Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The numbers behind Jim Furyk’s 58

Published

on

On Sunday of the Travelers Championship, Jim Furyk set a PGA Tour record with a score of 58 at TPC River Highlands. Furyk’s 58 will overshadow his 59 in the 2nd round of the BMW Championship in 2013, however, I could argue that it shouldn’t when you look at the average score for the field in the 2nd round of the BMW Championship.

Furyk_58_scoring_average

Most people will only remember the 58, though, since it is the Tour’s new official record. It was also done in the final round, which is even more remarkable as the overwhelming majority of low scores in PGA Tour events occur in the first and second rounds.

The usual thinking about a player “going low” is that they do it through incredible putting. On Tour, however, go-low rounds feature incredible ball striking. There is some debate for amateurs, as the average amateur that has his or her career low round is more likely to putt substantially better. For example, a 10-handicap who shoots an even-par 72 may putt substantially better than normal compared to how well he or she strikes the ball. But when you’re talking about the PGA Tour, particularly with a player shooting 58, a player’s ball striking has to be off the charts in order to accomplish the feat.

Going a step further, good ball striking is far more than hitting greens in regulation and Furyk’s round illustrates that point. While Furyk did hit all 18 greens, it was how close he hit those approach shots that gave him the opportunity to shoot 58.

It all started with Furyk’s performance off the tee, as he missed only one fairway (the par-4, 7th hole). One reader noted that out of all of the players who shot 59 on Tour (Al Geiberger, Chip Beck, David Duval, Paul Goydos, Stuart Appleby and Furyk), only Duval would be considered to be long off the tee. This is an interesting point, but I believe the reason is that in order to reach the level of shooting 59 on Tour, a golfer has to be hitting great approach shots from the fairway. And not to take anything away from Duval’s round, but that was at a low-scoring course where the rough has traditionally been almost non-existent. The ability to get the spin needed from the fairway appears to be paramount to shooting a ridiculous score like a 59.

Here’s a look at Furyk’s approach shot data per hole. 

Furyk_58_proximity_to_hole

One common myth in golf is the Green Zone (75-125 yards) is vital to great golf. In this round, however, Furyk only had two shots from the Green Zone and he hit them to an average of 24.2 feet. The Tour average proximity to the cup from 75-100 yards from the fairway this year is 17.6 feet, so he was actually below average from that range.

Here’s how Furyk performed from certain distance ranges versus the Tour average. 

Furyk_58_scoring_zones

Obviously, Furyk did most of his damage from 125-150 yards. Not only did he hit those shots incredibly close to the hole (and knocked one in for eagle from 135 yards on the 3rd hole), but the highest frequency of shots came from the 125-150 yard range. With that being said, if Furyk does not hit those three shots from 200-225 yards as close as he did, he does not shoot 58.

Did Furyk putt well? Sure, he gained +3.313 strokes on the putting green, but it was not like he was making “bombs” out there.

furyk_58_putting

The longest putt Furyk made was from 23.7 feet. He did make four putts from 14.1 to 16.8 feet, but also missed a 10.3-foot putt on No. 14 and a 7.6 foot putt on No. 15. However, a little luck is involved, as three of those four putts from 14.1 to 16.8 feet were uphill and the other putt was straight and downhill. His misses on Nos. 14 and 15 came from the 10 o’clock and 9 o’clock positions on the fall line, bigger-breaking putts that are more difficult to make.

As the Tour slogan says, “These Guys Are Good,” and Furyk’s performance in every facet of the game was downright exception on Sunday… but it was his phenomenal ball striking allowed him to set a Tour scoring record.

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

5 Comments

5 Comments

  1. Anderson Knight

    Aug 27, 2016 at 12:04 am

    It appears your browser may be outdated. For the best website experience, we recommend updating your browser. learn more

  2. Wang

    Aug 8, 2016 at 9:04 pm

    What – that round looked a lot like your mom??

  3. Curt

    Aug 8, 2016 at 3:08 pm

    Should be an asterisk for any low rounds shot on a par 70 course. Much easier than on a normal par 72 layout, of course!

    • COGolfer

      Aug 9, 2016 at 12:18 am

      Lift clean and place is definitely easier than a par 72. Lets wipe those guys off the record books as well.

      http://golf.about.com/od/progolftours/qt/lowest18score.htm

    • Ryan

      Aug 9, 2016 at 7:08 am

      I’m getting really sick of hearing this. Par is an arbitrary number. What’s the difference between a par-4 averaging 4.5 strokes, and a par-5 averaging 4.5 strokes? Par is completely irrelevant, in my opinion. What if 2 of those long par 4’s are 5’s for the members? Then how do you feel about the score? Field average score is par for the day, and I believe his round at Conway Farms is the lowest one of the sub-60’s, and it was on a par-71. On a side note, I wonder what his differential would be in the GHIN system.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending