Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Which major crowns golf’s greatest champions?

Published

on

This month marks the 40th anniversary of the “Massacre at Winged Foot,” the 1974 U.S. Open won by Hale Irwin at 7-over par. When senior USGA official Sandy Tatum was asked about the difficulty of the course setup, a setup at which not a single player broke par in the first round, he famously responded:

“We’re not trying to embarrass the best players in the world, we’re trying to identify them.”

With the U.S. Open at Pinehurst days away and golf’s two final majors of the year following in July and August, it’s good to recall Tatum’s memorable line and ask:

  • How well does the U.S. Open or any major do at identifying golf’s greatest champions?
  • Is there one that crowns the best golfers on a more consistent basis than the others?
  • How would you go about proving that, or provide compelling evidence to support it, if that were the case?

To many readers, it might seem The Masters is an obvious choice for the best major at identifying golf’s greatest champions with six victories by Jack Nicklaus, four by Tiger Woods and Arnold Palmer and three each by Phil Mickelson, Gary Player and Nick Faldo. But green jackets have also been won by Gay Brewer, Charles Coody and other players whose careers do not rank with the all-time greats. What about the U.S. Open, with four victories by Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Nicklaus, three by Tiger and Irwin and two by Lee Trevino, Billy Casper and Ernie Els? This article outlines an approach for determining what majors have done the best at identifying golf’s greatest champions an approach that consists of a few main steps:

  1. Identify all major championship winners in a given period. Starting with 1960, there have been 110 individual winners of golf’s majors in 216 tournaments (54 years, four majors per year). The year 1960 is a good starting point for two reasons: first, the U.S. Open won that year by Arnold Palmer at Cherry Hills outside Denver is widely viewed as a crossroads between the modern game of Palmer and Nicklaus and the post-WWII era of Hogan and Snead. Second, in 1958, the PGA Championship shifted from match play to stroke play, so starting earlier than 1960 and still including the PGA Championship would pose an apples-to-oranges problem in comparing all four majors because we would not have comparable data for a full decade pre-1960 as we do for the 1960s, ’70s, etc.
  2. Rank 110 major champions since 1960 based on a quantitative method that gives “champion points” for victories in the majors and for other tour wins across their career (e.g., PGA Tour, European Tour, etc). Note: If a major champion’s career accomplishments preceded 1960 — such as major victories by Arnold Palmer (1958 Masters), Gary Player (1959 Open Championship), Julius Boros (1952 U.S. Open) and a few others — these accomplishments are still counted in their “champion point” totals.
  3. Based on the rankings in No. 2, group all 110 major winners into smaller and more manageable “champion tiers” and then apply these tiers to each of the four majors from 1960-to-2013 based on the champion who won the major that year. By adding the “champion tier” points (1-to-15 with 15 being the highest) during a given time period for all four majors — e.g. since 1960, a decade like the 1970s, etc. — the major with the highest number of champion points can readily be identified and compared to the others.

While this approach is straightforward in concept, subjective judgments still have to be made. For example, all non-major wins on the PGA Tour are treated the same, such as Davis Love III’s two stirring victories in the Players Championship (1992 and 2003) and his one-stroke win against Tommy Gainey in the Children’s Miracle Network Classic (2008). All three are each given the same number of “champion points” in step No. 2 above, as is every win on the European Tour. What about a player’s victories on senior tours, Asian and other pro tours, his amateur record, or performance in the Ryder Cup or President’s Cup? Answers to these and other questions are found in the accompanying box on methodology and assumptions. Obviously readers will have differing views on the approach used. There clearly are many ways to quantify a major champion’s accomplishments and slight changes in methodology can lead to significantly different results. The approach proposed here is by no means definitive, but hopefully provides a reasonable starting point that can be refined and improved in time with your input.

Methodology/Assumptions

  1. What is counted and not counted in establishing a major champion’s record?
  2. How are champion points accumulated?

Table-01

Major Championship Wins

  • 10 champion points for each major victory.
  • +5 points for winning two legs of the Grand Slam.
  • +5 more points for winning three legs of the Grand Slam.
  • +10 more points for winning all four majors — the Grand Slam.

So if a golfer were to win all four majors, he would be credited with 60 total champion points consisting of: 10 for each major (40), plus 20 more for winning the Grand Slam (5+5+10). If a golfer were to win only the Masters or only the U.S. Open twice, they would be credited with 20 champion points — 10 for each major, whereas a golfer winning two different legs of the Grand Slam, say the U.S. Open and PGA Championship like Rory McIlroy has done, he would be credited with 25 champion points, +5 points for winning two legs of the Grand Slam.

  • PGA and European tour wins: One point awarded for each win on the PGA or European tours, regardless of the prestige of the event, quality of field, etc.
  • Other professional wins: For tours in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Web.com and other professional wins, the following scale has been developed.

Table 02

  • A snapshot in time, year-end 2013: No attempt is made to project a current player’s career beyond his accomplishments at the end of 2013. As a player’s record grows, results can readily be updated.

Key Findings

The resulting data is a veritable gold mine of information that can yield many interesting findings about golf’s four majors and the 110 players who have won them from 1960 to 2013. Here are a few highlights: Since 1960, the past 54 years:

  • The Masters is the major with the highest number of champion points. The resulting data has the Masters with 516 champion points, an average of 9.6 points per year. This is equivalent to the winner of the Masters since 1960 being a champion ranked between Nos. 12 and 15 on average in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major champion winners. This is truly elite status (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
  • The Open Championship (British Open) is a close No. 2 to the Masters. The Open Championship is credited with 492 champion points, just 24 points below the Masters during the 54 years. This works out to an average of 9.1 champion points per year, equivalent to the average winner of the British Open being a champion ranked No. 15 in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major winners since 1960 (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
  • The U.S. Open and PGA Championship are nearly tied with the fewest champion points. The U.S. Open and the PGA Championship have very similar results with 407 and 400 champion points respectively. Both are more than 100 points below the Masters. This works out to 7.5 champion points per year, which is equivalent to the average winner of these two majors being a champion ranked between Nos. 16 and 29 in terms of career accomplishments out of all 120 major champion winners since 1960 (again, see Top 40+ Golfers chart).

Winning Major by Decade, 1960s to 2000s

  • The Masters recorded the highest number of champion points in three of the five decades evaluated, the 1960s, ’90s and 2000s. The British Open won the 1970s and ’80s. The Masters never finished below second in champion points in any of the five decades evaluated.
  • The U.S. Open finished as high as second in just two decades, the 1960s and ’90s, and finished last in champion points in the 1970s and 2000s.

Best Decade for Major Winners, the 1970s

  • Both the British Open and PGA Championship had their highest number of champion points in the 1970s, more than any of the five decades evaluated.
  • This contributed to the 1970s being a golden era for major winners. With 392 points spread among 40 majors, the average major champion ranked in the No. 12 to 15 range out of all 120 major champions since 1960 (see Top 40 +Golfers chart). The next best decade was the 1960s with 367 champion points.

1990s Recorded Fewest Champion Points of Any Decade

  • The average number of champion points recorded in each decade, other than the 1990s, was about 360 points (362.5). This average is 77 points higher than the total number of champion points recorded in the 1990s — just 285.
  • The average winner of a major in the 1990s was a champion ranked in the No. 21 to 30 range of all 120 major winners since 1960 (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).

Can a Non-Major Winner Still be Ranked Among the Greats?

  • This is a controversial topic, but some insight can be offered through the method proposed here. For example, if we were to look at the record of Colin Montgomerie, he would have 32 champion points based on 31 Euro Tour wins and nine “other wins” worth one point.
  • This would place him solidly in champion tier No. 6 alongside such players as multiple major winners Fuzzy Zoeller, John Daly and Rory McIloroy (each with two majors) and other players such as Tom Kite and Davis Love (see Top 40+ Golfers chart).
  • Since Monty did not win a major, however, he is not included in this evaluation.

So given the USGA’s/Sandy Tatum’s stated goal of “identifying the best golfers in the world,” how well has the U.S. Open done?

The U.S. Open has had its share of highly accomplished champions since 1960 with multiple winners that include Jack, Tiger, Irwin, Casper, Trevino and others. But by most reasonable measures, and the methodology presented here, it is clear our national open often crowns champions whose career records are well below the all-time greats. Here are the U.S. Open victors since 1960 who amassed the fewest champion points in this evaluation, starting with the most recent:

Table 03

Of course, we can expect some of the active players listed will add to their career accomplishments, taking them to a higher champion tier, but at a minimum the data shows that the U.S. Open crowns a “surprise champion” at least once a decade, or 1 in 9 on average (six in the past 54 years). This could go to 15 percent, nearly 1 in 6, if two of the five active players below age 40 don’t move up significantly in time and another surprise champion is crowned the next few years.

This is actually a more favorable percentage for the U.S. Open than it had in the 1950s, which saw three surprise champions: Ed Furgol, 1954 (five other PGA Tour wins), Jack Fleck, 1955 (two other PGA Tour wins) and Dick Mayer, 1957 (six other PGA Tour wins). It’s hard to go back further than the 1950s because the national open wasn’t played during World War II (1942-45), and pro golf tours were still in the early stages, so there were far fewer opportunities for a player to build his career accomplishments.

Champions Table

The facts are that the U.S. Open has long produced surprising winners starting with Francis Ouimet’s victory in 1913 that shocked the sporting world. It has also produced disappointments, even heartbreaks, with all-time greats like Sam Snead failing to capture the title and Phil’s six runner-up finishes to date.

This month golf fans are already focusing their attention on Pinehurst and asking if Phil will finally break through, will some other big name add to his career achievements, or will our national open crown another surprise champion? Whatever the outcome, the U.S. Open will again have identified the “best player in the world.” Maybe not the best over a full career, but certainly the best of the week just as it has many times before.

Gerry Nagler lives with his wife, Myra, in West Windsor, New Jersey, near one of the area’s finest public golf facilities, Mercer Oaks. They have two sons, one who just graduated from the University of Michigan and another entering his junior year at Indiana-Bloomington. Gerry’s interest in golf began in White Plains, New York, where he grew up playing at Maple Moor. He graduated White Plains High and later received an MBA from the University of Virginia’s Darden School. Gerry has worked in satellite communications since the 1980s. You can find him on LinkedIn. His golfing accomplishments include beating Tom Kite in a closest to the pin contest (Gerry has the picture to prove it), and he is equally proud to have captained the winning team at this year’s Myrtle Beach golf outing (more info on Facebook).

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Sean

    Jun 14, 2014 at 7:28 am

    I think the Masters is the “easiest” major to win since it has the smallest field, i.e., amateurs, past champions well past their prime, etc. So the odds of winning it increase, as opposed to the other majors. In addition, the course isn’t as difficult as, for example, the US Open. In my opinion the US Open identifies the best player simply because the set-up of the tournament is the most difficult year in and year out. The Open Championship can be, but is weather dependent.

  2. ben

    Jun 10, 2014 at 4:28 am

    I think this is an excellent report. Well researched and with plenty of valid and interesting data. And what I glean from it all is that The Open Championship (British open) is the premier event for identifying the best player. It may be a close second to the Masters but the Masters has pretty much a full field of, well, ‘masters’ hence why it usually produces a ‘master’ as a champion. The fact that The British Open ranks so highy on the list despite being the world’s Open and having a huge portion of it’s field come from qualifiers around the world I think that proves it is the best Championship for producing the best champion. . This then raises another interesting point: are links courses the best courses for finding out the best golfer? I’d suggest they are and they do. .

    • Gerald Nagler

      Jun 11, 2014 at 6:00 pm

      Thanks for everyone’s comments. I think Ben really has this right. After evaluating the last 50+ years of majors, The Masters comes out on top in terms of crowning golf’ greatest champions but only by a slight margin. The British Open is close behind with full fields, changing venues, bad weather, quirky bounces, etc. In fact during the 1970s, the only golfer to win the Open Championship not in the Hall of Fame is Tom Weiskopf, and he’s hardly chopped liver. The Masters, as some point out, benefits from its smaller fields, same course, favorable springtime conditions and the like, but all these taken together only give it a slight edge over the British Open. As for the US Open, I would like to hear why readers think it crowns so many surprise champions. One “what if” scenario worth noting about the US Open – it would have finished even lower in the evaluation IF Hale Irwin in the 1990 US Open at Medinah hadn’t holed a 45 foot birdie putt on the 72nd hole to get into a playoff with Mike Donald that Irwin won the next day on the 19th hole. If Donald had won, and he came mighty close more than once to pulling it off, the US Open would have nearly the same number of champion points as the PGA Championship (assuming Donald, following his US Open victory, didn’t dramatically add to his record of one other PGA Tour win the year before). I expect there many are other “what ifs” we can play with each major but the question stands, why doesn’t the cream rise to the top in the US Open as it does with the British Open?

  3. Steve

    Jun 9, 2014 at 9:59 am

    Dumb. First of all the Masters as an invitational has a clear advantage. It is also on the same course each year so it would appear that the best have a greater chance to figure it out and win. The US Open is just that, an Open championship that creates a higher diversity of player and course opportunity each year. Frankly those who win multiple opens on different courses have my greater respect. Otherwise who cares. They are all tests and fun to watch.

  4. Rich

    Jun 9, 2014 at 2:03 am

    It would appear that the more words you write and the more data you give, increases your chances of being published on Golfwrx, no matter how bad your article is. What a load of rubbish. Let’s just watch the majors and enjoy them. Bring on the US open! Good luck all you qualifiers!

  5. Dan

    Jun 9, 2014 at 12:53 am

    It would be interesting to see how me champions points the players gets. See how it would rank as the 5th major. Would it be in 5th place or higher up?

  6. Jm

    Jun 8, 2014 at 8:43 pm

    I think the more relevant question is which tournament, major or not, does the best job of identifying the best player that week. And even that question is fraught with endless analysis.

  7. cash banister

    Jun 8, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    “Which major crowns golf’s greatest champions?”
    —————————————————
    That is one of the most poorly constructed sentences that I have ever seen. A better question is “WTF ever happened to professionalism in journalism?”

  8. Jim Zimmerman

    Jun 8, 2014 at 7:44 pm

    This methodology is absurd and the Masters entrance criteria is a tautology that gives the event a fake air of identifying the best champions. The Masters field has many past champions and amateurs who pose no threat to the limited field of elites. Even if a past champion has a crazy lucky week as a past champion it just adds to his “luster” as a major champion and doesn’t affect the status other than to actually increase it. On the other hand OPEN events that allow ALL of the players in who could reasonably contend are by far the best way to identify the best players. Look at how two time major champion Daly was seldom able to even compete at Augusta, never mind that it was being played on a long and open course that suited his game to a tee. The Masters by its entrance criteria seeks to guarantee that a long shot can never win since for the most part he won’t even get to tee it up.

    • Jm

      Jun 8, 2014 at 8:37 pm

      Exactly. The masters will never have too many “scrubs” as champions because they simply are not invited to play.

      And that is exactly one of the many reasons i love the Masters.

      The US Open is designed to identify the best player for that particular week which it usually does based on the USGA definition of what a good player plays like.

      This article has a good premise but poor execution and insufficient analysis.

      It is way more complicated to figure out than what is laid out in this article in my opinion

      • Jim Zimmerman

        Jun 9, 2014 at 11:07 am

        @Jm what do you have against good golfers who qualify for open championships but aren’t invited to tournaments like the Masters. To tweak John Daly a little bit yesterday I watched an 11 hole sudden death playoff for the Cleveland Open on the web.com tour where the guy who won it had played 36 holes that week to qualify for next week’s US Open. THAT is the type of player I want to see in the Masters! As someone else mentioned another factor is the Masters LOCAL knowledge affect the course is so different on the green complexes that once again the already qualified STAR has a huge advantage. Look at how Lee Trevino analyzes the game and HATED the Masters, starting out he was BETTER than Ray Floyd but NOT in the Masters, it took a US Open or two for Lee’s game to be ALLOWED to shine, shame on the Masters and its idiotic entrance criteria!

        • Rich

          Jun 9, 2014 at 6:03 pm

          It might be going a bit far to call it idiotic. It’s just different.

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

Brandel Chamblee PGA Championship Q&A: Rose’s huge McLaren risk, distracted LIV pros and why Aronimink suits the bombers

Published

on

PGA Championship week is here, and Brandel Chamblee did not hold back in our latest discussion ahead of the season’s second major.

In our 2026 PGA Championship Q&A, golf’s leading analyst made the case that PIF pulling LIV’s funding has left its players competing in a state of confusion, called Justin Rose’s mid-season equipment switch a huge risk at 45, and explained why Aronimink will be a bombers’ delight this week.

Check out the full Q&A below.

Gianni: With the PIF confirming that they’re pulling funding from LIV at the end of the season, what impact do you expect that to have on the LIV players competing at the PGA Championship?

Brandel: I would imagine that they have all been thrown into a state of confusion, and will be distracted, not knowing where they are going to play next year and not knowing exactly their road back to either the DP World Tour or the PGA Tour. Or in Rahm’s case, being tied to a sinking ship for the next few years, likely playing for pennies on the dollar in events that no one cares about or watches.

I doubt this would put him in the best frame of mind to compete at his highest level. Keeping in mind, however, that majors are the only time that LIV disciples get to play in events that matter, so never disregard the motivation they have to prove to the world they are still relevant.

Gianni: Justin Rose switched to McLaren Golf equipment mid-season while playing some of the best golf of his career. What do you make of the change?

Brandel: I don’t really know what to make of Rose switching equipment. It seems a huge risk on his part, even though it is likely, in my opinion, that the clubs he’s playing are similar, if not the exact grinds, to what he was playing previously, with a McLaren stamp on them.

Having said that, at best, it is a distraction when he seemed to be as dialed in with his game as any 45-year-old could be and trending in the majors to perhaps do something that would definitely put him in the Hall of Fame. At worst, given the possibility that these clubs aren’t just duplicates of his old set stamped with McLaren on them, he’s made an equipment change that would take time, and 45-year-old athletes don’t have the time to do such things.

Gianni: Aronimink has only hosted a handful of professional events since it hosted the 1962 PGA Championship. What kind of test does it present, and does a course with less recent major championship history tend to level the playing field?

Brandel: Even though Aronimink has only hosted a handful of meaningful professional events, it has been fairly discerning in who can win there. When Keegan Bradley won the BMW Championship on the Donald Ross masterpiece in 2018, he was the 2nd best iron player on tour coming into that week. When Nick Watney won the AT&T at Aronimink in 2011, he was 2nd in strokes gained total coming into the week.

In 2020, Aronimink hosted the KPMG Championship, and Sei Young Kim won. On the LPGA that year, she was first in greens in regulation, putts per green in regulation, and scoring average on the way to being the LPGA player of the year. And then there is the 1962 PGA Championship won by Gary Player, who eventually became just one of a few players to win the career grand slam on the way to winning 9 majors. It is a formidable test, and if it’s not softened by rain, it will bring out the best in the upper echelons of the game.

Gianni: Is there a specific hole at Aronimink that you think will do the most to decide the winner?

Brandel: The hardest hole at Aronimink in each of the three tour events that have been played there since 2010 has been the long par-3 8th hole, with the par-4 10th being the second hardest, so most of the carnage will happen around the turn, but with the par-5 16th offering opportunities for bold plays and the tough closing holes at 17 and 18, the finish is likely to be frenetic.

Gianni: The PGA Championship has always sat in the shadow of the other majors. What does the ideal PGA Championship look like in your eyes, and what would it take for it to carve out its own identity?

Brandel: The PGA Championship, to whatever degree it suffers from the comparison to the other three majors, is still counted just as much when adding them up at the end of one’s career. Almost 1/3 of Nicklaus’ major wins were the five PGA Championships he won. Walter Hagen won 11 majors, five of which were PGA Championships.

Tiger Woods twice in his career won back-to-back PGA Championships, and those four majors count just as much as the other 11 he won. The PGA may not have the prestige of the other three, but it carries the same weight. Having said that, I preferred the identity that it had as the last major of the year.

Gianni: You nailed your Masters picks. Rory won, Scottie finished solo second, and Morikawa surged to a tie for seventh. Who are your top 3 picks for the PGA Championship and why?

Brandel: I am not a huge fan of majors played on golf courses that have been shorn of most of the trees, although I understand some of the agronomic reasons for doing so and of course the ease with which it allows members to play after errant drives. However, at the highest level, it all but eliminates any strategy off the tee and turns professional golf into an even bigger slugfest. That means that it will likely be a bomber’s delight this week, but fortunately, Scottie Scheffler is long enough to play that game and straight enough to play it better than anyone else.

The major championships give us very few surprises anymore, going back to the beginning of 2012, so the last 57 majors played, the average world rank of the winners has been better than 15th in the world. So look at the highest ranked and longest drivers who are on form coming into the PGA Championship who also have great short games as the surrounds at Aronimink are very challenging. That’s Scottie Scheffler by a mile and then McIlroy and Cameron Young with a far bigger nod towards DeChambeau than I gave him at the Masters.

Continue Reading

Club Junkie

A putter that I love and hate – Club Junkie Podcast

Published

on

In this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, we dive into one of the most interesting flatstick releases of the year with a full review of the new TaylorMade SYSTM 2 putters. After spending time on the greens, I break down what makes this design stand out, where it performs, and why it has me completely torn between loving it and fighting it. If you are into feel, alignment, and consistency, this is one you will want to hear about.

We also take a look at some of the putters in play on the PGA Tour last week. From familiar favorites to a few surprising setups, there is always something to learn from what the best players in the world are rolling with under pressure.

To wrap things up, I walk through the process of building a set of JP Golf Prime irons paired with Baddazz Gold Series shafts. From component selection to performance goals, this is a deep dive into what goes into creating a unique custom set and why this combo has been so intriguing.

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

From 14 handicap to pro: 4 things I’d tell golfers at 50

Published

on

This year my 50th birthday. Gosh, where has the time gone?

As a teenager in rural Missouri, some of my junior high and high school years felt interminable. Graduation seemed light years away. But the older I get, the faster life seems to fly by.

I’m also increasingly aware of my mortality. My dad died recently. Earlier this year, a friend and fellow PGA of America professional and I were texting about our next catch-up. The next message I received was news of his unexpected passing at 48. Shortly after, a woman I dated in college succumbed to cancer at 51.

Certainly, one can share perspective at any age. Seniors help freshmen, veterans guide rookies. But reaching this milestone feels like as good a time as any to do one of those “what would I tell my younger self?” articles.

I’ve had a uniquely varied career in golf. I started as a 27-year-old, average-length-hitting, 14-handicap computer engineer and somehow managed to turn pro before running out of money, constantly bootstrapping my way forward. I’ve won qualifiers and set venue records in the World Long Drive Championships, finished fifth at the Speedgolf World Championships, coached all skill levels as a PGA of America professional, built industry-leading swing speed training programs for Swing Man Golf, helped advance the single-length iron market with Sterling Irons®, caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR Champions, and played about 300 courses across 32 countries.

It’s been a ride, and I’ve gone both deep and wide.

So while I can consult and advise from a lot of angles, let me keep it to a few things I’d tell the average golfer who wants to improve.

1. Think About What You Want

Everyone has their own reason for picking up a golf club.

Oddly, as a professional athlete, I’m not internally driven by competition. That can be challenging, as the industry currently prioritizes and incentivizes competition over the love of the game.

For me, I love walking and being outdoors. Nature helps balance my energy. I prefer courses that are integrated into the natural beauty of their surroundings. I’m comfortable practicing alone. I’m a deep thinker, and I genuinely enjoy investigating the game, using data and intuition to unearth unique, often innovative insights. I’m fortunate to be strong and athletic, so I appreciate the chance to engage with my abilities. Traveling feels adventurous. I could go on.

You don’t have to overthink it like I do. For you, it might be as simple as hitting balls to escape work, hanging out with friends, and playing loosely with the rules and the score.

The point is to give yourself permission to play for your own reasons, and let that be enough.

But if improvement is your goal, thinking about your destination—and when you want to get there—is important, because it dictates the steps you need to take. When I set out to go from a 14-handicap to the PGA TOUR as quickly as possible, the steps I needed were very different from those of a working golfer trying to break 90 in six months. That’s also different from someone who just wants a few peaceful hours outside each week, away from work or family.

None of these goals are better than the others, but each requires a different plan that you can work backward from.

2. There Are Lots of Things That Can Work

One of the challenges of golf is that, although there are rules for playing, there aren’t clear, industry-wide standards for how to best play the game. There’s a lot of gray area.

You might hear a top coach or trainer insist that a certain move is the best way to swing or train. Then you dig a bit deeper and, much to your confusion and frustration, another respected coach or trainer says something completely different. I don’t think anyone is trying to confuse you—at least I hope not. It’s just where the industry is right now.

You have to be careful with advice from tournament pros, too. They might be great at scoring, but they’re also human and sometimes just as susceptible as amateurs to believing things that don’t really move the needle. Tour players might describe what they feel, but that’s not always what they’re actually doing when assessed with technology.

I recently ran a test on my YouTube channel (which connects to my GolfWRX article “How to use your hands in the golf swing for power and accuracy”), and, interestingly, two of the most commonly taught hand actions produced the worst results in the test.

Coaches can certainly help. If you find someone you connect with to help navigate, that’s great. But there are many ways to get the ball in the hole. In the current landscape, you may need to seek multiple opinions, think critically, and use your own intuition to discern what seems true and whose advice resonates with you.

I’d recommend seeking someone who is open-minded and always learning, because things constantly change. Absolutes like “correct” or “proper” should raise a red flag. AI can be useful, but it tends to confidently repeat popular advice, so proceed with caution.

3. Get Custom Fit

If you’re serious about becoming a better player, getting custom fit is hugely important. There’s no sense fighting your equipment if you don’t have to. Most better players get fit these days and, if they don’t, they’re usually skilled enough to work around clubs that aren’t ideal.

If you plan to play for a long time, it’s worth spending a little more upfront to get something that truly fits you and your game, rather than continually buying and discarding equipment.

Equipment rules haven’t really changed significantly since the early 2000s. To stay in business, manufacturers keep pushing those limits. If you pull a bunch of clubs and balls off the rack and test them, you’ll find differences. I’ve tested two new drivers and seen a 30-yard total distance gap. Usually, the issue isn’t bad equipment; it’s that the combination of components simply isn’t the best fit.

It’s like wearing a new pair of floppy clown shoes. Sure, they’re shoes—but you won’t sprint your best in them compared to track shoes that fit perfectly.

Be wary of what’s called custom fitting, too. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing strategy rather than an actual fitting. In some retail settings, fitters may be incentivized to steer you toward higher-priced components. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not the best fit, but you should be aware of potential biases.

I learned a version of this lesson outside of golf. Years ago, I bought a tennis racquet at a big box store from a seemingly knowledgeable employee who thought it would suit me best. The racquet gave me tennis elbow, and I spent months recovering with rest and acupuncture. The next season, I invested more time and money to find what actually fit me, and I walked away with something amazing that I still play with years later.

So if you’re going to get fit, be smart about it.

Find someone you believe has deep knowledge—possibly with certifications, but not necessarily. Make sure there’s a wide inventory across many brands. Check recent reviews for the individual fitter if possible. Make sure you trust that the fitter has your best interests at heart. If they’re wearing a hat or shirt with a specific brand’s logo, proceed with caution. Unless you specifically want a certain brand or look, be wary of upsells, especially if two options perform nearly the same.

Also, while golf is called a sport of integrity, there’s a thread of manipulation in the industry. I once drafted an equipment article for an industry magazine, structured just like one of their previous popular stories, with matching word count and great photos. The assistant editor loved it; it was useful to readers and required little work on his part. But the editor-in-chief nixed the story. When I asked why, I was told it was because I wasn’t an advertiser. It turned out the article I’d modeled mine after was a paid ad cleverly disguised as editorial content.

I really dislike games, clickbait, and fear-based manipulation. I hope this changes, but golfers deserve to know it exists.

4. Distance and Strategy Matter

There’s a real relationship between how far you hit the ball and your scoring average, even at the PGA TOUR level.

I experienced this early in my pro career. I started as a power hitter, swinging in the high 120s and breaking 200 mph ball speed with a stock driver.

Back then, some instructors advised swinging at 80%, so I tried slowing down for more accuracy. That worked fine on shorter, tighter courses. But on longer setups, I was coming into greens with too much club, and par 5s stopped being

Continue Reading

Announcement

Our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use have been updated as of January 29th, 2026. Please review the updated policies here Privacy Policy | Terms of Use. By continuing to use our site after January 29th, 2026, you agree to the changes.

WITB

Facebook

Trending