Hcp in Profile would make GWRX more valuable to all members

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411847058' post='10195745']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1411845189' post='10195631']
[quote name='petter7' timestamp='1411840940' post='10195263']
To attain a handicap of +7.9 you would have to have a stroke average of 66 (10 lowest scores out of last 20) on a course with a rating of 77 and a slope rating of 150.

Think Bethpage Black or Oakmont from the tips in championship trim for reference. Would take a world class player to pull that off. Mini Tour player? IMO? Doubt it.
[/quote]

You don't understand that there is little actual skill difference between successful mini tour players and PGA tour players. Have you ever even seen the scores that win on mini tours? It's like 64 4 rounds in a row. You have to go stupid low. Stroke average doesn't equal 10 lowest scores out of 20 so..... Not to mention I don't think you understand the difference between tournament golf and casual golf, even when completely played by the rules. Not to mention the fact that you don't understand the whole .9 thing either. It seems like you don't have an understanding of a) competitive golf b) the handicap system, so I have no idea why you're trying to make proclamations about either.
[/quote]

I'm a golf professional pinhigh27 and have been for 45 years. I have a fairly good grasp of the game. Probably right up there with you. lol
[/quote]

I wouldn't agree based on your posts. I stand by what I said.

[pingfool]

neither petter or pinhigh list their index?

if they did would that change your judgement as to who's point is valid?

I hope this illustrates the irrelevancy of the OP's premise

[AndyC]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1411845189' post='10195631'] Stroke average doesn't equal 10 lowest scores out of 20 so..... [/quote]

Being that petter7 was referring to getting an index from 1 golf course how could his statement regarding 10 lowest scores out of 20 possibly be wrong? What am I missing. Is there another method for determining a USGA index?

[HackerD]

[quote name='Thainer' timestamp='1411829561' post='10194337']
I've seen low handicappers say the stupidest things and I've seen high handicappers say some pretty intelligent things.

In the end you need to take it all with a grain of salt because it's just words on a digital wall.
[/quote]
Agreed.

Some people do show their handicap but it has no effect on how much weight I give to their opinion.

[bph7]

[quote name='tmfool ' timestamp='1411848410' post='10195847']
neither petter or pinhigh list their index?

if they did would that change your judgement as to who's point is valid?

I hope this illustrates the irrelevancy of the OP's premise
[/quote]

I'll just say that this is never going to happen, but if such a system were in place, I think it would be more relevant for the higher caps. Like if everyone were honest about cap, I'd probably just skip over every post that from someone who was above like a 10 or a 12. But again this isn't going to happen, and even if it did it would be undermined by people not being honest, so in the end it's all back to where it started: you have to evaluated both the message and messenger for their merit and decide what you want to believe.

[MonteScheinblum]

Let me add to Dan's point from personal experience, as I am the 73rd on web.com guy (finished near that spot one year).

At that time I played regularly with a 1, a +3, a hooters tour player and Frank Lickliter.

The 1 beat me ocaasionally, the +3 beat me often, the hooters player beat me half the time and I beat Frank more than half the time...all in casual rounds.

The higher the pressure and the harder the course, the more those obvious differences separated.

Tour conditions, the +3 probably needed 2-3 aside to have a chance. Don't think the hooters player ever beat me in a tournament when the rough was high and greens were fast..and the differences between Frank's career and mine are obvious.

[bph7]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1411836726' post='10194907']
Some are around +10 or 11. Handicap wise the top mini tour guys are as good as top PGA tour or at least close. Remember handicap only counts the best HALF of your scores. 10/20. It's the anticap or the worst half of your scores that separates you at that level.
[/quote]

This is THE answer for why guys on tour probably wouldn't be that much lower cap wise than mini tour guys. I'm surprised there was still a discussion of this issue after this was posted, but on the other hand I'm not because most don't understand the handicap system at all...

[petter7]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1411847977' post='10195809']
I wouldn't agree based on your posts. I stand by what I said.
[/quote]

Good for you.

And I'll stand by everything I've said too, which is based on playing mini tours myself and teaching mini tour players for years.


[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1411842755' post='10195433']
Yet many courses have that rating with lower slopes which would require a smaller differential. TPC Craig Ranch for example where one of my players would have been a +9.6 differential with tournament rounds of 73-64-67-66. Course is rated 77.3/144. Or another who shot 67-71-64-64 at first stage at St John's Golf and Country Club (74.7/132) and leading up to first stage had 7 consecutive rounds of 64 or better including a 59 on courses rated at 74 or higher. Both are/were above +9 over that stretch. Both have never played an event on the PGA Tour and one has never played an event on the Web.com tour. Have another who has averaged 67 in the best half of his rounds over the last 2 years on the NGA/Hooters Tour. Not over a small period of time, over 2 years. And these are in tournament play. Casual rounds he shoots 62 regularly. As in very often. And has never played in a web.com or PGA tour event.

There are more than a handful of legitimate +6 to +9 guys playing mini tour golf.
[/quote]

Dan, those players you're talking about are impressive indeed. I don't think they would be the norm on mini tours. I really have no desire to debate this with you because I know you work with
mini tour players all the time. I have too. I have the highest respect for you and what you do, because I did it myself and know what it's like. I'm not trying to discredit what your saying, I'm just
stating what I know from my experience, as you are.

Back in the 90's I worked with a close friend of mine and we ran a mini tour. It was call The Gold Coast Pro Golf Tour. We had a summer tour where a 2.5 million dollar purse was guaranteed
by a wealthy backer and we ended up with 156 players. First time any tour of that size was run in SE Florida. There were more +3 to +5 players than there were +6 to +9 players. I would say
maybe half a dozen where true +6 or slightly better players and they won most of the money too. Once the backer saw how successful the tour was, he dropped his backing, called his good
buddy Jack Nicklaus and formed another tour called the Golden Bear Tour. We were essentially out of business.

There is no doubt there are some extremely talented players on mini tours, but in my experience, I saw more +3 to +5 players than I did +6 to +9 players. Could be that you are working with
much better players than I did, but, as I said above, to maintain a +7.9 handicap takes some exceptional play, which is very difficult to sustain over time. The players that can sustain that level
of play usually end up playing on a major tour somewhere on the globe. No guarantees though. I saw some incredibly good mini tour players never make it to the PGA Tour. Some never made
it past 2nd stage.

[pinhigh27]

that's like anything, there are more chumps than champs... I'm not surprised by that observation. doesn't change the fact that you're not going to playing pro golf for very long as a +3-5. no chance

[iteachgolf]

I was meaning successful mini tour players. Like I said a lot of +3-5 out there losing money. Players in discussing are near the top, 2 in top 10 of NGA Tour, 1 in top 20 of EGolf and one top 25 on Asian Tour, and some guys playing in/winning money list on smaller tours and multiple state opens. I have plenty of guys that are +4 that are making about 35% of their cuts and need to get a few shots better to make it to the next level. The guys at top 5% of mini tour golf are VERY close in skill or as good as the journeyman PGA Tour player.

[iteachgolf]

Geoffs (slice) student Zach Fisher is a great example of this and a hell of a player

[Sean2]

[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?

[vman]

[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1411854968' post='10196269']
that's like anything, there are more chumps than champs... I'm not surprised by that observation. doesn't change the fact that you're not going to playing pro golf for very long as a +3-5. no chance
[/quote]
Bit of a chumplike comment….people should just get on with enjoying their golf and keep on striving to improve.Armchair critics…pah!

[bph7]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411855391' post='10196319']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?
[/quote]

This is what people always say, but I think it misses the point. All else being equal, I'd much rather have a better player teach me than a worse one. Just because being a better player doesn't NECESSARILY mean you are a better teacher, doesn't mean it's not a positive attribute to have played a very high level. Butch Harmon won on tour btw, so he's not a particularly good example for making this point for future reference.

I think the biggest issue with throwing the "just because you play good doesn't mean you can teach" thing around is that it almost turns being a better player into a negative in some peoples minds, which is clearly ridiculous.

Further, people always turn this into an all or nothing thing. Of course most people don't choose a teacher JUST based on playing ability, but it doesn't mean that playing ability can't be one (of many) factors that you look into.

Finally, lots of scam artists/charlatans who can't play a lick and don't know anything about teaching use this line as their calling card, so I'm always careful about relying on any line of reasoning that advances these people's agenda.

[iteachgolf]

[quote name='vman' timestamp='1411855739' post='10196345']
[quote name='pinhigh27' timestamp='1411854968' post='10196269']
that's like anything, there are more chumps than champs... I'm not surprised by that observation. doesn't change the fact that you're not going to playing pro golf for very long as a +3-5. no chance
[/quote]
Bit of a chumplike comment….people should just get on with enjoying their golf and keep on striving to improve.Armchair critics…pah!
[/quote]

Nobody is being critical of any individual. it is a fact that you will lose a lot of money and lose it fast as a +3-4 playing mini tour golf. A consistent +5 might have a chance to break even on a tour like the EGolf or NGA tours.

[Sean2]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411856102' post='10196393']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411855391' post='10196319']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?
[/quote]

This is what people always say, but I think it misses the point. All else being equal, I'd much rather have a better player teach me than a worse one. Just because being a better player doesn't NECESSARILY mean you are a better teacher, doesn't mean it's not a positive attribute to have played a very high level. Butch Harmon won on tour btw, so he's not a particularly good example for making this point for future reference.

I think the biggest issue with throwing the "just because you play good doesn't mean you can teach" thing around is that it almost turns being a better player into a negative in some peoples minds, which is clearly ridiculous.

Further, people always turn this into an all or nothing thing. Of course most people don't choose a teacher JUST based on playing ability, but it doesn't mean that playing ability can't be one (of many) factors that you look into.

Finally, lots of scam artists/charlatans who can't play a lick and don't know anything about teaching use this line as their calling card, so I'm always careful about relying on any line of reasoning that advances these people's agenda.
[/quote]

My teacher happens to be a + HI. The VAST majority of teachers I know aren't even close.

That said, and following your logic, the number of posters on this forum would decrease drastically since they don't meet the "criteria".

Good luck finding a great club builder with a +HI.

Would you rather have Butch Harmon as your teacher or Jordan Spieth? I'm sure Mr. Spieth could beat Mr. Harmon on the golf course at any time.

[bph7]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411857903' post='10196541']
[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411856102' post='10196393']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411855391' post='10196319']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?
[/quote]

This is what people always say, but I think it misses the point. All else being equal, I'd much rather have a better player teach me than a worse one. Just because being a better player doesn't NECESSARILY mean you are a better teacher, doesn't mean it's not a positive attribute to have played a very high level. Butch Harmon won on tour btw, so he's not a particularly good example for making this point for future reference.

I think the biggest issue with throwing the "just because you play good doesn't mean you can teach" thing around is that it almost turns being a better player into a negative in some peoples minds, which is clearly ridiculous.

Further, people always turn this into an all or nothing thing. Of course most people don't choose a teacher JUST based on playing ability, but it doesn't mean that playing ability can't be one (of many) factors that you look into.

Finally, lots of scam artists/charlatans who can't play a lick and don't know anything about teaching use this line as their calling card, so I'm always careful about relying on any line of reasoning that advances these people's agenda.
[/quote]

My teacher happens to be a + HI. The VAST majority of teachers I know aren't even close.

That said, and following your logic, the number of posters on this forum would decrease drastically since they don't meet the "criteria".

Good luck finding a great club builder with a +HI.

Would you rather have Butch Harmon as your teacher or Jordan Spieth? I'm sure Mr. Spieth could beat Mr. Harmon on the golf course at any time.
[/quote]

You've completely misunderstood my point. I just think that the statement "just because you can play doesn't mean you can teach" is a very weak argument, and was explaining why. I never said that playing ability is the only thing that mattered, and if you had read my post you would have noticed that I made the specific point that it should be one (of many) factors.

I also never said that a plus cap was a magic dividing line for golf competence, I just think the specific line of reasoning that "just because you play doesn't mean you can teach" is an inherently illogical line of thinking that produces mistakes and gives scam artists more info than they need.

I think a better way to look at it would be this: playing ability doesn't NECESSARILY correspond with one's teaching ability, BUT if you are going to pay for golf instruction from someone, and they aren't at least a solid scratch (or were at some point), you should be VERY careful. As their playing ability decreases, you should be even more careful. This applies fully well to this forum, where most aren't scratch and the majority of comments are correspondingly misguided, incorrect, and generally harmful to most.

Also, again, if you are going to insist on repeating this (IMO) illogical line of thinking, Butch is a bad example. He's old, he could never compete with a current tour player. Neither could Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus at this point, but I'd take them over spieth for golf instruction. Because, as I made clear in my first post, playing ability is NOT everything, but it should be A thing.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411857903' post='10196541']
[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411856102' post='10196393']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411855391' post='10196319']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?
[/quote]

This is what people always say, but I think it misses the point. All else being equal, I'd much rather have a better player teach me than a worse one. Just because being a better player doesn't NECESSARILY mean you are a better teacher, doesn't mean it's not a positive attribute to have played a very high level. Butch Harmon won on tour btw, so he's not a particularly good example for making this point for future reference.

I think the biggest issue with throwing the "just because you play good doesn't mean you can teach" thing around is that it almost turns being a better player into a negative in some peoples minds, which is clearly ridiculous.

Further, people always turn this into an all or nothing thing. Of course most people don't choose a teacher JUST based on playing ability, but it doesn't mean that playing ability can't be one (of many) factors that you look into.

Finally, lots of scam artists/charlatans who can't play a lick and don't know anything about teaching use this line as their calling card, so I'm always careful about relying on any line of reasoning that advances these people's agenda.
[/quote]

My teacher happens to be a + HI. The VAST majority of teachers I know aren't even close.

That said, and following your logic, the number of posters on this forum would decrease drastically since they don't meet the "criteria".

Good luck finding a great club builder with a +HI.

Would you rather have Butch Harmon as your teacher or Jordan Spieth? I'm sure Mr. Spieth could beat Mr. Harmon on the golf course at any time.
[/quote]

When did club building get thrown into the discussion? They're doing something that is much more black and white than teaching golf. I don't care if my builder is a hack or +, I certainly care if my teacher is though. Harmon isn't a good example at all. He was once a + golfer and is simply too old for it to be reasonable anymore. It's different if you were + and now are 70 so you can't realistically play to + vs someone that's 30, a 10 handicap and trying to teach.

[Sean2]

[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411859282' post='10196659']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411857903' post='10196541']
[quote name='bph7' timestamp='1411856102' post='10196393']
[quote name='Sean2' timestamp='1411855391' post='10196319']
[quote name='RRFireblade' timestamp='1411829711' post='10194353']
Any idiot can put +6 in there though.
[/quote]

Amen. Also, if one is a good golfer that does not mean they are more knowledgeable than the next fellow. For example, what is Tom Wishon's HI, or Butch Harmon's?

Do you only choose a coach based on their previous ability as a player? If so...

A club builder doesn't have to be a +HI to be a great club builder.

How many majors has Gio Valente won, or any golf "head" gurus?
[/quote]

This is what people always say, but I think it misses the point. All else being equal, I'd much rather have a better player teach me than a worse one. Just because being a better player doesn't NECESSARILY mean you are a better teacher, doesn't mean it's not a positive attribute to have played a very high level. Butch Harmon won on tour btw, so he's not a particularly good example for making this point for future reference.

I think the biggest issue with throwing the "just because you play good doesn't mean you can teach" thing around is that it almost turns being a better player into a negative in some peoples minds, which is clearly ridiculous.

Further, people always turn this into an all or nothing thing. Of course most people don't choose a teacher JUST based on playing ability, but it doesn't mean that playing ability can't be one (of many) factors that you look into.

Finally, lots of scam artists/charlatans who can't play a lick and don't know anything about teaching use this line as their calling card, so I'm always careful about relying on any line of reasoning that advances these people's agenda.
[/quote]

My teacher happens to be a + HI. The VAST majority of teachers I know aren't even close.

That said, and following your logic, the number of posters on this forum would decrease drastically since they don't meet the "criteria".

Good luck finding a great club builder with a +HI.

Would you rather have Butch Harmon as your teacher or Jordan Spieth? I'm sure Mr. Spieth could beat Mr. Harmon on the golf course at any time.
[/quote]

You've completely misunderstood my point. I just think that the statement "just because you can play doesn't mean you can teach" is a very weak argument, and was explaining why. I never said that playing ability is the only thing that mattered, and if you had read my post you would have noticed that I made the specific point that it should be one (of many) factors.

I also never said that a plus cap was a magic dividing line for golf competence, I just think the specific line of reasoning that "just because you play doesn't mean you can teach" is an inherently illogical line of thinking that produces mistakes and gives scam artists more info than they need.

I think a better way to look at it would be this: playing ability doesn't NECESSARILY correspond with one's teaching ability, BUT if you are going to pay for golf instruction from someone, and they aren't at least a solid scratch (or were at some point), you should be VERY careful. As their playing ability decreases, you should be even more careful. This applies fully well to this forum, where most aren't scratch and the majority of comments are correspondingly misguided, incorrect, and generally harmful to most.

Also, again, if you are going to insist on repeating this (IMO) illogical line of thinking, Butch is a bad example. He's old, he could never compete with a current tour player. Neither could Arnold Palmer or Jack Nicklaus at this point, but I'd take them over spieth for golf instruction. Because, as I made clear in my first post, playing ability is NOT everything, but it should be A thing.
[/quote]

I don't disagree, however in defense of golf instructors many don't have the time to play/practice. But, I do agree they should have had the ability to play well at one time.

However, I don't want to argue about that. I just find it a bit off-putting that ones ability to hit a golf ball well makes him an "expert". Just as if one is a Hollywood celebrity he or she is all of a sudden an expert in international affairs or climate science.

I agree that you have to be "very careful" as you put it, at the same time to simply ignore someone because they don't have the proper "creds" can be misguided as well.

[Instant Offense]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1411835761' post='10194825']
Does that mean you don't agree with the fact that top mini tour guys are +8 or better and that +3, +4, and many +5 golfers are losing far more money than they are making. A +3 MIGHT make a cut or two in an entire season on the Hooters/NGA Tour. And wouldn't come close to competitive
[/quote]
Bingo. I'm a +4 and was humbled in a PGA Tour Monday qualifier. I knew how good they were going in, but to see right in front of you. Guy I played with shot a 64 and got in. It wasn't the 64 that blew me away. I have saw plenty of those and lower. It's the way he did it. He missed 7 putts inside 10 feet on the front 9. He should have shot 58. 64 was about as bad as it could been. Pretty incredible to see someone not get much out of their round and shoot -7 on a tour level course. I shot 70 in the pre-qualifier and played pretty good. It would have took a once a year round to qualify on Monday. The guys that have status on web.com and PGA are just so much better than people realize. I honestly think if I made 1 out of 6 cuts on NGA I would feel pretty good.

[jpalermo]

The guy I used to take lessons from was a great junior golfer, won tons of state events and high school events when he was younger. Fast forward to current day; Ferris State graduate, head pro at a country club and playing maybe once a week. I think his handicap is higher than mine and I am a 6. Just because he is a higher handicap I didn't discredit anything he taught me during 3 years of lessons. He took me from a 12 to a 6 going once a week for 30 minutes. I don't know why this turned into a who's better thread. To answer the OP's question, I believe as mentioned already, take the information for what YOU think its worth.

[verderraul]

[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1411842461' post='10195403']
Why not just indicate whether or not you get paid as a teaching pro vs being an amateur?
[/quote]

You mean like Joe Mayo

[tembolo1284]

My handicap is beef. Any beef questions I'm here to help.

[PutterKilledTheDream]

[quote name='verderraul' timestamp='1411864410' post='10197059']
[quote name='PutterKilledTheDream' timestamp='1411842461' post='10195403']
Why not just indicate whether or not you get paid as a teaching pro vs being an amateur?
[/quote]

You mean like Joe Mayo
[/quote]
That's my point. People who are trying to 'vet' the validity of suggestions or info based off handicap might as well use professional status as a guideline. Any half decent player who can manage a bit of pressure can pass the PAT and be a class A, it's very easy yet there's level 3 guys who can't play to a 7 and get their status. It doesn't take any playing ability to translate numbers just as it's not hard to look at slow fps camera and analyze positions. Teaching the game is very different than analyzing the swing and does require experience.

[larrybud]

[quote name='AndyC' timestamp='1411838139' post='10195041']
[quote name='Pert1862' timestamp='1411836488' post='10194879']
Then what are PGA guys? +12 or so??
[/quote]

Do the math. To be a +12 a player would have to have 10 scores out of the last 20 averaging 12 strokes under the course rating. Not bloody likely.
[/quote]

I could easily see course rating of tour events to be around 79 or 80 rating, with a 150 slope. Heck my home course is 7150 yards, 76.7/147, and that's without the rough being grown in.

[pinhigh27]

[quote name='jpalermo' timestamp='1411862366' post='10196891']
The guy I used to take lessons from was a great junior golfer, won tons of state events and high school events when he was younger. Fast forward to current day; Ferris State graduate, head pro at a country club and playing maybe once a week. I think his handicap is higher than mine and I am a 6. Just because he is a higher handicap I didn't discredit anything he taught me during 3 years of lessons. He took me from a 12 to a 6 going once a week for 30 minutes. I don't know why this turned into a who's better thread. To answer the OP's question, I believe as mentioned already, take the information for what YOU think its worth.
[/quote]

If he actually was the caliber of player to win state events then I highly doubt his cap would be higher than a 6 if he can play or practice once a week. That makes no sense. I know people who have done much less with golf that are still a much lower cap with barely practicing or playing. After a while it just doesn't matter if you practice as much. I can shoot 90 % as good if I don't play in 3 weeks as if I was practicing every single day. It's a 2 shot difference at most.

[PJ72]

[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1411842755' post='10195433']
Yet many courses have that rating with lower slopes which would require a smaller differential. TPC Craig Ranch for example where one of my players would have been a +9.6 differential with tournament rounds of 73-64-67-66. Course is rated 77.3/144. Or another who shot 67-71-64-64 at first stage at St John's Golf and Country Club (74.7/132) and leading up to first stage had 7 consecutive rounds of 64 or better including a 59 on courses rated at 74 or higher. Both are/were above +9 over that stretch. Both have never played an event on the PGA Tour and one has never played an event on the Web.com tour. Have another who has averaged 67 in the best half of his rounds over the last 2 years on the NGA/Hooters Tour. Not over a small period of time, over 2 years. And these are in tournament play. Casual rounds he shoots 62 regularly. As in very often. And has never played in a web.com or PGA tour event.

There are more than a handful of legitimate +6 to +9 guys playing mini tour golf.

The Bubba example is skewed because it's a course with a fairly low course rating but a high slope. If he played at Orange County National every day his handicap would be considerably lower. The up tee there is rated 73.7/132. The back tee is 76/139. The higher rating with the much lower slope would yield a much lower handicap
[/quote]

It's mind blowing to us from the UK to hear of players with handicaps approaching +10! It would take ten years of course record scores to get a sniff of that on the CONGU system.

I can't get over how anyone can shoot these kind of scores and not be competitive on PGA Tour or the web.com. What does it take to get to that level? Surely if you can shoot a 65 on a web.com track regularly then you have the talent to shoot those kind of scores on a PGA tour event track?

Is it playing in front of a large crowd that does for them? Or is it the travelling and living out of a suitcase that hurts their game? Or is it simply the financial strain they would under if they lost a bit of form for a couple of months?

[PJ72]

[quote name='tembolo1284' timestamp='1411871739' post='10197529']
My handicap is beef. Any beef questions I'm here to help.
[/quote]

Ok.

If McDonald's burgers are beef burgers, then how come it's Hamburgler and not Beefburgler? That is the quintessential beef question.

[geek4golf]

[quote name='PJ72' timestamp='1411938999' post='10201175']
[quote name='iteachgolf' timestamp='1411842755' post='10195433']
Yet many courses have that rating with lower slopes which would require a smaller differential. TPC Craig Ranch for example where one of my players would have been a +9.6 differential with tournament rounds of 73-64-67-66. Course is rated 77.3/144. Or another who shot 67-71-64-64 at first stage at St John's Golf and Country Club (74.7/132) and leading up to first stage had 7 consecutive rounds of 64 or better including a 59 on courses rated at 74 or higher. Both are/were above +9 over that stretch. Both have never played an event on the PGA Tour and one has never played an event on the Web.com tour. Have another who has averaged 67 in the best half of his rounds over the last 2 years on the NGA/Hooters Tour. Not over a small period of time, over 2 years. And these are in tournament play. Casual rounds he shoots 62 regularly. As in very often. And has never played in a web.com or PGA tour event.

There are more than a handful of legitimate +6 to +9 guys playing mini tour golf.

The Bubba example is skewed because it's a course with a fairly low course rating but a high slope. If he played at Orange County National every day his handicap would be considerably lower. The up tee there is rated 73.7/132. The back tee is 76/139. The higher rating with the much lower slope would yield a much lower handicap
[/quote]

It's mind blowing to us from the UK to hear of players with handicaps approaching +10! It would take ten years of course record scores to get a sniff of that on the CONGU system.

I can't get over how anyone can shoot these kind of scores and not be competitive on PGA Tour or the web.com. What does it take to get to that level? Surely if you can shoot a 65 on a web.com track regularly then you have the talent to shoot those kind of scores on a PGA tour event track?

Is it playing in front of a large crowd that does for them? Or is it the travelling and living out of a suitcase that hurts their game? Or is it simply the financial strain they would under if they lost a bit of form for a couple of months?
[/quote]
Phil Mickelson's current handicap is +6.4 on GHIN. He has every tourny round he plays on tour posted to GHIN, so it's a pretty legit handicap. Look it up on GHIN he belongs to Whisper Rock in Az.

[AndyC]

[quote name='larrybud' timestamp='1411908924' post='10198635']
[quote name='AndyC' timestamp='1411838139' post='10195041']
[quote name='Pert1862' timestamp='1411836488' post='10194879']
Then what are PGA guys? +12 or so??
[/quote]

Do the math. To be a +12 a player would have to have 10 scores out of the last 20 averaging 12 strokes under the course rating. Not bloody likely.
[/quote]

I could easily see course rating of tour events to be around 79 or 80 rating, with a 150 slope. Heck my home course is 7150 yards, 76.7/147, and that's without the rough being grown in.
[/quote]

There is no course played by the PGA rated at 79 or 80. The slope is irrelevant in that it is only used to convert indexes to course handicaps.