Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The Rule of 24: How to shoot low scores like a tour pro without changing anything in your game

Published

on

I play a lot of golf, mostly at municipal courses, generally with average golfers who suffer from the current epidemic of LOFT (Lack of F***ng Talent). A couple of months ago, watching a pair older guys ride the struggle bus, I thought “someone’s gotta make this better.” When one of my regular playing partners called to tell me had quit, that he was done with the game, that he had other ways to torture himself, I set out to find a solution for him and everyone else who ain’t never gonna play on tour.

Unlocking a solution wasn’t easy. I thought about the question for months and months getting nowhere. And then one day I asked myself a simple question: How far does the average PGA Tour pro hit the ball? The number 300 immediately popped into my head. Next, I asked myself, how long is the average PGA tour course? 7,200 yards popped into my head. Then, I started doing some simple math in my head and stumbled on a simple key: 7,200 divides by 300 into a nice, neat number: 24. The average PGA Tour course is roughly 24 times as long as the average tour player drives the ball.

Could 24 times your driving distance be a basic anchor for how long of a course people should play? Could 24 be some sort of a key to unlocking the game?

Walking on the golf course the other day, I wondered what the rule of 24 would mean for my playing companions. First, there was Steve. He is a mid-40s investment banker who says he hits the ball 210 off the tee but really hits it about 180. He plays a course that is 6,200 yards short. His ratio? 34.4. Yikes. Then there is Patricia, his wife. She hit it about 130 and plays from 5,600—a ratio of 43! Okay folks, Dustin Johnson’s ratio is below 24, Steve’s is 34 and Patricia’s is 43. Who do you think is having more fun playing golf? No wonder the average golfer struggles, I thought, they are playing courses almost 2x the proportional length of a PGA Tour player’s course with 50 percent less power and accuracy. That ain’t nothing but crazy.

Based on that small piece of research, I decided to take the question a step further by asking a couple of more questions: How many greens in regulation does the average PGA Tour player hit vs the average 20 handicap male? The answer is approximately 12 for the PGA Tour player and one for the 20 handicaps. But why? My instincts suggested distance. I called a couple of stats people and asked a question: At what distance does the average 20 handicap man and 20 handicap women hit the green approximately 50% of the time? No one knew. So, I decided to do some really basic data collection to see what I would find. A week later and several 1,000 balls hit on the range by anyone and everyone I could round up later and measured on my launch monitor, the data suggested the distance of the 20 handicap men is approximately 110 yards and for the women, it’s 60 yards.

So how many times would a guy who hits it 180 have 110 yards on an average 6,200 golf course? Basically never. Pretty much same with the ladies hitting it from 5,600. No wonder the average 20 handicapper hits one green per round (if they are lucky)!

Armed with the data, I decided to test it with my favorite golfer—my mom. On a normal drive, my mom hits it about 135 yards. She plays to a 38 handicap. Based on my math, she should be playing a course that is about 2,430 yards. From that distance, she should hit 14 drives approximately 1,890 yards, leaving approximately 30 yards to each green on an 18 hole course.

With this math in mind, I created a 9-hole course and took her to play. The result? She hit 7 greens in regulation, had 2 birdies and 2 bogeys and shot even par. Did she have fun? Did she feel good. How did you feel the last time you shot even par? Exactly…

Since that day with my mom, I have been testing my method with others. Yesterday, I got paired with a lovely older gentleman named Michael. Michael is in his late 60s, is a lifetime golfer with a lovely swing and keenness for the game that was evident from the moment I met him.

Unfortunately, through the first 6 holes, from the senior tees, Michael failed to make anything better than double bogey and was very frustrated; his two longest shots were nowhere close to the green. On 7, I told him about the rule of 24 and asked if he would like to try it out? He agreed. I did the math. I walked him to 203 yards from the green. He hit an average driver and had about 85 yards. He pulled his 7 iron and hit a nice shot that hopped twice and ended about 18 feet from the pin. I gave him a high five and said “good par!”

“Par?” Michael asked, “Really, Brendan, I’m knocking that putt in!” Which he did. His first birdie in two years. Pretty cool.

Okay, folks, you all like to hit the big club far, but I gotta tell you something, I have yet to find someone who doesn’t prefer shooting par.

At this point, some of my math-inclined readers might be upset because they have figured out that based on my math, someone who flies it 240 would play 5,760. Immediately this might raise some eyebrows; that’s why there is another step: adding additional yardage to account that some of the holes will be par 5’s. To account for this, based on conditions, here are the additions of yardage

  • Players who drive it up to 100 yards; add up to 250 yards
  • Players who drive it between 101-225; add up to 750 yards
  • Players who drive it more than 225; add up to 1,000 yards

So do your own math or email me, and I will figure out your real average driving distance by 24 for you and tell you how long your average course should be to have the same chance at par (and fun) tour players do.

B.M. Ryan, an entrepreneur and scientist, is a passionate golfer who loves his local muni. Armed with a keen interest in the game, a large network of friends in the industry, Brendan works to find and produce unique content for GolfWRX.

15 Comments

15 Comments

  1. Barry

    Oct 28, 2019 at 10:24 pm

    Loved it, great article. We just need course designers to incorporate additional tees to accommodate the appropriate length of course.

  2. Ian

    Oct 26, 2019 at 7:21 am

    in Germany where I live most courses are longer than 6000m (over 6500 yards) from the mens tees. So nice theorie but no chance ????

  3. Pete

    Oct 24, 2019 at 5:41 pm

    Holy cow, please re-write that first paragraph … I think you showed a LOFT and were riding the struggle bus as an author when tryIng to draw in your audience with that start. Otherwise, very interesting article.

  4. Brandon

    Oct 24, 2019 at 3:07 pm

    I like to cheat at things I’m bad at, too.

    • larrybud

      Oct 24, 2019 at 3:51 pm

      Who is to say the ratio should be linear or that the ratio should use a driver for the baseline?

      According to trackman, the average pga tour player carries a 6 iron 183 yards. If i use a 6 iron ratio, I would be playing a course 700 yards longer than if I use the “rule of 24”. Why is your method any better than mine?

      This simple example proves the ratio should not be linear.

      You can also prove this to yourself by calculating the ratio between driver and, say, 9 iron, for a pro vs your own distances.

      The pro carries his 9 iron 54% of his carry distance on driver. The slower your swing speed, the larger ratio a 9 iron is to your driver.

      BTW, the average carry distance on tour is 275.

      • larrybud

        Oct 24, 2019 at 3:52 pm

        sorry, didn’t mean to reply to you, but to the article.

  5. MarkBlack

    Oct 24, 2019 at 1:13 pm

    Great article. Gets me thinking. The problem is determining a driver length average. I know, seems doable enough but I vary between 220 and 310 on the same hole and with the same wind. YES – no bueno. Am a 5 handicap.

    5 iron much more predictable.

    I feel bad for short hitters, such as many ladies. They rarely get the opportunity to have GIR, even with pretty swings. 90% of courses do not have tees for someone who drives it 150.
    For me, distance of the course has less to do with my score than focus and staying on my game plan.

    Thank you for a thought provoking article.

  6. Brad M

    Oct 24, 2019 at 12:38 pm

    I’m always curious about the “average drive” as a basis for this type of advice. Is it avg. drive in the fairway? Avg. drive that’s playable (not needing a punch-out from trees, for example)?

    I typically play 6400-6800 yards. I’m 55 years old and an 10.6 hcap, maybe I’m your target for this article, maybe I’m not. If I’m not, then you might not need to read the rest.

    Here’s my barometer for fun, enjoyable golf. If I hit a decently struck drive in the fairway (for me 260), there are few 4’s and 5’s I can’t reach in regulation (or better) with my next shots. The challenge is that sometimes that’s a 4 iron, sometimes that’s a wedge. And if I miss the fairway, I want par to less likely and to use all my skill/creativity to eke one out. I like to play all my clubs, so this challenge is one of my favorite parts of the game. Will I hit a high percentage? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But to have it be all driver/wedge would remove a significant part of the fun.

    I play one very easy course, par 71, 6570yds and wide open, very little trouble. My 78’s and 79’s there are not nearly as satisfying as my 83’s and 84’s at more challenging courses, and even some of my 89’s elsewhere are more fun than driver/wedge all day.

    Many of us play for the challenge, and going lower by shortening the course isn’t that fun. When I start holding up golfers behind me because I’m taking too long, I promise I’ll shorten things up. But playing shorter just to shoot more 70’s than 80’s isn’t my idea of having more fun with golf. I do completely agree that many should move up. But there are reasons why some of us don’t.

  7. S

    Oct 24, 2019 at 9:42 am

    This is great stuff. Good research.

  8. B-Dubbs

    Oct 24, 2019 at 6:55 am

    I like it. I’ve heard a similar thing that I like better. Take your 5 iron carry distance and multiply by 36. Carry it 150? Should play from 5400. 195? 7000 is your distance.

    • Brad M

      Oct 24, 2019 at 12:43 pm

      I think this is a better barometer, the distance variability is reduced with 5iron so you’ll have a more accurate number. This actually shows I should be playing longer than my usual 6600-6800, and I can survive at 7000, but at the moment, that’s usually too much of a grind.

  9. paul rooney

    Oct 24, 2019 at 6:09 am

    Its a great insight into driving distance and length of course, it would be interesting to have a formula for SSS or slope! or a personal slope(ability) for example:

    driving distance /2 – handicap = personal slope – slope = score

    just a thought

  10. freowho

    Oct 24, 2019 at 4:16 am

    Longleaf tee system has already done all the work. You might get sued for plagiarism!

  11. Drew

    Oct 24, 2019 at 12:11 am

    I like the rule of 24. But shouldn’t we also account for handicap. My 20+ buddie can crush a drive 300 yards no problem (1 out of 5 tries). But no way should he be playing from the tips.

  12. Bob Jones

    Oct 23, 2019 at 7:24 pm

    I agree wholeheartedly with the rule of 24. My research several years ago produced a number of 25, but that’s close enough.

    What I do now is take the distance of my average (not best) drive, and add on the distance I carry a 7-iron. I play from the tees that give me half the par fours at that combined distance or less.

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