Opinion & Analysis
Understanding distance variance

Sometimes it can be a blow to the ego to go to a new course where the ball seems to go nowhere and you just can’t bring yourself to hit 5-iron, for example, when you could normally hit 7-iron.
But if you want to score well, it’s something that can be important to understand and accept…that is, that distances can vary quite dramatically from course to course.
To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the average driving distances for the field in the following PGA Tour and European Tour events from 2012.
2013 Average PGA & European PGA Tour Driving Distances by Event
Event | Distance |
DP World Tour Championship | 248.5 |
Volvo Golf Championships | 252.1 |
Hyundai Tournament of Champions | 270.4 |
Reale Seguros Open de Espana | 270.4 |
RBC Heritage | 277.8 |
The Irish Open | 277.8 |
Omega Dubai Desert Classic | 280.3 |
Ballantine’s Championship | 281.3 |
Transitions Championship | 281.5 |
Maybank Malaysian Open | 281.6 |
Frys.com Open | 281.8 |
UBS Hong Kong Open | 282.3 |
Aberdeen Asset Management Open | 282.9 |
Nordea Masters | 283.2 |
Africa Open | 283.4 |
BMW International Open | 283.9 |
Omega European Masters | 284.0 |
Barclays Singapore Open | 284.5 |
Johnnie Walker Championship | 284.9 |
Lyoness Open | 285.0 |
Alstom Open de France | 285.4 |
Valero Texas Open | 285.9 |
KLM Open | 286.1 |
Abu Dhabi HSBC Championship | 286.8 |
ISPS Honda Wales Open | 287.3 |
BMW Masters | 287.9 |
BMW Championship | 288.5 |
Commercialbank Qatar Masters | 288.5 |
Volvo China Open | 288.6 |
Zurich Classic of New Orleans | 289.9 |
BMW Italian Open | 290.3 |
Joburg Open | 291.3 |
Open de Andalucia | 291.4 |
Deutsche Bank Championship | 292.6 |
Portugal Masters | 293.3 |
Crown Plaza Invitational at Colonial | 294.2 |
Avantha Masters | 295.5 |
John Deere Classic | 295.7 |
Saint-Omer Open | 295.9 |
Tour Championship | 297.4 |
Sony Open in Hawaii | 297.5 |
AT&T National | 297.9 |
Sicilian Open | 298.3 |
Wyndham Championship | 299.1 |
HP Byron Nelson Championship | 300.4 |
Justin Timberlak Shriners Hospital for Children Open | 305.7 |
Reno-Tahoe Open | 311.6 |
SA Open Championship | 313.6 |
Madeira Islands Open | 322.6 |
Average: 288.5 yards/drive
Click here for more discussion in the “Instruction & Academy” forum.
As you can see, despite more or less the same players playing each week, there’s a 74.1-yard variance between the tournaments with the shortest and longest average driving distance for the field. That’s a huge difference!
It’s feasible that there were extenuating circumstances taking place during the events on the extreme ends causing such a broad gap. There may have been severe weather, for example, or perhaps a certain course required the use of more woods, hybrids, or irons off the tee. But in general, to account for things like this, the driving distance averages for Tour events are generally taken on two holes where the wind blows in opposite directions and also where the players are likely to use driver.
Even still, let’s take out a few of the extremes on the short and long ends. When we do this, note that the bulk of the average driving distances range between 280 and 300 yards. That’s still a 20-yard difference from event to event and course to course. It’s not as much as 74.1-yards but it’s still worth noting.
I remember this was also the case when I used to compete in long drive. My longest drive in competition was a 421-yard drive in Warner Springs, Calif., to win a qualifier for the RE/MAX World Long Drive Championships. Granted, it set the grid record but it was still on firm ground at an elevation of about 3,130 feet. Conversely, the 381-yard ball I hit to win the Pinnacle Distance Challenge was actually a much better drive, despite being 40 yards shorter. However, the ground was a little softer and the elevation was much less — around 466 feet.
In general, Tour players and their caddies understand and are good at accepting that distances change based on conditions. In fact, determining these distance variances are actually one thing that many of them are doing during practice rounds…and it’s also partially why they can subsequently go tear up the course in the tournament with a few as one practice round under their belts.
Different guys do it differently, but in the 30-or-so week-long professional tournaments I’ve played, one of the things I’ll do during my practice round is jot down in my course guide or on a scorecard how far my clubs are going on full swings. By the end of the round, I’ll approximate the percent difference from my normal distances and then make a new distance card that I keep with me for reference during the tournament.
For example, let’s say these are my average carry distances (pros are more concerned with carry than total distance) for my clubs on flat ground under normal conditions:
Club | Carry |
Driver | 270 |
3-Wood | 243 |
16* Hybrid | 225 |
20* Hybrid | 212 |
4-Iron | 203 |
5-Iron | 194 |
6-Iron | 183 |
7-Iron | 172 |
8-Iron | 160 |
9-Iron | 148 |
PW | 136 |
Then, over the course of my practice round, I find out that on average I’m about 3 percent longer with each club at this new course I’m playing. So I get out my calculator, add 3 percent, and then make a small card like this to carry with me for reference during the rest of the tournament: Personally, I like having a little card like this because it saves me both time in determining what shot I want to hit and also mental energy during the tournament rounds.
Club | Carry |
Driver | 278 |
3-Wood | 250 |
16* Hybrid | 232 |
20* Hybrid | 218 |
4-Iron | 209 |
5-Iron | 200 |
6-Iron | 188 |
7-Iron | 177 |
8-Iron | 165 |
9-Iron | 152 |
PW | 140 |
Note that on the updated card it’s only about a 4-yard variation for the PW, but that could mean the difference between having a 3-footer for birdie or a 15-footer. With the driver, the 8-yards of extra carry might give me the confidence to fly over a fairway bunker I normally wouldn’t otherwise try to carry.
You may not want to get in to this level of detail with your own game (or have the ball-striking skill to worry about it – hehe), but I guess the point I’m getting at is to keep in mind that depending on the course you play and the conditions involved, distances can and will vary.
Understanding and accepting this can help you make better club selections in general, which of course can also lead to lower scores.
Click here for more discussion in the “Instruction & Academy” forum.
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.
-
19th Hole3 weeks ago
How a late golf ball change helped Cameron Young win for first time on PGA Tour
-
19th Hole3 weeks ago
‘Don’t think I’ll sleep well tonight’ – LPGA pro offers candid take following rough AIG Women’s Open finish
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
I’m a 31 year-old male and I turned my apartment living room into a driving range stall – GolfWRXers react
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
Callaway launches all-new Opus SP wedges
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
GolfWRX Members Choice presented by 2nd Swing: Best driver of 2025
-
Whats in the Bag3 weeks ago
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
BK’s Breakdowns: Cameron Young’s winning WITB, 2025 Wyndham Championship
-
Equipment3 weeks ago
Coolest thing for sale in the GolfWRX Classifieds Today: 2023 Bettinardi Queen B #6
Jaacob Bowden
Jan 7, 2013 at 10:34 am
Ruddy – Haha, yeah, especially on new courses it helps to pay attention right away. :-p
Hmmm, if I remember correctly, Advanced Golf Solutions also tested the balls by accuracy. So you could pick something out based on any number of variables…distance, accuracy, price, etc.
I think the ProV1x was the most accurate…or at least in the top 3. But that was a few years ago. Ball models change as time passes.
They must’ve gone out of business because I’m not finding their website…which is too bad because it was really cool software. They tested the top 50 or so new balls on the market each year for several years.
Ruddy
Jan 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm
Jacob, thanks for answering. I too noticed a big difference in distance between balls. 10 yards less with Titleist Velocity vs. ProV1x. Better scores with the expensive ball, also. I never seem to recognize the distance variation each round until around Hole#18!
Jaacob Bowden
Jan 4, 2013 at 10:38 pm
Ruddy – Yeah, using the same model ball can definitely help consistency. I remember one time I did some new ball testing using some independent testing software (I believe made by Advanced Golf Solutions) and there was literally a 50 yard difference between the longest ball and shortest ball for me (that variance will be more or less depending on swing speed and other factors).
I just do it as a rough percentage because during a single practice round I may not get enough flat shots (no elevation changes) without wind to get an average for each club.
In situations where I don’t get in a practice round, I just try to pay really close attention on the first few holes and adjust up or down accordingly as quickly as I can.
Ruddy
Jan 3, 2013 at 8:08 pm
Interesting article. Averages are greatly affected by extremes, so good move to eliminate extremely long and short distances. The mode is the distance most often achieved. The median is the distance exactly in the middle. Rather than a percentage change, why not just use actual distance achieved for each club in the practice round? If I can’t play a practice round, how can I make a distance adjustment using some other method? I suppose using the same ball brand helps consistency. Thanks.
Jaacob Bowden
Dec 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Al, Mark, Steve…thanks!
Good suggestion, Steve. Those things definitely do have an effect on distance. I know I’ve seen studies that have covered this but I don’t recall specifics or where I saw them off the top of my head. I’ll put it on my list of article ideas for the future!
Happy New Year!
Steve
Dec 29, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Jaacob, nice article. I wish you would have spent some time discussing temperature and it’s effect on distance. Don’t golf balls fly further in the heat vs. cold air? What about in high humidity/fog, vs. dry air? Thanks!
Mark Bishop
Dec 21, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Very interesting Jaacob and well put together. All the very best for the Hols mate. Mark in Oz!
Al Dilz
Dec 21, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Very informative, Jaacob. I have never seen distance variables covered with such precision and detail. Thank you!
Jaacob Bowden
Dec 21, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Thanks gents!
DJ Watts
Dec 21, 2012 at 12:53 pm
Jaacob, I love your attention to numbers and stats, it’s right up my alley!
Congrats on a solid first piece, and I’m looking forward to applying the playing and strategy knowledge that you relay.
Brian Cass
Dec 20, 2012 at 8:55 pm
Great article, a subject that is hardly covered