Opinion & Analysis
Four key factors for success on the PGA Tour
It is a common practice in statistical analysis to seek out commonalities for successful or unsuccessful relationships in order to more accurately forecast future events. For example, if I own a store known for selling lemonade, I may want to find out certain commonalities between the days I tend to sell more lemonade versus the days I sell less lemonade. Those commonalities may be the temperature, tourist events that are in town, holidays and weekends versus weekdays.
Generally, the fewer the commonalities the more likely it will lead to a more accurate forecast. If I know that my store is largely dependent on the weather in order to sell lemonade and the other factors are negligible, then it becomes easier to plan around the weather variable. If I know that the warmer the temperature the more lemonade I can sell, I can then stock up on lemonade and perhaps up the price during the summer versus stocking less lemonade and discounting the lemonade during the winter.
With golf, I find many golfers attempt to break down the game in the same fashion. The old drive for show and putt for dough adage is quite common. There is also the various groups of people that believe that wedge play is everything, or hitting it long is everything, or hitting fairways is everything or even the doing everything well is everything.
What I have found in my research on the PGA Tour is common sense, but not entirely obvious. In essence, in order to be VERY successful on the PGA Tour, a golfer does not have to be great at everything. In fact, they do not even have be great at anything. Instead, if they are at least at the average in four different parts of the game, they are extremely likely to be very successful on Tour. In my 2012 Pro Golf Synopsis, I called these “The Big Four” of golf. I have since altered this slightly to derive an even more accurate depiction of how to be successful on Tour.
Driving Effectiveness
I utilize a proprietary algorithm that depicts how effective a golfer on Tour was off the tee. This algorithm includes metrics that are part of three different components to driving the ball: power, accuracy and precision.
The precision metrics have the greatest influence on a golfer’s score. This is followed by the power metric and then the accuracy metric. Average Distance to the Edge of the Fairway is based on shots that miss the fairway. Missed Fairway – Other % is any time a tee shot ends up in a hazard or requires a subsequent “rescue shot.”
Morgan Hoffmann, who finished 111th on Tour in 2013, was at “the average” for Driving Effectiveness on Tour. Here are a look at his metrics:
As we can see, Hoffmann hit it very long off the tee (Distance is based on all drives measured with a laser). He wasn’t very accurate, but his precision metrics were pretty good.
“Danger Zone” play
Danger Zone play is shots from 175-to-225 yards. This part of the game has the strongest correlation to success on Tour. All things being equal, I have determined that the difference between the best on Tour from the Danger Zone versus the Tour average is worth roughly 0.4 to 0.45 strokes per round. That may not seem like much, but it could be the difference between 40 to 60 spots on the money list.
Kevin Chappell, who finished 58th on Tour in 2013, was at the average from the Danger Zone, hitting those shots an average of 42 feet to the cup.
Short game shots from 10-to-20 yards
What I have found with my research is that the short game shots that have a mathematical correlation to Adjusted Scoring Average on Tour are from within 20 yards to the edge of the green. Outside of 20 yards, the correlation regresses. I believe that many shots from longer than 20 yards come down to luck and randomness.
What I have also found is shots from 20-to-100 yards are incredibly unimportant to the success on Tour. However, the common fallacy with some stat heads is that they start to label shots from less than 20 yards and putting in with shots from 20-to-100 yards, and thus they start to label putting as unimportant as well. The truth is that putting is very important as well as short game shots from under 20 yards. But when you add shots from 20-to-100 yards into the mix, it inaccurately waters down the importance of the short game and putting.
In 2012 Pro Golf Synopsis, I labeled this component of The Big Four as “total short game.” However, it is clear that when it comes to the short game, shots from 10-to-20 yards are much more important than shots from 1-to-10 yards. Thus, I decided to add only shots from 10-to-20 yards in The Big Four metrics that matter on Tour.
Long-hitting Luke List, who finished 163 on Tour in 2013, was at the Tour average at hitting shots from 10-to-20 yards to 6.7 feet.
Strokes Gained-Putting
The last metric is pretty self-explanatory. Typically, the golfers who perform best in Strokes Gained-Putting are the ones who make a higher percentage of putts from 3-to-15 feet than the others. Putts outside of 15 feet start to come down to randomness and luck.
So, who were the players that finished in the top-half in each of these metrics in 2013?
Seven out of the nine players listed finished in the top-25 on the 2013 money list. Jerry Kelly finished 99th, but that was mostly due to him playing in events with lower purse sizes. Meanwhile, he ranked No. 47 in Adjusted Scoring Average, the metric that most accurately depicts a player’s performance.
While it certainly does not hurt the cause, success on Tour is not about being great at anything (by Tour standards). Success on Tour is about being better than the average at a few important parts of the game. If a player is at least average or better off the tee, on the green, from 175-to-225 yards and from 10-to-20 yards they have put themselves in position to be wildly successful.
Opinion & Analysis
Brandel Chamblee PGA Championship Q&A: Rose’s huge McLaren risk, distracted LIV pros and why Aronimink suits the bombers
PGA Championship week is here, and Brandel Chamblee did not hold back in our latest discussion ahead of the season’s second major.
In our 2026 PGA Championship Q&A, golf’s leading analyst made the case that PIF pulling LIV’s funding has left its players competing in a state of confusion, called Justin Rose’s mid-season equipment switch a huge risk at 45, and explained why Aronimink will be a bombers’ delight this week.
Check out the full Q&A below.
Gianni: With the PIF confirming that they’re pulling funding from LIV at the end of the season, what impact do you expect that to have on the LIV players competing at the PGA Championship?
Brandel: I would imagine that they have all been thrown into a state of confusion, and will be distracted, not knowing where they are going to play next year and not knowing exactly their road back to either the DP World Tour or the PGA Tour. Or in Rahm’s case, being tied to a sinking ship for the next few years, likely playing for pennies on the dollar in events that no one cares about or watches.
I doubt this would put him in the best frame of mind to compete at his highest level. Keeping in mind, however, that majors are the only time that LIV disciples get to play in events that matter, so never disregard the motivation they have to prove to the world they are still relevant.
Gianni: Justin Rose switched to McLaren Golf equipment mid-season while playing some of the best golf of his career. What do you make of the change?
Brandel: I don’t really know what to make of Rose switching equipment. It seems a huge risk on his part, even though it is likely, in my opinion, that the clubs he’s playing are similar, if not the exact grinds, to what he was playing previously, with a McLaren stamp on them.
Having said that, at best, it is a distraction when he seemed to be as dialed in with his game as any 45-year-old could be and trending in the majors to perhaps do something that would definitely put him in the Hall of Fame. At worst, given the possibility that these clubs aren’t just duplicates of his old set stamped with McLaren on them, he’s made an equipment change that would take time, and 45-year-old athletes don’t have the time to do such things.
Gianni: Aronimink has only hosted a handful of professional events since it hosted the 1962 PGA Championship. What kind of test does it present, and does a course with less recent major championship history tend to level the playing field?
Brandel: Even though Aronimink has only hosted a handful of meaningful professional events, it has been fairly discerning in who can win there. When Keegan Bradley won the BMW Championship on the Donald Ross masterpiece in 2018, he was the 2nd best iron player on tour coming into that week. When Nick Watney won the AT&T at Aronimink in 2011, he was 2nd in strokes gained total coming into the week.
In 2020, Aronimink hosted the KPMG Championship, and Sei Young Kim won. On the LPGA that year, she was first in greens in regulation, putts per green in regulation, and scoring average on the way to being the LPGA player of the year. And then there is the 1962 PGA Championship won by Gary Player, who eventually became just one of a few players to win the career grand slam on the way to winning 9 majors. It is a formidable test, and if it’s not softened by rain, it will bring out the best in the upper echelons of the game.
Gianni: Is there a specific hole at Aronimink that you think will do the most to decide the winner?
Brandel: The hardest hole at Aronimink in each of the three tour events that have been played there since 2010 has been the long par-3 8th hole, with the par-4 10th being the second hardest, so most of the carnage will happen around the turn, but with the par-5 16th offering opportunities for bold plays and the tough closing holes at 17 and 18, the finish is likely to be frenetic.
Gianni: The PGA Championship has always sat in the shadow of the other majors. What does the ideal PGA Championship look like in your eyes, and what would it take for it to carve out its own identity?
Brandel: The PGA Championship, to whatever degree it suffers from the comparison to the other three majors, is still counted just as much when adding them up at the end of one’s career. Almost 1/3 of Nicklaus’ major wins were the five PGA Championships he won. Walter Hagen won 11 majors, five of which were PGA Championships.
Tiger Woods twice in his career won back-to-back PGA Championships, and those four majors count just as much as the other 11 he won. The PGA may not have the prestige of the other three, but it carries the same weight. Having said that, I preferred the identity that it had as the last major of the year.
Gianni: You nailed your Masters picks. Rory won, Scottie finished solo second, and Morikawa surged to a tie for seventh. Who are your top 3 picks for the PGA Championship and why?
Brandel: I am not a huge fan of majors played on golf courses that have been shorn of most of the trees, although I understand some of the agronomic reasons for doing so and of course the ease with which it allows members to play after errant drives. However, at the highest level, it all but eliminates any strategy off the tee and turns professional golf into an even bigger slugfest. That means that it will likely be a bomber’s delight this week, but fortunately, Scottie Scheffler is long enough to play that game and straight enough to play it better than anyone else.
The major championships give us very few surprises anymore, going back to the beginning of 2012, so the last 57 majors played, the average world rank of the winners has been better than 15th in the world. So look at the highest ranked and longest drivers who are on form coming into the PGA Championship who also have great short games as the surrounds at Aronimink are very challenging. That’s Scottie Scheffler by a mile and then McIlroy and Cameron Young with a far bigger nod towards DeChambeau than I gave him at the Masters.
Club Junkie
A putter that I love and hate – Club Junkie Podcast
In this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, we dive into one of the most interesting flatstick releases of the year with a full review of the new TaylorMade SYSTM 2 putters. After spending time on the greens, I break down what makes this design stand out, where it performs, and why it has me completely torn between loving it and fighting it. If you are into feel, alignment, and consistency, this is one you will want to hear about.
We also take a look at some of the putters in play on the PGA Tour last week. From familiar favorites to a few surprising setups, there is always something to learn from what the best players in the world are rolling with under pressure.
To wrap things up, I walk through the process of building a set of JP Golf Prime irons paired with Baddazz Gold Series shafts. From component selection to performance goals, this is a deep dive into what goes into creating a unique custom set and why this combo has been so intriguing.
Opinion & Analysis
From 14 handicap to pro: 4 things I’d tell golfers at 50
This year my 50th birthday. Gosh, where has the time gone?
As a teenager in rural Missouri, some of my junior high and high school years felt interminable. Graduation seemed light years away. But the older I get, the faster life seems to fly by.
I’m also increasingly aware of my mortality. My dad died recently. Earlier this year, a friend and fellow PGA of America professional and I were texting about our next catch-up. The next message I received was news of his unexpected passing at 48. Shortly after, a woman I dated in college succumbed to cancer at 51.
Certainly, one can share perspective at any age. Seniors help freshmen, veterans guide rookies. But reaching this milestone feels like as good a time as any to do one of those “what would I tell my younger self?” articles.
I’ve had a uniquely varied career in golf. I started as a 27-year-old, average-length-hitting, 14-handicap computer engineer and somehow managed to turn pro before running out of money, constantly bootstrapping my way forward. I’ve won qualifiers and set venue records in the World Long Drive Championships, finished fifth at the Speedgolf World Championships, coached all skill levels as a PGA of America professional, built industry-leading swing speed training programs for Swing Man Golf, helped advance the single-length iron market with Sterling Irons®, caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR Champions, and played about 300 courses across 32 countries.
It’s been a ride, and I’ve gone both deep and wide.
So while I can consult and advise from a lot of angles, let me keep it to a few things I’d tell the average golfer who wants to improve.
1. Think About What You Want
Everyone has their own reason for picking up a golf club.
Oddly, as a professional athlete, I’m not internally driven by competition. That can be challenging, as the industry currently prioritizes and incentivizes competition over the love of the game.
For me, I love walking and being outdoors. Nature helps balance my energy. I prefer courses that are integrated into the natural beauty of their surroundings. I’m comfortable practicing alone. I’m a deep thinker, and I genuinely enjoy investigating the game, using data and intuition to unearth unique, often innovative insights. I’m fortunate to be strong and athletic, so I appreciate the chance to engage with my abilities. Traveling feels adventurous. I could go on.
You don’t have to overthink it like I do. For you, it might be as simple as hitting balls to escape work, hanging out with friends, and playing loosely with the rules and the score.
The point is to give yourself permission to play for your own reasons, and let that be enough.
But if improvement is your goal, thinking about your destination—and when you want to get there—is important, because it dictates the steps you need to take. When I set out to go from a 14-handicap to the PGA TOUR as quickly as possible, the steps I needed were very different from those of a working golfer trying to break 90 in six months. That’s also different from someone who just wants a few peaceful hours outside each week, away from work or family.
None of these goals are better than the others, but each requires a different plan that you can work backward from.
2. There Are Lots of Things That Can Work
One of the challenges of golf is that, although there are rules for playing, there aren’t clear, industry-wide standards for how to best play the game. There’s a lot of gray area.
You might hear a top coach or trainer insist that a certain move is the best way to swing or train. Then you dig a bit deeper and, much to your confusion and frustration, another respected coach or trainer says something completely different. I don’t think anyone is trying to confuse you—at least I hope not. It’s just where the industry is right now.
You have to be careful with advice from tournament pros, too. They might be great at scoring, but they’re also human and sometimes just as susceptible as amateurs to believing things that don’t really move the needle. Tour players might describe what they feel, but that’s not always what they’re actually doing when assessed with technology.
I recently ran a test on my YouTube channel (which connects to my GolfWRX article “How to use your hands in the golf swing for power and accuracy”), and, interestingly, two of the most commonly taught hand actions produced the worst results in the test.
Coaches can certainly help. If you find someone you connect with to help navigate, that’s great. But there are many ways to get the ball in the hole. In the current landscape, you may need to seek multiple opinions, think critically, and use your own intuition to discern what seems true and whose advice resonates with you.
I’d recommend seeking someone who is open-minded and always learning, because things constantly change. Absolutes like “correct” or “proper” should raise a red flag. AI can be useful, but it tends to confidently repeat popular advice, so proceed with caution.
3. Get Custom Fit
If you’re serious about becoming a better player, getting custom fit is hugely important. There’s no sense fighting your equipment if you don’t have to. Most better players get fit these days and, if they don’t, they’re usually skilled enough to work around clubs that aren’t ideal.
If you plan to play for a long time, it’s worth spending a little more upfront to get something that truly fits you and your game, rather than continually buying and discarding equipment.
Equipment rules haven’t really changed significantly since the early 2000s. To stay in business, manufacturers keep pushing those limits. If you pull a bunch of clubs and balls off the rack and test them, you’ll find differences. I’ve tested two new drivers and seen a 30-yard total distance gap. Usually, the issue isn’t bad equipment; it’s that the combination of components simply isn’t the best fit.
It’s like wearing a new pair of floppy clown shoes. Sure, they’re shoes—but you won’t sprint your best in them compared to track shoes that fit perfectly.
Be wary of what’s called custom fitting, too. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing strategy rather than an actual fitting. In some retail settings, fitters may be incentivized to steer you toward higher-priced components. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not the best fit, but you should be aware of potential biases.
I learned a version of this lesson outside of golf. Years ago, I bought a tennis racquet at a big box store from a seemingly knowledgeable employee who thought it would suit me best. The racquet gave me tennis elbow, and I spent months recovering with rest and acupuncture. The next season, I invested more time and money to find what actually fit me, and I walked away with something amazing that I still play with years later.
So if you’re going to get fit, be smart about it.
Find someone you believe has deep knowledge—possibly with certifications, but not necessarily. Make sure there’s a wide inventory across many brands. Check recent reviews for the individual fitter if possible. Make sure you trust that the fitter has your best interests at heart. If they’re wearing a hat or shirt with a specific brand’s logo, proceed with caution. Unless you specifically want a certain brand or look, be wary of upsells, especially if two options perform nearly the same.
Also, while golf is called a sport of integrity, there’s a thread of manipulation in the industry. I once drafted an equipment article for an industry magazine, structured just like one of their previous popular stories, with matching word count and great photos. The assistant editor loved it; it was useful to readers and required little work on his part. But the editor-in-chief nixed the story. When I asked why, I was told it was because I wasn’t an advertiser. It turned out the article I’d modeled mine after was a paid ad cleverly disguised as editorial content.
I really dislike games, clickbait, and fear-based manipulation. I hope this changes, but golfers deserve to know it exists.
4. Distance and Strategy Matter
There’s a real relationship between how far you hit the ball and your scoring average, even at the PGA TOUR level.
I experienced this early in my pro career. I started as a power hitter, swinging in the high 120s and breaking 200 mph ball speed with a stock driver.
Back then, some instructors advised swinging at 80%, so I tried slowing down for more accuracy. That worked fine on shorter, tighter courses. But on longer setups, I was coming into greens with too much club, and par 5s stopped being
-
Equipment2 weeks agoJustin Rose WITB 2026 (April): Full WITB breakdown with new McLaren irons
-
Equipment1 week agoWhat’s the story behind Webb Simpson’s custom-stamped irons?
-
Equipment2 weeks agoCadillac Championship Tour Report: Spieth’s sizable changes, McLaren Golf launches, and more
-
Whats in the Bag3 days agoKristoffer Reitan’s winning WITB: 2026 Truist Championship
-
Whats in the Bag1 week agoCameron Young’s winning WITB: 2026 Cadillac Championship
-
Whats in the Bag3 weeks agoNelly Korda WITB 2026 (April)
-
Equipment2 weeks agoJustin Rose on the switch to McLaren Golf, learnings from previous equipment moves
-
Tour Photo Galleries2 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 Cadillac Championship




Pingback: What Rickie Fowler Must Do to Join the ‘Big 3′ in Golf’s Elite Class | Sports News
Pingback: What Rickie Fowler Must Do to Join the ‘Big 3’ in Golf’s Elite Class | My Blog
Pingback: 10 Players Who Will Rise (or Fall) in 2015 | Golf Gear Select
Pingback: 10 Players Who Will Rise (or Fall) in 2015 | GolfClick.net | Blog
tbaxxtbaxx
Apr 26, 2014 at 12:27 am
Nice article Rich. My question is, what single statistic has the highest correlation with money won? Ballstriking composite? Putting? Scrambling? GIR?
Brock
Nov 8, 2013 at 4:01 pm
Why does the danger zone correspond to a higher delta in shots per round (.4 to .45 as you said) than say, 125-150, or 150-175? It seems like the majority of their approach shots these days are inside 175. So, I wouldn’t think that’s the reason for the importance. Is it because the range of misses are bigger from that distance than they would be from 125-175, leading to magnified scores down the line?
TK
Oct 25, 2013 at 3:07 am
Great article Richie, very interesting.
So in terms of the pga tour by your calculation of stats you believe that short game shots from 10-20 yards are much more important than from 20-100?
But I guess it is determined on how short or long the course is?
KCCO
Oct 23, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Best piece I’ve read in a bit on here, thx for very useful info!
Andrew Cooper
Oct 22, 2013 at 10:27 am
Thanks Richie, great stuff. Would you say this big 4 would also apply for club golfers? Does it change as you move through different handicap levels?
Richie Hunt
Oct 24, 2013 at 12:03 pm
Every part of the game is important to some level. If a golfer can improve their fairway bunker play, over time it will help their score. It’s just not going to be as important as something like putting. For club golfers, the Zone ranges differ because they play shorter courses. You can get a good idea of your Danger Zone by looking at the average distance of the par-3’s. And for amateurs, driving becomes the most important part of the game. That is where the greatest standard deviation exists for amateurs. If they can have a good day driving the ball, it will help their score the most. Other than that, I would stick to the Big Four (driving, putting, short game and long approach shots).
paul
Oct 21, 2013 at 9:37 pm
Im glad i am not the only one that thinks that golf numbers are fascinating. All my friends think i am a big golf nerd cause i hit a measured and controlled distance off the tee so i have to hit a pitching wedge for my second shot. of course i beat them so i am an even bigger geek. I thought i was just doing good course management 🙁
craig@tourimpactgolf.com
Oct 23, 2013 at 8:29 am
Reminds me of how Greg Norman defined aggressive play. If a strength of your game is that wedge then getting that wedge in your hand as many times as possible is Aggressive! Good for you !
Golfwrx
Oct 21, 2013 at 8:39 pm
The successful formula: Know How to Close the Tournament. Numbers don’t mean anything if a PGA Tour player can’t close the deal.
Richie Hunt
Oct 22, 2013 at 9:55 am
Looking at Tour player performance, it’s very much a roller coaster ride throughout the year. Every player gets hot by their standards and then cools down and then plays decent. Part of the problem for Tour players is that the most they will get hot for is 3 weeks in a row. Rarely do I see a player get hot for 4 weeks in a row. They will get hot for 3 weeks in a row and then cool right down.
What separates the great Tour players from the rest is that when they are ‘cold’, they can still make cuts. When they are so-so, they are making the top-25. And when they are hot, they are in the top-5.
The problem for them here is that they can’t rely on great putting. It just doesn’t happen week to week. But if they can consistently be average or better in these four areas from week-to-week, they can start making cuts on their down tournaments, making top-25’s when they play so-so, and finish in the top-5 when they are playing well. And the more times they can get into the top-5, they will increase their chances of getting that victory.
Vlad
Oct 22, 2013 at 11:05 am
Streakiness, or being hot/cold for X weeks at a time, is something that doesn’t get talked about much. Interesting to hear the pros “…can’t rely on great putting. It just doesn’t happen week to week.”
Cyclical performance has a good bit of relevance to the amatuer/casual golfers. For me, when one area (like driver) gets hot, another area (like putting) cools down. Is this the same phenomenon with the pros? When they are in a stretch of being on the leaderboard week after week, is it that all facets are clicking? Or is it a case of 2 or 3 out of 4 areas (tee, approach, short game, putting) are exceptionally good?
Finnegans
Oct 21, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Great article again!
Thanx
Richie Hunt
Oct 21, 2013 at 6:35 pm
Thanks for the kind words.
A J
Oct 21, 2013 at 4:59 pm
The most original, insightful golf writer on the planet?
That would be Rich Hunt.
Another absolutely brilliant article. Thank you.