USTA Rating - Golf Handicap

[dirtballer]

This probably isn't the right forum but I couldn't decide where to put it. I had a thought the other day. What golf handicap do you think would be the equivalent of the various USTA ratings in tennis? Obviously, a PGA/LPGA player would be the equivalent of a 7.0 but how about a scratch amateur golfer? I was thinking that a 5.0/5.5 player would be a scratch equivalent, a 4.5/5.0 a 5 handicap, a 4.0/4.5 a 10 handicap, a 3.5/4.0 a 15 handicap, and a 3.0/3.5 a 20 handicap. I'm sure there's some golfers out there. Do you think this is in the ballpark or do you think it's way out of line?

 

[lostinamerica]

My assessment is:

5.5 Scratch
5.0 5 Handicap
4.5 8 to 12
4.0 13 to 18
3.5 19 to 105
3.0 105 to 120
2.5 Just plain awful

 

[Vik]

5.5 scratch
5.0 2
4.5 8
4.0 15
3.5 25
3.0 35

I think 4.0 is synonymous with bogey golf.

 

[ChipNCharge]

My experience has been that most weekend golfers wouldn't break 100 if they actually played by the rules (ie: putting out, playing the ball where it lies, taking appropriate stroke penalites, etc).

 

[r2473]

My experience has been that most weekend golfers wouldn't break 100 if they actually played by the rules (ie: putting out, playing the ball where it lies, taking appropriate stroke penalites, etc).

For sure!!

I talk to so many golfers that claim they are bogey golfers or better. When I get out on the course with them, they are awful. (But, somehow, their score only totals 90 or fewer strokes ).

Same in tennis. Almost everyone is a 4.0 to a 4.5. But, their games have such glaring weaknesses that anyone that knows anything about actually playing tennis (not just ball bashing at every opportunity) can beat them easily.

In golf, if you actually play by the rules, bogey is a pretty decent score.

In tennis, you look like you actually "know how to play" at the 4.5 level. Below that, you look like "granny swatting flys".

 

[lostinamerica]

r2473,

I agree but in USTA league (at the sectional level not during the regular season) I do not see vast differences between 3.5 contenders and regular season 4.5 teams.

Also, at 4.5 sectionals, contenders look like good college teams. I am a former college player and at sectionals, 4.5 teams would be excellent Division II teams and some of the players are capable of Division I.

 

[chrisplchs]

r2473,

I agree but in USTA league (at the sectional level not during the regular season) I do not see vast differences between 3.5 contenders and regular season 4.5 teams.

Also, at 4.5 sectionals, contenders look like good college teams. I am a former college player and at sectionals, 4.5 teams would be excellent Division II teams and some of the players are capable of Division I.

By D1, I hope you mean lowest level, worst competition, unfunded D1 team. Then I could see a 4.5 player playing on that team

 

[tbini87]

i could see 4.0 being close to bogey golf. those are about my levels in both sports, and i am usually competitive with the people i know that play both sports. prob a strong 4.0 and closer to 15 handicap. once i play with people that are really good at either sport i can tell that they are just on another level.

 

[tbini87]

By D1, I hope you mean lowest level, worst competition, unfunded D1 team. Then I could see a 4.5 player playing on that team

yeah... i don't think there are too many 4.5s that would be competitive at many D-1 schools. they would actually prob get their backsides handed to them. they may look good when playing other 4.5s, but D-1 college tennis is way better than that.

 

[randomname]

yeah... i don't think there are too many 4.5s that would be competitive at many D-1 schools. they would actually prob get their backsides handed to them. they may look good when playing other 4.5s, but D-1 college tennis is way better than that.

thats because the people hes talking about (the ones at sectionals and nationals) arnt 4.5s

 

[lostinamerica]

thats because the people hes talking about (the ones at sectionals and nationals) arnt 4.5s

Thank you. That was what I was talking about. I was not talking about local leagues. Those players at local level are usually winning methodically 6-4, 6-4 (or some similar score). Once it really matters, they play for real.

I recall one instance where a guy beat me 6-4, 7-5 in league and I felt like I made just a few too many errors and I had opportunities to win. A few weeks later I was asked to play against the same guy in a doubles match that was just for fun. There was no score management and after that match... I realized that I was never going to win that previous match. He was very good at keeping me right where he wanted. I talked with him and he said he did not mean for that second set to get to 7-5 but I played a really nice game to pull to 5-5. I was unsure if I should be insulted or complimented.