Opinion & Analysis
Ditch the draw to play the most consistent golf of your life

Ask anyone who teaches for a living, and you’ll hear that the No. 1 thing most golfers are looking for is consistency. Equipment companies cash in by promising each successive club will hit the ball farther than the last, but in more than a quarter century of teaching this great game I’ve yet to meet a golfer who wouldn’t give up a few yards in exchange for finding the fairway more often.
As golfers, then, we’re in a bit of a conundrum. We crave consistency, but when the chips are down we put our money down on distance. And while it’s not impossible to achieve some degree of both, if we’re serious about finding the fairway more often, giving up those extra yards might be exactly what we need to do.
Here’s why.
When it comes to consistency, ball flight patterns matter. Commenting on his preferred shot shape, Lee Trevino once famously said, “You can talk to a fade, but a hook won’t listen.” I learned that lesson the hard way back in college during my own Tin Cup moment. After being under par most of the round, I found myself walking up No. 18 with my head down, out of the match because I was out of balls after stubbornly refusing to hit a controlled fade (my natural shot) instead of the draw that would have made the hole play shorter. Trevino was right. Despite that painful lesson, however, it still took a few years — and my looming PGA Player Ability Test — to finally sink in.
I was preparing for the test by playing a practice round with an 18-handicap buddy of mine. I was still struggling with the driver, and that’s when I had a bit of an epiphany. This guy hit a short, ugly 30-yard slice off every tee, but after watching it find the fairway on darn near every hole I realized my buddy knew something I didn’t — where his ball was going. And despite the fact that I didn’t like the look of it, I knew that I could hit that shot, too. So I decided to put my ego aside and play what I called my Big Ol’ Hacker’s Cut. It wasn’t as long, but I knew where it was going, and in the end that’s what I needed to start scoring again. And I did.
Now as far as great players go, last time I checked I hadn’t made anyone’s short list, but there are a couple of great ones who you might never have heard of either if they hadn’t learned that very same lesson. The first was the immortal Ben Hogan. Early in his career, Hogan spent a decade in obscurity fighting the big hook that nearly ended his career before it began. Now Hogan loved to practice, and he eventually figured out a few things while spending a legendary amount of time on the range, but despite all his cryptic talk about his secret being in the dirt, if you really paid attention to Hogan’s interviews you’d realize his game changed when he changed his preferred shot shape. Years later, when asked if he ever tried to hit a straight ball Hogan answered, “Never. Jesus Christ can’t hit a ball straight.”
Which way did Hogan always try to hit it? Left to right, or with a little cut.
A player at the opposite end of the practice spectrum from Hogan, but one who might best exemplify the reliability of the cut, was Bruce Lietzke. Lietzke disdained practice and was the Tour’s king of taking time off, often taking a few weeks off at time during the season to go fishing in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Burned out and tired of the ups and downs of his game, Lietzke quit the game briefly after college, and when he came back to it found his swing had changed and he couldn’t hit anything but a cut. Frustrated at first, Lietzke soon realized that while he didn’t like the look of his new shot, he was scoring more consistently and his game held up better under pressure. And the real kicker? He realized he could take a week or two off — and ultimately a few months off from the game to go fishing — and his swing was still there when he got back, as reliable as ever.
The most famous story about Lietzke that highlighted this happened at the end of 1984 when he told his caddie to remove everything from his bag except the clubs because he wouldn’t be using them until the next season started, more than three months later. His caddie didn’t believe him, so he took the head cover off his driver and stuffed a banana inside. The next February, when Lietzke arrived at the practice range of his first event, his caddy opened up the bag to a stomach-turning smell. When they pulled the head cover off the driver, it was covered with nasty black fungus and rotten banana, never again playable.
Now I’m not trying to compare anything about my game to Hogan’s, or even Lietzke’s, but the common thread here is how a player struggling with consistency eventually found it in a little shot called the cut. In my case, turning professional and learning to teach the game taught me why that shot was more consistent. Mechanically speaking, there are a handful of reasons playing a hook is often less predictable, but there is one primary reason why. As Trevino said, a hook doesn’t want to listen.
Before I say any more, though, I want to apologize up front to all my Homer Kelly disciples and other hardcore swing analytics for what I’m sure you will think is a gross over-simplification. It’s important, however, to explain my point in a way that doesn’t take intimate knowledge of the golf swing to grasp.
- Swings with a lot of hands in the hitting area (read draws and hooks) require very precise timing and that usually translates into a lot of time spent beating balls to achieve a modicum of reliability and consistency.
- Swings with less hand action in the hitting area (read cuts, fades, and slices) are less dependent on precise timing of the hands because they typically have the face of the club in relation to the path and or target for a longer period of time and use the body more than the hands to square that clubface. This means swings that produce shots that cut, fade, or slice often produce more consistent results and are more low-maintenance (read less practice time), even though they don’t produce quite as much distance due to the increased spin created by the path, the slightly steeper angle of attack, and less release of the hands.
So If you’ve been looking for the road to consistency for a while, maybe it’s time to take a shortcut and stop ditch that draw. Sure, it might not look as pretty, and you might sacrifice a few yards, but in the end you just might find a shot that will actually listen to all that hoping and praying you’ve been doing while it’s in flight. And with all the newfound time that was previously spent trying to reign in that hook on the practice tee, you just might be able to pick up a second hobby. Fishing anyone?
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.
James G
Sep 7, 2016 at 2:31 pm
My son is but 12 and has made this discovery on his own. He has found he can hit a slight cut much easier and actually swing faster so he doesn’t lose distance. Said he got the idea watching Dustin Johnson at the US Open. His scores have dropped playing the cut. He has won two junior tournaments since going the cut route.
Mike
Sep 6, 2016 at 1:53 pm
As soon as I stopped trying to play a fade to exclusively play a draw my scores plummeted. I’ve eliminated the right side of the course and gained distance. I’ve gone from a 7-8 handicap to a 3-4. The next jump might require a swing change but I’m guessing it has more to do with chipping and putting…
DeadFish
Sep 6, 2016 at 3:48 pm
Do you play courses that exclusively feature dogleg lefts? A draw is never always the answer, and neither is a fade. The best shot is the one that gets you closest to the hole. The closer you are to the hole the better the chances of making par….
If that means a fade on a dogleg right, you better freaking play a fade. If that means a draw on a dogleg left, you better freaking play a draw. Catch my drift?
Doesn’t matter what shot shape, as long as it gets you closer to the hole…
Scott
Sep 8, 2016 at 11:07 am
But according to the article, for Ben Hogan a fade *was* always the answer. I think you missed the point of the article. The best shot is the one you can get the farthest and control. If you can’t control a draw, do not hit one.
Mat
Sep 5, 2016 at 8:55 pm
This “story” is too personal. The fact is that this is overstating the true wisdom in this article. His buddy could control his drive.
As a pro, you have to know that:
#1 – as long as you get distance, rough matters little. Keep pounding; the stats back you up.
#2 – a fade is just the description of a narrow slice as it relates to the intended line.
#3 – a fade is always technically simpler when the club length is ~ 45″.
#4 – I’d argue that it is no more precise with the hands to hit a “fade” than a “draw”. What’s very easy to hit with little hand movement is a slice.
So while his experience is just that; his, it’s fair to say that all players must find a balance between control and ball flight. Hell, that’s golf by definition. There’s no picture to how your ball flies on a scorecard, but the emotional process of what a ball flight “wants to be” is usually based around optimal results. It’s ego-shattering when you aren’t capable of hitting an optimal shape, and that’s a hard lesson to swallow. In this case, at least the friend was there to demonstrate that.
KK
Sep 8, 2016 at 11:41 pm
“Precise with the hands” might be the most ridiculous phrase I’ve ever heard. This isn’t heart surgery.
Pingback: Ditch the draw to play the most consistent golf of your life
bogeypro
Sep 4, 2016 at 10:35 pm
Dustin Johnson pounds a fade and so does Bubba. Please stop with the idea that draw is longer. find the shape that works best for you and own it.
Kujan
Sep 4, 2016 at 8:40 pm
Great article. Don’t want to abandon the draw but sometimes a fade is called for.
Kujan
Sep 7, 2016 at 5:17 pm
On second thought I may have to embrace the fade or whatever I get with a steeper swing plane.
Pa
Sep 4, 2016 at 7:59 pm
Tom Watson shot his age, 67, on his birthday, today.
I’m a gonna stick to the draw. Thanks
Smokin'Gun
Sep 4, 2016 at 11:38 am
Your body type will dictate your ball flight, your path versus face relationship is based on how you deliver the club to the ball… Play to your strength and get a bioscience fitting… It will open your eyes!!!
Steve Wozeniak
Sep 4, 2016 at 11:29 am
A draw is a straight shot that falls left……a fade is a straight shot that falls right…….anything else is a hook or a slice and is easy to fix with correct information…….
JustWellsy
Sep 6, 2016 at 1:44 am
The way you used the word “easy” is the biggest exaggeration I’ve ever seen. Easy to fix? You have any idea how good most golfers would be if they could fix their swing as soon as they had the right “information?” There have been people that work for years to perfect a swing with no such luck. Some people give up the game because of the yips… It’s not all all easy
Mike Dowd
Sep 4, 2016 at 11:20 am
When most of us learn the game, we initially hit some version of a cut, fade, or slice and it’s typically drilled into us early on, not only that the draw is longer, but preferable. Good players draw it and hackers slice it, and so a great many players spend years of frustration trying to learn to hit it the other way. Some do, but some never do, at least not with any real consistency. My point was that’s o.k., and in many ways the storyline of having to draw it to be a good player is misleading. Plenty of great players have preferred to cut it and some couldn’t hit anything but a cut. There are advantages to that shot shape (like the ball sitting on the green better) and we shouldn’t look at it with as much disdain as many of us do. Sure, it’s nice to be able to hit it both ways, and it helps you become more of a complete player if you can, but if you’ve been struggling with consistency you might want to experiment with playing it the other way. Whether it’s left or right, the real key to scoring is just knowing which way it’s going, so if it’s easier for you stop fighting that fade and just roll with it. Hope it helped and thanks for all the great comments. – Mike
Groundpounder
Sep 4, 2016 at 10:27 am
I signed up for 52 lessons at GolfTEC because they said I’d never get better unless I learned to hit a push-draw. Guess I wasted my money…
Smokin'Gun
Sep 4, 2016 at 11:34 am
Any type of instruction from a qualified instructor is definitely not a waste of money. As long as you own and practice the information given. Just like a script from your doc, practice and take with water!!!
KoreanSlumLord
Sep 4, 2016 at 2:28 am
Ben Hogan was disgusted at the sight of a right to left shot pattern. Myself, I play a low running fade or what I call a reverse hook of the tee- not unlike Jimmy Demarets. Very predictable drives.
Tom
Sep 4, 2016 at 10:26 am
I hit a high soft draw. Very predictable.
snowman
Sep 3, 2016 at 11:22 pm
I agree. A guy I play with regularly hits a draw(often a hook) and when he pures it (rare) he is 15-20 yards longer than me off tee); however I hit probably twice as many fairways as he does and his average drive is 10 yards longer than my average. Now, with my CONTROLLED little cut I can easily knock it on the green more consistently than him, even though I’m 10yards farther away. A draw is probably evidence of a ‘better swing’, but not many average-joe type players can hit a consistent draw that finds target. The Fade / Pull-Cut is not a sexy or long-ball type of shot but it rarely goes way wrong.
Tom
Sep 3, 2016 at 11:21 pm
So when I’m on the wrong side of the fairway and I need to hit a draw………?
tom
Sep 3, 2016 at 10:55 pm
Great article. Shot the best score of my life earlier this year (2 under par) but before the round at the range I was hooking my driver really badly. I told myself … I’m just gonna hit a cut/slice off the tee all day. I don’t care how far right it goes but I’m not going left. Worked like a charm and yeah I did give up a few yards but I hit 11/14 fairways. Yet I’ve found myself getting away from that again … so stupid.
KK
Sep 3, 2016 at 9:27 pm
Driver fade, just like iron fade, is scientifically proven to be a more predictable shape. Too bad most golfers are too egotistical to give up the 10 yds off the tee for perfect placement on the fairway.
Tom
Sep 3, 2016 at 11:23 pm
define “perfect placement”?
Scooter McGavin
Sep 4, 2016 at 10:45 pm
In the fairway…. It says it literally right after the bit you quoted…
PO
Sep 3, 2016 at 9:14 pm
My game got easier and more consistent with less pain in my side when I switched to draw from fade. Fade will kill your side if you compress that side as you try to come over the top and hold that slide.
vince guest
Sep 3, 2016 at 5:23 pm
Kenny Perry and Patrick Reed would disagree…but personally I’d love to hit a Bubba Long fade.
Cris
Sep 3, 2016 at 2:07 pm
Why does a draw “require more hands through the hitting area”?
Golfer
Sep 3, 2016 at 4:26 pm
You have to rotate the face over more through impact to draw the ball.
Sometimes a Smizzle
Sep 3, 2016 at 10:25 pm
Me to, from 11 degrees inside.
Jack
Sep 5, 2016 at 6:18 am
I don’t think so. I used to use a lot more hands but as long as the clubface is set more closed than your club path it will draw away from ur club path. But perhaps the “hands” is what’s causing the extra distance? I feel that it’s the slight delofting of draws compared to fades.
shimmy
Sep 3, 2016 at 12:31 pm
I have a high toe miss, and I’ve found that if I play a fade, that miss wants to go straight. If I play a draw, the toe miss is left of left.
kkp
Sep 3, 2016 at 11:39 am
Yeah that’s why Tom Watson plays the draw. Duh