How good does a Touring Pro need to be?

[freshmanUTA]

The question is simple, and I'll include a poll. How good does a tour player need to be to make a living on tour. The player theoretically doesn't need to win, but just make enough money to keep a card and afford to live and play full time. I've seen people say they can realistically make cuts at as high as a 2.0 and I've seen people say you'd need to be a +5 or +6 to even have a chance to make it to a Tour. What do you guys think?

[dennyjones]

I read someplace that if a pro played par in every tournament he wouldn't keep his card.  I voted 5.0+ but that is a guess. 

[iacas]

Whoever told you anything south of about a +3.5 at a minimum was on something and should check into rehab.

I voted +5.0 or better.

Had the option said +4 or better I might have been tempted… but including +3 makes that a non-starter IMO.

[freshmanUTA]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

Whoever told you anything south of about a +3.5 at a minimum was on something and should check into rehab.

I voted +5.0 or better.

Had the option said +4 or better I might have been tempted… but including +3 makes that a non-starter IMO.

Why exactly do you think it is a +4 as opposed to a +3? Is that based off your observations of tendencies between the two HCP's? Is there really that large of a difference between the two? My opinion was actually +1 to +3 at first, but I'm assuming that if you're good enough to be a pro your handicap is coming from courses that are professional caliber. Many cut lines are +1 or + 2 so I assume that if a pro can shoot even on a pro caliber course, they might make a few cuts and make a decent amount of money. Not to suggest "it's that easy" or anything. I voted 1 to +1 because I assumed a +.5 on pro courses could shoot even, but then again tournament conditions are a different beast.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, freshmanUTA said:

Why exactly do you think it is a +4 as opposed to a +3? Is that based off your observations of tendencies between the two HCP's? Is there really that large of a difference between the two?

There's… about one stroke between the two. Which is huge.

https://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

1 minute ago, freshmanUTA said:

Many cut lines are +1 or + 2 so I assume that if a pro can shoot even on a pro caliber course, they might make a few cuts and make a decent amount of money. Not to suggest "it's that easy" or anything. I voted 1 to +1 because I assumed a +.5 on pro courses could shoot even, but then again tournament conditions are a different beast.

You don't seem to understand how handicaps work. The courses they're playing are often rated 76.5 or something. A "one over par" score of 72 or 73 is about a +5 differential.

[freshmanUTA]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

You don't seem to understand how handicaps work. The courses they're playing are often rated 76.5 or something. A "one over par" score of 72 or 73 is about a +5 differential.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Its a number that marks your potential and not what you shoot. So saying you're a +.5 would effectively be saying that you shoot around 5 over, or am I still not understanding this right? But reading through that now I truly understand how foolish my pick seems....

[billchao]

12 minutes ago, freshmanUTA said:

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Its a number that marks your potential and not what you shoot. So saying you're a +.5 would effectively be saying that you shoot around 5 over, or am I still not understanding this right? But reading through that now I truly understand how foolish my pick seems....

You should average about three strokes above your handicap, so a scratch player should expect to average just under 80 on PGA Tour courses. He should play to his handicap about one out of every five rounds, so with a course rating of 76, he will shoot 76 once every three weeks on tour (because he will miss the cut every tournament).

[Patch]

I read that if a golfer could average par, (72) they could make a decent living on tour. They would never win anything, and a top 15 finish would be pretty special.

Also, that they could probably pick up one, or more of the lower tier sponsors for some added income. 

A good on course personality would also help. 

Saw this in one of the golf magazines quite some time ago. 

[billchao]

1 minute ago, Patch said:

I read that if a golfer could average par, (72) they could make a decent living on tour.

Averaging par on the PGA Tour is very different from averaging par on your average course.

[allenc]

I voted 1 - 3 just because I read that Ian Poulter was somewhere around there when he turned pro.  I realize that was because he stopped playing the types of competition rounds that qualified to change your handicap, but still, he officially wasn't even close to scratch.

There is also a guy around here that often carries a handicap of around +7.  He had tried some pro mini tour events when he was younger but just wasn't quite good enough.  Of course he is a +7 now just because he plays the same course over and over that sets up well for him to get low differentials.

What I'm saying is that your handicap doesn't indicate perfectly whether you're good enough to play professionally.  You do however need to be one of the best 500 or so out of 50 million or so golfers to make a nice living at it.  So the answer is, get a random group of 100,000 golfers and you've got to be able to beat every one of them.

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, allenc said:

I voted 1 - 3 just because I read that Ian Poulter was somewhere around there when he turned pro.  I realize that was because he stopped playing the types of competition rounds that qualified to change your handicap, but still, he officially wasn't even close to scratch.

He wasn't close to making a living at that point. He just "turned pro" at that point.

A 1-3 will get absolutely creamed, and a +1 to a +3 won't keep a card on the Web.com Tour if those are even reasonably close to their true handicap.

[MuniGrit]

1 hour ago, Patch said:

I read that if a golfer could average par, (72) they could make a decent living on tour. They would never win anything, and a top 15 finish would be pretty special.

Also, that they could probably pick up one, or more of the lower tier sponsors for some added income. 

A good on course personality would also help. 

Saw this in one of the golf magazines quite some time ago. 

You could win US Open every few years.

[JuanTheGolfer]

I remember Mark Long, who caddied for Fred Funk was doing an interview about "how good do you have to be"   He stated that if you can remember the number of times you shot 65 or less from the tips at a tough course, you were not even good enough to think about it!!   These guys are REALLY good.

When I was growing up, I had the opportunity to regularly play with a couple of friends.  They were both about 6'1" or 6'2" and could hit the ball a mile, putt lights out, chip and pitch like mad men, hit beautiful pin seeking long irons, ... they were in a league of their own.  Both got golf scholarships -- one to  Georgia and the other to FSU.   Then one of them played on the PGA Tour and won the Texas Valero Open.  We were only 14-15 at the time, and I knew that I was never going to make a living playing golf  

Today, I have a friend in his early 20s who can drive it over 300 yards with ease, shoots 63-64 regularly from the tips and has not made it past the first stage of Q school in three tries, and even tried the Q school for the Asian Tour and did not make it past the first stage.

When they say, "these guys are good"... all I can say, is "seriously good"

[GrandStranded]

1 hour ago, allenc said:

I voted 1 - 3 just because I read that Ian Poulter was somewhere around there when he turned pro.  I realize that was because he stopped playing the types of competition rounds that qualified to change your handicap, but still, he officially wasn't even close to scratch.

There is also a guy around here that often carries a handicap of around +7.  He had tried some pro mini tour events when he was younger but just wasn't quite good enough.  Of course he is a +7 now just because he plays the same course over and over that sets up well for him to get low differentials.

What I'm saying is that your handicap doesn't indicate perfectly whether you're good enough to play professionally.  You do however need to be one of the best 500 or so out of 50 million or so golfers to make a nice living at it.  So the answer is, get a random group of 100,000 golfers and you've got to be able to beat every one of them.

OMG. What does he shoot to be a +7? Wouldn't that have to be a seriously tough course for him to get that low?

[mvmac]

6 hours ago, freshmanUTA said:

The question is simple, and I'll include a poll. How good does a tour player need to be to make a living on tour. The player theoretically doesn't need to win, but just make enough money to keep a card and afford to live and play full time. I've seen people say they can realistically make cuts at as high as a 2.0 and I've seen people say you'd need to be a +5 or +6 to even have a chance to make it to a Tour. What do you guys think?

A traveling +5 or better.

Another way to look at it, you can show up to most courses sight unseen, shoot 68 or lower while playing your B game. 

4 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

You could win US Open every few years.

Which would be better than a +5.

[b101]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

https://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

That's one impressive article and a scary read!

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, b101 said:

That's one impressive article and a scary read!

Makes appreciate even the guys that don't make the cut even more.

[MuniGrit]

I know at Whisper Rock here in Scottsdale the club championship has been won by a 1 or 2 handicap and the club is filled with touring pros. Ogilvy gets crap for finishing 10th in a tournament there when during the week before he was top 10 on tour. Shows you how a guy can be really tough always playing the same courses.