Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

What factors are most important in Strokes Gained Putting?

Published

on

As a golf statistician, I’m often asked what statistics golfers can keep to track their skills on the golf course.

For the tour players I work with, it’s easy. The PGA Tour uses a laser-measuring system called “Shot Tracker” that gives me the raw data I need to help them with their game. For amateurs, it’s much more difficult. They don’t have Shot Tracker, and many golfers who create their own metrics find that it can be a time-consuming process riddled with inaccuracies.

I am constantly looking to create new types of scoring games that are based on sound statistical information. For instance, there was a fad of people using the total distance of putts made metric. The idea was this — the longer the distance of total putts a player made, the better they putted. It does not consider, however, the golfer who putts poorly and happens to make a 60-footer. Nor does it consider the golfer who putts well and leaves himself first putts that are shorter in distance.

I started to look at some other metrics that I thought would be less cumbersome to record when it came to putting. I ran this against the past history of Strokes Gained Putting on Tour and found some interesting results.

When using putting distance metrics, the average length of all two-putts has the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting on Tour.

For instance, if Brandt Snedeker two putts from 30 feet, it is recorded as a two putt from 30 feet. So, if he gets on the next hole and two putts from 50 feet, then he has an average of two putting from 40 feet.

This finding surprised me. I would have thought that the average length of a one-putt or the average length of a three-putt would have had a larger correlation to Strokes Gained Putting.

In fact, here are the mathematical correlations over the years since Strokes Gained Putting has been used by the PGA Tour:

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.08.34 PM

For those who don’t understand what the numbers mean, it is based on a mathematical formula used to tell the strength of a relationship between two variables. The correlation number ranges from +1 to -1. The closer the number is to +1, the stronger the direct relationship is between the two variables.

Let’s say I own a store and I want to see the relationship between lemonade sold and temperature. After I record the data, I find the correlation to be +0.9. That means that as the temperature increases so does the likelihood that I will sell more lemonade. A number closer to 0 means that there is no real relationship, and a number closer to -1 indicates a stronger, indirect relationship.

Say I owned the same store and wanted to look at hot soup sold and temperature. I may get a correlation of -0.85, which means that as the temperature falls it would be likely that I would sell more soup. But if I look at the correlation between temperature and bread sold and come up with a correlation of +0.003, then that shows that temperature has no real impact on how many loafs of bread will be sold.

The reason why I bring up these correlations is that we see that after the two-putt distance correlations, the one-putt distance correlations are right behind. There is a significant decline, however, in the correlation between three-putt distances and Strokes Gained Putting.

My conclusion as to why the two-putting distance metrics have a stronger correlation is that it is simply too difficult to putt great from course to course. I label putting “great” any time a Tour player averages +1 or more strokes gained per round for a tournament. Even the best putters on Tour tend to only putt great in roughly 30-to-40 percent of their events.

These were three of the best putters in 2014 and they putted great in 33-to-40 percent of their events.

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.08.47 PM

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.08.57 PM

Screen Shot 2015-02-09 at 12.09.12 PM

By looking at the graphs, we can see that great putting tends to occur at roughly the same time. Aaron Baddeley hit a stretch of great putting from The McGladreys through Riviera, as he putted great in 4 of those 6 events (notice the tall red bars, which indicate strokes gained on the field).

Freddie Jacobson hit his hot streak by putting great in 6 out of 8 events from Pebble Beach to the Zurich Classic. And Greg Chalmers started the year on fire by putting great in four events in a from The McGladreys to TPC Scottsdale.

Great putters also tend to cool off in streaks, however. They usually tend to putt better than the average (better than 0 strokes gained), but they can no longer rely on great putting for them to do well in a tournament. And that is where I believe why the average length of a player’s two-putts correlates strongest to Strokes Gained Putting.

But, I didn’t want to stop there. I wanted to look at a combination of metrics to help decide if there is more than one way to correlate to Strokes Gained Putting. And what I found was that if you combine the length of the average two putt along with the length of the average birdie putt made, you get the strongest correlation to Strokes Gained Putting in the end.

Let’s remember how Strokes Gained Putting is designed. If the field makes 40 percent of their putts from 10 feet, that will equate to roughly 1.6 strokes to the hole from 10 feet. If a player one-putts from 10 feet, then they are determined to have gained +0.6 strokes on the field. If they two-putt from 10 feet, then they have lost -0.4 strokes to the field.

The reason why birdie putts contribute to Strokes Gained Putting more is that they are by and large more difficult for players to make. In fact, only two PGA Tour players had a higher make percentage of birdie putts than par putts from 5-to-15 feet: Kevin Streelman and Luke Donald.

Anytime the make percentage goes down, there is more potential for a player to gain more strokes. If the make percentage from 10 feet went down to 20 percent and that roughly equates to 1.8 strokes from 10 feet, a player that makes the 10-foot putt now gains 0.8 strokes on the field.

Essentially, what this tells me is that even the best putters are not going to be able to take great putting from course to course, so they need to be two-putting when putts are not dropping for them. And when you combine the length of the two-putts along with the length of birdie putts made, it provides a measurement of ability to avoid three-putts and ability to make putts.

The average Tour player’s two-putt distance is roughly 22.5 feet, and their average birdie putt make distance is 10.5 feet. That comes to a combined 33 feet. I also wanted to test this with another metric that is fairly easy to measure: Greens in Regulation (GIR).

When combining GIR with the “Average All Two-Putts Distance” and the “Average Birdie Make Putt Distance,” it has an incredibly strong correlation to Adjusted Scoring Average.

Normally, I’m not a big fan of the greens in regulation metric due to its flaws and ambiguous nature, but considering that it is an easy metric to calculate and the correlation between greens hit and the two-putt and one-putt average distance is so high, I think it is a helpful way for a player to measure their skills.

And that’s how I came up with the “98 Score.”

Here are the Tour averages for each of the metrics:

  • Average All 2-Putts Distance: 22.5 feet
  • Average Birdie Putts Made Distance: 10.5 feet
  • Average Greens In Regulation: 65 percent

22.5 + 10.5 + 65 = 98

If you can score 98 or better, than you are playing quite well. If not, keep trying to improve your score so you can get the ball on the green more often and putt better when you’re on the greens.

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

16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Trae

    Feb 12, 2015 at 7:44 pm

    This was a good read, and very interesting. And it brings back memories of stats class, and also me spending countless hours entering in data from the pga tour just to see relationships between variables and trying to create a number of statistical models to predict, etc. I’m never doing that again! Never got to a point where I could really apply it to my own game in a really effective way though. Always would end up getting caught up in trying to figure out why someone was an outlier, then later on lost interest in stats altogether. It’s interesting stuff but I think it can be very misleading in some cases. It can be tricky. Anyways, I enjoyed this article and I’m looking forward to your next one. Thanks.

  2. Jeff Watson

    Feb 11, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    Rich,

    I like it. I already pace off my putts and number of putts for a stats program I subscribe to. Any idea what the “Score” would be based on handicap?

    Jeff

  3. david

    Feb 11, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Hi Ritch, I had to drop out of gread 11 math, so unfortunately my brain is still bleeding after reading your article. I know the tour putting stats on makeability is, from what I believe, from 6 feet to about 50%. I was a bit under this, so I worked hard on my putting last summer and lowered my cap from aprox 5 to 3.7. I know without keeping stats that not enough of my greenside chips get to inside 4 feet, so that is my focus this summer to knock off another 2 points. But I did find the article interesting, but not necessarily relevant to most amateurs, whatever the index.

  4. Dick Kusleika

    Feb 11, 2015 at 11:13 am

    I step off every first putt. I don’t know how people putt without stepping it off. They just guess or try to feel it, I suppose.

    I think the negative correlation is “inverse relationship”, not “indirect relationship”.

  5. Hudson

    Feb 10, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    I calculate the strokes gained (lost in my case, lol) and measure one pace (3 feet) to get the distance on the green from the pin. It takes a few seconds and it’s dead easy.

    I am going full speed to track/calculate my strokes gained now and I am explaining it there:

    http://golf-made-in-us.blogspot.com/2014/04/golf-stats-revolution-gained-strokes.html

    I consequently discovered that I was losing 6 strokes between 125 and 200 yards (on a 14 hcp) on average in 2014 and will work on that !

    • Rich Hunt

      Feb 10, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      Hudson, I’ve enjoyed your work. The only issue I have with using strokes gained with putting is that the make %’s at a local course are likely different then at a Tour level course, even for Tour players. As we’ve seen time and time again, slower greens mean lower make %’s for players across the board. I’ve not only seen it at Tour courses that I record the data for, but David Orr did a study on this and found the same thing as well. IMO, it is probably best to use strokes gained in comparing it to your own performance over time and see how well you improve or regress.

      • HIGHfader

        Feb 10, 2015 at 4:49 pm

        Richie, do you know where I can find that David Orr studdy?

        • Richie Hunt

          Feb 10, 2015 at 8:13 pm

          I don’t believe David has made it public. But, if you asked him that is what he would tell you. IIRC, they measured roughly 700 golfers and were on greens from the local muni to Pinehurst.

  6. jeff

    Feb 10, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Rich, great writeup, thanks. But without data from our peers (“the field”), how is this different from simply looking at your actual score for the round as a basis for judging our “getting better”? What I mean is, what will achieving a 98 in this fashion tell us about our game that the score cannot? If the result of putting better (fewer putts per round) is a better overall score, isn’t that pretty much the same thing? Without a field to compare against, how much would we actually get out of this? Thanks again!

    • Rich Hunt

      Feb 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm

      Jeff,

      Very good point. I think we can use the 98 Score to measure how well we are striking the ball and putting. So the other factors that would cause a discrepancy in 98 Score versus Actual Score would be short game shots around the green, penalty shots and general strategy. So if the score is better than 98, but a player shoots 75, then they may have struggled with short game or hit a shot OB or in the drink.

      In my next article I will go into simple metrics I keep for my rounds that will better help determine the strengths and weaknesses of our game.

  7. myron miller

    Feb 10, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    I’m a little sceptical of your usage of the statistical correlation coefficient. Famous statistical anolmaly: Amount of ice cream eaten versus number of polio cases was fantastically high (close to .9 or something like that). Ergo if you eat a lot of Ice cream your chances of polio increased. Just because there’s a correlation doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a relationship. Usually but not necessarily. Other factors could be involved that sway the correlation coefficient.

    For the amateur to actually pace off every putt regardless does help but slows down the game a bit increasing the time for the round. Not a productive way to help the overall pace of play but it does help the individual golfer (assuming his paces are moderately accurate – which is sometimes questionable). So which is more important, pace of play or helping the individual in play? At which time?

    • Rich Hunt

      Feb 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm

      Correlation does not imply causality (unless there is a correlation of a perfect +1 or -1). The issue is that people tend to take that the wrong way as correlation is trying to define the symmetry of a relationship.

      The problem with the ice cream to polio correlation is that usually those types of analysis are done over a very short period of time so the sample size is not large enough. The other issue is that the variables (polio and ice cream consumption) have virtually nothing to do with each other.

      Correlation is not about certainty, it’s about probability. The real issue with the correlations I used is that they are not ‘strong correlations’ (+0.5 or better), so the 1:1 relationship is not exactly a confident one. But, that could be due to a myriad of factors like a golfer’s ballstriking.

      However, those correlations were fairly consistent over the seasons and on a comparative basis I think it indicates that all 2-putts length does give a better indication of how a player is putting than say 3-putt length. And given that when we combine all 2-putts and birdie putts lengths does have a strong correlation, it’s a good way to measure our true putting prowess.

      Lastly, the main point of the article was to more accurately measure our own putting prowess and do it without the measuring process being too cumbersome and time consuming. Obviously, we don’t know how well we are putting versus other golfers. But we can measure our own improvement over time with a large enough sample by seeing how well we improve compared to our performance in other rounds of golf.

    • Rich Hunt

      Feb 10, 2015 at 2:28 pm

      Myron,

      Correlation does not imply causality (unless the correlation is +1 or -1). However, many people don’t quite understand that phrase as used in the polio to ice cream consumption case.

      Correlation is designed to give a confidence level of the symmetrical relationship between 2 variables. For instance, we may see a correlation between ball speed and distance a ball travels of +0.9. That doesn’t consider launch angle, spin rate, landing angle of the ball, etc. But we have a high degree of confidence that ball speed will be a large determining factor in the distance the ball traveled.

      The problem with using the polio to ice cream consumption argument (and the countless other arguments) is that:

      1) typically the sample sizes are incredibly small so the data can be easily skewed.

      2) the variables have virtually nothing to do with each other.

      I feel the sample size of length of putt to putts gained is more than sufficient as it took place over several seasons with roughly 180 golfers per season. I also feel that the variables (length of a putt versus putts gained) are closely tied together.

      If there is a an issue with using the correlations is that none of these correlations were ‘strong’ (+0.5 or better). However, if you add all 2-putt length and birdie putt lengths, the correlation is strong.

      So, why is the correlation not at a perfect +1?

      Likely due to ballstriking. If a player hits a birdie putt to 4-feet and make the birdie putt, there’s not much they can do about it rather than the player that misses their 4-foot birdie putts, but makes a 20-footer. The same goes for 2-putting.

      Still, the main purpose of the article was to more easily determine how well you are putting and trying to improve upon your own performance. I think if one records this data over time they can use it to better gauge how well they have putted over a certain amount of time.

  8. Rob Rashell

    Feb 10, 2015 at 11:30 am

    Rich,

    This stuff is fantastic, will be sharing with the players I work with.

    Rob

  9. Rich Hunt

    Feb 10, 2015 at 10:42 am

    Steven,

    I would just recommend pacing off the initial putt. I personally pace off all of my putts except for putts inside 5-feet since I know how long they are by eye-balling it.

    It doesn’t have to be a perfect measurement because the idea is to improve your score so you can improve your putting. For instance, if you average 30-feet on your 2-putts by pacing it off and in reality it is 32 feet, that’s not as important as actually improving your 2-putt average the next time you play.

  10. steven

    Feb 10, 2015 at 10:24 am

    rich, how would you recommend us amateurs determine the distance of our 2 putt distances. As well our birdie putt distances. Of course theres no guarantee i make a birdie in a round of golf. but i sure as heck attempt and make a lot of 2 putts. without the use of a simulator, ill simply be estimating the distance i am away from the hole. thus limiting the reliability of an amateurs usage of your ’98’ theory. any tips? as the concept seems very well thought out, but the execution for an average player is really implausible. thanks.

Leave a Reply

Cancel 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

Brandel Chamblee PGA Championship Q&A: Rose’s huge McLaren risk, distracted LIV pros and why Aronimink suits the bombers

Published

on

PGA Championship week is here, and Brandel Chamblee did not hold back in our latest discussion ahead of the season’s second major.

In our 2026 PGA Championship Q&A, golf’s leading analyst made the case that PIF pulling LIV’s funding has left its players competing in a state of confusion, called Justin Rose’s mid-season equipment switch a huge risk at 45, and explained why Aronimink will be a bombers’ delight this week.

Check out the full Q&A below.

Gianni: With the PIF confirming that they’re pulling funding from LIV at the end of the season, what impact do you expect that to have on the LIV players competing at the PGA Championship?

Brandel: I would imagine that they have all been thrown into a state of confusion, and will be distracted, not knowing where they are going to play next year and not knowing exactly their road back to either the DP World Tour or the PGA Tour. Or in Rahm’s case, being tied to a sinking ship for the next few years, likely playing for pennies on the dollar in events that no one cares about or watches.

I doubt this would put him in the best frame of mind to compete at his highest level. Keeping in mind, however, that majors are the only time that LIV disciples get to play in events that matter, so never disregard the motivation they have to prove to the world they are still relevant.

Gianni: Justin Rose switched to McLaren Golf equipment mid-season while playing some of the best golf of his career. What do you make of the change?

Brandel: I don’t really know what to make of Rose switching equipment. It seems a huge risk on his part, even though it is likely, in my opinion, that the clubs he’s playing are similar, if not the exact grinds, to what he was playing previously, with a McLaren stamp on them.

Having said that, at best, it is a distraction when he seemed to be as dialed in with his game as any 45-year-old could be and trending in the majors to perhaps do something that would definitely put him in the Hall of Fame. At worst, given the possibility that these clubs aren’t just duplicates of his old set stamped with McLaren on them, he’s made an equipment change that would take time, and 45-year-old athletes don’t have the time to do such things.

Gianni: Aronimink has only hosted a handful of professional events since it hosted the 1962 PGA Championship. What kind of test does it present, and does a course with less recent major championship history tend to level the playing field?

Brandel: Even though Aronimink has only hosted a handful of meaningful professional events, it has been fairly discerning in who can win there. When Keegan Bradley won the BMW Championship on the Donald Ross masterpiece in 2018, he was the 2nd best iron player on tour coming into that week. When Nick Watney won the AT&T at Aronimink in 2011, he was 2nd in strokes gained total coming into the week.

In 2020, Aronimink hosted the KPMG Championship, and Sei Young Kim won. On the LPGA that year, she was first in greens in regulation, putts per green in regulation, and scoring average on the way to being the LPGA player of the year. And then there is the 1962 PGA Championship won by Gary Player, who eventually became just one of a few players to win the career grand slam on the way to winning 9 majors. It is a formidable test, and if it’s not softened by rain, it will bring out the best in the upper echelons of the game.

Gianni: Is there a specific hole at Aronimink that you think will do the most to decide the winner?

Brandel: The hardest hole at Aronimink in each of the three tour events that have been played there since 2010 has been the long par-3 8th hole, with the par-4 10th being the second hardest, so most of the carnage will happen around the turn, but with the par-5 16th offering opportunities for bold plays and the tough closing holes at 17 and 18, the finish is likely to be frenetic.

Gianni: The PGA Championship has always sat in the shadow of the other majors. What does the ideal PGA Championship look like in your eyes, and what would it take for it to carve out its own identity?

Brandel: The PGA Championship, to whatever degree it suffers from the comparison to the other three majors, is still counted just as much when adding them up at the end of one’s career. Almost 1/3 of Nicklaus’ major wins were the five PGA Championships he won. Walter Hagen won 11 majors, five of which were PGA Championships.

Tiger Woods twice in his career won back-to-back PGA Championships, and those four majors count just as much as the other 11 he won. The PGA may not have the prestige of the other three, but it carries the same weight. Having said that, I preferred the identity that it had as the last major of the year.

Gianni: You nailed your Masters picks. Rory won, Scottie finished solo second, and Morikawa surged to a tie for seventh. Who are your top 3 picks for the PGA Championship and why?

Brandel: I am not a huge fan of majors played on golf courses that have been shorn of most of the trees, although I understand some of the agronomic reasons for doing so and of course the ease with which it allows members to play after errant drives. However, at the highest level, it all but eliminates any strategy off the tee and turns professional golf into an even bigger slugfest. That means that it will likely be a bomber’s delight this week, but fortunately, Scottie Scheffler is long enough to play that game and straight enough to play it better than anyone else.

The major championships give us very few surprises anymore, going back to the beginning of 2012, so the last 57 majors played, the average world rank of the winners has been better than 15th in the world. So look at the highest ranked and longest drivers who are on form coming into the PGA Championship who also have great short games as the surrounds at Aronimink are very challenging. That’s Scottie Scheffler by a mile and then McIlroy and Cameron Young with a far bigger nod towards DeChambeau than I gave him at the Masters.

Continue Reading

Club Junkie

A putter that I love and hate – Club Junkie Podcast

Published

on

In this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, we dive into one of the most interesting flatstick releases of the year with a full review of the new TaylorMade SYSTM 2 putters. After spending time on the greens, I break down what makes this design stand out, where it performs, and why it has me completely torn between loving it and fighting it. If you are into feel, alignment, and consistency, this is one you will want to hear about.

We also take a look at some of the putters in play on the PGA Tour last week. From familiar favorites to a few surprising setups, there is always something to learn from what the best players in the world are rolling with under pressure.

To wrap things up, I walk through the process of building a set of JP Golf Prime irons paired with Baddazz Gold Series shafts. From component selection to performance goals, this is a deep dive into what goes into creating a unique custom set and why this combo has been so intriguing.

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

From 14 handicap to pro: 4 things I’d tell golfers at 50

Published

on

This year my 50th birthday. Gosh, where has the time gone?

As a teenager in rural Missouri, some of my junior high and high school years felt interminable. Graduation seemed light years away. But the older I get, the faster life seems to fly by.

I’m also increasingly aware of my mortality. My dad died recently. Earlier this year, a friend and fellow PGA of America professional and I were texting about our next catch-up. The next message I received was news of his unexpected passing at 48. Shortly after, a woman I dated in college succumbed to cancer at 51.

Certainly, one can share perspective at any age. Seniors help freshmen, veterans guide rookies. But reaching this milestone feels like as good a time as any to do one of those “what would I tell my younger self?” articles.

I’ve had a uniquely varied career in golf. I started as a 27-year-old, average-length-hitting, 14-handicap computer engineer and somehow managed to turn pro before running out of money, constantly bootstrapping my way forward. I’ve won qualifiers and set venue records in the World Long Drive Championships, finished fifth at the Speedgolf World Championships, coached all skill levels as a PGA of America professional, built industry-leading swing speed training programs for Swing Man Golf, helped advance the single-length iron market with Sterling Irons®, caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR Champions, and played about 300 courses across 32 countries.

It’s been a ride, and I’ve gone both deep and wide.

So while I can consult and advise from a lot of angles, let me keep it to a few things I’d tell the average golfer who wants to improve.

1. Think About What You Want

Everyone has their own reason for picking up a golf club.

Oddly, as a professional athlete, I’m not internally driven by competition. That can be challenging, as the industry currently prioritizes and incentivizes competition over the love of the game.

For me, I love walking and being outdoors. Nature helps balance my energy. I prefer courses that are integrated into the natural beauty of their surroundings. I’m comfortable practicing alone. I’m a deep thinker, and I genuinely enjoy investigating the game, using data and intuition to unearth unique, often innovative insights. I’m fortunate to be strong and athletic, so I appreciate the chance to engage with my abilities. Traveling feels adventurous. I could go on.

You don’t have to overthink it like I do. For you, it might be as simple as hitting balls to escape work, hanging out with friends, and playing loosely with the rules and the score.

The point is to give yourself permission to play for your own reasons, and let that be enough.

But if improvement is your goal, thinking about your destination—and when you want to get there—is important, because it dictates the steps you need to take. When I set out to go from a 14-handicap to the PGA TOUR as quickly as possible, the steps I needed were very different from those of a working golfer trying to break 90 in six months. That’s also different from someone who just wants a few peaceful hours outside each week, away from work or family.

None of these goals are better than the others, but each requires a different plan that you can work backward from.

2. There Are Lots of Things That Can Work

One of the challenges of golf is that, although there are rules for playing, there aren’t clear, industry-wide standards for how to best play the game. There’s a lot of gray area.

You might hear a top coach or trainer insist that a certain move is the best way to swing or train. Then you dig a bit deeper and, much to your confusion and frustration, another respected coach or trainer says something completely different. I don’t think anyone is trying to confuse you—at least I hope not. It’s just where the industry is right now.

You have to be careful with advice from tournament pros, too. They might be great at scoring, but they’re also human and sometimes just as susceptible as amateurs to believing things that don’t really move the needle. Tour players might describe what they feel, but that’s not always what they’re actually doing when assessed with technology.

I recently ran a test on my YouTube channel (which connects to my GolfWRX article “How to use your hands in the golf swing for power and accuracy”), and, interestingly, two of the most commonly taught hand actions produced the worst results in the test.

Coaches can certainly help. If you find someone you connect with to help navigate, that’s great. But there are many ways to get the ball in the hole. In the current landscape, you may need to seek multiple opinions, think critically, and use your own intuition to discern what seems true and whose advice resonates with you.

I’d recommend seeking someone who is open-minded and always learning, because things constantly change. Absolutes like “correct” or “proper” should raise a red flag. AI can be useful, but it tends to confidently repeat popular advice, so proceed with caution.

3. Get Custom Fit

If you’re serious about becoming a better player, getting custom fit is hugely important. There’s no sense fighting your equipment if you don’t have to. Most better players get fit these days and, if they don’t, they’re usually skilled enough to work around clubs that aren’t ideal.

If you plan to play for a long time, it’s worth spending a little more upfront to get something that truly fits you and your game, rather than continually buying and discarding equipment.

Equipment rules haven’t really changed significantly since the early 2000s. To stay in business, manufacturers keep pushing those limits. If you pull a bunch of clubs and balls off the rack and test them, you’ll find differences. I’ve tested two new drivers and seen a 30-yard total distance gap. Usually, the issue isn’t bad equipment; it’s that the combination of components simply isn’t the best fit.

It’s like wearing a new pair of floppy clown shoes. Sure, they’re shoes—but you won’t sprint your best in them compared to track shoes that fit perfectly.

Be wary of what’s called custom fitting, too. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing strategy rather than an actual fitting. In some retail settings, fitters may be incentivized to steer you toward higher-priced components. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not the best fit, but you should be aware of potential biases.

I learned a version of this lesson outside of golf. Years ago, I bought a tennis racquet at a big box store from a seemingly knowledgeable employee who thought it would suit me best. The racquet gave me tennis elbow, and I spent months recovering with rest and acupuncture. The next season, I invested more time and money to find what actually fit me, and I walked away with something amazing that I still play with years later.

So if you’re going to get fit, be smart about it.

Find someone you believe has deep knowledge—possibly with certifications, but not necessarily. Make sure there’s a wide inventory across many brands. Check recent reviews for the individual fitter if possible. Make sure you trust that the fitter has your best interests at heart. If they’re wearing a hat or shirt with a specific brand’s logo, proceed with caution. Unless you specifically want a certain brand or look, be wary of upsells, especially if two options perform nearly the same.

Also, while golf is called a sport of integrity, there’s a thread of manipulation in the industry. I once drafted an equipment article for an industry magazine, structured just like one of their previous popular stories, with matching word count and great photos. The assistant editor loved it; it was useful to readers and required little work on his part. But the editor-in-chief nixed the story. When I asked why, I was told it was because I wasn’t an advertiser. It turned out the article I’d modeled mine after was a paid ad cleverly disguised as editorial content.

I really dislike games, clickbait, and fear-based manipulation. I hope this changes, but golfers deserve to know it exists.

4. Distance and Strategy Matter

There’s a real relationship between how far you hit the ball and your scoring average, even at the PGA TOUR level.

I experienced this early in my pro career. I started as a power hitter, swinging in the high 120s and breaking 200 mph ball speed with a stock driver.

Back then, some instructors advised swinging at 80%, so I tried slowing down for more accuracy. That worked fine on shorter, tighter courses. But on longer setups, I was coming into greens with too much club, and par 5s stopped being

Continue Reading

Announcement

Our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use have been updated as of January 29th, 2026. Please review the updated policies here Privacy Policy | Terms of Use. By continuing to use our site after January 29th, 2026, you agree to the changes.

WITB

Facebook

Trending