Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

How to play long par-4’s and par-5’s effectively

Published

on

This past week, Brian Harman won the John Deere Classic. Harman has been one of my favorite players to follow from a statistical approach because he is one of the most aggressive tee shot players on Tour, meaning his numbers show that he is less likely to lay-up off the tee and continue to hit his driver. Here are the top-10 most aggressive drivers on Tour from the 2013 season:

  1. Ian Poulter
  2. Ben Curtis
  3. Brandt Snedeker
  4. Phil Mickelson
  5. Brian Harman
  6. Graeme McDowell
  7. Tim Clark
  8. Robert Castro
  9. Steve Sticker
  10. Matt Kuchar

The statistical research in the game has repeatedly shown that golfers are better off utilizing an offensive strategy versus a defensive strategy. It will not work every time, but golfers who utilizes an offensive strategy usually putting the odds in their favor. The question then becomes, “When is the point of being too aggressive?”

The general rule of thumb in golf statistics is that the closer the ball is to the hole, the more likely the golfer will hit the next shot closer to the hole. The type of lie a player has, however, plays a large factor in this as well.

The chart below shows the 2013 PGA Tour averages in proximity to the club. It illustrates how getting the ball closer to the hole is generally better, but it clearly helps to get the ball in the short grass as well:

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 4.09.27 AM

Something that is often overlooked by golfers is that this is just measuring the Proximity to the Cup. While important, it does not assume that each shot lands on the green. In fact, the ShotLink data will measure any shot that is within 30 yards of the edge of the green. And we know that the farther the distance the ball is away from the cup, the more likely the ball will not be on the green.

I have found the threshold on modern Tour courses is about 50 feet. Once the shot gets to roughly 50 feet from the hole, golfers are more likely to be off the green than be on the green. Obviously, today’s greens can hold plenty of shots that are more than 50 feet away from the hole. But, the majority of the time Tour players are trying to hit their approach shot as close to the hole as they can instead of aiming for the middle of the green. If they start missing by more than 50 feet that is more or less with the intent of trying to get that ball as close as they can to the cup.

So, when we look at that chart of Proximity to the Cup from different distances, we see that 50-foot threshold starts with shots from the rough from 175-to-200 yards. It gets to 63.5 feet on rough shots from 200-to-225 yards. It’s not until 225-to-250 yards that the average shot from the fairway has a proximity to the cup greater than 50-feet. Last year, however PGA Tour players only averaged 0.77 shot attempts from 225-to-250 yards per round, regardless if they were from the fairway or the rough. Not many shots come from 225-to-250 yards on Tour, so therefore it is largely a non-factor in most PGA Tour events.

One of the goals I strongly urge my Tour clients to look to achieve is to get 85 percent or more of their Red Zone shots (shots from 175-225 yards) to come from the fairway/tee box. This way, the golfer can perform much better from the Red Zone without actually having to improve their skill and/or change their technique.

sangmoon

For example, last year Sang-Moon Bae finished 126th on Tour from the Red Zone. His adjusted proximity to the cup from 175-to-225 yards was 43.5 feet. However, he only hit 76.8 percent of those shots from the fairway/tee box.

If his performance from the fairway and the rough from those distances did not change and all he did differently was have 85 percent of those shots coming from the fairway/tee box, his adjusted proximity to the cup would have dropped to 41.8 feet. That would have moved him from 126th from the Red Zone to 87th and would be roughly worth 0.2 to 0.25 strokes per round. While that may not seem like much, that is worth roughly 25 spots on the Money List and likely prevented him from qualifying for the Tour Championship at East Lake.

My Own Folly

When I first started doing statistical research I came across the undeniable fact that the “Go For It Percentage” on Par-5’s has a very strong statistical correlation to Par-5 Scoring Average. Furthermore, I saw that the PGA Tour determined a “Go For It” to be anytime golfers got the ball within 30 yards of the edge of the green. Therefore, golfers with a 300-yard shot who can only hit their 3-wood 250 yards could theoretically achieve a “Go For It” as long as they got the ball within 30 yards of the edge of the green.

This initially led me to believe that golfers should generally try to hit it as long as they can on the par-5’s. I was also led to believe this because my logic was that if they didn’t hit a good tee shot, they still had four more shots to save par.

What I discovered was that this theory was severely flawed. And that is because it wrongly places too much value on the tee shot and not enough value on the second shot. Another thing I didn’t consider is that even Tour players do not like hitting 3-woods out of the rough and for good reason; they are not very good at it.

For instance, if a par-5 requires golfers to hit their first two shots 540 yards in order to “Go For It” and they hit their drive 280 yards off the tee, that will leave them with 260 yards to the “Go For It” range. Given that they only hit their driver 280 yards, hitting their 3-wood off the deck 260 yards is going to be a tall order. And they will need as easy of a shot as possible to hit the 3-wood 260 yards. However, if they only hit it 250 yards, they should still be in pretty good position.

What we often see from Tour players is that if they are in the rough on the par-5’s, they will usually lay up and only hit their lay-up shot about 180-to-210 yards. So, trying to swing for the fences on par-5’s may give golfers 20 more yards if they make good contact. But the odds of finding the rough are greater and that means the possible 20 more yards off the tee is negated by them preferring to lay-up because they are in the rough.

Here is a table of one of my own Tour clients. In 2012, we discussed going for par-5’s in two shots and not being afraid to try and bomb the ball off the tee. He was not going for par-5’s in two shots as much as he should, but he actually felt that was ultra-aggressive in going for them whenever it was feasible. I soon discovered the issue with trying to bomb it off the tee so we then focused on him taking his stock swing with the driver and focusing on making good contact and finding the fairway in 2013.

Screen Shot 2014-07-14 at 4.09.46 AM

The client is actually able to go for more Par-5’s in two shots despite not trying to bomb the ball off the tee. In fact, he has lost a sizeable amount of distance off the tee this year and is going for more Par-5’s in two shots than ever. His distance loss is not due to laying-up off the tee as he rarely lays-up off the tee. Yet, he FEELS that he is no more aggressive than he was in 2012. The difference is that he now finds the fairway and gives himself more feasible opportunities to go for the green in two shots.

This is why I’m not a fan of the “bomb-n-gouge” mentality. Finding the fairway provides a sizeable advantage to the golfer. But I’m also not a fan of defensive golf either, because losing distance can have an adverse effect on your expected scores. The best of both worlds is to be unafraid of hitting your driver off the tee, even if it is into a narrow fairway. However, take your stock swing and focus on making good contact and finding the fairway; even if the hole is long and the fairway is wide.

A rule I stress to all golfers

If you are very likely to have a 5-iron or longer on your next shot, whether it is on a par-4 or a par-5, focus on taking your stock swing, making good contact and finding the fairway. Do not try to hit it as hard as you possibly can in hopes of gaining extra yards off the tee. The ability to hit the following shot long enough and accurately enough has a greater influence on your score on the hole.

This is not meant to be a giant revelation, but golfers can swing too hard for their own good. There appears to be a growing sentiment that a golfer has to swing out of their shoes in order to have an “athletic looking swing,” but I grew up playing golf where the common instruction was to have effortless power, not powerful effort.

The idea should be to improve your stock swing so you can hit it long and straight time after time. The data indicates that trying to hit it as hard as you can with little or no regard to accuracy is just not a better path to shooting lower scores. And like Brian Harman, one can make up for a lack of club head speed by adopting a more aggressive strategy rather than trying to make a more aggressive golf swing.

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at ProGolfSynopsis@yahoo.com or on Twitter @Richie3Jack. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014 Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10

15 Comments

15 Comments

  1. Kevin

    Jul 15, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Bottom line, the better your lie is on your second shot on par 5’s, the more aggressively you can play them.

  2. bradford

    Jul 15, 2014 at 7:56 am

    This just doesn’t apply to beginner or even mid-level (90-105ish) players. Does it factor in the woods on the right they hit with that 3W 40% of the time from the fairway? The bunker that they can’t get out of? The whiff from trying to kill it? I’ll agree with these numbers only on the tour, or low hcp players…for others it’s just simply false.

  3. Sky

    Jul 14, 2014 at 10:36 pm

    How was Phil one of the most likely to hit driver off the tee if he didn’t carry a driver for most of 2013? Did they count the phrankenwood as a driver?

  4. Brian

    Jul 14, 2014 at 9:50 pm

    I think the huge thing to consider when going after it as an amateur is the opportunity cost of going for it. If you go by the logic as I have this season (to try and go for it if you can get within 30 yards”) you have to consider what you are giving up. One do the big things is a free 170ish yards. If I lay up on every par 5 I would only have about a wedge in to maybe a 9 iron, but it would be pretty automatic.

    If I decide to go for it, the logic of getting within 30 yards weighs extremely heavy on the presumption that you actually hit a good shot or more importantly actually make solid contact (as I have found out the hard way). If you duff it, you are now 200+ yards out hitting 3 aka “jail”. If you hit a shot that slices way right or hooks left, you have the possibly of ending up behind a tree or blocked out.

    I think weighing the cost of a duffed wood vs a conservative 150 or 170 yards has to be factored in when deciding to go for it

    • Richie Hunt

      Jul 14, 2014 at 11:54 pm

      A major issue with laying up off the tee is that just because you lay-up, there is no guarantee that you will find the fairway. Conversely, just because you hit driver that does not guarantee you will find the rough. And where the real killer is statistically is when players lay-up and miss the fairway. That puts the golfer well behind the 8-ball.

      I typically run into the same argument when it comes to getting a short approach closer to the hole. The 13th hole at Bay Hill is that way. The numbers say to get the ball within 110 yards, regardless if the ball finds the fairway or the rough.

      Instead, they will come back and say ‘well, all I have to do is lay-up and I will have a 9-iron or PW into the hole.’ But, just because they have a 9-iron or PW doesn’t mean that they will find the green. It’s an easy shot, but getting it inside 110 yards is far easier. And the ods of sticking the <110 yard shot close are much better and his odds of not missing the green is also far better.

      It's really common sense…getting the ball closer to the hole generally means that you're expected score will be better. For Tour players, we start to see the difference at around 20 yards (i.e. 130 yard shot will have a noticeably better expected score than a 150 yard shot). But for amateurs we start to see a difference around 10-12 yards (a 140 yard shot vs. a 150 yard shot).

  5. mhendon

    Jul 14, 2014 at 6:41 pm

    I think its also fair to point out 9 of the top ten guys on the aggressive list would be considered short hitters on the PGA tour.

    • Rich

      Jul 15, 2014 at 9:34 am

      You beat me to this point. 9 of those 10 guys have to hit driver because they are short. Phil is the only truely aggressive player on that list. Don’t know where that leaves the article………..

      • MHendon

        Jul 15, 2014 at 11:39 am

        It’s like an attorney trying to leave out all the facts to make his case stick.

    • OhioGolfDude

      Jul 15, 2014 at 1:02 pm

      I think this is a very fair point. Every player on this list is ranked 70th or below in terms of 2014 driving distance – Mickelson being the only one to crack the Top 100. That being said, because these players are required to hit driver on virtually every hole, I’d like to compare their “go for it” strategy with the fairways hit and GIR stats.

  6. Pingback: How to play long par-4?s and par-5?s effectively | Spacetimeandi.com

  7. webbstar

    Jul 14, 2014 at 5:47 pm

    thank you for a bit of sanity, it seems that all we hear about is distance is more important than accurate no matter what the situation. The fact is the only time i’m as accurate from the the rough as the fairway is from 125 yards and in but even then i’d rather be in the fairway.

  8. nikkyd

    Jul 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm

    Does anyone know if there is an average rough height across the board? Shots out of the rough on the pga tour (4″deep grass) sounds demanding, but most municipalities have shorter rough (from what i have seen anyhow) bomb and gouge is a way of life for some of us regardless of rough or not. Its the woods one must be weary of. Sometimes id rather be in the rough because my homecourse fairways and aprons are like concrete!

    • Jeff Trigger

      Jul 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm

      Yours too? My course is either drive to the hardpan or hit the 3 inch Bermuda rough.

  9. Dan P

    Jul 14, 2014 at 2:06 pm

    Another great article from Richie. Keep them coming!

  10. Jedidiah

    Jul 14, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Mmm you’ve own me over richie

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