Justin said on February 21, 2007:

His smart bomb precision irons and homing pigeon putts, however, would come in handy.

Playing some "Worms Armageddon" are we? Your analogy made me crack up

I'm sorry to say this. BUT THIS IS THE MOST RETARDED COMMENT I HAVE EVER READ. Have you actually read this and thought about it?? Tiger Woods could not give a decent junior college player 28 strokes a round and win. Tiger is my idol, but that is just dumb. That would mean he should win by 28 strokes per round against the "barely keeping the tour card" player. Which on his best day he might beat him by 10 at most. I'm not even sure where you got the numbers from. His index is roughly 1.5 lower than Furyk's..which means he would give him 1.5 strokes per round. NOT 8!! Tiger is **** good...but give me a break.

How could someone have so many mistakes in one short post?? Perhaps you should have lead with "THIS IS THE MOST RETARDED COMMENT I'VE EVER POSTED."

First, he didn't contend he should get 8 strokes per round. He said in a four round tournament, 2*4=8. Actually, with the revised calculations, it's only about one stroke per round, so over a four round tournament, he'd win by about 4 strokes...very typical. In fact, he often wins by more.

To give (new calc) about 4 strokes per round to the guy who barely kept his card is 16 strokes per tournament. Again, very reasonable and in fact probably not generous enough! Realize that you rarely see the lowest guy's score on tv. Also realize that the guy who's struggling probably played so bad on day one that he didn't make the cut. Imagine the range of scores if they let all who started finish all four rounds. I'm sure the highest scores would be much higher. The worst score of the tournament is the worst of the 70 or so BEST people in the field (based on day one's result).

The handicap score is also supposed to show generally what a player could shoot if he was having a reasonably good day. The average of the 10 best, and then made a little better by x.96 Realize that the handicap, then, is actually not as good as the best score used the calculation. To get a handicap a little better than the average of 10 good rounds would imply that at + handicaps, you'd probably divide by .96 as the poster did.

Also, you have to realize the finite goodness of any player. A perfect score in golf is an 18 (I think you're required by rule to take at least one stroke per hole). A more usable gauge would be the lowest score ever shot on each of the 18 holes, because that's an acheivable score. In any event, then there's an expected best like a course record (which is occasionally broken). What's the course record at your course? Would Tiger break it on day one? Eventually? We have a few holes that a 350yrd drive would put it right up next to the green, but the landing area is so narrow (water and bunkers) that it's not the smart play. (Almost every green on our course is small, elevated, and protected.) Tiger would probably hit the 270 yrd shot like us mortals and then hit (with great precision) the 100 yrd pitch with the 6' birdie putt.

That's still 3 strokes though.

I'm glad I found the original article. I was always curious what Tiger would shoot on our course. Based on the 8.1, I think it would be about 64 (par 71, 72.1/133). And, it makes sense that for +handicaps that you'd flip the slope. +8.1 x 133 / 113 = 9.5? Why would Tiger shoot better than the 8.1 on a course that's harder?

Finally, I think it's not an exact predictor. I shoot the same score from the blues and I do from the whites despite the different ratings. My drives are plenty long. 300yd drives really have no place. It's my game under 70 yds that gives me problems...and the drives into the woods (narrow, tree-lined fairways). Tiger's long drives wouldn't give him any advantage on our 6700 yd course. His smart bomb precision irons and homing pigeon putts, however, would come in handy.

The Sand Trap posted a very interesting article about calculating the handicap of PGA players. A handicap is a system in golf that levels the playing field in certain stroke events. My handicap is just over 20 strokes per 18 holes. Anyone with a &#8220...

I'm sorry to say this. BUT THIS IS THE MOST RETARDED COMMENT I HAVE EVER READ. Have you actually read this and thought about it?? Tiger Woods could not give a decent junior college player 28 strokes a round and win. Tiger is my idol, but that is just dumb. That would mean he should win by 28 strokes per round against the "barely keeping the tour card" player. Which on his best day he might beat him by 10 at most. I'm not even sure where you got the numbers from. His index is roughly 1.5 lower than Furyk's..which means he would give him 1.5 strokes per round. NOT 8!! Tiger is **** good...but give me a break.

I don't generally call other people - or their comments - retarded, but might I suggest you learn to read before calling my comment retarded? I said "over the course of a standard stroke-play tournament." That's four rounds.

Furthermore, the handicaps were revised since I posted my comment. Tiger used to be 7 shots ahead of #130 (13.75 versus 6.7 or so). Doing the math, 7 strokes * 4 rounds = 28 shots per tournament. Just like I said.

David, good research and interesting stuff. However, might I point out some math: 2 * 4 = 8. Tiger would have to spot Jim Furyk eight strokes over the course of a standard stroke-play tournament, and that's the guy in second place. He'd have to give the guy barely keeping his Tour card a whopping 28 strokes.

I'm sorry to say this. BUT THIS IS THE MOST RETARDED COMMENT I HAVE EVER READ. Have you actually read this and thought about it?? Tiger Woods could not give a decent junior college player 28 strokes a round and win. Tiger is my idol, but that is just dumb. That would mean he should win by 28 strokes per round against the "barely keeping the tour card" player. Which on his best day he might beat him by 10 at most. I'm not even sure where you got the numbers from. His index is roughly 1.5 lower than Furyk's..which means he would give him 1.5 strokes per round. NOT 8!! Tiger is **** good...but give me a break.

Regards,
Tyler

In the January 2001 issue of Golf Digest, pg 19, GD had report that based on Tiger's then recent tournament rounds played at the Western Open, Buick Open, PGA Championship, WGC-NEC Invitational and Bell Canadian Open.

I tend to agree with that analysis, not to take away from how good those guys really are. Is that you, Dom, who we had dinner with in Ohio, a few years back? Good wine and conversation, torrential rains, tornado warning and all? Then again in Orlando?

David's numbers seem to me to be a little hokey. His 0.96 factor is not explained with any depth.

I don't think David felt compelled to explain what's common knowledge - you multiply by 0.96. Whether or not he should have flipped it really makes very little difference. It's 4%.

D Vendetti said on February 11, 2007:

David, I think we all know how great the pro's are playing golf. But I think your numbers are just a little exaggerated. Don't you think? I'll stick with Dean's Knuth calculations.

It appears as though you've failed to read any of the comments, in which we discuss the possible (likely?) error David made in calculating handicaps: flipping the slope and the 113 standard. Though it seems odd to me that shooting a 66 on a 78.1-rated course with a slope higher than 113 results in an +9 handicap, that seems to be what the USGA says - and is something David is looking into for possible correction.

Based on the story, Tiger's handicap calculated to a USGA handicap index of +8.1. It is implied in this article that Dean Knuth, the highly regarded former USGA handicap chairman, tallied these results for this article. Dean indicated that prior to Tiger coming on the scene, the previous best handicap index was that of Greg Norman with a +7.6. Dean also indicated that during the 2000 US Open in which may have played his best tournament ever, his handicap index played at a plus 12 this week. Details were not provided.

David's numbers seem to me to be a little hokey. His 0.96 factor is not explained with any depth. Another shortcoming I see is that David indicates for Tiger's rounds at the Buick Invitational, the course index is 78.1/143 for all 4 days of competition. The fact of the matter is for the first 2 days of competition, all pros play both the South Course (i.e., Torrey Pines) that has this index/slope rating. However, the much easier North Course has an index/slope rating of 72.1/129 that is not reflected in your calculations.

How many other errors of omission are there in your numbers?

David, I think we all know how great the pro's are playing golf. But I think your numbers are just a little exaggerated. Don't you think? I'll stick with Dean's Knuth calculations.

Marty Strumpf, my pro, (who posts here occasionally) pointed out something very interesting to me some time ago. If you subscribe to Golfweek magazine, every week they list results of virtually any competition going on in the US (and some other parts of the world).

When you look at those final scoring listings and see all these players posting sub 70 rounds over three or four rounds - and see how many are doing so - and see how little money they earn - it gives you a better perspective on what "good" really means.

Whether David's initial calculations are valid or not, they are close enough to conclude that most of us can't fathom how good the players on the PGA Tour really are. They're supposed to be playing the same game we are. But they're not.