More blatherings from Isaacbm about handicap...

[awil]

My question is if in golf when we are below the line it's always minus why can they change the handicap so a regular joe is a plus 13 and the touring pro like rory with 20 good rounds is a minus 13 just like how score works ...IMO it just makes sense but no real reason to change it

[PaddyK]

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1356816606' post='6135003']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356815086' post='6134935']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1356812517' post='6134819']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356771931' post='6133019']
a handicap is an ongoing entity and has to include the bad aswell as the good. yes you will have to play some great golf to win, but thats not an effective indicator of handicap.

play like he was Plus 12? sure for a week or 2.

actually get to plus 12 over a season and maintain it? I dont think so.
[/quote]

You gotta read what the guy wrote bud. He's not saying the whole season, he's saying the weeks that they win, and yes, based upon my years of professional experience I believe he is correct in his assesment.
[/quote]

then its meaningless really.
[/quote]

He's saying that the adjusted course rating/slope for a scratch golfer would be likely 3 shots harder during tour setup. Then he's saying that Rory had a stretch for 5 straight weeks (20 rounds) where he won 3 times and finished second 1 time.

If the US system needs only 20 scores to accurately calculate a handicap, then Rory's handicap would have been +12 or so during that stretch. It's not meaningless because by the end of his 20th round in that period, all of the other scores posted before the 1st round in that stretch would no longer count towards his handicap. So there fore his current handicap would have been +12.

I'm not saying it's exactly accurate because the rating committee hasn't actually re rated the course for a scratch golfer but his point is pretty easy to understand.

Why do you think it's meaningless? Handicap is not calculated for a whole season in the US system, it's calculated using only the last 20 scores that you've entered.
[/quote]

Its meaningless for the very reason you say, the course rating is what it is, you cant just change it by 3 shots to suit your own maths. It would need a proper re rating and I am not convinced it would alter it that much, if at all.

[Hattori Hanzo]

[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356870196' post='6137983']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1356816606' post='6135003']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356815086' post='6134935']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1356812517' post='6134819']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356771931' post='6133019']
a handicap is an ongoing entity and has to include the bad aswell as the good. yes you will have to play some great golf to win, but thats not an effective indicator of handicap.

play like he was Plus 12? sure for a week or 2.

actually get to plus 12 over a season and maintain it? I dont think so.
[/quote]

You gotta read what the guy wrote bud. He's not saying the whole season, he's saying the weeks that they win, and yes, based upon my years of professional experience I believe he is correct in his assesment.
[/quote]

then its meaningless really.
[/quote]

He's saying that the adjusted course rating/slope for a scratch golfer would be likely 3 shots harder during tour setup. Then he's saying that Rory had a stretch for 5 straight weeks (20 rounds) where he won 3 times and finished second 1 time.

If the US system needs only 20 scores to accurately calculate a handicap, then Rory's handicap would have been +12 or so during that stretch. It's not meaningless because by the end of his 20th round in that period, all of the other scores posted before the 1st round in that stretch would no longer count towards his handicap. So there fore his current handicap would have been +12.

I'm not saying it's exactly accurate because the rating committee hasn't actually re rated the course for a scratch golfer but his point is pretty easy to understand.

Why do you think it's meaningless? Handicap is not calculated for a whole season in the US system, it's calculated using only the last 20 scores that you've entered.
[/quote]

Its meaningless for the very reason you say, the course rating is what it is, you cant just change it by 3 shots to suit your own maths. It would need a proper re rating and I am not convinced it would alter it that much, if at all.
[/quote]

Let me rephrase what you're saying: if a scratch golfer played the course under normal conditions, and then under tournament conditions, his scores wouldn't change. Do you honestly believe that?

[avrag]

Having played a few courses right before or right after they were set up for European Tour and European Challenge Tour events, I don't share the notion that the courses are more difficult in the Tour set-up than they are all year round. It might be different on the PGA Tour. What I saw were faster greens, but also smoother greens, and denser (not necessarily longer) rough, but it was also more consistent than the rest of the year. Add to that the advantages of practically never losing a ball, of hitting into grandstands and getting free drops, of enhanced roll due to more closely mown fairways and of hitting to areas way off-line, where normally the rough would be unplayable but is trodden down by the spectators, and I do not think that a Tour prepared course plays more difficult overall than it does every other day of the year.
I still think that these guys are ridiculously good and lightyears away from the scratch guy at your club you know, but the hcp calculations, which presume that a course in its Tour set-up has a course rating that's seven shots higher than the usual one, do not convince me. I have seen +2s play and I have seen Tour players play close-up, for whole rounds, and the difference is huge, just huge. But the course ratings are not 83 or something like that, thus their theoretical HI does not come out at +13, not even over a "hot" four weeks period.

[PaddyK]

[quote name='Hattori Hanzo' timestamp='1356876971' post='6138167']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356870196' post='6137983']
[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1356816606' post='6135003']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356815086' post='6134935']
[quote name='Thrillhouse' timestamp='1356812517' post='6134819']
[quote name='PaddyK' timestamp='1356771931' post='6133019']
a handicap is an ongoing entity and has to include the bad aswell as the good. yes you will have to play some great golf to win, but thats not an effective indicator of handicap.

play like he was Plus 12? sure for a week or 2.

actually get to plus 12 over a season and maintain it? I dont think so.
[/quote]

You gotta read what the guy wrote bud. He's not saying the whole season, he's saying the weeks that they win, and yes, based upon my years of professional experience I believe he is correct in his assesment.
[/quote]

then its meaningless really.
[/quote]

He's saying that the adjusted course rating/slope for a scratch golfer would be likely 3 shots harder during tour setup. Then he's saying that Rory had a stretch for 5 straight weeks (20 rounds) where he won 3 times and finished second 1 time.

If the US system needs only 20 scores to accurately calculate a handicap, then Rory's handicap would have been +12 or so during that stretch. It's not meaningless because by the end of his 20th round in that period, all of the other scores posted before the 1st round in that stretch would no longer count towards his handicap. So there fore his current handicap would have been +12.

I'm not saying it's exactly accurate because the rating committee hasn't actually re rated the course for a scratch golfer but his point is pretty easy to understand.

Why do you think it's meaningless? Handicap is not calculated for a whole season in the US system, it's calculated using only the last 20 scores that you've entered.
[/quote]

Its meaningless for the very reason you say, the course rating is what it is, you cant just change it by 3 shots to suit your own maths. It would need a proper re rating and I am not convinced it would alter it that much, if at all.
[/quote]

Let me rephrase what you're saying: if a scratch golfer played the course under normal conditions, and then under tournament conditions, his scores wouldn't change. Do you honestly believe that?
[/quote]

Why would it change, A course needs re rating if there are significant changes. Is setting it for a PGA event significant enough? Its not like they are adding new bunkers or rebuilding the course in any way.

[avrag]

[quote name='Hattori Hanzo' timestamp='1356876971' post='6138167']

Let me rephrase what you're saying: if a scratch golfer played the course under normal conditions, and then under tournament conditions, his scores wouldn't change. Do you honestly believe that?
[/quote]

To sum up my previous post:
It depends.
I have played a few rounds with a sratch player, whose game travels well. He does not look spectacular at all from tee to green, but he has a great short game and he can read putts well. I do not think that his scores would suffer too much, because he also putts well on very fast greens.
One junior at my club, on the other hand, who has just narrowly sneaked into the +hcp range this year, bombs the ball and is also pretty straight, but he has a terrible attitude when things go wrong and has a tendency to miss short putts, especially when they are downhill. He would probably have a hard time breaking 85 on a Tour set-up.

[Hattori Hanzo]

[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1356878608' post='6138259']
[quote name='Hattori Hanzo' timestamp='1356876971' post='6138167']
Let me rephrase what you're saying: if a scratch golfer played the course under normal conditions, and then under tournament conditions, his scores wouldn't change. Do you honestly believe that?
[/quote]

To sum up my previous post:
It depends.
I have played a few rounds with a sratch player, whose game travels well. He does not look spectacular at all from tee to green, but he has a great short game and he can read putts well. I do not think that his scores would suffer too much, because he also putts well on very fast greens.
One junior at my club, on the other hand, who has just narrowly sneaked into the +hcp range this year, bombs the ball and is also pretty straight, but he has a terrible attitude when things go wrong and has a tendency to miss short putts, especially when they are downhill. He would probably have a hard time breaking 85 on a Tour set-up.
[/quote]

Interesting. That's a pretty good point: all scratch golfers aren't created equal. So I guess that it would really come down to the people who were actually playing the rating rounds?

[PaddyK]

[quote name='Hattori Hanzo' timestamp='1356879343' post='6138327']
[quote name='avrag' timestamp='1356878608' post='6138259']
[quote name='Hattori Hanzo' timestamp='1356876971' post='6138167']
Let me rephrase what you're saying: if a scratch golfer played the course under normal conditions, and then under tournament conditions, his scores wouldn't change. Do you honestly believe that?
[/quote]

To sum up my previous post:
It depends.
I have played a few rounds with a sratch player, whose game travels well. He does not look spectacular at all from tee to green, but he has a great short game and he can read putts well. I do not think that his scores would suffer too much, because he also putts well on very fast greens.
One junior at my club, on the other hand, who has just narrowly sneaked into the +hcp range this year, bombs the ball and is also pretty straight, but he has a terrible attitude when things go wrong and has a tendency to miss short putts, especially when they are downhill. He would probably have a hard time breaking 85 on a Tour set-up.
[/quote]

Interesting. That's a pretty good point: all scratch golfers aren't created equal. So I guess that it would really come down to the people who were actually playing the rating rounds?
[/quote]

I don't think the play rating rounds, rather they walk the course and look at the different aspects that make a course hard or easy (er..)

[mark m]

If you really want to know, read this:

[url="http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/"]http://www.usga.org/handicapping/course_ratings/ratings_primer/Course-Rating-Primer/[/url]

USGA definition of a scratch golfer:

[i]Scratch Golfer: A male scratch golfer is a player who can play to a Course Handicap of zero on any and all rated golf courses. A male scratch golfer, for rating purposes, can hit tee shots an average of 250 yards and can reach a 470-yard hole in two shots.[/i]

Modern elite players have no trouble "reaching" a 470 yard hole in 2 shots. Most of the time it will be a driver and short iron. This is part of the problem with trying to assign a handicap to an elite player using calculations that aren't very accurate for how they really play the game. If they did decide to create an additional rating for elite players - how they measure a course would need to change. You would probably have to add at least 25 yards to the scratch player distance of 250. A rating would probably end up being pretty close to the field average score. Also keep in mind that the courses rarely play the listed max distance on any one day because they move the tees around.

The basic point is that if you want to play pro golf, you need to be able to score consistently in the 60's on courses rated 75 or more. If you do that, you will have a "handicap" in the +5 to +6 range and have the minimum game needed to give it a go. So it is useful in the sense that it gives perspective on what is needed to make it.

[greens hit]

I nominate this as GolfWRX's HUMBLEBRAG POST OF THE YEAR.

[spring70]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1355241556' post='6051145']
I think THEE main thing the majority of peeple are not aware of is the simple numbers.

This is rough math off the top of my head but for ballparking purposes....

PGA Tour Spots = 230
NBA = 450
MLB = 750-1000+
NFL = 17/1800
ATP =1000s+
PBA = 4000-5000

Golf is the least accessable , the most costly to pursue , the most un-supported and has the least number of the most difficult to obtain.....(whew...) available spots. Factor all that.

So why is it that those guys are so many better than the rest ?

Cause virtually every single PGA tour event is the Super Bowl , World Series or World Championship.
[/quote]

Good points, but I would think those ATP numbers are like combining the PGA, Buy.com, Canadian, Hooters and every other low level tour out there, because you can win a match playing in an outhouse in Paraguay and get an ATP point. The real ATP events are just as hard if not harder to play in than the US PGA events.

[ram01002]

[quote name='RJRJRJ' timestamp='1356566812' post='6120111']
My heart beats out of my chest and I sweat profusely during the final seconds of an ebay auction. I think this might possibly be a limiting factor in my tournament golf success.
[/quote]

Lol, so much truth in this statement!

[Johnny Biarritz]

If they did a true course rating for a tour set up it would not change much. Here is why: the length wouldn't change at all, unless they have specific tour only tees, and length is one of the biggest factors in determining course difficulty. However, most raters will say that true hazard factors go up off the scale because of fairway firmness, rough length, and green speed/firmness. Plus, hole locations are most often in more difficult positions through the week causing missed shots to be penalized more than "average." But no worries, debate whatever you like. I stand by my assessment that to win an event you need to be 50 shots under the equivalent of a Competition Scratch Score for a 4 round event. That's on average. I also stand by that you need to be 15 under CSS for two days, on average, to make a cut.

But even if you just use the normal course rating, winning scores are 36 +/- strokes under par on a given week. +12, +9, +8 whatever you say, the point still stands: these guys are freakishly good and if you want to go out and play with them you'd better be able to shoot 6 or 7 shots under the course rating every time you play, on average, or you're going to get beat like a rented mule.

[PaddyK]

[quote name='Johnny Biarritz' timestamp='1356895402' post='6139569']
If they did a true course rating for a tour set up it would not change much. Here is why: the length wouldn't change at all, unless they have specific tour only tees, and length is one of the biggest factors in determining course difficulty. However, most raters will say that true hazard factors go up off the scale because of fairway firmness, rough length, and green speed/firmness. Plus, hole locations are most often in more difficult positions through the week causing missed shots to be penalized more than "average." But no worries, debate whatever you like. I stand by my assessment that to win an event you need to be 50 shots under the equivalent of a Competition Scratch Score for a 4 round event. That's on average. I also stand by that you need to be 15 under CSS for two days, on average, to make a cut.

But even if you just use the normal course rating, winning scores are 36 +/- strokes under par on a given week. +12, +9, +8 whatever you say, the point still stands: these guys are freakishly good and if you want to go out and play with them you'd better be able to shoot 6 or 7 shots under the course rating every time you play, on average, or you're going to get beat like a rented mule.
[/quote]

I'm not doubting how good they are, Mcilroy was +6 when he turned pro and shot 61 round Royal Portrush at 16 years of age.! Just +12 seems a bit extreme, especially from a CONGU handicap perspective.

[isaacbm]

Jonny Biarritz

I think your assessment would be correct for major venues but not quite right on a regular tour event. The two biggest differences on the adjustment of the course handicap would be green firmness and rough thickness.

For the guys saying the tour is easier because of grandstands and the gallery not allowing you to lose a ball, the point is that if the course was in the condition that it's in when there is a tour event but with no gallery or grandstands and an average scratch golfer played it under those conditions, how much harder would the course play?

Remember Tiger's comment about a 10 not being able to break 100 at a US Open setup? So what do they do? They bring in a bunch of 2-4 handicaps and these guys shoot in the mid 80's. A 2 is not the same as a 10. There were tour players that were not breaking 80 at Beth Page Black. If they actually put 4 local club 10 handicaps out there with no gallery to spot balls they would literally not be able to finish the round. They wouldn't be able to carry enough balls with them.

And some of the forced carries were 275 just to reach the fairways.

I don't think the average tour course is comparable to the US Open but I do think people underestimate how much more difficult long rough and rock hard greens can make a course play.

[avrag]

Isaacbm, I believe everything you say, because you have been there and done that. And knowing a few players who have tried mini tours and had zero, nada, zip chance of making it, I think I can really appreciate the giant gap between tour players and really good golfers. And from what I have seen it is mainly mental and consistency in the short game.
But I still do not believe that the Tour courses are so much more difficult. One thing strikes me though, when I am aware of the fact that you talk about the US and I talk about Europe. Having played quite a few times in the US now, and on difficult courses as well, I now know, that US courses in their usual everyday set-up do not have anything we would call rough in Europe. I am not talking about the long hay on links courses, just normal rough between the fairway and the tree line on a parkland course. We actually have real rough all the time there, the sort in which you can stand a foot from your ball and not see it. My US experience was that I actually never encountered anything like that on any course I played in Florida, Hawaii, the Palm Springs area and the Phoenix Scottsdale area. Might be different on traditional courses in the northern parts of the country. But this also made me think that, when it comes to rough, the tour set-up is not all that different from the everyday set-up I am used to. The only real difference I experienced was the green speed, and that, on the other hand seems to be closer to the normal conditions on many of the better US courses, many of which have greens around 11 or 12 all of the time. So my point was more with that assessment than with anything else. It is amazing enough that there are people who can shoot consistently 4 or 5 shots under a "normal" course rating, and ten shots lower, if they have a really good day..
Anyway, Even if you take the normal set-up on a 7000+ yards course, it is clear that most really good club golfers could not shoot in the 60s 4 days in a row year in, year out, and that alone should tell people how incredibly good tour players are.

[Johnny Biarritz]

Isaac- You are correct, major venues and tour venues aren't exactly comparable...or at least they are not the same. I was trying to use fixed numbers to say that a tour set-up on a given course is probably 3 shots harder than the course rating, US Open courses probably 5 strokes harder than that. On the Web.com tour, might be 2 shots harder, that based on watching an event for 3 years in person, playing the course 3 days after the event and playing it again about 5 months later. Agree or disagree? And your final comment states it perfectly, people don't understand and the Course Rating numbers aren't designed to understand because those conditions are not year-round conditions.

[hayzooos]

This has been a great read on a slow day at work. Isaac and Thrill, I always enjoy you guys bringing some of your real world experience back here and speaking from a position of experience, not just theory. I play to about a 6 now due to lack of time to play and practice, but used to play to around 0-1. So every now and then that game can come back. I've had a few people even mention to me how "close" I must've been a few years back when I was playing better. I just laugh and try to explain what we're talking about in this thread...how I'm literally at least 10 shots off PGA Tour guys...PER ROUND. So if the cut was at -4, me playing at my best when playing my best, would come in around +16 or so and usually good enough for DFL as put before.

[neil72]

[quote name='Johnny Biarritz' timestamp='1356907988' post='6140451']
On the Web.com tour, might be 2 shots harder
[/quote]

I am a member of TPC Stonebrae, a Nationwide Tour stop for the last few years.I am also scratch golfer (+1 at the moment), and my job involves statistics. I have also talked to course raters about how they come up with the numbers. So let me give you my thoughts on this. I do not know much about the PGA Tour stops or the Major setups, but i can give you some insights for the Web.com tour.

At TPC Stonebrae the back tee rating is 74.5 at 7188 yards. It was 75.1 but then got re-rated down recently. The raters came out in the middle of summer when the rough was burned out. In April when the tournament is played the rough is much thicker, but the fairways are very wide, so this does not come into play a great deal. The rough around the greens is a little thicker during the tournament, but it is maintained almost at tournament length year round. Also the fairways are much firmer for the tournament, and the ball rolls a good 20-30 yards off their drives. This reduces the effective playing length and therefore the course rating, as the major factor in the course rating is the length.

As a general rule the Web.com tour wants the winning score at 18-20 under par. They will move the tees up to achieve this score. At TPC Stonebrae, they did not play the back tees. They moved the tees up 200-300 yards (we had some really cold days and they really moved them up more). My best guess is that they played from around 6900 yards on average. The course is rated at 73.2 for a set of combo tees at 6900 yards. With the added driving distance due to firm fairways i would say the course was playing no harder than a course rating of 73 and maybe even a 72. In terms of the greens, they did not quicken up the greens. They stimped at 10.5, which is their target speed. The green are too sloped to be playable at any faster. The pins where in very flat spots on the greens. The do not trick the pin positions up, they want them to hole putts.

So in saying that the Web.com tour plays 2 shots harder than the course rating, i would say it is two shots easier than the course rating.
That being said, now let us look at the actual scores that were shot during the tournament, and what their handicaps would be according to those scores.The USGA system is set up so that you are expected to shoot your handicap one in five rounds.I downloaded the scores from the 2012 tournament, and then considered three different sets of scores:
(1) The scores from all players, making and missing the cut over the first 2 days
(2) The scores from all those making the cut over all four rounds.
(3) The scores from the top 25 over all four rounds.
I chose the last option as it is the only really the top 25 who are making a living on the Web.com tour and make it onto the PGA Tour.

If you assume that all the players have the same handicap, and the same ability, then their handicap would be the where the 20% of the scores are equal or better than this score.The 20% or better score i obtained from the 2012 tournament are (1) 69 (2) 68 (3) 67.

With my estimation of a course rating of 73 and factoring in slope this puts their index at +3, +4 and +5 respectively. So the average index for the field is +3, but to be making cuts every week you need to be more of a +4 and to be top 25 and making a living and getting a chance on the PGA tour you need to be a +5. Of course most of the web.com tour graduates will not keep their card on the PGA Tour so they need to get better to stay on Tour, so they need to improve from +5 to make it on the PGA Tour.

It is a fine line success and failure at that level.

Edit: Sorry did the slope the wrong way.

[msd71]

[quote name='Obee' timestamp='1354838136' post='6029645']
Just re-read your two posts, and you get indexes. I mis-read it the first time. Sorry. :-)

[quote name='isaacbm' timestamp='1354789326' post='6026325']
Ok, I know every year I get into a big debate about how good the guys on tour actually are. For those of you who are bored with this topic please forgive me.

I just wanted to point out a few numbers from q school...

The two courses at PGA West are rated 76.1/150 and 75.3/143

The guy that finished last in the whole field, Scott Pinckney, had a stroke average of 74.1. That means that his average differential entered in the computer for the week would be +1.5 or so. This is the worst guy in the field for the whole week.

The guy that finished first had a stroke average of 67.8. So His average differential would be +7.7

I realize these numbers don't equate to handicap ( they would actually have lower handicaps) but I'm just pointing out the averages.

How many guys do you know that have a stroke average that is nearly 8 strokes under your course rating?


Once again, I'm glad I got the Am Status back. Carts and a few beers is where it's at!


It's cold and snowing in Calgary and I'm bored so please discuss...
[/quote]

Your calculations are wrong, actually. an average score of 67.8 at PGA West from the tips yields an average differential of -6.25266667 and an index of -6.0

Everyone always forgets the slope portion of calculating a differential. The higher the slope, the more it affects your differential when you shoot low.

A 68 shot at PGA West, while seeming like a -8.1 differential (68 MINUS 76.1 EQUALS -8.1) differential, is actually only a -7.6 differential.

The formula is: Gross score MINUS Course rating TIMES 113 DIVIDED BY the slope of the course played (Everyone conveniently leaves out the last two steps and just takes the score and subtracts it from the course rating, but that's no the way indexes are calculated.

So: a 66 at PGA West would look like this:

[b][color=#ff0000]66 MINUS 76.1 (the course rating of PGA West) EQUALS -10.1 TIMES 113 EQUALS -1,141.3 DIVIDED BY 150 (the slope of PGA West) EQUALS -7.60866667.[/color][/b]

So, once again, the differential for shooting a 66 at PGA west is -7.6

Make sense? :-)

And that's obviously just the differential for one round. Your index, as everyone knows, is based upon the best 10 of your last 20 scores and then you multiply that by .96, so if someone shot 20 straight rounds of 66 at PGA West from the tips, then their index would actually be -7.6 (the average of his 10 best scores) x .96, which would equal -7.296, or a handicap index of -7.3.

Based upon my research, most PGA Tour pros have indexes in the range of -5 to -8. But remember, those INDEXES convert to COURSE HANDICAPS of -7 to -10 on tough courses with high slopes.

Confusing, I know, but true.

I've played lots of golf over the years with PGA Tour Pros, Nationwide Tour Pros, and top Mini-Tour pros. The index system works. When I play Tom Pernice, Jr. ($14 million in career earnings on the PGA tour) at my club (Bear Creek Golf Club in Murrieta, CA, where we just had 2nd stage PGA Tour Q-School 7,157 75.7/146), he gives me 2 a side, and we are 3 and 3 in our last three matches. I'm a +1 to +2 right now, and that's a fair bet for us. If we were playing stroke play, I would ask him for 5 strokes instead of 2 and 2 in match play, and at five strokes in stroke play, he would probably have the edge on me, but barely.

If I were playing Ricky Fowler (he's a member at Bear Creek, also), I would ask him for 3 and 2 match play and six strokes if we played stroke play. Ricky shoots between 65 and 70 at Bear Creek pretty much all the time. I shoot betwen 70 and 78 pretty much all the time (unless conditions are really bad or I'm injured, then I can blow up to 80 to 82).

At six strokes, Ricky would probably beat me a bit more than half the time, but I would, absolutely, beat him a fair amount of the time. When I shoot 73, he has to shoot 67 just to tie me. He can certainly do that, but he's also completely capable of shooting 69 or 70 on any given day at Bear Creek if his putts aren't falling or if he has a double on his card.
[/quote]

Is it intentional that for + handicaps, the higher the slope rating, the closer to zero the differential becomes? Seems backwards, doesn't it? Makes perfect sense for handicaps of 0 or worse, but there's no adjustment to the formula for + caps?

[ALIF]

[quote name='neil72' timestamp='1356987864' post='6144687']
[quote name='Johnny Biarritz' timestamp='1356907988' post='6140451']
On the Web.com tour, might be 2 shots harder
[/quote]

I am a member of TPC Stonebrae, a Nationwide Tour stop for the last few years.I am also scratch golfer (+1 at the moment), and my job involves statistics. I have also talked to course raters about how they come up with the numbers. So let me give you my thoughts on this. I do not know much about the PGA Tour stops or the Major setups, but i can give you some insights for the Web.com tour.

At TPC Stonebrae the back tee rating is 74.5 at 7188 yards. It was 75.1 but then got re-rated down recently. The raters came out in the middle of summer when the rough was burned out. In April when the tournament is played the rough is much thicker, but the fairways are very wide, so this does not come into play a great deal. The rough around the greens is a little thicker during the tournament, but it is maintained almost at tournament length year round. Also the fairways are much firmer for the tournament, and the ball rolls a good 20-30 yards off their drives. This reduces the effective playing length and therefore the course rating, as the major factor in the course rating is the length.

As a general rule the Web.com tour wants the winning score at 18-20 under par. They will move the tees up to achieve this score. At TPC Stonebrae, they did not play the back tees. They moved the tees up 200-300 yards (we had some really cold days and they really moved them up more). My best guess is that they played from around 6900 yards on average. The course is rated at 73.2 for a set of combo tees at 6900 yards. With the added driving distance due to firm fairways i would say the course was playing no harder than a course rating of 73 and maybe even a 72. In terms of the greens, they did not quicken up the greens. They stimped at 10.5, which is their target speed. The green are too sloped to be playable at any faster. The pins where in very flat spots on the greens. The do not trick the pin positions up, they want them to hole putts.

So in saying that the Web.com tour plays 2 shots harder than the course rating, i would say it is two shots easier than the course rating.
That being said, now let us look at the actual scores that were shot during the tournament, and what their handicaps would be according to those scores.The USGA system is set up so that you are expected to shoot your handicap one in five rounds.I downloaded the scores from the 2012 tournament, and then considered three different sets of scores:
(1) The scores from all players, making and missing the cut over the first 2 days
(2) The scores from all those making the cut over all four rounds.
(3) The scores from the top 25 over all four rounds.
I chose the last option as it is the only really the top 25 who are making a living on the Web.com tour and make it onto the PGA Tour.

If you assume that all the players have the same handicap, and the same ability, then their handicap would be the where the 20% of the scores are equal or better than this score.The 20% or better score i obtained from the 2012 tournament are (1) 69 (2) 68 (3) 67.

With my estimation of a course rating of 73 and factoring in slope this puts their index at +5, +6 and +7 respectively. So the average index for the field is +5, but to be making cuts every week you need to be more of a +6 and to be top 25 and making a living and getting a chance on the PGA tour you need to be a +7. Of course most of the web.com tour graduates will not keep their card on the PGA Tour so they need to get better to stay on Tour, so they need to improve from +7 to make it on the PGA Tour.

It is a fine line success and failure at that level.
[/quote]

Great analysis. Very interesting read! Thanks.

[KPH808]

I don't know anyone who has a stroke average of +8. I wish I did, I would be trying to play with him all the time. Those numbers these guys have posted are very impressive and there are a lot of good golfers out there. It's what's between the ears that makes them a great golfer and take it to the next level.

[poizster]

For what it's worth, here's a few kids that are +5's ranging in the age from 14-17. All are ranked in top 25 among US Juniors. I read about a 12 year old kid that recently committed to Oklahoma State, I think he's a +3 already.

[attachment=1471325:51.png][attachment=1471327:52.png][attachment=1471329:53.png]

[kg92lefty]

Even a +5 won't get you much. I played with a professional today that has conditional status on both the PGA Tour and Web.com tour, however his number only got called to 7 tournaments on those two tours this year.
It was 42 degrees and WINDY on a tree lined golf course and he [i]slapped[/i] it around for a 68 on a course with a CR of 75.
That is an impressive round, but for him he played OK. He made $30,000 this year....not going to make a living off that. (His career earnings are in the 5.5mill range, so hes not playing his best).
You need to average that and have an extra gear to go stupid low to make a living.

[Johnny Biarritz]

[quote name='kg92lefty' timestamp='1357015590' post='6146639']
You need to average that and have an extra gear to go stupid low to make a living.
[/quote]

Sort of. Look at that kid in the middle from Timarron: his differentials run from -9.9 to 2.7, both of those are outliers, other diffs run from -.2 to -7.6. A tour pro will likely have diffs from -3 to -9 with an outlier at 0 and -15 or something crazy like that. It's not so much "another gear" as it is all the scores are better. I'm currently a 4, my scores from from .7 to 12.2, so pretty much the same spread that +5 kid has, it's just my median is much higher. A tour player will have a similar spread in scores, but their median will be much lower, and the outlier from that handicap chart above of 12.2 below the course rating will turn into 16 or 17 for a tour player. They have 'another gear' so to speak, but they also just generally have more horsepower too.

[mark m]

The players above may in fact be very good players, and their handicaps may be close to the listed handicap, but those scoring records are incomplete to say the least. Based on what is presented, we don't really know what there handicaps would truly be at a specific time.

Why? (just examine the above a little closer)

Take player #1: Most of the scores (all of his recent scores) are 'T' scores, correct? So he played 5 rounds in 2009? One in June (6/09) and fired a 67? Boy, he is good.

Player 2: all TI ("Tournament Internet") scores? Really? I suppose it would be legit to some(?) He is good to play just 8 times in August and score that well. Calling him a phenom doesn't cover it.

Player #3: played just twice in July and shot 66 & 67. Must have been hurt or on vaca or something the rest of the month.

As I said, these guys may in fact be excellent players, but the above scoring records are incompete. Much of story is missing. What do your eyes tell you?

[RRFireblade]

As I've already said , Handicaps are meaningless at that level. They were never meant to cover a range of levels that wide.

Regardless...Handicaps only give you a relative adjusted average potential over a given range of time. Winning golf is about hitting peaks with ideal timing.

All this "winners of this..." or that Tourny tell you nothing about thier handicaps and you can't figure what a handicap would be based on winners.

Otherwise those guys would be shooting lifetime rounds and scores weekend in and weekend out and of course then thier handis would be 20+. They don't, no one does.

[Triple-Double]

What sets tour players apart from great amateurs is their mind. If you're capable of shooting sub 70 on championship courses you have the game. The difference is doing it when you HAVE to do it. If anyone aspires to pursue this game professionally that's their prerogative. Who are you to tell anyone they can't do something? Golf is a beautiful game and a hell of a lot better addiction than what else is out there.

[SurfDuffer]

I think once you get below a 5 handicap its more about mental game than physical game. The pros don't make many mistakes and when they do they rarely compound those mistakes. From there its all chipping and putting.

[PaddyK]

[quote name='SurfDuffer' timestamp='1357647846' post='6189291']
I think once you get below a 5 handicap its more about mental game than physical game. The pros don't make many mistakes and when they do they rarely compound those mistakes. From there its all chipping and putting.
[/quote]

See Jean Van De Velde for poor shot choice....