Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

how do "you" define high, low, mid handicap golfers?


Note: This thread is 3587 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
How would you define a "good" golfer? What is your definition of an average golfer? What do you define as a high handicapper, mid handicapper, and low handicapper? How many people do you think just guess on their handicap?

In other words, in general terms, how do you rate the level of play of the golfers around you? How would you rate yourself against them? If Tiger woods is the top 1/10000 of the top 1%, where do the rest of us fall?

In my bag:

some golf clubs

a few golf balls

a bag of tee's some already broken the rest soon to be

a snickers wrapper (if you have seen me play, you would know you are not going anywhere for a while)

and an empty bottle of water


Posted
As to how to define a 'good' golfer, I think that's relative to how good you are. I usually consider a 'good' golfer to be someone under a 9 handicap or so, or who shoots under 80 a good percentage of the time (on regulation courses).

As for high, low and mid handicappers, I would probably define them as below. Because most players do not really have an official handicap, I just more by the scores they are shooting:

Low: Handicaps 8 and under (typically shooting in 70's)
Mid: Handicaps 9-24 (low 80's to mid 90's)
High: Handicaps 25+ (high-90's and up)

If someone can consistently break 100 I will consider than to be a mid-handicapper or better. I would consider scores between about 90 and 105 to be an 'average' golfer. I think the USGA says the average score is something like 96 (what that's based on I have no idea).
Driver: SQ DYMO STR8-Fit
4 Wood: SQ DYMO
2H (17*), 4H (23*) & 5H (26*): Fli-Hi CLK
Irons (5-6): MX-900; (7-PW): MP-60
Wedges (51/6*): MP-T Chrome; (56/13): MP-R ChromePutter: White Hot XG 2-Ball CSPreferred Ball: e5+/e7+/B330-RXGPS Unit: NEOPush Cart: 2.0

Posted
high handicappers- 90's+
mid handicappers- 80-90
low handicappers- 75-

anyone in the 76-80 range I consider to be in transition.

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha Diablo 9º
2 Hybrid: Callaway Big Bertha Heavenwood
Irons: Nike Slingshot OSS 6-3 iron
          Taylormade Tour Preferred PW-7 iron
Wedges: Cleveland CG14 50º, 54º
              Taylormade RAC 58º
Putter: Ping Darby 32" shaft


 


Posted
How would you define a "good" golfer? What is your definition of an average golfer? What do you define as a high handicapper, mid handicapper, and low handicapper? How many people do you think just guess on their handicap?

By comparison, the rest of us all suck! The people that beat me are better than I am. Those that I beat are worse. That's all I really care about. For those that haven't played with one, I will offer that someone that honestly plays off a "+" handicap is just stupid good.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
For me there are 5 groups rather than 3

Low: 60's to 76
Mid-low: 77-85
Mid-high: 86-95
High: 96-115

"Beginner": 116+

Blade Stand Bag
905R 11.5 R flex
Tight Lies 3 Wood
Ci7 Irons 4-GW R Flex
Vokey SM Wedges 54 / 58Classic Putter #1 34"ProV1 or U-Tri Tour or E5+


Posted
For those that haven't played with one, I will offer that someone that honestly plays off a "+" handicap is just

I'll second that; scratch and better really is orders of magnitude better than ~5. I wonder what Mr. Woods handicap would be?

Home Course: Wollaton Park GC, Nottingham, U.K.

Ping G400, 9°, Alta CB 55S | Ping G400, 14°, Alta CB 65S | Adams Pro Dhy 18°, 21°, 24°, KBS Hybrid S | Ping S55 5-PW, TT DGS300 | Vokey 252-08, DGS200 | Vokey 256-10 (bent to 58°), DGS200 | Ping Sigma G Anser, 34" | Vice Pro Plus

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

I always considered a "good" golfer to be someone who can shoot par on a regular basis. The rest of us fall in to varying degrees of "not so good."


Posted
High=20+
Mid=10-20
Low=under 10
IMO, someone is a "good" golfer if they can break 100 on a regular basis.

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S


Posted
high: 25+
mid: 24-11
low: 10-scratch
crazy:anything +


It really depends for a "good" golfer. The other day i was considered "good" as everyone played poorly. I would say anyone who shoots in the 80's is a "good" golfer.

In my Extreme Sport Stand Bag
Driver: 4DX D-Spec Driver 10.5* Stiff UST SR3
3W: F-60 15* Regular Fujikura E150 Fit-On
Hybrids: 4DX Ironwoods 20* 23* Regular UST SR3
Irons: 4DX CB 5-PW Stiff True Temper ST-90Wedges: Vokey 50* 56*Putter: SabertoothBall: DT Roll


Posted
There are so many variables, and so many that do not play by the rules that it is hard to say. My 19 is an honest 19 I except for the occasional (maybe once every 5 rounds) where I drop at the boundary of OB for pace of play reasons and treat it as a lateral hazard (If I know it was OB I'll Rehit but sometimes you don't know).

So many people improve lies, don't count penalties correctly, don't putt out, etc...

I would do it like this: Low breaks 80 regularly, Mid breaks 90 regularly and high is everyone else, although those that can honestly break 100 are much much better than a lot of the hacks you see, so they get some credit, maybe as a mid/high. There is so much variation, for example in the last year I have shot between an 83 and a 111. Now I did have the flu for the 111, but still, that is quite a range. Broke 90 6/29 rounds and shot over 100 13/29 rounds.

Driver: Callaway X460 Tour
3 Wood: Callaway X
Hybrid: Adams A3
Irons: X20 Tour 4-PW
Wedges: X-Forged 50, 54 & 58


Posted
low 10 to scratch
mid 10 to 20
high 20+
crazy ass +0.1 and above

driver. taylormade tour burner tp ust avixcore tour green 75 x
3 wood 909 f3 13* voodo xnv8
3 hybrid adams idea pro vs proto 95x
irons 3 no 4 5-pw nike cci forged blades
gap wedge nike sv tour blacksand wedge cg14 56* 14flopadopolous vokey spin milled 64 7putter scotty cameron classics newport...


Posted
Why are + handicaps considered "crazy ass"? Just curious

Sumo 5000 UST V2 S
906F2. UST X. 13*
Sumo2 hybrid 2. X flex. 17*
X Forged. Project X 5.5:
RAC 50* Vokey 54* and 58* Cherry bomb Newport 2 35" One Black


Posted
Very High - 35 and higher
High - 27 to 35
Mid-high - 19 to 27
Medium - 10 to 18
Mid-low - 5 to 9
Low - 2 to 5
Very Low - Scratch to 2
retardiculously low - +2 to scratch
Pro-low - better than +2

driver: FT-i tlcg 9.5˚ (Matrix Ozik XCONN Stiff)
4 wood: G10 (ProLaunch Red FW stiff)
3 -PW: :Titleist: 695 mb (Rifle flighted 6.0)
wedges:, 52˚, 56˚, 60˚
putter: Studio Select Newport 1.5


Posted
An average golfer and an average handicapper are two different things. The average golfer shoots around 100. The average handicapper is about a 15, or better than a bogey golfer.

High handicap: 19 and up
Mid handicap: 10-18
Low handicap: 9 and lower

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
by height.

:P

Ping G2 Driver; Titleist 906F2 5W; TM Rescue Mid 3H; Adams Idea Pro 4H; Titleist DTR 3-SW; Callaway Bobby Jones Putter; Ping Hoofer lite

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I'll try a slightly different take on the answers:

High Handicap - Missing most swing fundamentals, and doesn't understand much about the swing. Occasionally gets a par or a very rare birdie, but mostly just tries to get the ball around the course without too much trouble. Tough courses won't be much fun. Index is probably >25 or so

Mid Handicap - Has some decent fundamentals, but still has some fundamental flaws in swing that reach up and bite hard. Doesn't quite understand the swing enough, though, to diagnose those problems and fix on course. Gets a number of pars and knocks in the occasional birdie. Has a number of blow up holes each round, though. Can place their shots just enough that they're starting to see the course strategy, but not consistent enough to take advantage. Index range is pretty wide, probably about 5 or 6 up to 25.

Low Handicap - Pretty solid fundamentals, with only an occasional problem that causes a wild shot, but skilled enough to limit the damage and rarely more than one blow up hole if any. Understands a lot of the swing and can diagnose enough on course to keep things on track. Understands course management, and has just enough game to look strategically at shots and execute what is needed most of the time. Can play any course in the world and enjoy it for how the designer intended. Index is around a 0 to a 5 or 6.

Scary Good - Repeatable swing with predictable shot shape. Can shape shots as needed. So consistent that course strategy is the major factor between scoring well. Bad luck is probably the biggest contributor to having a bad hole due to a funny bounce. Score is probably influenced the most by the putter - some days they just don't go in and he shoots even par, while some days everything goes in and shoots a 66. Index is +.
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Posted
by height.

Good One.

In the Bag...Ping Hoofer

3dx Tour Square - UST V2 HMOI X Flex
3dx 15* - X flex
Baffler DWS 20* Aldila NV Stiff 4-GW 600XC Forged Irons- S Flex 55* SW - Burner XD 60* LW - Burner XD Craz E Putter <----ProV1x---> Pellet


Note: This thread is 3587 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • For me that is all details, and the real telling point is this: In none of Jack's majors were substantially all of the top players in the world in the field In every one of Tiger's majors, substantially all of the top players in the world were in the field
    • This is one of the cleanest, least emotional ways to separate the Nicklaus–Tiger debate, because international participation is a direct proxy for field depth. Not vibes. Not nostalgia. Talent supply. Below is a tight, historically grounded explanation of how field strength changed — with special emphasis on how many non-U.S. players were actually in PGA TOUR fields, and what that means competitively for Jack Nicklaus vs Tiger Woods. 1. Why international share = field strength (conceptually) The PGA TOUR doesn’t draft players. It selects talent from a global labor market. So: more international players in the field from more countries who earned access through competitive tours → means a deeper, harder field, even if total field size stays the same. International share isn’t cosmetic — it’s how globalization enters the win-probability math. 2. Nicklaus era (roughly mid-1960s to early-1980s) International presence in PGA TOUR fields ~2–5% of players in a typical PGA TOUR field Often 5–8 non-U.S. players in a 140-player event Many weeks: fewer than five Who those internationals were Gary Player occasional Europeans (Seve later, Woosnam briefly) a handful of Australians or South Africans Crucially: They were elite imports, not a broad middle class. What that means for field strength The top of the field was excellent The middle and bottom were shallow After ~10–12 legitimate contenders, win equity dropped sharply This is why Nicklaus: contended constantly piled up runner-ups remained relevant for decades The field simply didn’t replenish elite threats fast enough. 3. Transition era (late-1980s to early-1990s) This is the inflection point. Structural changes Official World Golf Ranking (post-1986) European Tour becomes a true pipeline Easier travel, better incentives to cross over International share ~8–12% of PGA TOUR fields Now 15–20 non-U.S. players per event Importantly: not just stars, but solid Tour-caliber pros This is when field strength begins to compound. 4. Tiger Woods era (late-1990s through early-2010s peak) International presence explodes ~25–35% of PGA TOUR fields Often 40–55 international players in a 156-man field Representing Europe, Australia, South Africa, Asia, Latin America This is not just more flags — it’s more win equity. Why this matters competitively The median player is better The gap between #1 and #40 shrinks Every round is contested by professionals who already won elsewhere This is what people mean by “deep fields.” 5. Side-by-side comparison (simplified but accurate) Era Intl % of.    Field Intl Players       Event Competitive Meaning Nicklaus prime ~2–5% ~5–8 Elite top, thin middle Early transition ~8–12% ~15–20 Talent thickens Tiger prime ~25–35% ~40–55 Deep, global, relentless This is a 5–7× increase in international representation from Jack’s prime to Tiger’s peak. 6. Why international % matters more than field size A 140-player field with: 8 internationals vs 50 internationals are not the same tournament, even if the entry list length is identical. More internationals means: more elite tours feeding the field more players already proven winners fewer “free” spots for the elite to separate easily This is why win probability collapses in modern golf. 7. The GOAT implication (this is the hinge) Nicklaus Beat great players But usually beat fewer elite players at once Field difficulty was top-heavy, not dense Tiger Beat great players and dozens of near-elite professionals simultaneously Field difficulty was both tall and wide Tiger’s environment: lowers win probability increases variance punishes even small declines Yet Tiger still won 22.8% of PGA TOUR starts. That’s the paradox — and the argument. 8. Why this doesn’t “discredit” Nicklaus Jack dominated his environment as well as anyone ever could. But environments matter. If you translate achievements across eras: Jack’s career length looks more impressive Tiger’s per-start dominance looks more impressive International depth is the biggest reason why. Final synthesis International share of PGA TOUR fields increased ~5–7× from Nicklaus’ prime to Tiger’s peak That increase directly correlates with field depth and difficulty Tiger won more often, by larger margins, against deeper global fields So when people say: This is what they mean — not emotionally, not rhetorically, but structurally. Below is a by-era breakdown of: International share of PGA TOUR fields International share of PGA TOUR wins Win-efficiency ratio = Win share ÷ Field share All wins counted (not unique winners). “International” = non-U.S. citizenship. This framework maps directly onto the GOAT debate between Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. International Win Share vs. Field Share by Era Era Intl % of Field   Intl % of Wins   Win Efficiency 1965–1974 (early Nicklaus) ~2–3%        ~4–6%      ~1.8–2.0× 1975–1984 (Nicklaus prime) ~3–5%       ~7–10%      ~1.8–2.3× 1985–1994 (transition) ~8–12%     ~15–22%      ~1.8–2.0× 1995–2004 (Tiger ascent/peak) ~20–25%     ~30–35%      ~1.3–1.5× 2005–2014 (Tiger era, global maturity) ~25–30%     ~35–40%      ~1.3–1.4× 2015–2025 (post-Tiger peak) ~30–35%.            ~40–45%.      ~1.25–1.35×
    • If you explicitly adjust for field strength, the Tiger–Jack debate sharpens fast — because once you weight who was in the field and how good they were, raw major counts stop being the right currency. Below is the cleanest field-strength–adjusted framework, followed by what it implies for Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus. 1. What “field strength–adjusted” actually means (no hand-waving) A serious adjustment has four components: A. Field depth How many players in the field were legitimate win threats Measured by: OWGR equivalents, historical win rates, career major contention frequency B. Field breadth How global the field was How many tours fed elite players into the event C. Win concentration How many wins a small elite captured (A win in a top-heavy field is harder than a win in a flat field) D. Margin vs. field Separation from average competitor, not just second place This is exactly how WAR-style logic works in baseball — just translated to golf. 2. Era-level field strength comparison (baseline) Think of this as “average major field difficulty”, indexed to Tiger’s peak era = 1.00. Era Relative Field Strength Early 1960s ~0.55 Late 1960s ~0.65 1970s ~0.70 Early 1980s ~0.75 Late 1980s ~0.85 1997–2008 1.00 2009–2015 ~0.95 Modern (post-2015) ~1.00–1.05 This is not controversial among historians: Global pipelines Full-time professionalism Equipment & training parity all peak in Tiger’s era. 3. Field-strength–adjusted major wins Now apply that adjustment. Raw majors Nicklaus: 18 Tiger: 15 Adjusted majors (conceptual but grounded) If you weight each major by relative field strength at the time: Nicklaus’s 18 majors ≈ 12–14 Tiger-era equivalents Tiger’s 15 majors ≈ 15–16 Tiger-era equivalents So once you normalize: And that’s before accounting for Tiger’s injuries. 4. Runner-ups and “lost wins” matter even more This is where the gap widens. Nicklaus 19 major runner-ups Many in shallower, U.S.-centric fields Variance was higher → more “near misses” Tiger Only 7 runner-ups But competed in denser elite fields Win suppression effect removed variance — fewer second places because he either won or wasn’t close If you convert: top-3s strokes behind winner field quality Tiger gains more “near-win value” per attempt than Jack. 5. Margin of dominance (this is decisive) Tiger Woods Frequently +2.5 to +3.0 strokes per round vs. field in majors at peak Largest adjusted margins ever recorded Dominance increases as field quality increases (rare!) Jack Nicklaus Elite but narrower margins Won via positioning and closing, not statistical obliteration Dominance less scalable to deeper fields If you run a WAR-style model: 6. A thought experiment that clarifies everything Ask one neutral question: He probably: contends finishes top-10 maybe wins once in a while Now reverse it: He likely: wins multiple times by historic margins and suppresses multiple Hall-of-Fame careers That asymmetry is the field-strength adjustment talking. 7. Why longevity arguments weaken after adjustment Nicklaus’s greatest edge is time. But: longevity is easier in lower-density competitive environments variance produces more chances to contend fewer global elite peers mean fewer weekly threats Tiger’s body broke down because: he pushed athletic ceilings under the most competitive conditions ever Adjusted for environment, Tiger’s shorter peak isn’t a flaw — it’s the cost of dominance. Final, adjusted verdict If you do not adjust for field strength: Nicklaus has the edge (18 > 15) If you do adjust properly: Tiger Woods becomes the GOAT Higher difficulty Higher dominance Higher efficiency per start Higher suppression of elite peers Nicklaus is the greatest career golfer. Tiger is the greatest golfer, period — once you account for who they were actually beating.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.