Opinion & Analysis
Study: Why do Tour players make more par putts than birdie putts?
Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt from Rich Hunt’s 2014 Pro Golf Synopsis, which can be purchased here for $10.
This past season, PGA Tour players made an average of 39.8 percent of their birdie putts from 5-to-15 feet while making 52.6 percent of their par-or-worse putts from the same distance. That means that Tour players make a higher percentage of par-or-worse putts than they make birdie putts from the same distance.
Why? To explain, I’ll start with the numbers.
Here’s a list of the 10 Tour players who saw the largest drop-off in their birdie make percentage from their par or worse make percentage:
Only two players on the PGA Tour — Luke Donald and Kevin Streelman — made a higher percentage of their birdie putts than par-or-worse putts from 5-to-15 feet in the 2013-2014 season.
At first, I thought Tour players made more par-or-worse putts than birdie putts because they were more likely to have birdie putts that were downhill. Studies done by golf researchers show that in general players make a higher percentage of uphill putts from the same distance than downhill putts.
The other premonition I had was that on par-or-worse putts Tour players were more likely to have gotten a feel for that particular green. More often than not, Tour players are trying to make a birdie with either a putt on the green or a chip from just off the green. They get a better feel for the green on the putt or chip and then have a better understanding of how to make the next putt.
In February 2011, in the American Economic Review authors Devin Pope and Maurice Schweitzer examined this in the article titled Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes.
Pope and Schweitzer’s premise is that Tour players are often suffering from loss aversion, as they make a lower percentage of birdie putts than par putts. The term loss aversion more or less means that the Tour golfers are more averse to losing strokes to the field by three-putting and missing their par saves versus gaining strokes by making birdie putts.
The article examines the misses of Tour players through ShotLink data. They tested to see if there was a bias by Tour players in the direction of their misses (left or right) and found none. What they did find, however, were three major points:
- Tour players miss birdie putts short of the cup a higher percentage of the time than on par-or-worse putts.
- Tour players miss more birdie putts early in events.
- Tour players miss a higher percentage of birdie putts short of the cup earlier in events.
That’s how they came to their conclusion of loss aversion — Tour players are missing birdie putts short of the cup because they are afraid of hitting them too far past the cup and three-putting. And with par-or-worse putts, Tour players are missing them past the cup because they are averse to losing strokes and therefore willing to hit putts with a more aggressive speed to make sure the ball gets to the hole.
Hot Putters Misses vs. Cold Putters Misses
After discovering these miss biases based on the length of the putt, I started to examine the players who finished in the top-5 and the players who finished in the bottom-5 of the PGA Tour’s Strokes-Gained Putting statistic each week. There were some distinct patterns that the top-5 putters and the bottom-5 putters had with their misses.
Inside 20 feet
Regardless of how well the player was putting during a tournament or whether their putts were for birdie, par or bogey, the vast majority of misses ended up long of the cup. However, the bottom-5 putters would have around 8-to-10 percent of their misses end up 1 foot or more short of the hole. They would also have 10-to-15 percent of their misses end up 3 feet or more past the cup on putts inside 20 feet.
That tendency is in line with Pope and Schweitzer’s findings — the putts that missed well short were almost always birdie or eagle putts, while the putts that missed well long (3 feet or more) were almost always par or worse putts.
The misses were far more consistent with the “hot putters.” There was almost never a putt inside 20 feet that they missed 1 foot short of the hole or worse. In fact, they would rarely miss more than 3 inches short of the cup and it was usually on a green where the putt had a large amount of break, so it is more difficult to hit the putt at the right speed.
On the putts they missed long, hot putters missed 78 percent of them from 6 inches past the cup to 3 feet past the cup. Simply put, their speed control was much better than cold putters that week and even when they missed the putt they almost always had enough speed to get the ball to the cup.
Outside 20 feet
Putts longer than 20 feet are a little trickier in terms of recording the data. A golfer who misses a 25-foot putt by 6 feet generally made a much worse putt than a player with a 75-foot putt that missed by 6 feet. This is the first thing to take into account — how much remaining distance divided into the length of the original putt.
As I mentioned earlier, the general findings were that most putts from outside 20 feet– whether they were birdie or par putts — were missed short of the cup. There were very few par putt attempts outside 20-feet compared to birdie or eagle putts, however.
Once again, the hot putters had much more consistency. They kept 95 percent of the putts they missed outside 20 feet in a 3-to-10 percent leftover range. Further, they were more likely to miss long on putts outside 20 feet. Seung Yul Noh was a good example of this when he won the 2014 Zurich Classic, as he only missed two putts outside 20 feet short of the cup for the entire event. His first such putt did not come until late in Round 3.
Cold putters kept 88 percent of their missed putts outside 20 feet in a 3-to-10 percent leftover range. This begs the obvious question of why don’t they miss more outside that range if they are putting so terribly? The answer is that putts inside 20 feet are more makeable and there is a great deviation in the percentage of putts made from inside 20 feet. Putts from 3-to-15 feet separate the best putters from the rest of the Tour, so when a player is putting poorly it is usually due to their performance inside 20 feet rather than putts outside 20 feet.
In the end, hot putters tend to be much more consistent with their speed on their misses than cold putters. This simply means that when players are putting well their speed control is at its best and when they are putting poorly their speed control is normally at its worst.
True Putting Speed vs. False Speed
As I was working through the data, one client asked me why Tour players miss a higher percentage of birdie putts inside 20 feet even though they are usually missing those putts long of the cup? It’s an excellent question because if loss aversion is the issue and the player is still hitting putts inside 20 feet to the cup or past the cup, then loss aversion should not be a real issue.
Looking at the distance past the cup, however, is NOT an analysis of the speed of the putts. Speed is distance traveled over a period of time. Looking at the distance the ball has traveled past the cup is only looking at the distance traveled variable and does not include the time variable. This has caused many people to mistakenly believe that hitting a putt 17 inches past the cup is considered optimal speed for making the putt. Not only is that not a measurement of speed, but research from golf instructors such as Geoff Mangum, David Orr and Mark Sweeney show that even if we were to use the variable of distance past the cup, 17 inches past the hole would NOT be the optimal distance.
The main point is that there is NOT one optimal distance to miss a putt past the cup even if you are to use that as a measurement. On slower putts, which are either slower on the stimpmeter or uphill putts, the optimal distance past the cup is shorter.
On a very slow green on a steep incline, the optimal distance past the cup may only be 3 inches. On a very fast green with a steep downward slope, the optimal distance past the cup may be 30 inches.
In reality, the actual optimal speed as noted from experts that have researched this is 2-to-3 revolutions per second. This can cause a variety of distances past the cup depending on the green surface and the slope.
This comes back to the question of why Tour players are missing more birdie putts inside 20 feet if they are still getting to the hole? My answer is that their speed is still likely too slow when it comes to birdie putts. And the players who are “cold” tend to get confused and frustrated and end up ramming a few putts well past the cup. From there, everything goes haywire. Even the best birdie putters on Tour may have the natural instinct to hit their birdie putts at a speed of 1 revolution per second rather than 2-to-3 revolutions per second. They may even end up trying to counter that by hitting a couple of birdie putts inside 20 feet at 4 revolutions per second. They end up controlling their impulse to hit putts too softly and then hit them too hard compared to weaker putters.
And when polling Tour players and caddies as to what players they feel hit their putts the “firmest” on Tour, the top-5 players were Brandt Snedeker, Jimmy Walker, Luke Donald, Rory McIlroy and Russell Henley.
Here’s how those players finished in Birdie versus Par+ Make Percentage from 5-to-15 feet:
Only Snedeker ranked better in Par+ putts than Birdie putts, but he also saw the largest regression by his standards as he fell to 27th in Putts Gained, his worst season putting on Tour since 2008. While the poll was hardly scientific, it gives some indication that there may be something to using an aggressive speed on birdie putts.
Recommendations
The most negative part of struggling with loss aversion is how it affects golfers on other putts, particularly birdie putts during the round. The research data performed on the players who putt the worst in an event showed that they often miss well short on a birdie putt and then counter that by doing the exact opposite and hitting a future birdie putt too hard.
I wanted to take these findings and not only help players make more birdie putts, but also decrease their odds of three-putting as well. One of the things I have discovered with limited data is that the Tour players who used the AimPoint Express method increased their make percentage from outside 15 feet by 1.6 percent. For a Tour player, that equates to roughly 12 more putts made per year. While that may not seem like much, that can be worth roughly $325,000 for the season. That number also does not account the decreased likelihood of three-putting. After all, if you’re making more putts then you’re more likely to have closer second putts and you’re more likely to not three-putt.
I would also recommend that golfers try to find what I call their “aversion point.” I did this with myself and a few of my friends. We plotted roughly 10 rounds of putting. It is vital that you actually record this in a round of golf rather than on the practice green, because you are trying to determine where your loss aversion occurs.
Here is a real life example of a round of putts that I plotted. I sorted them in order of distance starting with putts of at least 5 feet.
This chart is indicative of other rounds I recorded. While a Tour player’s aversion point on a putt seems to be at 20 feet, I would start to miss putts short of the hole once I had a putt that was 15-feet long. I did make two 25-foot putts, but they were both downhill so it was easier for me to get the ball to the cup. For others, the aversion point may be at 25 feet or at 8 feet. The players I plotted were no worse than 3 handicaps and typically their aversion point was from 15-to-20 feet.
While I try to avoid giving actual swing and putting instruction advice in my book, the 2014 Pro Golf Synopsis, my recommendation after speaking to several putting instructors is that if you are trying to force yourself to hit a putt with a higher rate of speed, the goal is to NOT try and hit the ball harder. Instead, increase the length of your putting stroke.
The visual for myself is to get an idea of what stroke I think I need to make on a putt outside 15 feet and then go with a stroke that is a little longer with the same rhythm and tempo so the ball gets to the hole on putts outside 15 feet.
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
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!
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
“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.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Steve
Dec 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm
5-15 foot range is rather big, I would hazard to guess that a very high percentage of Par putts in that range are closer to the 5 foot range. Where as the average Birdie putt in the range would be closer to 15 feet. I don’t think you are really comparing apples to apples here.
Connor
Dec 10, 2014 at 1:53 pm
I would think that tour players make more pars than birdies in general because they have shorter par putts than birdie putts. Mostly tap-ins. doesnt seem like to complicated a concept. Am I wrong?
Straightdriver235
Dec 10, 2014 at 7:34 pm
It would seem to me that par putts follow much closer in shots. When you chip from close to a green you are much, much more capable of picking a good spot to leave your shot in for the following putt, when you are hitting to a green from 150, 190 yards out, you really can’t control your leave nearly as well. a 190 yard shot 15 or even 3 feet from the hole is far more likely to be in an undesirable or less desirable spot, than say even a poorly hit chip that ends up 15 or better one hit 3 feet away from the cup. It is no surprise the players who lead in birdie conversions don’t hit a lot of greens in regulation, but happen to be very good wedge players as well as putters. When they get a wedge in their hand for a regulation shot (a par five or short par four) they make a good leave with their wedge and knock the putt in. The study speaks to the importance of giving yourself shots (leaves) you are comfortable with, not quite as much loss aversion. If you are ballstriking well and missing birdies, it may feel like the problem is you are playing with house money, but more likely it is the advantage you gain is not really significant enough to provide you momentum given the small size of the cup and the ability of your competitors to get up and down.
Joe Merlin
Dec 10, 2014 at 10:47 am
Rich,
Just looking for your list of tour players that you used for your aimpoint data.
Thanks.
Joe
Joe Merlin
Dec 10, 2014 at 10:49 am
Rich,
Sorry I didnt see your first post! My apologies.
Joe
Joe Merlin
Dec 10, 2014 at 8:47 am
Rich,
You give the data that Tour Pro’s who use aimpoint express are making 1.6% more putts than the field from 15 feet or more. Where did you get your list of pro’s and can you provide them to me? I would love to compare the strokes gained putting numbers of those players who do use the express system.
Thank you.
Joe Merlin
Richie Hunt
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:57 am
You can find this in 2014 Pro Golf Synopsis on page 67. To purchase 2014 PGS, just go to the link in my profile.
Ahmad Bateman
Dec 9, 2014 at 11:28 pm
I read through the article…very interesting. I used to be a very good putter on the web.com tour way back when and I always coached my fellow tour-players that it was all about “read and speed”. I do have a question about the stats….were the 5 to 15 footers for birdie used in the analysis the same average distance as the 5 to 15 footers for par or worse? It seems to make sense that you’ll have more 6 footers for par and 14-footers for birdie, no? That would give you the variance right there. Apologies if I misread that, I couldn’t find how the data base was compiled. Thanks.
Richie Hunt
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:56 am
There’s no way of knowing exactly what the distances were. However, I split the differences also into putts from 5-10 feet and 10-15 feet and even from those distance ranges…Tour players made a higher % of par+ putts than birdie putts. As somebody also mentioned, Mark Broadie looked at this from exactly 6-feet and again…the Tour players were making a higher percentage of par+ than birdie putts. I had considered the possibility of par+ putts being closer than average, but thru splitting it into 5-10 and 10-15 foot putts and Broadie’s finding, I don’t believe that the distance was the issue. And in the end I used the 5-15 foot range because that is where we start to see a closer split of birdie versus par+ attempts.
Ahmad Bateman
Dec 10, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Thank you Richie. I don’t doubt that many, maybe most players have some loss aversion in their putting, but I still think that some of the statistical difference and even Pope and Schweizer’s findings can be attributed to players having a better idea of the uphill or downhill slope of the putt after they have already played a shot from on or near the green, and also higher confidence in the read on a ‘comebacker’. I guess the only way to factor that element out would be to study the statistics of par putts after shots from >50 yards away, but maybe not enough of those available to be statistically relevant?
Straightdriver235
Dec 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm
Have to agree with Ahmad here. I work in the social sciences and Mr. Hunt echoes so many of my qualitative peers, they say, “if we can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist. It’s Occam’s razor.” Then you explain to them that it does exist from a quantitative perspective, and they either try to dispute you or admit the question becomes how can we measure this? The thing is, those who know by experience quantitatively what is happening yet what cannot be measured have a significant practical advantage over those who rely only on qualitative data. The other thing is that the qualitative guys go out of their way to say their knowledge is limited to what can be measured, but seem to forget this when it comes time to draw conclusions from the limited data. I doubt if you make much money from your study–perhaps I am wrong–but I’d stick with Ahmad’s quantitative, ethnographic findings on this one. If you try objectively to study something that has too many known unknowns about it, there’s not much you can objectively conclude–its Karl Popper methods 101, falsify, falsify, falsify, etc.
Mat
Dec 9, 2014 at 12:01 pm
I’m surprised you didn’t analyze one other area. How risk-averse are players with eagle putts? How risk-averse are they if they aren’t GIR, and the first putt is for par?
Risk aversion is a measurement that relates to the relative perception of who is at-risk. In other words, you can’t simply say that “based on birdie putts” and assume that’s the appropriate context. If you need to 1-putt to save par, I imagine there are fewer short putts across the board, but that’s just a hypothesis. However, the RISK is perceived that someone will “miss par”. That’s arbitrary; they are assuming risk on what is generally accepted. If they are GIR, first putt aversion is probably different from Par 3s to Par 5s.
I think what you’ve proven here is that certain putters are more or less aggressive, and that makes sense. If you want risk adversity, take it one step further. Measure players for average distance miss on first-putt birdies, and first-putt pars. I think you’ll find that birdie putts are missed-to-be-made, and that first-putt par putts are missed to go down (rarely short). That will show that players assume risk in the “Par” number. This would be interesting because we all know that the field plays holes to different averages, yet the number on the card is playing into the distance of their first putt.
Richie Hunt
Dec 10, 2014 at 9:59 am
I didn’t measure it because they didn’t have a statistic to measure it. So instead I stuck to birdie versus par+ putts. IIRC, Pope and Schweitzer looked at eagle putts as well and found the same thing (higher percentage of misses and those putts coming short of the cup more often than par+ putts).
Pat
Dec 9, 2014 at 8:46 am
It’s all mental. There is more urgency to make a putt for par or worse from the same distance as a birdie or eagle putt. The brain focuses more therefore the chances of the putt for par or worse is more likely to go in. The consequences are more dire in making that par putt to make the cut compared to the same birdie putt that helps move up the leaderboard. Why do you think it’s so difficult to maintain a lead or add to the lead? The brain inadvertently goes into “cruise” mode and relaxes and that’s when the chances of mental mistakes increases exponentially.
F&D
Dec 9, 2014 at 2:53 am
The study also needs to separate out the Par 3’s and Par 5’s from the Par 4’s, because the pressure situation can be completely different. How many of those are chip ins, or chipped close, and tap-ins on Par 5’s, included into the Strokes-Gained?
Richie Hunt
Dec 9, 2014 at 8:56 am
There are no chip ins because they are putts from 5-15 feet. Pope and Schweitzer’s study measured the difference between birdies vs. par+ putts misses from the same distance.
?
Dec 9, 2014 at 9:16 am
That’s kinda irrelevant to the article?
?
Dec 9, 2014 at 9:16 am
F&d, not Richie
F&D
Dec 9, 2014 at 2:49 am
Good study but I don’t think Sned’s percentage can be fair analysis, he’s not worried about making it as much, any more, he’s got a fat bank account now, so he’s just out there playing golf as a hobby. So his stats are going to be skewed. You can just see from the way he behaves, he’s not as focused nor desperate to make.
Focused & Desperate. Those are the main factors for wanting to make, and feeling the nerves of being forced to make. That’s about it.
?
Dec 9, 2014 at 9:37 am
You seem like a really clueless person.
!
Dec 10, 2014 at 2:37 am
Takes one to know one, ?
Jeremy
Dec 9, 2014 at 3:32 pm
I don’t think that’s something any of us can assume without knowing the guy. But it’s probably fair to say that if, one day, I did a particularly good job at work and someone gave me a $10 million bonus, I’m not sure I’d take work as seriously the following day/month/year.
Jon
Dec 8, 2014 at 11:30 pm
There have been several comments on this thread about putting not being the most important part of the game….
While I agree that many times it’s importance is overly emphasised….it is NOT on the tour level. If you want to win golf tournaments on a PGA level you need to shoot under par for four straight days….and the only way you can do that is making birdies…and the only way to do that, assuming it’s a non drivable, non reachable par 5, is to make putts. You could hit every fairway and every green and hypothetically shoot 72 everyday. Perfect ballstriking will never win anything if you two putt every green. So yes, it is the most important part of the game, but only for the worlds best.
Pat
Dec 9, 2014 at 8:50 am
I agree. There are plenty of great ball strikers on tour that should have more wins under their belt, but because of their average to mediocre putting stats, they never reach their full potential. Look at Adam Scott for example. He has the prototype swing that is perfect in every position. Very good ball striker and and drives the ball extremely well for a guy that bombs it off the tee. His putting is his achilles heel. If he could putt, he would have won more tournaments and more importantly, majors. The same could be said of Boo Weekly who isn’t as long as Adam, but an excellent ball striker who’s putting stats have always been mediocre.
Richie Hunt
Dec 9, 2014 at 9:07 am
I think many of Mark Broadie’s readers are a little confused about his statements and putting *is* important regardless if you are a Tour player or an amateur. The problem is that Broadie likes to separate the ‘long game’ vs. the ‘short game’ by taking a look at shots from 100+ yards (long game) vs. less than 100 yards (short game). It’s not a fair comparison because the distance ranges are different (theoretically, you are looking at a possible distance range of 500 yards (600 – 100) versus those < 100 yard shots).
The other problem is that it lumps putting with shots from 20-100 yard which are very unimportant shots on Tour. Conversely, it lumps shots from 100-150 yards (unimportant) with shots from 150-225 yards and driving. So it skews the importance of certain parts of the game.
For Tour players, roughly 75% of the winners on Tour putt at +0.5 putts gained *per round* (or 2 strokes gained on the green for the tournament). And usually it is more like 1 stroke gained per round (4 strokes gained putting for the event).
Putting ends up coming out to being the 2nd most important part of the game for Tour players. And the same goes for virtually any *group* of players from a certain handicap level. Of course, you may get a 5 handicap that putts extremely well and his ballstriking makes him a 5 handicap, but that is more the exception than the rule.
Double Mocha Man
Dec 8, 2014 at 5:53 pm
My take: I think most birdie putts are the result of an iron to the green, with the purpose of landing it somewhere near the hole… not a lot of thought given to the resulting putt profile.
Par putts of 5 feet or more are usually the result of a chip or short pitch, to which the player can give a lot of thought to the kind of putt he wants… left to right, right to left, uphill, etc.
So the par putt percentage is better because the player chose the type of putt profile he prefers. With birdie putts you generally take the profile you get.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 7:38 pm
The question in all of this is the purpose of the Schweitzer and Pope report…that Tour players are missing birdie putts *short* of the cup versus par+ putts. So the idea isn’t so much that players are missing a higher % of birdie putts…we know that happens. What we didn’t discover until now is that they are missing them short.
Double Mocha Man
Dec 8, 2014 at 11:16 pm
Which brings us to Tiger who, in his glory days, never left a birdie putt short. Though he ran plenty of birdie putts beyond the hole giving him a 4 footer coming back. But he always made those. So he was onto something…
F&D
Dec 9, 2014 at 2:50 am
Not really. The stats don’t show that.
Pat
Dec 9, 2014 at 8:55 am
I disagree. Tiger in his prime was excellent from tee to green. His short game was also remarkable for someone who was that long off the tee. Now age has caught up with him and he’s totally lost his focus and putting after his scandal. He may deny it, but that incident messed up his psyche and he has never been the same.
Dinger
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:17 pm
Those stats aren’t as accurate as you think they would be because most par putts are going to be closer to five feet whereas birdie putts are going to be closer to fifteen feet. With that being said it would be interesting to see the difference in percent made from exactly ten feet.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:56 pm
I did the same thing and broke the putts in smaller distance ranges. Par+ putts from 10-15 feet has an average make % of 34%, Birdie putt from 10-15 feet at 28%. 5-10 feet par+ putts are made at 60% to 51% on birdie or worse putts. As somebody noted in Mark Broadie’s ‘Every Shot counts’, the difference from 6-feet was still in favor of par+ putts by 4%.
Steve
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:58 pm
This was my first thought as well. Is there an average distance for the total putts in each category?
Jeremy
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:43 pm
This is great. I remember reading something in the New York Times about this, it might have been the same study. Can you provide a link to the original study Richie?
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Here you go:
http://wsb.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/research/IsTigerWoodsLossAverse.pdf
Jeremy
Dec 9, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Wow, that got into “Eyes Glazing Over” territory a LOT quicker than I was expecting. Thanks just the same!
larrybud
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:25 pm
According to Mark Broadie of “Every shot Counts”, this birdie putt vs par putt doesn’t really have the impact that you might think. From page 159:
“Sure enough, for putts between four and seven feet, pros sink 3.6% more par putts than birdie putts. But that figure doesn’t take into consideration that par putts in this range tend to be send putts, while birdie putts tend to be first putts. We already know that second putts are easier than first putts because of the learning effect.
After controlling for first-putt-second-putt differences, and controlling for uphill, downhill, and sidehill differences, the par-birdie effect is reduced by more than half. Looking at all putt distances, taking into account differences in strokes gained…and the frequency of putts, I calculate an effect of 0.1 strokes per round. But even this computation overestimates the birdie-par effect. A short first putt for par can happen after chipping from off the green, so the golfer gets to see the path of the chip before hitting his putt. Before putting, a golfer often gets to see the puts of other golfers in the group putting along a similar line.
It seems likely that the par-birdie effect is less than 0.1 strokes per round. Far more important, in my estimation, is the performance increase to be gained from going to school.”
larrybud
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Sorry, typo ” in this range tend to be second putts…”
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:52 pm
Broadie is using putts from only 4 to 7 feet. In my article, I’m using putts from 5-15 feet and the drop-off in make % on birdie putts is significant. And the number of birdie versus par putts from 5-15 feet is significant.
Also, I question Broadie’s comprehension of the Pope and Schweitzer article. Its main focus is *not* about players missing a higher rate of birdie putts than par+ putts. It’s about *how* the player misses the putt. The players putting from the *same* distance are more likely to miss a birdie putt short than a par+ putt. Furthermore, they miss a higher percentage of their birdie putts short *earlier* in the event than later (more in Round 1 than Round 2 than Round 3 than Round 4). That’s how Pope and Schweitzer were able to come up with the ‘loss aversion’ theory…the misses were coming up short of the cup on birdie putts and more of that was happening in the earlier rounds of the event.
As far as its importance and if we are looking at 5-15 feet instead of 4 to 7 feet, I’ll use Luke Donald since he made a great % of birdie than par putts from that distance (was almost at the same rate). He also made about 50% of his par+ putts which was close to the average and made 51% of his birdie putts which was 1st on Tour.
Let’s assume that Luke made a lower percentage of birdie putts in accordance to what the average Tour player does (makes 13% less birdie than par+ from 5-15 feet). This would mean that instead of going 54/98 on birdie putts from 5-15 feet, he would have gone 36/98 on birdie putts from that distance. That 18 strokes lost over the season would raise his Adjusted Scoring Average from 70.735 to 71.057. I would have to go into Luke’s data specifically, but that difference in Adjusted Scoring Average from missing those putts would equate to a loss of $26,065 *per event* for the average Tour player. If the average Tour player plays 25 events, that’s a loss of roughly $652K.
I’m not confident in Pope and Schweitzer’s conclusion that it is actually loss aversion. However, I do believe there is a point where golfers do not hit their putts hard enough. And it doesn’t surprise me that the guys that are considered to take very aggressive putting speeds (Donald) tend to have the largest jump in birdie putt rankings from par+ putt rankings.
Thomas Fritz
Dec 8, 2014 at 2:58 pm
The pressure
Golfraven
Dec 8, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Title is bit misleading. Guess for every player birdies come less on the scorecard because this is how hard the game is – even for folks like Spieth who had 39 Pars and 29 birdies on an awesome weekend. Its called for a reason Par 72 or 70 and not Birdie 65
Tom Stickney
Dec 8, 2014 at 12:46 pm
Once again a GREAT article by Mr Hunt!!!
Halldor Bragason
Dec 8, 2014 at 12:29 pm
what´s the percentage hot vs cold tour player makes on 10 footers ?
Lime Shark
Dec 8, 2014 at 11:33 am
My goal is to on average 2-putt.
The amount of work it would take to get it below 2 would be, imho, too much effort for too little benefit.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 11:47 am
The higher your make percentage means the less 3-putts you will have. For starters, if you’re making putts…you’re not 3-putting. But, if you’re making more putts there is a strong correlation between that and how close the ball is to the cup when you miss. I personally don’t believe that realizing that a golfer’s tendency is leave putts from 20+ feet short of the hole and then adjusting for that is too much effort.
As far as the benefit, generally across the board putting is the 2nd most important facet of the game when it comes to improving score. So, if you can improve your putting on any level (going from 3 putting to 2 putting or going from 2 putting to 1 putting) it will provide a substantial benefit to your scores.
Ian
Dec 8, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Hi Richie
“generally across the board putting is the 2nd most important facet of the game” – what have you found to be the most important?
ron
Dec 8, 2014 at 2:00 pm
GIR
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 2:29 pm
Depends on the golfer’s handicap. For Tour players, it is shots from 175-225 yards. As the handicap gets higher, driving starts to become more important and ‘long approach shots’ become less important. However, in general the top-3 categories are driving, long approach shots and putting. ‘Long approach shots’ distance can vary due to golfers playing different length courses.
larrybud
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm
Putting’s effect is overestimated. Often quoted is the “40% of your shots are putts” stat. However, that 40% also includes tap ins, of which there is almost no room for improvement. In other words, if you have 14 tap-ins out of 32 putts, putts which can be improved upon goes from 32 down to 18 (because you make all of the tap-ins). If you shoot 80 with 32 putts (40% of which are putts), the number of putts which really mattered were 18 out of 80 shots, or 22.5%. Now take into consideration the number of putts out of those 18 which are very remote make possibility (e.g. <5% make), and you're probably down to about 10 putts which really "matter".
So what really counts is not how many putts you had, but how many you *missed*, and how many of those were truly makable.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:57 pm
I agree with you Larry Bud. I wrote about this in 2014 Pro Golf Synopsis, it’s a myth that ‘half your strokes are on the putting green.’
If we take out everything inside 3-feet because that is considered ‘inside the leather’ and Tour players make 99.3% of their putts inside 3-feet on average, putting accounts for roughly 30% of the stokes. And given that make % from outside 25-feet is more about randomness than luck and if we were to remove those putts, the % of putting strokes that truly are part of a Tour player’s score are at 23%. For higher handicaps it is still roughly the same percentage.
Lime Shark
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:30 pm
The higher the make percentage from where?
Sure, if I could consistently make puts from outside 10, 15, or 20 feet it would be great, but the amount of practice it would take for me to get to the level would be astronomic. So astronomic that I would have to abandon practicing in other areas.
My goal on long puts is to get the ball within an area where I can consistently 1-putt (under 5 feet from the hole). Beyond that, any long putting practice time is a waste of time (imho); time that could be better used on say learning to chip the ball within 5 feet of the hole, or number of other areas.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm
I can’t reply to your other comment for some odd reason. But, I don’t know where Pelz gets his data from because there are plenty of Tour players that make consistently over 25% of putts from 10 feet. Here’s Baddeley’s %’s made from 10-15 feet over the seasons:
2013-2014: 40%
2013: 33%
2012: 38%
2011: 30%
2010: 31%
Or Brian Gay’s:
2013-2014: 30%
2013: 35%
2012: 29%
2011: 33%
2010: 34%
Or Sergio
2013-2014: 38%
2013: 32%
2012: 30%
2011: 34%
2010: 24%
If you make a higher percentage of putts from *any* distance there is a correlation between that and how far your misses are from the cup. The putting speed component is such an important factor to *making* putts because you are increasing the ‘capture size’ of the cup if the speed on the putt is closer to optimal. And if you miss with speed of the putt closer to optimal, then you’re likely to have also have a short 2nd putt.
Players are likely to struggle with loss aversion on longer putts. Pinpointing the distance of where the golfer starts to become loss averse will not only help them make a few more putts from longer distance, but will also help stop 3-putting.
Lime Shark
Dec 8, 2014 at 5:28 pm
According to the numbers you provided, the best pros only sink between 24-40 percent of their putts in the 10-15 foot range.
If the typical amateur were to get his 10-15 yard sunk putts into the 24 percent range, how many strokes would he save per round?
If he learned to consistently land the ball on the green from 100 yards in, how many strokes per round would he save?
Limited practice time means you must set priorities.
I’m not advocating that amateurs abandon long putt practicing. I’m saying they should focus on speed and length control over pin-point accuracy. Most amateur golfers with a moderate amount of practice can learn to consistently leave a long put within a few feet of the hole.
But, how many more hours (and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours) of practice would it take for that same amateur golfer to raise his hole in percentage from outside 10 feet from say 2% to the pro’s 24% range?
Is that the best use of their limited time, or would using those limited practice hours on some other aspect of the game do more to lower their scores?
Amateurs, unlike pros, rarely have time to be excellent at EVERY aspect of the game. Improvements in one area of the game often come at the expense of NOT improving another area.
Jeremy
Dec 8, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Lime Shark, I think your point is reasonable but somewhat moot. He’s not advocating that people stop practicing everything and start working on this. But if you’re going to work on your putting, this is definitely something to consider. We all know that golf is every bit as much a mental game as it is a physical one, and so I think just being aware that your brain is “lying” to you at times will save you strokes without even having to practice.
Like Richie says, if you stand over a 20 foot putt and think you’ve got the firmness figured out, be aware that you probably don’t and you’ll need to add, say, another 10%. Just like that you’ll hole more putts and your misses will be closer.
Drew R.
Dec 8, 2014 at 10:59 am
I’m a little disappointed with this excerpt. I wish this stat took account for some of the items alluded to in the beginning like where a chip or putt preceded the par putt vs. birdie putt. Also, some sort of comparison that normalizes the data by comparing all 1 putts (birdie v. par) and all 2 putts. Without this, the short stat seems less relevant.
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 11:43 am
Thanks for the comments. The excerpt was created to focus on the article by Pope and Schweitzer. Their article had concluded that Tour players miss a higher percentage of birdie putts than par+ putts due to ‘loss aversion’ rather than what I alluded to early in my article (‘uphill versus downill’ and par putts coming from a previous shot closer to the hole than a birdie putt). So, the purpose of my article was to examine what they showed.
I’m not really certain what you mean by normalizing all 1 putts and all 2 putts. We can’t tell much on a 1-putt because the ball went into the hole, so we don’t know if the ball was rolling at a speed slower than optimal or faster than optimal. Even if we could, it would be difficult to argue with the reader since the goal was reached (the ball went into the cup).
Teaj
Dec 8, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“Dam I hit that to hard and hit the back of the whole”
“so another birdie Jim?”
As far as amateur’s go at what distance would you say they lose the most strokes? I’m going to assume we should all be practicing shorter puts then we do when on the practice green. I am going to make another assumption that a 7 handy is going to have a different length then a 12 and so on?
Richie Hunt
Dec 8, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Depends on handicap. But I would say around 9 handicap or less it’s most important to putt well from 3 to 15 feet. Those that can make those putts from 3 to 15 feet gain the most advantage on the greens. Once the handicap gets to double digits, it starts to become more about putts from 3-25 feet. It’s extended to 25 feet because most 10+ handicaps won’t make many putts from 15-25 feet, but they also start to see themselves 3-putting more from longer distances.
Lime Shark
Dec 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Learn to make puts from 10-25 feet?
According to Pelz: “From 10 feet, no one consistently holes better than 25%. And from over 15 feet? One in 10, best case, even for the pros.”
Even PGA pros rarely sink putts from this distance. Why the heck should an amateur spend time trying to master a skill PGA pro’s can’t master?
Amateurs do not have unlimited practice time, so they need to spend their limited practice time on areas that will give them the most benefit.
The benefits of of becomming “good” at sinking putts from the 10-25 range are marginal at best, especially considering the amount of limited practice time that would be required to achieve those marginal benefits.
Lime Shark
Dec 8, 2014 at 4:10 pm
10+ handicappers 3 putt more from 10-25 feet, because they spend too much time trying to master sinking putts from those distances. Time they could be using instead to learn how to sink every putt within 6 feet–a realistic goal, even for amateurs.
Spend just enough time on your long putting practice to master getting the ball into your kill zone–the radius around the hole where you can sink puts every time. Then spend the rest of your putting practice time ensuring your are a putting monster within that radius from the hole.
Stephen Hawking
Dec 9, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Drew R. is right, Richie. You should look into it – it would make the article/numbers much more stable.
Interesting article but way too long, too many typos, and too difficult to understand what we’re supposed to do with the information. It seems like the main point goes back to the cliches, get it to the hole; hit every shot like it’s for a million bucks; and 100% of the short ones don’t go in.