Opinion & Analysis
Do you actually understand “Strokes Gained” stats? Here’s a breakdown

In 2011, the PGA Tour introduced ShotLink, which is a real-time scoring system that captures data points on all shots taken during PGA Tour events. ShotLink measures the distance from the hole, as well as categorizing shot types like tee, fairway, rough, sand, and green.
Mark Broadie, a professor at Columbia Business School, took the data from ShotLink and helped develop a new way to analyze putting performance. This new statistic was called “strokes gained: putting,” and it measures the number of putts a golfer takes relative to the PGA Tour average from that same distance. Strokes gained putting recognizes that sinking a 20-foot putt represents a better performance than sinking a three-foot putt, even though they both count as a single putt and a single stroke on the scorecard.
This was revolutionary because golfers no longer had to rely on the number of putts per round to understand their putting performance. Strokes gained also provided a unified way to measure an individual golfer against his opponents on the PGA Tour.
In 2016, the same concept used for strokes gained: putting was applied to other areas of the game. The PGA Tour developed new statistics including “strokes gained: off-the-tee,” “strokes gained: approach-the-green,” and “strokes gained: around-the-green.” This expansion allowed a PGA Tour golfer to precisely see where he excels and where he needs to improve.
What is strokes gained
In the most simple terms, “strokes gained” is a way to measure a player’s performance compared to the rest of the field. It also allows you to isolate different parts of a player’s game. In order to understand the statistic, you have to know that the PGA Tour has historical data from ShotLink that has calculated the average number of strokes needed to hole out from every distance and location on a course. Below I have included four scenarios to better illustrate the idea of strokes gained.
The scenarios below show how strokes gained could work on a single hole. Remember most strokes gained statistics are the aggregate of all the holes for a players round.
Scenario No. 1: Driving
You are playing a 450-yard par 4. The PGA Tour scoring average for a par 4 of that length is 4.1 strokes.
You hit a drive that ends up in the fairway, 115 yards from the hole. The PGA Tour scoring average from in the fairway, 115 yards out is 2.825 strokes. In order to calculate strokes gained: off-the-tee you use the formula below
(PGA Tour average for the hole) – (PGA Tour average left after your drive) – 1 = strokes gained: off-the-tee
Next, plug the numbers from the scenario above into this formula to calculate the strokes gained: off-the-tee
4.100 – 2.825 = 1.275 – 1 = 0.275 strokes gained: off-the-tee
Since you hit your drive in the fairway 115 yards from the hole you gained .275 strokes off the tee from the average PGA Tour player.
Scenario No. 2: Approach Shot
Let’s take the same drive from the first scenario. You hit a drive on a par 4 that ends up in the fairway, 115 yards from the hole. The PGA Tour scoring average from in the fairway 115 yards out is 2.825. You hit your approach shot on the green 10 feet from the hole. The PGA Tour scoring average from on the green 10 feet from the hole is 1.61 strokes.
(PGA Tour average from your approach) – (PGA Tour average for your putt) – 1 = strokes gained: approach-the-green
2.825 – 1.61 = 1.215 – 1 = .215 strokes gained: approach-the-green
Since you hit your approach shot to 10 feet you gained .213 strokes from the average PGA Tour player.
Scenario No. 3: Putting
Continuing the scenario from example scenario No. 2. You have a 10-foot putt left for birdie which you make.
(Your # of Putts) – (PGA Tour average from that distance) = strokes gained putting
1 putt – 1.61 = .61 strokes gained putting
Since you made that 10-foot putt you gained .61 strokes from the average PGA Tour player.
Scenario No. 4: Total for the hole:
To calculate strokes gained total use the formula below:
Strokes gained off-the-tee + Strokes gained approach-the-green + strokes gained around-the-green + strokes gained putting= strokes gained total
0.275+.215+0+.61=1.1 Total Strokes Gained on that hole
This makes sense because the PGA Tour average for the hole was 4.1 and you made a 3.
Definitions of Strokes Gained Statistics
- Strokes gained: off-the-tee: Measures player performance off the tee on all par 4s and par 5s. This statistic looks at how much better or worse a player’s drive is then the average PGA Tour player.
- Strokes gained: approach-the-green: Measures player performance on approach shots and other shots that are NOT included in strokes gained: around-the-green and strokes gained: putting. It does include tee shots on par 3s.
- Strokes gained: around-the-green: Measures player performance on any shot within 30 yards of the edge of the green without measuring putting.
- Strokes gained: putting: Measures how many strokes a player gains (or loses) on the greens compared to PGA Tour average.
- Strokes gained: tee-to-green: Strokes gained: off-the-tee + strokes gained: approach-the-green + strokes gained: around-the-green
- Strokes gained: total: Strokes gained: off-the-tee + strokes gained: approach-the-green + strokes gained: around-the-green + strokes gained: putting
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.
Pingback: Improve During The Off Season The Best Winter Training For Golf
Pingback: Memorial Tournament Odds: DeChambeau, Rahm Headline Loaded Field - countryask
Dtrain
Sep 4, 2018 at 12:55 pm
All approach shots 10 feet from the hole aren’t created equal.
Justin Dohnson
Sep 4, 2018 at 12:53 pm
The comment section, a quick reminder of people’s inability to comprehend what they read.
Tom
Sep 3, 2018 at 8:21 pm
All you need to understand is the lowest score in golf wins….the rest of stats is unnecessary.
Ron
Sep 4, 2018 at 12:14 pm
If you understand the concept of Strokes Gained (which based on all the prior comments it seems most do not) it can be very valuable teaching you which areas are costing you strokes in relation to your peers.
Greg B.
Sep 3, 2018 at 9:33 am
I have read similar explanations before this one and none of them register with me. It seems to me that it still all comes down to putting. The driver example given is meaningless if you cannot capitalize on it. Same with approach/around the green. I think Broadie should have stopped with the putting stat and left it at that.
Kevin
Sep 3, 2018 at 11:38 am
Read Mark book, “Every Shot Counts”. It shows that putting isn’t as important for the good players as you think. Wants really more important is being able to drive it far and straighish and being to hit iron shots close to the hole. Look at player like Dustin Johnson who in the past his putting stroke has held him back (this year he is putting really good for him), yet he still won 4 times on tour last year. Why, well he is one the longest on tour and he hit his irons and wedge really tight, his birdie putts are going to be alot easier to make than say a Kevin Kisner. Kisner is one of the better putters on tour, though he is outside the top 150 in both driving and iron play; perfect examples for why he struggling this year; sure he is making alot putts, though those putts are for par, unlike DJ who putts are for birdie. Look Brandt Snedcker, he too has been struggling with his iron play all year, though still being able to putt. The stat that stood out the most when he cruise to a win 3 weeks ago was his ball striking. Sure you cant Putt awful and still win (Vijay did use to do it and Hideki does it know), but it is becoming very difficult to win on tour when you are not hitting iron shots close to the hole. Look at Jason Day, he had 9 wins between 15-16 despite being one the worst iron players on tour, he though was one the best putters from outside 25 feet. Though eventually you can’t keep making those putts, the pressure is going to weigh you down eventually. That is why he has only won since those two great season.
Greg B.
Sep 4, 2018 at 1:28 pm
Back in the ’80s/early ’90s there was a PGA Tour player named Tim Simpson who was a legendary ball-striker. Comparisons to the all-time greats were happening. But his putting skills were absolutely woeful, to the point where jokes were made about it.
When lowest score wins, it all comes down to putting/short game. The rest is an exercise that may be useful to help PGA Tour players work on their weak spots but that is about all it is good for. Strokes gained is getting undue attention as a useful yardstick.
DMG
Sep 3, 2018 at 9:20 am
Your Scenario #3 Putting equation doesn’t work for me. If I took 3 putts to finish from 10 feet strokes gained would = 2.61. What am I missing?
Bob
Sep 3, 2018 at 9:15 pm
The number should read -.61. With your scenario the number should be +1.39. So you were +1.39 from that distance. You want a negative number.
Steve
Apr 12, 2019 at 2:32 am
No.. this is wrong. It’s strokes GAINED. You don’t want a negative number.
Scenario 3 is incorrect because the author wrote it backwards. It should be 1.61 – 1 for the gain of .61 strokes.
Frankie
Sep 2, 2018 at 11:01 pm
This is such an unrealistic example for the average golfer, they are never going to play a 450 yard par 4 and hit it 335 yards in the fairway and hit it to 10 feet from 115 yards afterwards, get out of here.
PG
Sep 3, 2018 at 7:37 pm
There aren’t stroked gained stats for average golfers; when is the last time you’ve seen shotlink out on the muni?
dj
Sep 2, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Game Golf will calculate this for you.
Andy G
Sep 2, 2018 at 5:28 pm
Trey,
I believe the Strokes Gained Putting stat must help certain ball strikers more than others due to their approach shot skills. As an example, Rose, Day, Stenson will hit the right part of the green with his precise irons and their respective 20 foot putt is in a better (possibly easier) position than another player’s 20 foot putt. I think equating all 20 foot putts is where this stat is somewhat flawed or susceptible to its problems. It should factor in the speed and break to really determine what the average pro putter would do. I look at many of the past top 20 SGP players and see many players that you would not want putting for the win. I know this is subjective, but Rose, Day, and Stenson are great ball strikers that I feel their respective SGP stat being higher has ball striking influences due to them leaving the ball in the right place vs the less precise ball strikers. If you subjectively look at the list each year, you can see some really good examples of this. Please don’t take my comments overboard, I think the SGP stat is good, just not 100 % effective at evaluating putting skill (imo).
Johnny Penso
Sep 2, 2018 at 7:20 pm
I think what you’re missing is that it’s not meant to be an accurate statistic from shot to shot but in the aggregate. On a particular hole or putt, yes there will be all kinds of differences in lies, stances, ball position, green undulations etc. but over time, with enough data points, that will all even out as the variation is generally random in nature.
PG
Sep 2, 2018 at 12:35 pm
Is there a place to find average strokes for approach and putt distance for scratch golfers? I loaned my copy of the book out…