Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Are shorter golfers better putters?

Published

on

Does your height affect putting?

Brian Gay, who is 5-feet 10-inches tall, is known as one of the best putters on the PGA Tour.

It is generally accepted that taller golfers have an advantage when it comes to driving distance on the PGA Tour. All else being equal, the thought is that taller golfers will have the edge in comparison to their shorter counterparts. There are exceptions, but PGA Tour data from 2013 proves this to be true.

That being said, shorter players are still able to contend on the PGA Tour. Even as these shorter players are constantly out driven by their taller counterparts, they are able to compete by winning the battle on the greens.

Looking at the PGA Tour data from 2013, the averages hold true. Of 180 players on Tour in 2013, the 10 tallest players averaged a finish of 111th on the money list. Funny enough, the 10 shortest players also averaged 111th at the end of the season. There was no difference in the overall success of these players, but the stats can tell a story.

10 Tallest and Shortest Players on Tour in 2013, with scoring average rank:

Scoring Average Comparison of the Tour's Tallest and Shortest Players

Scoring Average Comparison of the Tour’s Tallest and Shortest Players.

So the scoring average rankings are identical, but these classes of players get the job done in markedly different ways. Looking first at the tallest players, they averaged 49th in terms of driving distance, but were all the way down at 124th in terms of strokes gained putting.

The 10 Tallest Players on Tour in 2013

The 10 Tallest Players on Tour in 2013.

On the other end of the spectrum, the shorter players were able to recover from a far inferior driving distance ranking. Looking first at the shortest players, they averaged 129th in terms of driving distance, and were 95th in terms of strokes gained putting.

The 10 Shortest Players on Tour in 2013

The 10 Shortest Players on Tour in 2013.

The stats show that these groups of players had very similar results despite markedly different statistics. This isn’t just true of driving distance and strokes gained putting – top players don’t have one single formula for success, and are able to succeed in very different ways.

The results show the following averages:

Summary Average Rankings per Category, Tall and Short

Summary Average Rankings per Category, Tall and Short

Further to this point, we can sort the data in terms of the Top-10 and Bottom-10 putters on Tour in 2013. Looking at the data in this way and then comparing heights, we see that tall players fared far worse in 2013. As seen below, Phil Mickelson was the only player (1/10) in the Top 10 in strokes gained putting in 2013 to stand taller than 6-feet 2-inches. On the other hand, 6/10 bottom 10 players on Tour were at least 6-feet 2-inches.

Top 10 and Bottom 10 Putters

Top 10 and Bottom 10 Putters

Although the sample size of one season is relatively small, there is a definite trend in terms of driving distance and putting results. Longer players tend to hit it further, yet shorter players can still succeed. In this case, there is a noticeable difference in putting averages.

Both driving distance and strokes gained putting are positively correlated with scoring average. Those consistently winning are able to combine success across a wide variety of statistical categories.

Will works in Toronto, and as a hobby pursues sports analytics, specifically in the world of golf. He writes articles that use statistics (correlation, rather than causation) to bring (sometimes farfetched) insights and raise discussion about international golf. Will played college golf and competed internationally for Canada as a junior. These days, he’s a weekend player with a fondness for violent duck hooks.

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. GolferX

    Dec 24, 2013 at 4:17 am

    If I read the article correctly, the statistical advantage is negligible. Tall and short players end up around the same rank in terms of money won, so where’s the advantage? Historically speaking, four of the all time greats were 5’9″ or shorter, i.e.: Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, and Arnie; lack of distance was no hindrance to their success. But we all know what ended Hogan’s competitive golfing career. It could have to do with posture, compare Jack’s putting stance with the stance unveiled by Michelle Wie at the Solheim Cup. Now that’s food for thought…

  2. Harvey

    Dec 21, 2013 at 4:49 am

    Great article, some idiotic comments from obvious armchair golfers. Well done will, great studdy

  3. Mick

    Dec 21, 2013 at 4:28 am

    Definitely room for further analysis eg GIR, distance to hole on approaches, and putts made from various distances.

  4. Harry Flower Golf

    Dec 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Im 6 ft 3 and have the yips, shorter people have an easier time 😉

  5. JM

    Dec 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

    Shorter players hit it shorter therefore to even be on the pga tour they invariably need to excel in another part of the game to make up for it. The most effective/efficient way to make up strokes is putting. Therefore good tour players who are short are typically good putters bc they have to be or they would not be on tour

    Tall players hit it further so being a great putter (by tour standards) us not a necessity to stay on tour.

    At least that is my take on it

    • david

      Dec 19, 2013 at 8:16 pm

      +1

    • Rich

      Dec 22, 2013 at 6:16 pm

      +2

    • TAGPGA

      Dec 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm

      +3!

      So many of these articles seem to ignore how consistent their sample (the PGA Tour) is. In 2012, there were 154 PGA Tour Players that scored less than one stroke different than the average of the field they played against (http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.02417.html#2012). That’s better than 80%. With that consistency, it’s obvious that any shortcoming in one area of one’s game is overcome by a strength in another part of their game.

  6. Ryan

    Dec 18, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Interesting analysis, tall players hit it incrementally further, while short players roll the ball incrementally better. Players that do both are in the top 10, players that do neither lose their tour card and are removed from the analysis the following year.

  7. Westphi

    Dec 18, 2013 at 8:11 pm

    Please, Mickelson is not 6’3′. Anyways, there are only 2 guys in the top 10 shorter than 6ft. You can’t be saying people 6’1″-6’3″ are considered “short”???

  8. Russ

    Dec 18, 2013 at 12:08 pm

    So are you saying the taller the player the “worse” they putt.

    • Christopher

      Dec 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm

      More curious would be that Phil Mickelson at 6’3” is getting taller and Vijay (6’2”) is getting shorter …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending