Opinion & Analysis
Did Jason Day just have the best putting year of any Tour pro ever?
Jason Day was ranked No. 1 in Strokes-Gained Putting for the 2016 season. His average Strokes Gained on the field per round was an incredible 1.13 strokes (4.52 strokes per event). For context, this is the largest advantage recorded over the 13 years for which Strokes-Gained Putting is now available. This article explains how his performance was superior, and why I believe it is the best ALL TIME.
What is Strokes-Gained Putting?
The PGA Tour added its new Strokes-Gained Putting analysis in 2011. It was a revolutionary breakthrough in analysis, and a huge departure from the myopic, one-dimensional putting stats of yesteryear (number of putts per round and number of putts per GIR’s).
Simply stated, Strokes-Gained Putting places a numeric value on each putting opportunity based on distance from the hole. The result of the shot (or putt) is: [Start Value – Number of Putts to Hole Out]. The starting distance values on the PGA Tour are based upon the average performance on Tour since 2004 when ShotLink was implemented. My company, ShotByShot.com, uses start values that are based on the average performance of all of the “Scratch” rounds recorded in our system since 2003 (Scratch = 0 differential from Slope Adjusted Course Rating).
Start = 8 ft. Value = 1.50 (A Tour player will make this putt 50 percent of the time).
# Putts: 1; SG = 0.5 (1.5 – 1.0 = 0.5)
# Putts: 2; SG = 0-.5 (1.5 – 2.0 = -0.5)
Here’s an example of how Strokes-Gained Putting works. Let’s say a golfer has an 8-foot putt, which the stats say a player should make 50 percent of the time. The putt is given a value of 1.5. If the golfer makes it, he/she gains 0.5 strokes on the field. If the golfer misses it, he/she loses 0.5 strokes on the field.
There is a complete explanation of Strokes Gained and its history on my website: ShotByShot.com.
Back to J. Day
I have conducted a detailed study of the No. 1-ranked player each year since 2011. The results provide valuable perspective for the Tour players with whom I work. Because the Tour now produces this analysis as far back as ShotLink was collecting the data, I can now include players from 2004 forward.
P.S. I found it worthy to note that Ben Crane was the best putter on Tour for two consecutive years and Luke Donald for THREE!
Jason Day vs. the No. 1s
I was immediately curious to see what Day did to overshadow all of the prior No. 1s. Could it be that he three-putted fewer times than the other 12? No! Day’s 2.4 percent rate of three-putts per holes played was actually the second highest among his No. 1 peers.
Side Note: For the benefit of the rest of us, the average 10-handicap’s three-putt avoidance is 8.5 percent, or almost three times that of the Tour’s 3.04 percent average.
And no, Day also did not one-putt with greater frequency than the other No. 1s. It was his unusual consistency that set him apart.
We all have our good and bad days on the greens AND, so do the best putters on Tour… except Day in 2016. In 16 events this year where Strokes Gained was measured, he never had a negative Strokes-Gained Putting result. None of the No. 1s had ever done that.
Have a look at the numbers in the graph below. Only Tiger came close in 2004 with only one negative Strokes-Gained event.
Jason Day vs. 2016 Tour Average
Finally, I looked into exactly what separated Day by 1.13 shots every round from the rest of the Tour in 2016. Only 18 percent of the difference resulted from fewer three-putts (see three-putt avoidance above). The remaining 82 percent resulted from increased one-putts, particularly Day’s very high standard in the range of 6-to-15 feet.
My research showed me long ago that on Tour the range of 6-10 feet separates the good putters from the pack, while the range of 11-20 feet determines the winners. Day’s putting no doubt played a major role in his three wins, ten Top-10s, $8+ million earned and his No. 1 ranking.
Is Jason’s 2016 putting season the best EVER?
We can easily agree that it is the best since 2004. The numbers are clear. And I don’t believe that there could have been a better putting season prior to 2004, because there have been too many important advancements in technology and agronomy in the past 14 years.
Technology: The quality and consistency of the balls and putters has dramatically improved, and so have the instruction tools. Further, with vastly improved analysis by distance ranges, players have much better information on exactly where they need to work to compete.
Agronomy: Putting surfaces are simply much better. Improved strains of grass and dramatically improved maintenance equipment and practices produce consistently smoother putting surfaces.
We will never know for sure, but I am confident that Day’s performance, at least as captured by ShotLink, is the best ever. It will be fun to see if it can be topped in the years to come.
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...
Tony Wright
Dec 13, 2016 at 1:59 pm
Peter congratulations on an absolutely terrific article!
adam
Nov 14, 2016 at 7:10 pm
I think the stat could be further enhanced by adding the difficulty of a putt, in addition to the distance. The pro average on a straight, 8-foot uphill putt is going to be substantially better than 50%. Wouldn’t be surprised to see downhill, 8-foot sliders come in at 20%.
The good player will, of course, leave himself with easier putts. So, perhaps Day has the wedge control to dial in an 8-foot, uphill putt on a consistent basis. Does this make him a better putter, or just a better wedge player. Hmmm.
Tal
Nov 15, 2016 at 12:47 am
That’s the next stage of SG putting. Taking break angle and severity into account! That would be awesome! Although even the best wedge players in the world can’t leave themselves a straight uphill putt all the time. So Day’s good putting is unlikely to be as a result of always leaving himself straight putts. If he could do that, he may as well just drop the ball off in the hole every time. TV distorts our view of why pro golfers are better than even top amateurs. It’s little improvements in all areas that make the difference. They can’t choose exactly where to leave the ball on the green.
For perspective, his total SG tee to green (including .375 strokes per round around the greens) was .987 strokes per round. He gained 1.310 strokes per round putting. Despite gaining strokes around the greens, this shows his putting was more valuable to him than his short game, proving his putting stats are down to his putting like the author said.
adam
Nov 15, 2016 at 12:06 pm
He’s a good putter, no doubt. However, every player with a wedge in his hand is trying to create a favorable putting situation (while minimizing risk). When you can move the ball and control trajectory and distance, you’re going to leave yourself with easier putts. Isn’t that the basis of Striker’s game? Of Furyk’s?
However, I think the stat isn’t all that helpful at present. You’d need much more sophisticated data gathering and analysis. This has to be the next step for the stat to be truly meaningful.
Tal
Nov 16, 2016 at 6:00 am
I think it’s a very complete stat. There is room for improvement for sure, but it’s better than any other putting stat we have. Like you said, every player is looking for the best putt and again, these guys aren’t as accurate as tv makes them look froom 100 in. For this reason, SG is still able to measure pure putting skill better than any other stat we have. (It does take uphill and downhill into account too, by the way)
Peter
Nov 16, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Adam,
I actually started with SG Putting 28 years ago and worked with quite a number of LPGA players (easier to get to know). My observations and limited testing did NOT reveal meaningful differences in relative difficulty. When MIT got into the SG game in 2010, they agreed that an 8 ft. putt is valued at 1.5 regardless of up down or sideways.
Finally, on that point, imagine the added complexity of data entry – a major barrier to usage.
mark
Nov 14, 2016 at 10:00 am
All I have to say is Jordan Speith’s putting in 2015 was the best Ive ever seen along with Tiger when he was on top. I don’t care what stats say.
Uhit
Nov 14, 2016 at 11:04 am
They shot some outstanding putts, several times shown in the highlights of the tour…
…but the (unspectacular) average was not shown, nor remembered.
If I would collect all my spectacular shots in a best of…
…you would assume, that I have to be the best player ever…
…just like most of us, if we only look at our highlights. 😉
…but if we look at our stats (if we would collect them…), you see, that we are far away from the top.
ian
Nov 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Yup
Tal
Nov 14, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Spieth is an awesome putter for sure! His approach play and highly efficient driving were the keys to his great 2015 season though. His putting didn’t account for all of his winning advantage.
Uhit
Nov 13, 2016 at 1:08 pm
“Strokes-Gained Putting places a numeric value on each putting opportunity based on distance from the hole”
Is a chip from 30 ft to a hole also a putting opportunity, if the player could use a putter?
Is a put from outside the green from 30 ft to a hole also a putting opportunity?
Or has a putting opportunity to be on the green?
A close chip and a additional put from 30 ft distance, is the same as two putts from 30 ft distance?
…and independent whether both strokes happened on the green, or not?
…and a three put from 60 ft on the green vs. a 40 ft chip plus a 18 ft put plus a additional 2 ft put?
Maybe Jason Day just knew better than most, how to play the last approach shot (to get in a better position) for the following put?
I think there still are many variables left, and SG is just another try to quantify something, that is barely quantifyable in a correct manner.
Tal
Nov 13, 2016 at 6:45 pm
Only putts on the green count. Everything else around the green is accounted for by the strokes gained short game stat. It can be broken down further though.
Uhit
Nov 13, 2016 at 8:01 pm
Ok, but then, it makes not that much sense, to look at the putting SG isolated…
…because the outcome is also depending from the short game.
If Day successfully tried to achieve uphill putts with his short game, he had an advantage for his putts – if the rest of the field did not take that opportunity in the same way.
It is hard to tell, but anyway, Day was really good, and maybe even the best around the hole – more often than others during the season.
Tal
Nov 13, 2016 at 8:17 pm
SG accurately (enough) demonstrates skill in individual areas compared to the field average. It also somewhat nullifies variables such as rough length and course condition by building a database of millions of shots over time.
You’re right though; having the best SG putting stats doesn’t mean you scored the best. If you’re constantly hitting the ball to 3 feet then you’d be the best iron player in the world, but we’d learn little about your ability to putt. The SG stat system only works as a whole. I think the reason people over-analyse SG putting is because they’re still clinging to the idea that putting is the most important part of the game. SG data shows this to not necessarily be the case.
Uhit
Nov 14, 2016 at 4:28 am
Yes, you are probably right, that maybe the strive to see the putting as the holy grail of golf is a part of the over-interest in putting stats…
…and I can understand this, because if you have a 10´ birdie put on a par five, it is hard to accept, that you can make more than one put to finish the hole…
…3 strokes for 550 yards and 3 strokes for 10´ is hard to accept…
…especially with the same club in hands.
A 70 year old golfer can be a better putter than a 17 year old.
Putting is for everyone – long driving is not.
Putting is the hope for the not that gifted player…
…no matter what stats you are using.
Tal
Nov 14, 2016 at 5:20 pm
I totally agree. It’s hard to accept hitting an approach to 5 feet and missing the putt. People confuse the missed birdie opportunity because of a missed putt with the fact that putting is more important to scoring, simply because it’s the last thing you remember.
Peter
Nov 16, 2016 at 3:35 pm
Uhit,
On Tour, only putts on the putting surface count as putts. In ShotByShot.com, I recommend that players count those shots from just off the green or on the fringe to be putts. If counted as Chips, their chipping results will be artificially improved. At the same time, shots that are truly chipping opportunities ARE chips even if the putter is the club of choice.
Uhit
Nov 17, 2016 at 3:30 am
Thank you Peter for the clarification.
It is always a compromise, where to draw the line between (partly) interchangeable things.
I remember a player, that chipped on a green, over a spike mark, into the hole (Garcia?).
The SG stats are similar to a score card…
…one don´t see the quality of the single shots, but you get a good idea, how well someone played –
which is exactly the case in this article, where the SG stats help to identify a outstanding putting performance of a single player.
Hans
Nov 13, 2016 at 4:07 am
First, thanks for doing the research into how consistency was the real difference (that’s what makes this article interesting). That said, it does at the same time beg the question of what makes for the “best” putter. If some guys stats are lower because he putted worse when he was out of contention, does that make him a worse putter or simply less focused when he mattered less and money when it did matter. And we might care about the latter more, than the former. Still, a nice result by day to stay above average every single event, it says sthg good about his method.
Another thing tho, it makes me wonder how much the distribution of the types of putts a player has affects the SG stat. For instance in a day one player might have more 5-10 footers than other players. Etc for other distances. And there might be certain distances where players have a better chance of getting positive SG over the field. As an example, I could imagine if you give some guys a combo say 25-30 foot putts all day that they lag close, plus tap ins fro, from chips, that their strokes gained might not have a lot of room to be very high unless his name is spieth. But you give the same dude a bunch of 10 footers and his ability to turn a good putting day into extra strokes on the field becomes much stronger, simply because you can affect the make percentage more. Not saying that those are the distances where that would happen, but more that there might be some critical distances where you can push your SG ahead the most (or lose the most) and so what distances you putt from could affect your ability to move the SG needle.
Tal
Nov 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm
On your point about distribution of putts, that’s exactly what SG is for. It’s superior to simply counting putts as it takes both distance to the hole and how well you performed from that distance relative to the field. Let’s say you hit every shot from 150 in to 1 foot. Your SG putting would show nothing special but you’d be the greatest iron player in history and assuming your driving wasn’t horrible, you would win every tournament you played in.
Day’s superior putting performance is down to just that; superiorly consistent putting because the SG stats show that ignoring all other factors (i.e taking SG putting in isolation) he outperformed the field by over 1 stroke per round. That’s a MASSIVE advantage. His driving and approach play added further strokes to his advantage.
Peter
Nov 16, 2016 at 3:36 pm
Well Said Tal. Thanks!
Tal
Nov 13, 2016 at 8:49 pm
SG isn’t the same as just counting putts. If you hole an 8 footer, you gain more strokes to the field than holing a 2 footer. So, if Day was only ever putting from very close to the hole due to great chipping, his SG putting wouldn’t show anything special, but his SG short game would. This article has only taken putting in isolation though, so maybe putting and short game were strong for Day last season. SG though, measures pure putting skill in a way that no other stat can. If you’re interested, you should read ‘Every Shot Counts’ by Mark Broady. It answers all these questions.
K dawg
Nov 12, 2016 at 7:49 pm
Sorry but Speith’s putting the year before is the best ever. If the stats don’t identify that…then they aren’t measuring correctly.
Tal
Nov 13, 2016 at 8:35 pm
You’re basing this off of television highlights.
Pingback: Did Jason Day just have the best putting year of any Tour pro ever? – Swing Update