Fargo rating curve compared to golf handicap?

[Rocket354]

Pool on the other hand, you get a Fargo just by entering a lot of tournaments or leagues

While it might be more likely for a pool player to have a Fargo rating, I still think the majority of pool players don't. As an example, I've been playing since the early-to-mid nineties, long before Fargo existed, and I didn't have one until under a year ago.

APA and a few other leagues don't report. There are plenty of tournaments that don't report. And, of course, lots and lots of casual play doesn’t get reported.

I think the existing Fargo ratings are still skewed by selection bias since most who would have a score are already enthusiasts to some degree.

 

[garczar]

While it might be more likely for a pool player to have a Fargo rating, I still think the majority of pool players don't. As an example, I've been playing since the early-to-mid nineties, long before Fargo existed, and I didn't have one until under a year ago.

APA and a few other leagues don't report. There are plenty of tournaments that don't report. And, of course, lots and lots of casual play doesn’t get reported.

I think the existing Fargo ratings are still skewed by selection bias since most who would have a score are already enthusiasts to some degree.

In my area, Ok-Ks-Mo-Tx-Ark, just about every league reports(don't count APA as real pool. Sorry, sue me) and virtually every tournament does.

 

[slide13]

While it might be more likely for a pool player to have a Fargo rating, I still think the majority of pool players don't. As an example, I've been playing since the early-to-mid nineties, long before Fargo existed, and I didn't have one until under a year ago.

APA and a few other leagues don't report. There are plenty of tournaments that don't report. And, of course, lots and lots of casual play doesn’t get reported.

I think the existing Fargo ratings are still skewed by selection bias since most who would have a score are already enthusiasts to some degree.

That is true and especially applicable to the casual players. My league doesn't report to Fargo but I've played in enough tournaments that do and it's nice and so easy to get one just by doing that. I wish my league reported to Fargo though, would be nice. I would guess more than half of my league doesn't have a Fargo rating, so you're absolutely correct there

 

[Cameron Smith]

The distribution shifts a lot depending on how the population is chosen. Here is the 180,000 people with 50 or more games in the system

Average is 446 and middle person is 452
Top 0.1% is 786
Top 1% is 708
Top 5% is 631
Top 10% is 592
Top 20% is 546
Top third is 501
Top 50% is 452

Standard deviation here is 118.7
View attachment 751114

Based on this it would seem that scratch is equivalent to 708. There are roughly 2.4 million golfers in the US with a handicap and 40,000 of them are scratch. So about 1% (1.6% to be exact).

 

[Justaneng]

While it might be more likely for a pool player to have a Fargo rating, I still think the majority of pool players don't. As an example, I've been playing since the early-to-mid nineties, long before Fargo existed, and I didn't have one until under a year ago.

APA and a few other leagues don't report. There are plenty of tournaments that don't report. And, of course, lots and lots of casual play doesn’t get reported.

I think the existing Fargo ratings are still skewed by selection bias since most who would have a score are already enthusiasts to some degree.

In a past thread I had asked Page this and his thought was that if you added the APA dataset (somehow) and converted it all to Fargo you'd end up with the average player (APA + Current Fargo database) at about a Fargo 400. I have no idea what this would look like if you somehow added everyone who shoots 20 racks/year or more of bar 8-ball in the mix.

The conversion our local USAPL operator uses for starter rating is an APA-3 is a base Fargo 325 and it goes up every 50 points until you have SL-7/Fargo 525.

 

[MattPoland]

The distribution shifts a lot depending on how the population is chosen. Here is the 180,000 people with 50 or more games in the system

Average is 446 and middle person is 452
Top 0.1% is 786
Top 1% is 708
Top 5% is 631
Top 10% is 592
Top 20% is 546
Top third is 501
Top 50% is 452

Standard deviation here is 118.7
View attachment 751114

It would be cool if the app told us what Top % we fit into.

 

[ElKabong]

Highest index recorded was 8.1 , Rickie Fowler btw
Tiger was 6.5-7 normally
Hard to clock those guys, not sure if every venue even has accurate slope/cr for the setups they play

I feel like your comparisons are pretty accurate overall. I would say top players on pga tour are probably +8 or better though. I was an assistant pro at a course where several who ended up being pga tour pros played. One kept a handicap and he was a +7 while competing on the nationwide tour.

I think 700+ would be scratch and 600+ would be single digit.

.1

 

[ElKabong]

The distribution shifts a lot depending on how the population is chosen. Here is the 180,000 people with 50 or more games in the system

Average is 446 and middle person is 452
Top 0.1% is 786
Top 1% is 708
Top 5% is 631
Top 10% is 592
Top 20% is 546
Top third is 501
Top 50% is 452

Standard deviation here is 118.7
View attachment 751114

That’s the thing about golf handicaps , the only people with golf handicaps are “avid” golfers
If you include weekend golfers with an estimated hdcp, the average would be closer to 20 than the 12-13 that’s indicate me on that chart
Pool would seem to be similar , if you include all people who play at least one game a year , 500 rating would be in top couple percentile probably

It’s an interesting exercise though

 

[Oikawa]

If the population is chosen as all people, whether they are in FargoRate or not, whether they've every touched a pool cue or not, then in areas where pool is moderately popular, there seems to be about 1 700+ player per million population.

How many 700+ are there in Finland that are in the system? I'd guess 20ish

 

[nine_ball6970]

Highest index recorded was 8.1 , Rickie Fowler btw
Tiger was 6.5-7 normally
Hard to clock those guys, not sure if every venue even has accurate slope/cr for the setups they play

.1

Rickie was one of the players at the course I worked at. I played with him a number of times when he was a junior. The other was Brendan Steele who kept the handicap. A lot of his rounds tracked weren't on pga tour or even natiowide conditions. I'd imagine most scratch golfers would have trouble shooting low 80s playing a pga tour set up. I'd be interested in seeing the slope/cr for those events. Lots of other factors than playing from the tips which is what would be on the scorecard.

 

[garczar]

Rickie was one of the players at the course I worked at. I played with him a number of times when he was a junior. The other was Brendan Steele who kept the handicap. A lot of his rounds tracked weren't on pga tour or even natiowide conditions. I'd imagine most scratch golfers would have trouble shooting low 80s playing a pga tour set up. I'd be interested in seeing the slope/cr for those events. Lots of other factors than playing from the tips which is what would be on the scorecard.

Southern Hills here in Tulsa from the champ. tees has a CR of 78 with a slope of 142. Pretty stout. Ydg is just under 7500 from these tees. Add in the brutal Perry Maxwell greens/bunkers and its one tough track.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I was curious so searched google. A different link said that Tiger was a +8 before he turned pro. I'd think most of these players would be in the +9 to+11 range if tour conditions were factored in.

In 2015, Golf Digest had Dean Knuth, former Senior Director of Handicapping for the USGA, figure out Woods' index following his career-worst round of 85 at the Memorial. Knuth concluded Woods was still a +5.9 during his slump (of course, that 85 wouldn't count). He also said Woods "never dropped below +10 during the entire year" in 2000, but he was accounting for tournament setups.

 

[JPB2]

Southern Hills here in Tulsa from the champ. tees has a CR of 78 with a slope of 142. Pretty stout. Ydg is just under 7500 from these tees. Add in the brutal Perry Maxwell greens/bunkers and its one tough track.

I don't know if they could really do a CR and slope for the 4 days of a major. Geared to a scratch golfer my WAG for handicapping would take that Southern Hills rating to maybe 90 CR and 160 for how it will play on a dry breezy afternoon. Because at a CR of 78 doesn't the scratch player score in the '80's most of the time? (for the non-golfers, you don't play to your handicap most of the time. So a 10 handicap with a 10 course handicap on a course with a course rating of 69 and normal slope is not going to break 80 most of the time.)

I only have been to one major in person and it was a long time ago. I couldn't believe how hard the greens were and how bad the rough was. Southern Hills and other venues for majors are hard courses day to day. But the CR and slope have to be off the charts for how they play during a championship. A couple years ago I saw something on TV where some VIPs, officials etc... were playing the US Open venue -Brookline- right before the tournament. A former tour pro who now works at the USGA, Jason Gore, was playing. They were not playing from the tournament tees. Someone asked him if they were going to move back. I don't remember his exact answer but it was a hard no. There's a better than scratch player even in retirement thinking that was a bad idea.

 

[garczar]

I don't know if they could really do a CR and slope for the 4 days of a major. Geared to a scratch golfer my WAG for handicapping would take that Southern Hills rating to maybe 90 CR and 160 for how it will play on a dry breezy afternoon. Because at a CR of 78 doesn't the scratch player score in the '80's most of the time? (for the non-golfers, you don't play to your handicap most of the time. So a 10 handicap with a 10 course handicap on a course with a course rating of 69 and normal slope is not going to break 80 most of the time.)

I only have been to one major in person and it was a long time ago. I couldn't believe how hard the greens were and how bad the rough was. Southern Hills and other venues for majors are hard courses day to day. But the CR and slope have to be off the charts for how they play during a championship. A couple years ago I saw something on TV where some VIPs, officials etc... were playing the US Open venue -Brookline- right before the tournament. A former tour pro who now works at the USGA, Jason Gore, was playing. They were not playing from the tournament tees. Someone asked him if they were going to move back. I don't remember his exact answer but it was a hard no. There's a better than scratch player even in retirement thinking that was a bad idea.

The CR doesn't change when doing slope figuring. That 78 rating from the back tees is the same all the time. SH's is a par 71 for the pros and if an am played it they'd get an extra 7 shots(78-71) in addition to the regular slope calculation.(index-x-slope/113 +7) My h'cap would go from around 12 to 22 if i tried the champ tees. Also, weather is not part of the equation. There's no 'wind allowance' but i sure wish there was as Okla is windy as hell in spring/fall. Not sure the extra 7shots would be enough.

 

[JPB2]

The CR doesn't change when doing slope figuring. That 78 rating from the back tees is the same all the time. SH's is a par 71 for the pros and if an am played it they'd get an extra 7 shots(78-71) in addition to the regular slope calculation.(index-x-slope/113 +7) My h'cap would go from around 12 to 22 if i tried the champ tees. Also, weather is not part of the equation. There's no 'wind allowance' but i sure wish there was as Okla is windy as hell in spring/fall. Not sure the extra 7shots would be enough.

I am not fully versed in CR. But doesn't the course get altered from when the rating was set? Like narrowing the fairways or adding tees. I guess if they did the rating from the US Open tees etc... I just figured the course got its rating when the rating team saw it under relatively normal conditions. Which are hard at these tough golf courses. Not after they change the fairway width or add tees. But it sounds like I am wrong. I do know that I don't need to be playing 510 yard uphill par 4s with brutal rough and greens as hard as the parking lot.

 

[garczar]

I am not fully versed in CR. But doesn't the course get altered from when the rating was set? Like narrowing the fairways or adding tees. I guess if they did the rating from the US Open tees etc... I just figured the course got its rating when the rating team saw it under relatively normal conditions. Which are hard at these tough golf courses. Not after they change the fairway width or add tees. But it sounds like I am wrong. I do know that I don't need to be playing 510 yard uphill par 4s with brutal rough and greens as hard as the parking lot.

No. Course rating is set. Augusta from the pro tees is about same CR/slope(76/148) as SH's. The toughest track the last few yrs is the Ocean Course at Kiawah at 79/155. That's brutal. For those wondering the course rating is a measure of how tough it is for a scratch golfer to shoot even par. The slope # is how tough/easy the course is for a bogey golfer to shoot bogey golf. The system allows one's handicap to be adjusted per course. The USGA uses 113 as the avg. for figuring slope although the national average nowadays is closer to 118.

 

[ElKabong]

RF was the hightest for sure , I was going from memory on that same chart
8.4 is pretty strong
Another interesting tidbit is Rahm had the highest “worst” index , he’s in contention a lot

 

[JPB2]

No. Course rating is set. Augusta from the pro tees is about same CR/slope(76/148) as SH's. The toughest track the last few yrs is the Ocean Course at Kiawah at 79/155. That's brutal. For those wondering the course rating is a measure of how tough it is for a scratch golfer to shoot even par. The slope # is how tough/easy the course is for a bogey golfer to shoot bogey golf. The system allows one's handicap to be adjusted per course. The USGA uses 113 as the avg. for figuring slope although the national average nowadays is closer to 118.

Interesting. Did Augusta finally let the raters in or is that the estimate a rater gave it- I remember an article about that? I thought they wouldn't let the rating be done? But if we somehow took 156 scratch players and put them on Southern Hills, Oakmont, Bethpage etc... in major championship conditions not club championship conditions, the average score would be closer to 90 than 80 I would think. Granted, the scratch player won't shoot exactly the course rating most of the time. But turning in a 78 on a US Open course would be pretty rare for a scratch player I would guess. I guess we won't know. Hard or impossible to keep the courses in the crazy conditions for long.

 

[JPB2]

A

View attachment 751157
I was curious so searched google. A different link said that Tiger was a +8 before he turned pro. I'd think most of these players would be in the +9 to+11 range if tour conditions were factored in.

In 2015, Golf Digest had Dean Knuth, former Senior Director of Handicapping for the USGA, figure out Woods' index following his career-worst round of 85 at the Memorial. Knuth concluded Woods was still a +5.9 during his slump (of course, that 85 wouldn't count). He also said Woods "never dropped below +10 during the entire year" in 2000, but he was accounting for tournament setups.

An anecdote about one of the players on that handicap list. Bronson Burgoon a +5.9. I don’t get to many tour events and hadn’t been to one in years. Went to a Korn Ferry in the last few years as someone gave us tickets. Wanted to see some of the new young guys and wanted to see Hovland who had turned pro that summer and was getting status on tour. The course was not the hardest these guys play, but the conditions were tough, particularly the hard greens.

Was watching by the green on a reachable par 5. All these guys could get there in 2 and did didn’t need a perfect 3 wood to do it. But the green was so hard that holding it with a long iron or hybrid was really difficult. Trying to get up and down from behind the green, even with a grandstand backstop wasn’t easy either. You get to play a shot from rough to a concrete hard green sloping away from you. So there is an “easy birdie” hole for you. Anyway, Burgoon hit this towering shot in that held the green and stayed below the hole for a good eagle putt. Dunno what club he played for the approach. You see a guy like that with a huge swing arc, tons of power, who can stop a ball on asphalt and wonder how he doesn’t win every week. But how many have heard of him? Yeah, those guys play good.

 

[garczar]

A

An anecdote about one of the players on that handicap list. Bronson Burgoon a +5.9. I don’t get to many tour events and hadn’t been to one in years. Went to a Korn Ferry in the last few years as someone gave us tickets. Wanted to see some of the new young guys and wanted to see Hovland who had turned pro that summer and was getting status on tour. The course was not the hardest these guys play, but the conditions were tough, particularly the hard greens.

Was watching by the green on a reachable par 5. All these guys could get there in 2 and did didn’t need a perfect 3 wood to do it. But the green was so hard that holding it with a long iron or hybrid was really difficult. Trying to get up and down from behind the green, even with a grandstand backstop wasn’t easy either. You get to play a shot from rough to a concrete hard green sloping away from you. So there is an “easy birdie” hole for you. Anyway, Burgoon hit this towering shot in that held the green and stayed below the hole for a good eagle putt. Dunno what club he played for the approach. You see a guy like that with a huge swing arc, tons of power, who can stop a ball on asphalt and wonder how he doesn’t win every week. But how many have heard of him? Yeah, those guys play good.

He went to Tex A&M. Good player. Has had a few injuries and struggles with, yes you know what's coming, the putter. Age-old story.