Opinion & Analysis
Statistics on how short hitters can conquer Par-5’s
One of the least surprising parts of analytics in golf is that there is a strong statistical correlation on the PGA Tour between Driving Distance and Par-5 performance. Driving Distance and Par-4 performance does not have nearly the same correlation, which makes it obvious how important power is to performing on the Par-5’s.
I wanted to look at the exceptions to the rule, however: short hitters who performed well on Par-5’s. Conversely, I wanted to examine long hitters who did not perform well on Par-5’s. Then I wanted to see what these groups of players had in common with their game in hopes of explaining why they overachieved or underachieved on Par-5’s.
I decided to take the top-15 Overachievers (nearly the top 10 percent) and the top-15 Underachievers and examine their metrics.
Click to enlarge
First, I wanted to see how these groups of golfers performed on approach shots, not only the range from which they are likely to hit a fairway wood (225-275 yards), but also on short approach shots where they end up if they decide to lay up on Par-5’s.
Click to enlarge
What’s interesting is that the Overachievers have a much better ranking in each of the categories except one: shots from 250-275 yards. That area is where the 3-wood is almost exclusively used by Tour players, and yet the Overachievers were significantly worse performers than the Underachievers.
This is one of the key points in the difference between the Overachievers and the Underachievers. Obviously, performing better from 75-150 yards is helpful to performing better on the Par-5’s. But despite the Overachievers being worse with the 3-wood and better from 75-150 yards than the Underachievers, they were significantly more aggressive on the par-5’s.
Par-5 aggressiveness is a proprietary formula that I use to determine how “aggressive” a player is in going for par-5’s in two shots based on their percentage of Par-5 “Go For It’s,” their distance off the tee, their club speed and the percentage of “Go For It’s” for the field on the par-5’s they have played.
For example, Mark Hubbard ranked 114th in actual Par-5 “Go For It” percentage. But he was 165th in Driving distance, which means he has a less likely chance to go for Par-5’s in two shots. Hubbard did it anyway, and therefore was very aggressive on the Par-5’s.
The difference in Overachievers being much more aggressive on the Par-5’s, despite being inferior 3-wood players and superior from 75-150 yards, indicates that it is far more beneficial to be aggressive than conservative on the Par-5’s.
Next, let’s look at Short Game shots around the green data for both groups.
Click to enlarge
Once again, this is not all that revelatory in general, but the details are a bit more informative. The Overachievers had better short games than the Underachievers. However, the data shows that the larger discrepancy is on shots from 20-30 yards. On Par-4’s, it is far more important to perform well from 10-20 yards and from less than 10 yards than it is to perform well from 20-30 yards. But on par-5 shots, 20-30 yards is a more important distance range.
Here’s how the two groups fared on the greens.
Click to enlarge
This was a bit more surprising for the most part, as he Overachievers did not putt significantly better than the Underachievers. This indicates that getting the ball close to the green in the first two shots is more important than actual putting performance on the green for Tour players.
Lastly, I wanted to compare the two groups with some driving metrics.
Click to enlarge
Tee Shot Aggressiveness is a proprietary measurement I use to determine the amount of times a player is laying-up off the tee. Players like Mark Hubbard and Roberto Castro rarely lay up off the tee, while Martin Laird and Lee Westwood were frequently laying up off the tee.
While there is a huge discrepancy in the Tee Shot Aggressiveness rankings for the Overachievers versus the Underachievers and the Overachievers were more effective off the tee in general, the more telling metrics are the ones that indicate a player’s accuracy and precision off the tee.
Despite the Overachievers being much more aggressive off the tee, they were still far more accurate (hit fairway percentage) and much more precise off the tee (Distance to Edge of Fairway, Hit Fairway Bunker Percentage and Missed Fairway – Other Percentage). This goes back to one of the major strategic keys that I stress to all golfers:
If you’re likely to have a long club in your hand (5-iron or longer) on your 2nd shot, it is best to focus on making good contact and finding the fairway rather than swinging for the fences in hopes of gaining an extra 20-30 yards off the tee.
That includes Par-5’s and Par-4’s. For Tour players, the variance in scores on shots from the fairway versus the rough rise dramatically once the second shot is from 175 yards or more. For amateurs who play shorter courses, I recommend looking at it from the club you are using. The general rule of thumb is a 5 iron or longer. I still recommend hitting driver off the tee. As the Overachievers show, they are not laying up off the tee that often. But, it is better to take your “stock swing” and focus on making good contact and finding the fairway than to swing harder in hopes of gaining more yards at the risk of finding the rough.
To summarize, here’s what amateurs can learn from the pros.
- Hit driver off the tee, but focus on good contact and finding the fairway instead of swinging harder in hopes of hitting it farther.
- Three wood performance is not as critical to par-5 performance as one may think. However, it’s still important to try and get the ball as close as you can to the hole when feasible rather than playing for your “money yardage.”
- Short Game performance is fairly important, but it’s more about long-range short game shots (20-30 yards) than shorter range Short Game shots (<15 yards).
- Par-5 performance is more about the first two shots than it is about performance with the putter.
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...
Ron
Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 pm
Great article. Love the statistical analysis and how that plays into strategy.
At 75 (with an index of about 4), I legitimately qualify as a short hitter (although probably fairly long for my age group). I can rarely reach par-5s in two – only on short ones probably playing from the ‘whites’. So my approach to par-5s is to think of them as par-3s in the sense that with a decent in-play drive, and a decent in-play second shot, most par-5s I play then just become a short iron or wedge to the green. (And with a wedge in my hands, I will always think “no worse than three more shots”, although it doesn’t always work out that way.) So par-5s are scoring holes even when they are not usually eagle opportunities. My strategy? Make that third shot as short as possible – unless getting into that position involves some risk like carrying a hazard or flirting with a bunker complex. But the key for me is putting the driver in play – doesn’t have to be long, but I want a doable second shot. The second shot strategy is then dictated by the lie and the risk – a fairway wood gets me as close to the green as possible without taking on undo risk, a hybrid or other ‘lay-up’ might be a safer shot and result in a longer third, but that’s okay. My scoring average on par-5s last year – in 140 rounds on 17 different courses? 5.0 (a little under that on my home course).
I played a recent on-course practice by dropping a ball 50-100 yards from each green and playing in. Great fun, by the way – and a great way to hone par-5 scoring skills.
Davo
Feb 25, 2016 at 3:43 pm
Zac Johnson won his masters jacket by laying up on every par 5 each day a few years back.
Rich Hunt
Feb 26, 2016 at 10:59 am
Yes, it was record freezing temperatures with high winds. Everybody was having to lay-up because it wasn’t feasible to get over the water in two shots. That left Zach in a wedge competition against the rest of the field which played to his strengths. Since then, Zach has not played all that well in the Masters outside of last season and goes for the par-5’s at Augusta whenever he can.
Gob
Feb 25, 2016 at 12:07 am
What are the driving distance numbers in the first chart?
Richie Hunt
Feb 25, 2016 at 8:19 am
All of the numbers in each of the charts are the rankings. So instead of saying a player ranked 165th, I just put down he ranked 165.
Mark
Feb 24, 2016 at 9:25 am
I’m not sure if the stats for tour players apply the same to the games of amateurs. The big difference I see is in the partial swing shots to get on the green. Pros spend endless hours dialing in their distances for these types of shots; amateurs, not so much. So I believe it IS actually better for the amateur to layup to their “money shot” because it’s a distance that they know and have practiced. Getting it as close as possible and leaving yourself a shot that requires a partial swing just doesn’t play out as well for amateurs as it does for pros.
aJerry
Feb 24, 2016 at 2:02 pm
!00% correct short game of 100 yards and in yields great results BUT very few amateurs with limited income have any where they can spend a hour or two hitting from a hundred yards and in to a playable green and get real descent results. What your talking about is Country Club level amateurs that have the money to belong to a course with quality practice facilities…..you get very little value out of practicing 100 yard shots off beat up old mats hitting in to dirt or near dirt driving range practice areas…and least anyone forget pros are hitting into real greens for practice with balls, like proV1’s they use in tournaments…. Every time we pay $48 bucks for a dozen ball a chunk of that change goes to supply tournament pros with endless supplies of that ball to play and practice with……..
Richie Hunt
Feb 25, 2016 at 8:24 am
The general concepts apply, but things are scaled down for the amateurs because they hit it shorter and play shorter courses. Most amateurs can’t hit their 3-wood 250-275 yards, so that is why I discussed the actual club more than the actual yardage. With the studies we’ve done on amateurs on par-5’s, the principles are almost identical to what we saw in the numbers for the pros. The only real exception is that some amateurs are far worse with the 3-wood off the deck than any other club in their bag. However, I believe one can draw the reasonable conclusion that if you’re an amateur that really struggles with the 3-wood, par-5’s are going to be an issue for you until you figure out how to hit a 3-wood with some level of competence.
Steve
Feb 24, 2016 at 12:39 am
Driving distances of PGA pros and LPGA pros is amazing but the second shots are the unbelievable shots….PGA guys hitting 3 irons 240 yards and stopping them on the green and LPGA gals hitting hybrids 230 yards and stopping on the greens. Insane…
Jack
Feb 25, 2016 at 1:47 am
Yup. The more you look at those performances, the more you realize the immense gap between top amateurs and pros. Not only are they more accurate, the distance they are covering is much greater too.
Magnus
Feb 23, 2016 at 10:15 pm
I actually have a very good shortgame, and my putting is alright, but I break 80 only when I find the fairway consistently from the tee, thats always the key to a good round. But anyway a lot of people talk about how you win tournaments because of your putter or your good shortgame. “you drive for show and putt for dough” is not true, and never has been.
Bob Jones
Feb 24, 2016 at 1:19 pm
Lee Trevino said, “They say you drive for show and putt for dough, but if you can’t drive, you won’t be putting for very much dough.”
Peter
Feb 24, 2016 at 2:23 pm
The “drive for show” is referring to the longest drive, it’s nothing to do with hitting or missing fairways. You can’t compete at any decent level if you can’t putt!
Mat
Feb 23, 2016 at 4:48 pm
This deserves one more step…
“Overachievers” are doing what the “Every Shot Counts” stat book says… essentially, you’re going to score better at a pro level from 40 yards out in the rough than you are 90 in the fairway.
You can essentially stack these stats backwards; overachievers are the guys playing to the stats. Gain the most distance within reason and within your ability every shot, as the lie allows.
Bump Fuzz
Feb 23, 2016 at 1:55 pm
I remember hearing on a golf telecast that Webb Simpson will try to get it as close to the hole as possible when hitting his 2nd shot on par 5s instead of laying up to a favorite wedge yardage.
Rich Hunt
Feb 24, 2016 at 9:38 am
Funny you mention Webb. When I analyze players and their strategy, Webb is one of the very best strategists on Tour. Not only on par-5’s, but on tee shots where there are players laying up or going for it. Whatever is the best play statistically, Webb is usually making that play.
Fahgdat
Feb 23, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Wow. Thanks for putting that together. Great article.
Goes to show you smart course management and timely scoring is what it’s all about.
You can play to your strengths and still do well.
Scott
Feb 23, 2016 at 11:42 am
Are you suggesting that the longer hitters are not being aggressive enough off the tee? I have often thought that there was way too much laying up on tour.
Richie Hunt
Feb 25, 2016 at 8:29 am
I wasn’t really suggesting that in this particular article. But often times that is the case. One of the things I preach to Tour players I work with is that I do not treat every player the same and fit them into 1 way of doing things. Bubba Watson shouldn’t try to play like Tim Clark and vice versa. Much of that has to do with how far they hit the ball. But, I see a lot of long hitters on Tour that try to play more like the shorter hitters. They concentrate on finding fairways at the expense of their length off the tee by laying up and focus too much on their wedge games. Instead, they have prodigious length off the tee….use it to your advantage. If you have the ability to be a power player…be a power player.
davemac
Feb 23, 2016 at 11:37 am
I really like this type of analysis, am I correct in assuming the value in each column is the player’s positional ranking for that given skill?
Psychology has to play a major impact on the result, Lee Westwood is poor from the ‘important’ target short game areas, but is this a poor short game or excessive shot pressure due to putting weakness?
The other possibility is perhaps under achievers are in the habit of short siding their approach miss, making the short game shot more difficult.
Bobby Pingstein
Feb 23, 2016 at 11:01 am
Just hit the gym and take testosterone
JLukik@taylormade.com
Feb 23, 2016 at 4:35 pm
Do you even lift, Bro?