Web.com vs. PGA Tour

[GoodGuyGreg45]

With GC's increased coverage of the developmental tour over the last year or so, it got me wondering what the major and minor differences are between the Web.com Tour and PGA Tour. I have looked for information on the web and on this forum, but haven't seem to find any of the info I was seeking, so if any of y'all can provide some insight that would be greatly appreciated.

I have seen some of the guys on the Web.com tour post scores in the low 60s multiple times and the winners of some of their events finish 15+ under par. Do these guys not have the consistency to make it long term on the marquee tour or do they just need to pay their dues by going through the progression the PGA has set out?  I know the Web.com tour players are not of the caliber of say the top 50 (i.e., Sergio, Els, Reed, Simpson, Na, etc. that aren't "elite" but seem to be contending more than not), but it seems some of them are indistinguishable from guys 100-150 in the FedEx standings.

OR are there major differences in the level of golf courses and set ups that the Web.com tour can secure as venues? Maybe those hole locations throughout the week are cut more in the middle of the green instead of 8 yards from the left and 7 yards from the back that we are used to seeing on the PGA Tour, the length of the overall courses aren't as long, or the overall courses are not even comparable for the two different tours, etc.? I don't expect  the Pinehurst No. 2, Oakmont, and Pebble Beach's of the tour to compare with Web.com tour events, but more  likeTPC Deer Run, Shell Houston Open venue, and other courses where every year the winner seems to shoot -20 at least.

[LuciusWooding]

Any of the winners on the PGA tour would dominate the web.com tour. The web.com tour play lesser courses as well for the most part, but a winner on the web.com tour can probably make cuts at the PGA level. Consider the web.com tour to be like an all star team of minor league baseball; only a few guys are good enough to be bench players at the next level, and none are good enough to be starters. Most of them will never distinguish themselves at their current level with wins, let alone becoming a PGA tour pro. I'd also say the scrubs of the PGA tour would get an occasional win at the lower level. Someone in the top 20 would be winning every other week they played.

[teeitup22]

Any of the winners on the PGA tour would dominate the web.com tour. The web.com tour play lesser courses as well for the most part, but a winner on the web.com tour can probably make cuts at the PGA level. Consider the web.com tour to be like an all star team of minor league baseball; only a few guys are good enough to be bench players at the next level, and none are good enough to be starters. Most of them will never distinguish themselves at their current level with wins, let alone becoming a PGA tour pro. I'd also say the scrubs of the PGA tour would get an occasional win at the lower level. Someone in the top 20 would be winning every other week they played.

Kind of disagree. A winner on the web.com tour WILL make cuts on the PGA tour, not just "probably." For example, Jonas Blixt, was on the web.com tour for three years I believe. He did fairly well but never won an event on the Web.com tour. However, he has won a PGA tour event and placed T2 at this years masters. He was 4th at the PGA championship last year. My point is that the players who have graduated from the Web Tour can definitely do well on the PGA tour.

[LuciusWooding]

Kind of disagree. A winner on the web.com tour WILL make cuts on the PGA tour, not just "probably." For example, Jonas Blixt, was on the web.com tour for three years I believe. He did fairly well but never won an event on the Web.com tour. However, he has won a PGA tour event and placed T2 at this years masters. He was 4th at the PGA championship last year. My point is that the players who have graduated from the Web Tour can definitely do well on the PGA tour.

There were 25 graduates in 2012, as an example. These were the guys that placed in the top 25 on their money list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Web.com_Tour_graduates

Out of those 25, there's a total of a winner and 2 runners up for all of their entire seasons. None of them were majors. And only about half of those guys were making a decent number of cuts. Only 8 went on to keep full status for the following year.  So there's a huge difference between the top and bottom of just that 25, and even the best of the 25 are only combining for 1 single win at the next level.

They are scrubs compared to the PGA tour. They won't miss every cut at the next level, but over time they either don't play well enough or consistently enough to compete with the big boys. Some guys start out there and go on to become winners at the next level since that tour is essentially to develop players, but it's pretty rare.

[GoodGuyGreg45]

Any of the winners on the PGA tour would dominate the web.com tour. The web.com tour play lesser courses as well for the most part, but a winner on the web.com tour can probably make cuts at the PGA level. Consider the web.com tour to be like an all star team of minor league baseball; only a few guys are good enough to be bench players at the next level, and none are good enough to be starters. Most of them will never distinguish themselves at their current level with wins, let alone becoming a PGA tour pro. I'd also say the scrubs of the PGA tour would get an occasional win at the lower level. Someone in the top 20 would be winning every other week they played.

That is how I thought of the Web.com tour initially, but looking at some of the statistics, most notably the Overall Scoring (Actual) stat, there are 22 guys on the Web.com Tour with scoring averages sub-70 but only 9 guys on the PGA Tour. It should be noted the Web guys have about half of the total rounds played and they do not play layouts the like of Pinehurst No. 2 and TPC Sawgrass, but shouldn't higher caliber players be expected to post similar numbers even on tougher courses?  In baseball, a AAA position player hitting .320 wouldn't be expected to hit .320 in the majors because he would no longer be facing AAA pitching, but in golf there is no defense but that of the course difficulty.

Could it be there is that much difference in the difficulty of the layouts and setups of the events they are playing week in and week on both tours? For example, in 2008 Tiger won the US Open at Torrey Pines at 1 under par, but Torrey Pines yielded a winner (Scott Stallings) of the Farmers Insurance Open at 9 under this year. Is it as simple as the PGA requiring PGA Tour venues to prepare for their tournaments weeks in advance by narrowing the fairways, lengthening the rough, raising the green speeds, etc. whereas the Web.com guys are playing courses in condition similar to how the members play them?

Zack Zucher really got me thinking about this today when I saw the he fired an opening round 60 in a Web.com event. I thought if he has the ability to do that he would be able to at least make it to the weekend a majority of the time on TOUR.

[MS256]

Any of the winners on the PGA tour would dominate the web.com tour. The web.com tour play lesser courses as well for the most part, but a winner on the web.com tour can probably make cuts at the PGA level. Consider the web.com tour to be like an all star team of minor league baseball; only a few guys are good enough to be bench players at the next level, and none are good enough to be starters. Most of them will never distinguish themselves at their current level with wins, let alone becoming a PGA tour pro. I'd also say the scrubs of the PGA tour would get an occasional win at the lower level. Someone in the top 20 would be winning every other week they played.

Really?

Guys in the Majors came from somewhere. Some guys at Triple AAA and even Double AA aren't only good enough to be starters but good enough to be superstars. Heck I go to minor league games fairly often and most teams have at least one guy that stands out like a sore thumb and you know he'll be in the Majors before the season is over.

Other than that I agree with your comment.

[RonTheSavage]

The Web.com (Stonebrae Classic) is coming to my hometown this weekend and I couldnt resist. I'll be there all day Friday and possibly Sunday if the wife allows. $11 for a ticket is a steal. If I go Sunday I'll pay the VIP price for access to the clubhouse with unlimited wine beer and snacks. :beer: Looking forward to checking out Michael Kim

[Mike Boatright]

I think it's about elitism a bit the web.com guys are often the grinders who have to play the hard way whereas some of the pga guys had sponser exemptions or were wealthy to begin with just a handful though.. I see guys on the web.com tour hit it farther and better than a lot of the pga tour guys.A good example is Bubba Watson and Dustin Johnson the web.com guys bring the heat just like em. I like the AAA baseball anaology in the minors you will see guys throw 100 mph but lack control and skill and I bet the same goes true for web.com being fairway stats and greens in reg however as stated my the other guys they go low shoot 62-60 59 :) It takes a lot of talent to do this heck I was even looking at the nga hooters tour the top guy shoots low 60's all the time there is a lot of pga tour caliber players out there they just make it so hard to be on tour.