Tiger's handicap factor

[jvincent]

Just got my RCGA magazine today and they calculated Tiger's handicap based on his tournaments through the Deutche Bank.

Based on those 20 scores he was a +7.6. Ouch!

["Richard"]

is that good?

[Golfbum]

is that good?

It's not bad for a hack!
Yours is likely -15?
I just updated mine, it is -8, not good for a man of my talent

[MusicMan]

makes sense, hes 10 strokes better than me on average, i wanna be a + handicapper one day.. i say 3 more years... hopefully

["Richard"]

what are you at now???

[MusicMan]

well since ive left ottawa my game has gotten alot better. i was between 9 and 10, now since im here i knocked 2 more strokes off on average

["Richard"]

If you are a 7 right now, I think it will take you a very long time to get down to +. Not to say you aren't a good player, I've seen you swing a stick and you are awesome but they say reducing your HCP 20% a year is very hard to do and even harder when you get under 7-8. Anyone know what lyle alexanders HCP is?

[MusicMan]

if my short game were anybetter id be there in 2 years

sorrry to thead jack here, im done... back to tiger

so givr take tigers +7ish, i wonder what he would shoot on a course with 69.7 rating and not the 74,75 ratings he plays on now... we should get him over to greensmere and see what he can do maybe we should call up Brad Fritch over at Rideau view and see what he can shoot over there after all he did quality for the open

[byerxa]

Just got my RCGA magazine today and they calculated Tiger's handicap based on his tournaments through the Deutche Bank.

Based on those 20 scores he was a +7.6. Ouch!

Actually, handicap ratings are useless for these guys. Handicap is based on best 10 rounds out of 20. Statistically you will play to your handicap ~25% of the time. Now calculate stroke average for ALL rounds and correct for slope/rating. Now compare that number to a -15 index - the spread would way larger. These guys have to shoot in the 60s every round on brutally tough courses to compete, so the whole best 10 out of 20 is meaningless.

[jvincent]

I don't have the article in front of me, but I think Tiger's numbers lined up with exactly what the handicap formula predicts, i.e. he shot his index or better about 25% of the time. Also, a +7 would be expected to have a tighter variance in scores compare to a -15.

All of the courses they play aren't necessarily brutally tough for them either. Outside of the US Open, most of the courses are set up with double extra high rough. Yes they are long, but that's not generally an issue for the pros.

["Richard"]

If I started playing golf when I was 2 years old I would be more famous than tiger

[Kilroy]

There's Tiger famous, and then there's "Richard" famous. You pick

[jeffc]

Is that like good naked and bad naked?

[Kilroy]

I recall ( don't flame me if I am wrong) that Greg Norman ( former world #1 ) was a -3 in his prime.

I always thought when strokes were added handicaps were negative, as in better than par players, but it doesn't realy matter. I doubt BCMist would give Greg Norman any strokes!

[jvincent]

My brain cells remember that Greg Norman was a +6.2 when he was ranked number 1.

Most peoples handicaps are "-ve", i.e. worse than scratch, but they are seldom, if ever referred to that way. "+ve" handicaps are always stated at +X.x, just to rub it in.

[Golfbum]

I know a guy who hovers between a +1 and +2 most of the time. He is a heck of a player. Hits it long, usually pretty straight and his iron play is dead on most of the time. He now putts very well too. Deadly combination.

To put Tiger's index into perspective is tough, look at the courses he plays compared to what we play. No comparison at all. He would be a +11 or 12 at my course

"RICHARD" there is no doubt you would have been world famous if you started golfing at the age of 2. Problem is, what would you be famous for? Most PB in the cups? Hottest microwaved balls? Only you can tell us

[jvincent]

To put Tiger's index into perspective is tough, look at the courses he plays compared to what we play. No comparison at all. He would be a +11 or 12 at my course

Don't forget that it's exponentially harder to get to higher + numbers.

Assuming your course is par 72, if somebody was a +12, he'd be shooting below 60 about 25% of the time.

Even on the powder-puff courses we play I doubt that the pros are capable of that.

[ironmaster15213]

I believe Lyle was about a +1 handicap but I think he hurt his back and it could have changed. I think if anybody has an index of +4 or higher they should turn pro, they may not be at the top but they will make money. For me to make money I need 4 strokes from Indio

[byerxa]

I believe Lyle was about a +1 handicap but I think he hurt his back and it could have changed. I think if anybody has an index of +4 or higher they should turn pro, they may not be at the top but they will make money. For me to make money I need 4 strokes from Indio

It is amazing how good the top guys really are. I know a guy who runs a steady +3 to +4 index, regulary wins his club champ and finishes in the top 20 in the provincial club champ. He even qualified for the US Mid Am one year (missed the match play by ~20 spots). But he would never be good enough to make any significant money on a tour - they are just that good. And that's what's scary - there are tons of guys at the "very good" level (college kids, good ams like BC, etc.) but only a select few have what it takes to get on the big tour. But I suppose any sport is like that.

As mentioned by another and to further my earlier point, a handicap/index at that level is IMO meaningless due to the exponential difficulty. When you are that good, you're playing straight up with no throwing away every other round.