Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Checking the numbers: Going For It On Par 5’s

Published

on

Every golfer is faced with the dilemma of whether to go for a par 5 on the second shot. I always questioned the validity of being aggressive on the par-5’s versus laying up. As my game improved as a junior golfer and collegiate golfer, I started to notice more golfers laying up on par-5’s in order to have a certain distance into the green where they felt comfortable taking a full swing into the flag.

In my statistical research, one of the glaring observations was that longer players on the PGA Tour have a strong correlation to par-5 scoring average. As I investigated this further, it became very simple to understand. Longer players on Tour typically had a higher percentage of  “go for it” on par 5’s. Thus, in my mind they were playing the par-5s more like a long par 4’s.

I also started to notice that some of the average and even shorter hitters on Tour could play the par 5’s quite well each year such as Bill Haas, Kevin Na, Webb Simpson and Steve Stricker. When I looked at these players who are not incredibly long off tee, but played well on the par 5’s, I noticed that they were going for par 5’s in two shots at a higher rate than golfers of similar driving distances and club head speeds.

This led to me trying to understand how “going for it” was defined by the Tour’s ShotLink data:

“A player is assumed to be going for the green if the second shot lands on or around the green or in the water. Note: ‘Around the green’ indicates the ball is within 30 yards of the edge of the green.”

The last note is very important to understand. If the ball on the second shot ends within 30 yards of the edge of the green, the ShotLink considers that a “go for it.” Thus, if a golfer has a 300-yard shot to the hole and he hits his 3-wood 250 yards, that could be considered a “go for it” as long as the ball is within 30 yards of the edge of the green.

I would imagine that a Tour player who knows he hits his 3-wood off the ground 250 yards onto a 300-yard shot would not consider himself to be “going for it.” However, since it would technically count as a “go for it,” that could infer that Tour players (and golfers in general) are better off advancing the ball closer to the hole rather than laying up to a certain yardage in order to get a full swing on the third shot.

I also wanted to look up the Tour averages of proximity to the cup on shots from various wedge distances.

Wedge shot distances to hole

As I wrote in my 2012 Pro Golf Synopsis, there are “many long held axioms in the game have some validity.” If we look at the average proximity to the cup on shots from 50 to 75 yards versus shots from 75 to 100 yards, they are virtually the same. Thus, the fear of not having a full-wedge swing into the approach shot is reasonable. But once the golfer can get inside 50 yards, the average proximity to the cup is dramatically closer.

The expected putts data comes from the Tour. Hypothetically, we could state that the golfer who is laying up will end up somewhere between 50 to 125 yards in order to get that full-wedge swing into the hole and the going-for-it golfer will end up somewhere between 1 to 40 yards from the hole. If we average the expected putts, we come up with the going-for-it golfer expected to have 0.42 fewer strokes. That may not sound like much, but the difference on Tour is worth roughly 30 to 50 spots on the scoring average rankings.

Of course, it is not quite that simple. There is more math that needs to be done with regards historical data with regards to how players played that particular hole and their scores and other mitigating factors like the golfer’s skill sets, potential hazards, etc. It does give a good indication of where the concept of laying up to get a full wedge swing stems from; the inability to hit it closer from that mid-range of 50 to 75 yards. However, if the golfer can get the second shot within 50 yards, he is most likely much better off at going for greens in two shots.

Click here for more discussion in the “Tour Talk” forum.

 

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at ProGolfSynopsis@yahoo.com or on Twitter @Richie3Jack. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014 Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10

7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. ABgolfer2

    Feb 8, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    “Every golfer is faced with the dilemma of whether to go for a par 5 on the second shot.”

    Isn’t the average male driving it about 220 yards? When would they ever be faced with this dilema on a full length course? Some of the guys I play with are faced with the decision to go for most par 4s in two.

    • Flip4000

      Feb 12, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Well ABgolfer2 , if he is playing from the correct tees for his ability and not the tees for his ego, there is still probably a good chance he may face that dilemma at least once a round

      • ABgolfer2

        Feb 12, 2013 at 1:50 pm

        Yeah, I know golf is trying to be inclusive and all, but a 380 yard hole is not really a par 5 now is it?!?. 400 yards, let alone 500, is out of reach for most golfers. That’s what I was saying.

  2. Troy Vayanos

    Feb 8, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    It’s interesting statistics on par fives Rich.

    I think for the professionals a lot depends on what is around the green in their decision to go for it or not. For me personally i’m always looking at either hitting it on or giving myself a 100 yard or in distance for my third.

  3. Philip

    Feb 8, 2013 at 11:06 am

    I find this interesting because we do often hear, “… laying up to a comfortable distance.” A bad shot from 100 yards to most pros is 20 feet yet, that is the average from that distance. Instead of pulling a 7 iron to lay it up, perhaps we should be pulling a 5 iron…

  4. Mateo

    Feb 8, 2013 at 1:49 am

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
    I really wish someone who could break 80 wrote this.

    • Martin Chuck

      Feb 16, 2013 at 12:03 am

      Mateo, I’d bet my house Rich would thump you 5 and 4 and that is if you are a good player. Rich Hunt is a fine striker and very good player.

Leave a 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