Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Is Tiger’s “No. 1 Proximity to the Hole” a meaningless stat?

Published

on

Much was made of Tiger Woods leading the field in Proximity to the Hole in this weekend’s Honda Classic. But what does this stat actually even mean?

Included in Proximity to the Hole are all approach shots, whether they hit the green or not. BUT, if the shot misses, and is not within 30 yards of the edge of the green, it does not count. Think about it: a shot missed just short of the flag but in a hazard counts. Tiger had two wet miscues this week that were included in his proximity calculation. One of those actually helped his average proximity as it was recorded as two feet closer than his average of 29 feet 3 inches. What does the Shotlink team do? Laser the exact distance of the splash? Finally, the fact that the big misses don’t count will dilute the average and cause compaction over multiple events.

I have found some misunderstanding of the importance of this stat among the players and coaches with whom I work. Specifically, there is a tendency to put top priority on hunting flags. I strongly believe that the most important aspect of the approach game is to HIT THE GREEN, and that proximity to the hole is by far secondary. Obviously, proximity is great when one has the right opportunities, but hitting greens should be the overriding goal at every level.

Let’s take the small sample of Tiger in this week’s Honda vs. Justin Thomas, the winner. Tiger’s proximity was exactly four feet closer than Justin’s. At that distance, with average Tour putting, it would take 40 greens to equal one stroke difference. By contrast, Tiger gave up FOUR strokes with the two doubles recorded on hole No. 15 following his approach shots in the water.Additional perspective: In 2017, the average player on the Tour’s Scrambling was 57.9 percent (player makes par after missing GIR 57.9 percent of the time). We can therefore assume that each additional GIR would save him at least 0.42 Strokes (the reciprocal of his Scrambling Percentage).

The Tour average GIR’s in 2017 was 11.68 per round. In order to save that 0.42 strokes per round simply by hitting shots closer to the hole on these 11.68 greens, Mr. Average would need to improve his Proximity by 7 feet* (from 36 ft. to 29 ft.) on ALL 11.68 greens hit. I submit that ONE additional GIR is a much more attainable goal and that striving for the closer proximities may well lead to hitting fewer GIR’s. 

Further, the No. 1 ranked player on the Tour for Proximity to the Hole in 2017 was Ryan Armour at 32 feet 8 inches. Even with that impressive number, his Approach Strokes Gained was only 0.121 (ranked 89th).

My suggestion: Only count the distances when the greens are hit. Then the combination of percentage of GIR’s and Proximity would really mean something.

For a complete analysis of your game, log on to www.ShotByShot.com

*The SG values were extracted from the ShotByShot.com Scratch, Strokes Gained model. It is slightly different from the Tour’s model but the relative values will be virtually identical.

In 1989, Peter Sanders founded Golf Research Associates, LP, creating what is now referred to as Strokes Gained Analysis. His goal was to design and market a new standard of statistically based performance analysis programs using proprietary computer models. A departure from “traditional stats,” the program provided analysis with answers, supported by comparative data. In 2006, the company’s website, ShotByShot.com, was launched. It provides interactive, Strokes Gained analysis for individual golfers and more than 150 instructors and coaches that use the program to build and monitor their player groups. Peter has written, or contributed to, more than 60 articles in major golf publications including Golf Digest, Golf Magazine and Golf for Women. From 2007 through 2013, Peter was an exclusive contributor and Professional Advisor to Golf Digest and GolfDigest.com. Peter also works with PGA Tour players and their coaches to interpret the often confusing ShotLink data. Zach Johnson has been a client for nearly five years. More recently, Peter has teamed up with Smylie Kaufman’s swing coach, Tony Ruggiero, to help guide Smylie’s fast-rising career.

26 Comments

26 Comments

  1. JThunder

    Feb 27, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    All statistics are (essentially) meaningless without the story; but the corporate media and the defunded educational system have decreased our attention spans and intelligence, so stats are all we have the time or brains for. There’s an agenda here, if only we could see it. 17 more yards!

  2. Tom

    Feb 27, 2018 at 3:09 pm

    Tiger has always led the “proximity to the ho” stat…….

  3. David

    Feb 27, 2018 at 11:17 am

    Of course it’s not meaningless. It good information — just doesn’t tell the whole story. Your suggestion wouldn’t fully tell the story either. For instance, I would include in your improvement green (or fringe) in regulation, since there is virtually no difference between hitting the fringe and hitting the the green on tour courses. And ShotLink keeps fringe data now, I believe….

    • Peter Sanders

      Feb 28, 2018 at 10:40 am

      David,
      Right you are! Fringe data is in ShotLink. I originally included it with my suggestion BUT the Tour GIR is a fairly sacred number and does not include balls on the fringe. I believe the Proximity stat could be 2 stats: 1 w/o fringe – strictly GIR’s and 2. w fringe.

  4. Cory

    Feb 27, 2018 at 9:43 am

    Is it meaningless? No. And as you’ve pointed out it is flawed. But with that being said, it should give you an indication that he is starting to dial in his shots, and we could see glimpses of past Tiger. Only time will tell, but they made more of it than what it deserved given his 12th place finish.

    • Peter Sanders

      Feb 28, 2018 at 10:36 am

      Thanks Cory,
      My point was not a shot against Tiger but the stat AND how even the people in the golf business do not understand it.

  5. Jack

    Feb 26, 2018 at 11:35 pm

    Strokes gained is obviously much more important. It calculates how close you need to hit it versus the distance you are away. For Thomas and Woods their distances are not that different, so I think their proximity numbers are actually relevant.

    As discussed by the author, the main difference here are the hazards that Tiger hit. The SG difference in approach was only 1.25 strokes over 4 rounds. Yeah ok that’s a lot for a pro, but hitting it in the water already is 1 stroke penalty plus the extra stroke needed to chip it onto the green. Pro’s can flag hunt when they need, or else they would never score enough birdies to win a tournament LOL. For amateurs just getting on the green consistently already is a huge win.

    • CB

      Feb 27, 2018 at 2:51 am

      Well, that, and the fact that he didn’t make many putts, so his Stroke Gained Putting (or lack of) is what should also be reflected here.
      But lets not forget that as difficult as the course played, the overall score-to-Par for the whole field showed how hard it was, and that should also be reflected but is never really discussed enough. And we’re not talking about amateurs, so stop comparing it to how hackers don’t understand how to break down the stats or the course to be able to go low.

  6. Mad-Mex

    Feb 26, 2018 at 10:41 pm

    The ONLY stat that matters is who gets the “W”

  7. Ogo

    Feb 26, 2018 at 9:57 pm

    I would like to know how many steps-per-green Tiger takes before he holes out. I bet he takes fewer steps than any other tour pro. Udaman Tiger!!!

    • CB

      Feb 27, 2018 at 2:52 am

      What about spits-per-green as well

    • Ogo

      Feb 27, 2018 at 11:47 am

      Tiger not only reads the greens with his eyes, he feels the greens with his feet. Visual and tactile putting method.

  8. GregNormansGreenJacket

    Feb 26, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    Its not how, its how many. Got to get in the hole.

  9. Tyler Champ

    Feb 26, 2018 at 8:33 pm

    Or we could just look at strokes gained approach because that entails everything approach related. Notice how JT was number 1 in SGA, but one less green?

    Read every stroke counts by Mark Broadie and you’ll understand traditional stats, in addition to Prox and feet of putt made don’t mean anything… strokes gained really tells the whole story week in and week out, and for the season.

  10. Steve Wozeniak

    Feb 26, 2018 at 6:34 pm

    Gee…….after dumping the two let’s swing left clowns, he starts swinging toward the target and plays better……wow…..who would have thunk it!!!!!!

    I always said he is an easy fix if he gets good information, looks like he’s figuring it out by himself. Still has a bit of a block in his swing but it’s WAY BETTER, keep it up Tig……

    Steve Wozeniak PGA

    • James

      Feb 27, 2018 at 2:06 am

      But he’s exiting left through impact, as in in-square-in…so he has to swing left? Or am I misinterpreting what you said?

      J

      • CB

        Feb 27, 2018 at 2:54 am

        Outside-in, hands pull left, under-cut twirl with clubhead

  11. Realist

    Feb 26, 2018 at 6:10 pm

    I saw Tiger make a couple of mental mistakes and use a driver that has only made me miss worse on my misses. I think if he dumps the driver, the mental aspects will come to him with confidence. He’s closer than we’ve seen him in a long time. Great for the game

  12. Matt A

    Feb 26, 2018 at 5:44 pm

    Closer doesn’t mean better.

  13. Kaven

    Feb 26, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    Lollll he putt well with his scotty
    He’s good with his nike iron
    He chips well with his nike wedge
    The only weakness is the taylormade metalwood

    • CB

      Feb 27, 2018 at 2:55 am

      I reckon the ball isn’t that good either, it’s not helping him make putts

  14. juliette

    Feb 26, 2018 at 5:03 pm

    Well, I think it’s a good analysis and is well worth reading for understanding how this stat is compiled. Thank you for your good work. As to whether or not it is a telltale stat for the tour, and achieving #1 status means something significant, you’ve shown that there are other stats more meaningful than this one.

    Still, it is a measure of how close your misses are and for that reason it shows mostly that the one with the closest proximity was likely the one whose shots went closer to where he intended than did other players’ shots to the greens. But in the end we all know that putting, more likely number of feet of putts made, is much more telling for a players’ final tournament position.

    Tiger went for a few pins on Sat and Sunday that he thought he needed to go for in order to have a chance to win. He didn’t pull it off and paid a high price. Had he been leading I doubt he would have done that. So strategy is a hard one to figure in to this stat. That said, all these stats lose a bit of luster under close scrutiny.

  15. Humble Golfer

    Feb 26, 2018 at 4:31 pm

    While I do agree with the fact that this stat can’t have a direct correlation to birdie opportunities or hazard less play, I do believe this shows how well players are hitting approach shots from a consistency perspective. This stat is also important from a round to round comparison to ones self showing improvements in ball striking. This piece is nothing but a “selective hearing” type of reaction to the obvious fact that PGA National is a VERY tough course, and it got to everyone over the course of 4 Days. Let’s not take away the fact that Tiger had lots of good looks at Birdie. It was a matter of who made more crucial puts.

    • Peter Sanders

      Feb 27, 2018 at 8:30 am

      Thanks Humble, if the Tour would adopt my idea of only counting Proximity when the green is hit, we would have a perfect answer as to who had the most and best birdie opportunities. My complaint now is that the inclusion of shots that miss the green seriously cloud this perspective.

      • James

        Feb 27, 2018 at 3:09 pm

        It does seem rather strange to include the proximity value when the green is missed or hit into a hazard. Perhaps they should include par 3s in driving distance because that would be equally unintuitive…

  16. DaveyD

    Feb 26, 2018 at 3:43 pm

    Avoid shots that result in penalties, minimize #shots to the green, and avoid three-putting. More of a workflow than stats, but it works for me.

Leave a Reply

Cancel 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