Opinion & Analysis
5 Dark Horse Picks for the 2016 U.S. Ryder Cup Team

With one leg left in the majors, I wanted to examine the U.S. Ryder Cup standings, again. This time, though, I wanted to look at the players that are outside the top 15 in the U.S. Ryder Cup standings that have metrics that comply with making a quality Ryder Cup participant.
Related: The Official U.S. Ryder Cup Points List
While ballstriking has a much greater influence on Tour success than short game shots around the green, historically the best Ryder Cup players have excelled around the greens. Putting is always important in terms of winning events on Tour, but it’s nearly impossible to project putting for any player. Although there are certainly players that are significantly, statistically better on certain greens grasses than others.
Where the U.S. Team has struggled the most over the years is in the foursome (alternate shot) format. The fourball (low score) format has not been much of an issue for the U.S. Team. Each format stresses different facets of the game. So given the U.S. Team’s struggles in the foursome format, this list of players are more skilled toward that format.
Charles Howell III
Howell fits well in the fourball format because he makes a lot of birdies and plays the par-4s, par-5s and par-3s well. However, he’s been a competent driver of the ball this year and has been pretty good from the Red Zone (175-225 yards), which will be featured at this year’s venue, Hazeltine National Golf Club in Chaska, Minnesota. He tops it off with great short-game play, and this makes for a competent foursome player. Pair Howell with a good iron player, and that could make for a tough foursome team to beat.
Jimmy Walker
Walker has slumped since March, but he had a good Ryder Cup showing in 2014 and is still an excellent short-game player and good putter. He has traditionally been a much better putter and iron player. The Bogey Rate and slump concerns me, but he is a player to keep an eye out for and see if steps up his play down the stretch.
Webb Simpson
Simpson has been brilliant in virtually every part of the game, but has struggled with the transition to the non-anchored putter. That has been the main contributor to him being unable to win this year, and his high bogey rate. His putting, however, has been trending upward. Like Walker, he’s a player to watch out for to see if the putting is starting to come along. If so, he would make an excellent Ryder Cup teammate.
Kevin Streelman
Like Simpson, the only thing holding Streelman back has been his putting. His putting has trended considerably upward, however, which you can see in the chart below (the dotted line is the trend line).
With better putting, Streelman becomes a more appealing fourball player, but can also drive it well, strike it well on the mid-to-long approach shots and gets up-and-down if he misses the green.
Kevin Na
Na is an unheralded player, but has the game to make for a tough Ryder Cup competitor. This season he has struggled a bit with the driver, but the counter to that in the foursome format is to stick him with a good iron player that plays well out of the rough.
Na has also typically been a much better putter than he has been this year, and could be due to hit a hot streak soon. So, the U.S. team would have a promising foursome player, as well as a player that makes a lot of birdies, which works well in the fourball format. He has also typically been an even better player on the par-5s, so like his putting, I wouldn’t be surprised if his par-5 play picks up soon as well.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

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
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

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!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

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.
Bryant
Jul 24, 2016 at 6:19 pm
I think that Simpson would be a complete liability to the US Squad. He has not played well in like 3 years. I would take someone like Charlie Hoffman or Bill Haas.
Bryant
Jul 26, 2016 at 8:15 am
The Americans need to grow up and play with who they paired with. Just go out and compete.
Marty Moose
Jul 26, 2016 at 10:07 am
Webb skied his 3-wood off the first tee last Ryder Cup. Not a good choice.
BD57
Jul 24, 2016 at 6:13 pm
These comments … are a good argument for not having comments.
Matt Mitchell
Jul 24, 2016 at 12:25 pm
Seriously!?! You are free and unrestrained to offer your opinion but this author is not granted the same freedom though he writes from a place of experience and application!?! Just baffling man! Simply astonishing that you got so butt hurt over my comment! I guess your feelings and self-congratulating opinions are all that matter!?! Good luck with the life amigo!
TCJ
Jul 26, 2016 at 3:21 pm
I’d say he is already using a pseudonym…
TheInfidel
Jul 23, 2016 at 5:12 pm
Free tip for 2016.
If the USA want to get beat like a drum again you need Webb and Na!
Steve
Jul 23, 2016 at 2:59 pm
What a bad meaningless article
Matthew Mitchell
Jul 23, 2016 at 1:13 pm
So it is just a coincidence that a player makes x number of putts within 15 feet in a given round which then contributes to the strokes gained putting statistic which is measure against all players on the same course. A coincidence is just happen stance and shows no direct intentionality or relevant skill as it relates to what is measured. A statistic is a numerical aggregate of the same occurrence, fact, outcome, etc over a given period of time. One instance may be a coincidence like the probability of you making a putt from 10 feet but these guys making a putt from 10 feet is over 40%. Why would this be a coincidence. I seriously don’t think you really know what that word means. And for the safety of us all, don’t swim in public and subject the children to this horror show of stupefaction and ignorance!
Matt Mitchell
Jul 24, 2016 at 12:06 pm
Haha seriously! Says the man who got kicked out of a public pool. Just contribute something worthwhile. Sorry I called it out but know what the words mean before you make a definitive statement about them. You made a negative comment about this article which means you have just judged your own intent of leaving a comment! I assume your original comment was to show the uselessness of this article? If that is the case then why in the world are you calling me out for you calling the author out? Grow up bro, read a book, and at least measure your comments regarding others with some modicum of self reference.
Joe sixpack
Jul 22, 2016 at 4:05 pm
Just not very interesting.
Make a clear point and explain it. Showing lists of rankings in various stats is pretty meaningless. Who cares if someone is 20th or 120th in “yellow zone play” if the difference between the two is a fraction of a stroke per round? You need to give context. You need to explain what matters and why.
All this shows me is an excel table that you created for each player and then cut and pasted. Highlight the stats you think are relevant and explain why.
Rather than throw out a few dark horse candidates, pick someone who you think is the best candidate and explain why.
This is the kind of stuff they teach in jr. High…..
Richie Hunt
Jul 22, 2016 at 7:59 pm
I hear your point. However, much of this is difficult to quite translate between stroke play on Tour and Ryder Cup play. For instance, ‘only a half a stroke per round’ is actually a tremendous difference in a player’s season. If a player improves by a half stroke, they are going to improve roughly 45 to 70 spots on the Money List (Money is always hard to project due to different purse sizes in events and ties splitting the purse).
Also, the subject has been a recurring article for myself on this Web site….what goes into good Ryder Cup players and what types of players are good in fourball vs. foursome formats. So at the sake of sounding redundant, we kept this one more brief.
Joe sixpack
Jul 22, 2016 at 10:51 pm
Amusing that you misquoted me. That won’t help you win arguments or seem more professional. (And your goal here is to develop a reputation as a statistician, right? A stats guy needs to be precise in his language.)
I don’t see how any of this helps your cause. Your analysis of stroke play stats is inherently difficult to use as a predictor of match play performance in the pressure cooker of the Ryder cup, as you acknowledge. So why bother? You end up with an incoherent piece that says little and doesn’t do much to increase your stature as a statistician.
There are other stats guys out there doing a lot better work right now. You’re going to have a tough time competing with them with this kind of stuff. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t know how a golf statistician can earn a living posting on a website like this. Seems to me you need some tour players to hire you to advise them. In my opinion this kind of article isn’t going to help make that happen.
Matthew Mitchell
Jul 23, 2016 at 1:06 pm
Wow, Joe Sixpack- you are kind of a d-bag! Your name suggests as much and you think far more of your position than I think you own in mental awareness to substantiate. Were you hoping that Rich provide a far deeper, more in depth article on the subject that is, by definition, subjective! They are his dark horses and they don’t have to be yours. I could tell you to go to hell and you don’t have to go though your critique here may say otherwise. Did you want him to take the stats and use them in a Bayesian prediction model for the purposesof probability calculus. Perhaps a hint of modal logic and possible world argumentation of different scenarios playing out in different possible situations that would best support the above stats WHICH HE DID EXPLAIN UNDER THE HEADER! Lets get into the weather predictions and past scenarios of when those players played in similar weather conditions. Maybe He could have dug deeper in the probabilistic permutations and calculated which player would statistically do best with other known Ryder Cup players. Were you hoping this would be peer reviewed by other golf scholars like Butch Harmon, the ghost of Bobby Jones, and every Golf Channel commentator! Next time you think of writing on this site, I want you to do two things. 1.) Don’t contribute 2.) Test and see if what you say has anything relevant at all- soon to be Joe Kegger! (Opposed to six pack- have I lost you yet). Also, rather than being an annoying troll talking about things far above your pays scale, be far more concerned with excellence in your own contributions than the lack of quality provided by others. It may serve you well. I think this may only be the 3rd time I have ever contributed on this site but I can’t leave stupid and spiteful alone.
Matt Mitchell
Jul 24, 2016 at 12:17 pm
Man, you really don’t like people making negative comments after you vomit all over the Internet. Let me put it this way, we have already established that you don’t know the definition of the words coincidence and statistic so I would be hard pressed to think you are qualified to peg a persons disposition!
Clemson Sucks
Jul 22, 2016 at 11:08 am
If any of these 5 are on our team we are in trouble.