy+6.2. It's been roughly calculated that the guys on the bottom of the money list who barely keep their card are at about +4.0.

The only problem with those handicaps is that they are not their tour scores. They are their home course scores in rounds for fun.

Actually the opposite. Those are only their tournament scores and not their scores under non tournament conditions which would be lower. They aren't inputting those scores. Someone else is putting them it.

 

Either way, I hate to have to give Furyk strokes!

[taporsnap17]

Holy back from the dead Batman!

 

Without reading 4 odd pages of replies, I think the biggest thing about being able to play on tour isn't getting the HC down to a +whatever, it's the fact that these guys play at a +x on every course rather than a guy that can get there but only play their home course which they know like the back on their hand. These guys will play to their hc on a course they play once a year for a tourney and might get 2 practice rounds in.

[mattjud]

I played in a 3 day member/guest at Colonial CC in Ft Worth. My buddy sends me the pairing sheet and as I'm looking, I see Ryan Palmer +7, who is a member there, in our flight.

 

I am a 0 at my course and my buddy is a 7 at Colonial. That puts us in the Champ flight... Ryan's Partner is a 1 or 2.. So his team is GIVING 5-6 shots, not getting..

 

 

I drank enough to kill a midget that weekend and we didn't sniff winning BUT Ryan and his partner finished 2nd!!! actually Ryan's caddy finished 1st and he is a +2 at Colonial and like a 3-4 time Club Champ there..

 

point is he at least shot 63 to shoot even.. obviously his partner played good, but Colonial is no goat ranch.. they are really that good.

[alange_underpar]

Just going off of the handicap postings at my home club, when I look at the sheet and find the guy who plays on tour out of our club his handicap is usually between +5.8-+6.4. For reference, from the tips my course is 74.7/148 rating/slope.