Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Do longer hitters really earn more money on the PGA Tour?

Published

on

If you have been hiding in the woods for the past 15 years, let me bring you up to speed: the great debate in golf is over distance. Are players hitting the ball further…and maybe even too far? Are working out and better athletes changing the game? In 2001, Hank Keuhne averaged 321 yards off the tee, compared to 318 yards in 2018 for PGA Tour Leader Rory McIlroy.

One should expect changes in distance between 2001-2006-ish, as players adopted better technology in balls and larger head drivers. But since those changes, what does the data say? Here is a chart with the data for players from 2007-2015, which shows year, average driving distance, the leader on the PGA Tour, their driving distance, and the number of players who averaged over 300 yards.

Year PGA Tour avg. driving distance PGA Tour leader (yards) Players avg. over 300 yards
2015 289.7 Dustin Johnson (317.7) 26
2014 288.8 Bubba Watson (314.3) 25
2013 287.2 Luke List (306.8) 13
2012 289.1 Bubba Watson (315.5) 21
2011 290.9 J.B Holmes (318.4) 21
2010 287.3 Robert Garrigus (315.5) 12
2009 287.3 Robert Garrigus (312) 13
2008 287.3 Bubba Watson (315.1) 13
2007 288.6 Bubba Watson (315.2) 18

These numbers suggest that players are not hitting it any further but do not answer the question does distance matter? To answer this question, I looked closer at the numbers to examine the relationship between distance and earnings. When looking at the top 15 longest players over the past 3 years with at least 20 events played, here is the data

Average Earnings / year (for all 15 players) $52,000,000
Average earnings per player/year $3,500,000
Top ten finish on money list 4.3/15 (29%)
Number which maintained their PGA tour card for following year 13.3/15 (89%)
3 Year Total Earnings $157,582,450
3 Year Driving Average 310.2 yards
Average Dollars per yard (longest 15) $508,002
Average Dollars per yard (each player – longest 15) $33,866

Now, let’s compare the top 15 longest players to the shortest 15 players with a minimum of 20 events

Average Earnings / year (for all 15 players) $13,600,000
Average earnings per player/year $910,000
Top ten finish on money list 0/15 (0%)
Number which maintained their PGA tour card for following year 6/15  (40%)
3 Year Total Earnings $41,095,786
3 Year Driving Average 278.6 yards
Average Earnings / Yard (shortest 15 players) $147,508
Average Dollars per Yard (each player – shortest 15) $9,833

In this data set the 15 shortest hitters are averaging 278.6yards/drive (over 3 year period 2016-2018), while the 15 longest hitters are averaging 310.2 yards/drive (over 3 year period 2016-2018). This means each yard to the player at the bottom is worth approximately $9,833, while each drive for the top 15 players yields approximately $33,866.

Based on this simple information it tells us a couple things inherently

1) the players who are on the bottom of the list for driving distance have a distinct motivator for getting all areas covered in their coaching profiles, which includes fitness. Money tends to speak loudly and in this case we believe the trend on tour is showing this.

2) Peak physical conditioning for these golfers is a part of the pie that yields these staggering numbers with respect to earnings. Ignoring that piece of the pie is a very big gamble to the bottom line of the players. It is of our opinion that the reason you see less of the buffet line being utilized and more of the Whole Foods consumption, is that health and wellness matter to these players. The proof is in the numbers and in the last 3-5 years those numbers are speaking very loudly.

 

 

I am the Co-Director of the Titleist Performance Institute Fitness Advisory Board. I share duties with Jason Glass on establishing protocols for player development in the fields of functional movement restoration, physical screening, strength and power screening and development and for player development globally. I also serve as Lead Instructor for TPI Level 1 and Level 2 Fitness Seminars globally. I have personally taught over 10,000 experts in the fields of; Golf Fitness, Golf Instruction, Medicine, Junior and Biomechanical proficiencies. Serving as lead instructor has taken me all over the world learning from the best fitness, medical and golf instructors that are currently in the industry. I have served the TPI brand loyally for more than 13 years and am actively functioning as the Performance Director at the Institute, overseeing many projects including the development of; PGA, LPGA, EPGA, Web.com, Symetra, Challenge Tour, KPGA, JPGA, KLPGA, JLPGA, and LatinAmerica Tour players, as well as multiple National Federation Teams. My duties include Biomechanical Evaluations, Physical Screening, Program Development, Practice Schedule Development, Periodization of Programs, Coach Education, Trainer Education and Medical Education of player staff. With the comprehensive approach via the TPI methodology, I have helped countless tour players reach and move towards their personal goals and at the same time gain worldwide recognition for the TPI, Titleist and Acushnet brands. I am the President of LG Performance, a private Golf Performance based company specializing in the betterment of golfers in the areas of; Fitness, Screening, Biomechanics, Instruction, Mental, Nutritional, Programming, and Life Coaching. My role expands from touring professionals all the way down to the earliest of Junior Development in 3 to 4 year olds.

19 Comments

19 Comments

  1. Jeff

    Dec 4, 2018 at 1:51 am

    A better correlation would be to compare the 15 longest hitters to the 15 closest to the tour median. It seems obvious the the 15 shortest are at a disadvantage, but the question is really whether the extra distance is a big advantage over tour average distance.

  2. Gregg

    Dec 3, 2018 at 7:47 pm

    Distance is king for off course revenue, that OR boyish good looks and killer style. I’ll take distance!

  3. Louie

    Dec 3, 2018 at 2:33 pm

    Your article is interesting but the conclusions do not necessarily fit the data. From my perspective distance does make a significant difference but course design matters. I would also look at the general stature of today’s golfer. Would be interesting to see how tall and muscular the top 15 are as compared to the lesser group. There are exceptions, like Justin Thomas.

  4. Scrappy

    Dec 3, 2018 at 2:31 pm

    Totally jumped,from driving distance to fitness, without any correlation. Did you intend to prove a connection between strength or fitness with distance or earnings? Because you totally entered a third variable without any data behind it. Shank

  5. TONEY P

    Dec 3, 2018 at 12:55 pm

    Longer hitters should make more on average. If a good golfer is hitting short irons and his competition is having to use middle irons then what is the likely result over a period of time. Even longer average golfers have a distinctive average on weekend rounds over their peers. The ability to hit irons into par 5’s and shorter clubs into par3’s give a great advantage over time in scoring, ie money. Now as far as course management , the advantage goes to the longer player. A

  6. TONEY P

    Dec 3, 2018 at 12:53 pm

    Longer hitters should make more on average. If a good golfer is hitting short irons and his competition is having to use middle irons then what is the likely result over a period of time. Even longer average golfers have a distinctive average on weekend rounds over their peers. The ability to hit irons into par 5’s and shorter clubs into par3’s give a great advantage over time in scoring, ie money. Now as far as course management , the advantage goes to the longer player.

  7. Raven

    Dec 3, 2018 at 12:29 pm

    It’s not that easy to find a simple stat to prove that distance is king as there will always be a flaw in the figures. I could plot all player finishes and distance together for each year then look to see if there is a consistent correlation over the years. But what if, for example, many of the long hitters do so because they are just better golfers? The distance figures then become irrelevant. Maybe a better method could be to find groups of players with similar playing stats (like putts gained etc.) and see if there is a distance/earnings relationship within those groups.

  8. Rich Douglas

    Dec 3, 2018 at 11:57 am

    So I ran the correlation between 2017 money rankings and 2017 driving distance. The result: -0.044494783.

    This says that there is literally no correlation between rankings among the top 50 drivers of the ball. Driving distance, it is very safe to say, is NOT a predictor of earnings.

    Two caveats: First, correlation does not mean cause-and-effect. There may be some other, underlying cause to all of this, but it doesn’t seem likely since there is no statistically significant correlation. Second, I used the money rankings. This is a list of gross creditable earnings, not earnings-per event. This means European players who get to the PGA tour for a minimum number of events are somewhat under-represented. But there aren’t that many and the effect isn’t that big.

    Longer driving does NOT predict higher earnings. I wonder what does…?

  9. Vas

    Dec 3, 2018 at 11:52 am

    I think this is a very well done piece of work, but the variables don’t really match. A better correlation would be looking at the stats available for driving distance and money earned. This would be daunting because most long hitters use 3Ws or driving irons quite often… but if you wanted it enough, you could flesh out the necessary data. My hypothesis would be that pros who can carry drivers (and only looking at drivers) over 300y make significantly more money over the year compared to those who don’t. I think golf is going to see way more Koepka’s in the future, but the average career is going to be far shorter as a result. The new model will be to sacrifice everything for speed, and the one’s that excel will make their living between 25-35, before slowly fading away.

    • Gregg

      Dec 3, 2018 at 7:38 pm

      I like that analysis, but you got a bunch of 40 somethings now who have and continue to bomb it. Some bodies withstand time, some don’t.

  10. Rich Douglas

    Dec 3, 2018 at 11:18 am

    A more reliable analysis would be a correlation between driving distance ranking and money ranking.

    • Rich Douglas

      Dec 3, 2018 at 11:36 am

      Just ran the numbers. There is NO correlation between driving distance and money winnings for the top 10 drivers of the ball. There was a slightly negative correlation (-0.019848574), but that’s not statistically significant.

      Now, this was just with the top 10 in driving distance, not the whole list. Also, the data are slightly skewed because I used the money list instead of winnings per event. (For example, McIlroy is 39th on the 2017 money list, but he played only 14 events.)

      You know what they now say….drive for show, hit accurate mid-irons for dough (Strokes Gained).

  11. CrashTestDummy

    Dec 2, 2018 at 3:40 am

    Of course distance matters. The fact is that it is such a big advantage to hitting shorter clubs into greens. Also, one thing to note is that guys are still longer today even though the data doesn’t show it. The longest guys on PGA tour don’t always use the driver off the tee and use fairway woods or irons off the tee. The course management is better today.

  12. Caroline

    Dec 1, 2018 at 6:40 pm

    We would have had a diffident answer to the long drive making money back when Daly was in his prime had it not been for Alcohol and wife’s.

  13. Tommy

    Dec 1, 2018 at 1:09 am

    You say that today’s players are in peak condition? They are in very good specific condition for playing golf but they are far from peak. I’m watching Marc Leischman and Cameron Smith as I write….peak condition? They look more like a couple of bartenders rather than pro athletes from any sport. We have naturals like DJ, Tony Finau, Brooks, et al, but even the “15” are nowhere near peak. With the amount of time it takes to practice and play, professional golfers don’t even have the time to get in peak condition. Soon though, now that the conditioning has started even in many HS programs, the new crop will bring us some players in true peak condition. High intensity training for strength, flexibility, and speed will change the game again in ten years but it’s still a game of skill more than power and always will be. One day, another complete package like Tiger will show up….in PEAK condition.

    • Patricknorm

      Dec 2, 2018 at 11:03 am

      I’ll mildly disagree with your post. Yes Marc Leishman doesn’t look fit for a middle distance runner, whereas Cameron Smith does. What’s the ideal fitness level for a world class golfer? I said ideal, meaning a player that can earn say, top 25 status in money and rankings, play 25 tournaments a season , remain injury free, and travel multiple times across times zones. The ideal golf profile is ecto/ meso like Tiger, Cameron Champ, Dustin Johnson and Justin Rose.
      I don’t how many tournaments you’ve played where they go 4 rounds 25 times a season. If you’re 20 years old and you’ve been playing tournaments at a high level since you were 12 it’s not a big ask. But if you’ve been on tour for 12 years , your Marc Lesihman body type has made you a very good living. What I’m saying is that appearances can be deceiving . Golf is one of those sports where skill, and strength and endurance are important. In that order too.

  14. Adam

    Nov 30, 2018 at 8:23 pm

    Would like to see how the top 15 hitters from early/mid 2000’s during 3 year stretch compared to 2016-18. Then we could see if it was more important now than it was back then. You probably have to adjust the earnings piece as a percentage of the total purse payouts to compare the time periods but am curious what it would show.

  15. Gunter Eisenberg

    Nov 30, 2018 at 4:21 pm

    Of course longer players make more money! What a stupid question. Have you not seen Happy Gilmore?!!?

  16. Greg V

    Nov 30, 2018 at 2:30 pm

    You have your statistics mixed up in the chart above.

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