Opinion & Analysis

How Golf Can Learn from the NBA’s 3-Point Line

Published

7 years ago

Mar 8, 2017

For more than a decade, the hot topic of conversation in golf has been driving distance. Members of the media have been asking the USGA and the R&A to address the issue of driving distance and the governing bodies have essentially refused to address it to any degree… until now.

The USGA recently released their statistical analysis on driving distance and how it’s affecting the game. Their results? It’s not. The USGA claims that the increase of driving distance has been marginal since 2003 and should not cause alarm.

As soon as the report was published — you can read the report in full right here — golf writers and analysts took to Twitter, Facebook, and the airwaves, to discuss the conclusions the USGA provided.

I think, much like the sentiment with anchored putters, the real concern is that the fabric of the game will change, or already has changed and that it’s not the same game it was 20 years ago.

As the discussion ensues about driving distance and how the USGA is handling it (or ignoring it), I think the discussion is going in the wrong direction. The primary argument is that iconic courses are becoming obsolete because there is only so much real estate for those courses to lengthen. Or that it’s becoming more and more difficult to build new courses that can cater to the PGA Tour. The second half of that argument is that, if they continue to lengthen courses, then they are essentially eliminating players who don’t average 300 yards or more off the tee. At this point, I agree with the sentiment that courses don’t need to be any longer. But there is more to the story.

I think, much like the sentiment with anchored putters, the real concern is that the fabric of the game will change, or already has changed and that it’s not the same game it was 20 years ago. It’s a game that doesn’t reward shot making and short-game abilities, or the best putters on the planet. It’s a game that rewards power and the “bomb and gouge” mentality. And the argument is the bomb and gouge mentality is bad for the game.

I disagree. The game has changed because that’s what games do. They evolve.

Before we talk about the evolution of the 3-point line, let’s talk about course conditions. As lawn care advanced over the decades, golf courses have changed dramatically from tee to green. Greens haven’t always been 12 or 13 on the Stimpmeter week in and week out. With the change of the green speeds came the change of putting strokes. It also changed the way players had to fly the ball into the green for approach shots. Faster and firmer greens meant that it was harder to get the ball to stop. Grooves in irons and wedges changed, as did the ball.

The same thing happened to the fairways. When the greens became firmer and faster, so did the fairways. In a 2011 article from Golf Digest, David Toms talks about this at great length.

“[The tour has] tried to do the best they can to get the fairways firmer,” said Toms. “Guys wanted firm, fast conditions. That’s what the tour’s supposed to do. That’s part of their setup plan. So if the weather stays dry, I know they’ve tried to get them to firm up. Perhaps that translates into overall distance being a little longer.”

So, my question is, why is all the focus on the equipment? Rioting about equipment is a fruitless effort. Changing the entire marketing principle for the golf industry — Distance! Distance! Distance! — is infinitely more difficult than trying to change the set-up plan for the tour.

If people really believe that distance on the professional circuits is a problem, then we should be talking about course conditions. Let the fairways and the rough grow a little higher so that the ball doesn’t run 40 yards on a high draw. If a player wants his ball to run out, make him do it from the tee box by controlling his trajectory. A simpler solution is altering course conditions, but what if distance isn’t actually a problem? I mean, we’re really only talking about 1,000 players, right? Not the 30 million amateur golfers.

So, let’s think about it this way.

In 1967 there was no 3-point basket in the NBA, NCAA, or high school basketball. There was, however, a 3-point basket in the American Basketball Association. In an attempt to compete with the NBA, the ABA tried to spice things up in their league and one of the main ways they did that was by adding the 3-point line.

The coaches at the helm of ABA teams had coached basketball their entire careers based on a game without 3-point shots. Throwing in a basket that counted more than any other on the floor caused the coaches to rethink their entire philosophy of how the game was played. It caused the strategic problems that even lead to one game being decided by a 92-foot shot just before the buzzer. The problem was, the score before the shot was 116-118. The players on the team that made the basket didn’t realize they’d won because they weren’t thinking about the 3-pointer.

The ABA would be relatively short lived and eventually merge with the NBA. And like all established organizations, the NBA was slow to adopt change, but it finally added the 3-point line in 1979. And though it didn’t happen overnight, the game would change drastically over the course of the next three decades.

It took nearly 40 years for the game to evolve into a game where the 3-point shot was built into the repertoire of the best players in the game.

In the days before the 3-point line, basketball was played as close to the rim as possible. Big guys like Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain dominated the game down low. It was physical and focused on driving in the paint and scoring either by short lay-ups or drawing the foul inside.

When the 3-point line was added, it gave smaller guys, who didn’t stand a chance at the physical game, an opportunity to score big points from beyond the arc. In the ’96-’97 season, the leading scorer was Michael Jordan; in that season he made 111 three-point shots. In the 03’-’04 season, the leading scorer was Kevin Garnett; that season he made 88 three-point shots. In the ’15-’16 season, the leading scorer was James Harden; he made 236 three-points shots. The second leading scorer in that season was Steph Curry who made 402.

It took nearly 40 years for the game to evolve into a game where the 3-point shot was built into the repertoire of the best players in the game. It takes time for people to accept change, but it will happen.

Maybe that’s the thing that has golf enthusiasts scared; maybe they don’t want the game to change, but the problem is that it’s inevitable. It’s already happened. It changed when players stopped putting hickory shafts in their irons and using steel. It changed when players stopped using putters that looked like 1-irons and started using the mallet. It changed when Gene Sarazen invented the sand wedge.

The game has evolved, but just because we see players hitting it 330 yards, does that mean those players are the one’s winning all the tournaments? Let’s look at some numbers.

Between 2003 and 2015 the average driving distance of all winners in that period (a total of 500 events) was 293.3 yards. The average driving distance on tour was 287.8 yards. That means that, on average, the winner of a PGA Tour event was driving the ball 5 yards longer than the rest of the field. But the problem is not the average distance; it’s the top 10 percent that has everybody worried. It’s also not the majority of the tour players who take that average to new heights. What we’re seeing are about 10-12 guys that hit it over 20 yards longer than the tour average.

Can we really make huge changes in the game because we have about 15 players that are just that much longer than the rest of the field? I don’t know. Maybe we can, but like so many have said about the USGA Driving Distance Report, “It doesn’t pass the eye test.”

Out of the 500 events between ‘03 and ‘15, 160 winners averaged fewer yards off the tee than the tour average. And you have to remember that in that same span 44 events were won by Tiger Woods, 21 events were won by Phil Mickelson, 23 were won by Vijay Singh and nine were won by Dustin Johnson. Four players account for nearly 20 percent of the wins between ’03 and ’15, and all four of those players hit the ball longer than the tour average (by about 11 yards).

From of the remaining 403 events, 160 averaged less than the tour average in driving distance. That gives us right at 40 percent of the winners on tour from ’03 to ’15 averaged less than the tour average in driving distance. Even further, out of all 500 events in that time, only five players averaged more than 303.3 yards. That’s one percent of the winners averaging over 303.3 yards.

The current proposed solutions are as follows: increase the ball size (or dial the ball back) and increase club regulations. Both of those solutions are going to punish the average golfer, which is completely the wrong thing to do. The golf industry is unlike most other sports; it doesn’t make its money from the professionals, it makes its money from the amateur. So why punish the target audience for revenue? (A surefire way to hurt the game.)

The solution is much simpler. Alter the course set up. If you’re tired of players being able to hit every par-five in two, then grow the rough up and narrow the fairway at 300 yards. Dustin Johnson didn’t win at Oakmont last year because he hit the ball further than everyone else, he won the U.S. Open because drove the ball in the fairway and hit his irons close to the hole. If you look at DJ’s stats from last year, from the rough at 150-175 yards, he was T164. From 50-125 yards, he was T103.

What does that tell you? If the long hitters drive the ball in the rough, they have a harder time getting the ball close to the hole. Like everyone else.

Dustin Johnson didn’t win at Oakmont last year because he hit the ball further than everyone else, he won the U.S. Open because drove the ball in the fairway and hit his irons close to the hole.

The USGA and the PGA Tour are offended that players are hitting the ball 330 yards. And they’re even more upset by the fact that there are 30 guys who can hit it that far. That’s a PGA Tour and USGA problem; it’s not a player or a manufacturer problem. Up to this point, those entities have tried to solve “their” problem in the least creative way possible: lengthening courses. It’s the wrong way to look at it. It’s also the wrong way to look at it by assuming it’s actually a problem. Things change. Games evolve. Players get better. Equipment gets better.

So what are we so worried about? If the score of the average tournament is 20- or 21-under par, who really cares? There are only a couple of times a year that anybody wants to really see PGA Tour players struggle; the U.S. Open and the Open Championship. And players struggle for completely different reasons at those tournaments. The rest of the year just let the drama be that players are trying to beat each other. Not that they are trying to beat the course.

Let’s stop whining and enjoy watching the best players in the world do what they do. Use the ProTracer function more on your coverage. Let’s take advantage of the technology we have and show the types of shots players could hit when they are stuck behind the tree and stop complaining that they’re behind a tree because they tried to cut the corner and failed.

Driving distance is only a problem for the people who refuse to admit that the game is going to change. It’s only a problem for those who refuse to be creative with course setup and think the only way to even the playing field is to lengthen the course. If anything, they are only reinforcing what they call a problem. Players have to hit it farther to be consistently competitive if you stretch all the courses to 7,500 yards or longer. It’s a circular logic that has created an entire subcategory of “searchable problems” in golf. We don’t need any more problems, we already have the most difficult one to overcome: expense.

We’re trying to solve a problem that is only a problem based on the data points for 0.01 percent of the players who play the game. In any other industry that would be considered lunacy. Like the 3-point line changed the way basketball was played, so too will distance in golf. It’s inevitable.

You can scrutinize my calculations here.

Your Reaction?

LIKE329
LEGIT45
WOW8
LOL3
IDHT1
FLOP8
OB4
SHANK47

Related Topics:

Up Next

An Open Letter to Gear Heads

Don't Miss

Tech Tuesday: The Future of Launch Monitors?

Adam Crawford

Adam Crawford is a writer of many topics but golf has always been at the forefront. An avid player and student of the game, Adam seeks to understand both the analytical side of the game as well as the human aspect - which he finds the most important. You can find his books at his website, chandlercrawford.com, or on Amazon.

46 Comments

Sean

Mar 11, 2017 at 7:12 pm

I never did understand all this talk of dialing back the equipment. All they need to do is change the course set up.

However, networks probably feel this would not make for compelling TV. So fairways are cut and rolled, rough isn’t penal, etc. When the professionals play under very soggy conditions I note that many drives are in the 265-275 range.

Reply Report comment
Ronald Montesano

Mar 11, 2017 at 12:34 pm

One of the points you’re missing is the flexibility of course set-up, contrasted with the inflexibility of an NBA court. Greens DON’T have to stimp at 12-13. Rough does not have to be set to a certain height. And most importantly, the 3-point arc of the NBA does not impact playgrounds and gymanasia, where pick-up games are played across the world.

Shift to golf, where courses and clubs watch the tours religiously, then often seek to emulate course set-ups, to the degradation of the game (which includes loss of players for whom the game is too challenging.)

The Tours need to look beyond their own, money-making role in this, and recognize the negative impact of what they do, on the people and their courses. We need enhance participation, not rough. We need to speed up play, not green speeds. If the tour does it, zealous club members and course denizens will compel superintendents to match wits. The regular golfer loses.

Reply Report comment
Greg V

Mar 10, 2017 at 9:48 am

“The current proposed solutions are as follows: increase the ball size (or dial the ball back) and increase club regulations. Both of those solutions are going to punish the average golfer, which is completely the wrong thing to do.”

I happen to disagree with that premise. If average golfers move up a tee or two, they will not be punished by a dialed-back ball.

They will simply be playing a shorter course, and will likely take less time to play it. That could be a good thing, no?

Reply Report comment
carl spackler

Mar 10, 2017 at 8:41 am

In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, ‘Au revoir, gopher’.

Reply Report comment
S Hitter

Mar 9, 2017 at 6:36 pm

THE dumbest article ever on WRX, worse than some of the cheerleading articles sniffing Michelle Wie’s backside.
Look here http://www.golfchannel.com/media/golfs-lowest-rounds-58s-and-59s-tour
You’re worried about the bomb and gougers, now? Now? Sam Snead was known to be extremely long during his time, especially in his earlier days, and people were astounded. Nobody stopped him – well, they tried to, when he tried to putt croquet-style. But nobody took away his length – and he was doing it with the old equipment with fluffy balls!
This game has never been about a level playing field. You take it for what it is, and if you don’t have length or power, but a good enough short game and are very straight, well, you can skin this cat in many ways. But dominance is dominance. That’s the same in every sport.

Reply Report comment
- Adam Crawford
  
  Mar 10, 2017 at 9:05 am
  
  I think you missed the actual statement the article was trying to make. It’s trying to say that it’s not actually a problem, but if it were, the solution is much simpler than changing the ball or the equipment.
  
  Reply Report comment
Tom

Mar 9, 2017 at 10:03 am

I’ve been curious about this issue for a while, and the way different people view it. A: golfers are more athletic now than ever, and that, combined with some increase in equipment and ball features has probably lead to some form of increased distance by the majority of the field. But, looking back, Tiger hit it a mile before all of the crazy equipment talk set in, and John Daily hit it a mile longer, well before all of this.

The faster fairways has been my question as well, and why that’s not to blame. It’s not too typical on any course I play, to get 30-40 yards of roll. Every year I play a course within a day or two after the tour comes through, and it’s incredible how much faster the fairways are. The greens pretty typically do run between 11 and 13, so that stays the same, just on the higher end, but the fairways are like run ways compared to the way the course plays the rest of the year. I think that makes more of a difference than equipment, since equipment might account for what, 20 yards? I’m not really talking about the comparison of today’s gear to persimmon woods, but I’d be surprised to see DJ, Rory, Bubba, etc. lose more than 10-20 yards off the tee with any driver they try. Iron wise, most these guys use MB’s, and you’re going to hit one MB just as far as any other MB.

Reply Report comment
Tal

Mar 9, 2017 at 4:11 am

I think the anaogy is the wrong way round; this dialing back distance is like taking the 3 point line away, not adding it. I don’t think professional basketball would be as it is today without that line. Nor eould golf be anywhere near as interesting if you couldn’t marvel at the distance or ball speed of the pros. I think it would really lose the spark if DJ was hitting it, say, 280.
Part of the excitement of professional golf is watching how powerfully some guys hit it and if the ball is dialed back, the shorter hitters will still be shorter and the longer guys won’t draw as much of a crowd. Plus, plenty of great players would lose one of the elements that made them great on the first place. How is that fair?
DJ isa great example; always one of the longest but didn’t win a major until his wedges and putting improved. Distance doesn’t win by itself as you have to capitalise on the advantage.

So, this isn’t the same as adding the 3 point line. How fair would it be to Steph Curry if 3 pointers were taken back out of the game?

Reply Report comment
David W.

Mar 9, 2017 at 3:41 am

I think the author is onto something here – why was the WGC in Mexico so great to watch??? Because the course was narrow and many good players were in the trees.

Reply Report comment
Mat

Mar 8, 2017 at 2:10 pm

This analogy is only relevant if the Tour started playing Modified Stableford. I’m not opposed to that, but that’s a “3-point line”. You’re rewarding lower percentage changes with more points. The rest of this argument is irrelevant. Statistically, the game has changed, courses have changed, and it’s disingenuous to talk about “course setups”. Major changes are expensive, if at all possible. Sure, you can cut the grass a little higher, but if you do that, you’re just sounding like a whiner. So much for “Let’s stop whining…”

Reply Report comment
Chris B

Mar 8, 2017 at 1:22 pm

I love how the usga are using stats from 2003, this doesn’t show the true impact the ball has made. Golf is becoming boarring to watch, everyone just smashes it as far and as high as they can. Some guys just hit it further. The true craft of controlling your ball is being lost. Modern equipment is more beneficial to the longer hitters.

Reply Report comment
Luke

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:31 am

How about they play golf in normal conditions and stop following the sun round the globe. They play in high altitude climates. Come and play in the windy wet UK won’t be hitting it 350+

Reply Report comment
Greg V

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:13 am

Stupid article. The NBA didn’t change the size of the court, they didn’t change the ball, and they didn’t change the height of the basket. It is basically the same game with different scoring.

In golf, the ball changed, the clubs changed and the courses had to change. Same scoring. The result of the equipment and athletes’ changes required that the courses be made longer, which has increased the amount of time required to play.

Just go back to the US Amateur before steel shafts (1927). Every match was 36 holes. Why? Because the ball didn’t go as far (and the clubs were heavy and wood), so the courses were shorter and the players could play 36 every day.

I conclude: the better the equipment, the longer the courses. The longer the courses, the more time that it takes to play, or conversely, the less golf that we can play in the same amount of time. Why do we put up with that? Because we have egos and we want to hit the ball farther. That is self-defeating if you want to play more golf.

By the way, a basketball game takes about 3 hours. A hockey game takes about 3 hours. A football game takes 3 to 3-1/2 hours. Golf, at 4-1/2 to 5 hours takes way too much time.

Reply Report comment
RI_Redneck

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:13 am

The part of this article that really stands out to me is the firmness of the fairways and the lack of sufficient rough. It would not be difficult to have CERTAIN sections of the fairway that allow more rollout while having other sections less firm. So rollout will only come for those who are accurate enough to hit the right spot. Bomb and gouge is popular because there’s no penalty to hitting out of the fairway. Increase the rough length for pro tournaments and we will see them focusing more on hitting fairways and the competition will be tighter. I also think the gallery should be kept out of the rough nearer the course so that it stays at a suitable depth and is not trampled down.

BT

Reply Report comment
- LD
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 1:01 pm
  
  Interesting idea, sort of like the professional oil patterns on the PBA.
  
  Reply Report comment
Steve

Mar 8, 2017 at 11:08 am

Lengthening courses results in longer rounds and greater maintenance costs. The ball goes longer for higher swing speeds and does not benefit most amateurs. The area that seems to evade discussion is that the ball goes straighter. The internal structure and dimple patterns on today’s ball lead to ideal high launch low spin drives. You want to bring some back shot making, bring back the balata spin rates on today’ ball.

Reply Report comment
JohnFS

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:37 am

How about Jack’s idea of having a “tour” ball. I’ve always thought that was the best solution.

Reply Report comment
Eddie

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:34 am

The speed at which a ball rebounds off the face of a driver has been capped since 2003. Any distance gains are due to golfers swinging faster, fairways being firmer, or dialing in perfect launch and spin rates.

The big difference is the golfers. They are younger, stronger, and more athletic then at any other point in history. How is this any different than Palmer or Nicklaus dominating with their relative length back in the day? Length has always been an advantage.

Reply Report comment
- Greg V
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 4:39 pm
  
  Length will always be an advantage, no matter what ball is played.
  
  In essence you are right, distance gains since 2003 have been about 1 yard a year, due to lower spinning driver heads and better shafts. What the distance study fails to capture is the inordinate distance gain by equipment from about 1990 to 2003 due to solid balls, titanium large driver heads and graphite shafts. The perfect storm.
  
  Reply Report comment
Eric

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:20 am

So if the fairways are rolling faster, why aren’t Launch Monitors requiring that not only WIND be adjusted and SLOPE/ELEVATION to calculate proper distances, but also fairway firmness to account for ball spin/speed meeting firmer or softer ground? We’d get more accurate yardages and I’m guessing a lot more amateurs would be longer when measured on Trackman

Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 10:34 am
  
  What you say is true and a good point, but it isn’t close to what the article is about.
  
  Reply Report comment
Progolfer

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:19 am

The PGA Tour can eliminate this entire argument in a simple way: play golf courses that are narrow and demand precision and accuracy. Personally, I think it’s more fun to play courses that are difficult and require shot-making than courses where I essentially only hit driver and a wedge. I love playing courses where par is a great score. Instead, the Tour continues to think the best way to entertain the public is with long drives and lots of birdies. Is there any wonder why manufacturers constantly push for distance gains in equipment?!

Reply Report comment
Steve S

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:16 am

I don’t care what the pros do or the rule changes that have been made for the top 1 percent. The folks I play with ignore the groove rule and the anchored putting rule. We’d ignore the COR rule too, if you could find “off the shelf” clubs that exceeded 0.83. Making the ball go shorter is lunacy for all but the longer hitters. With most amateur golfers swinging driver at well below 100mph they struggle just to get a carry distance above 200-210 yards. How much fun would it be to hit a driver 180 and a 5 iron 130? Maybe when you’re 85 years old.

Reply Report comment
Darryl

Mar 8, 2017 at 10:00 am

I want to see the ProTracer on every shot, I love it, watching most shots where the ball instantly disappears into the sky is really pointless isn’t it???????? Why aren’t they using it more, I see Youtubers using the technology for their own little shows for crying out loud so it can’t be a cost issue.

Reply Report comment
Deadeye

Mar 8, 2017 at 9:03 am

Why is this a problem? Unlike other games played with a ball, golf is completely adjustable. We move the tees up and back, we move the pins up and back, we have multiple sets of tee boxes. You can play any legal ball or club you like. Want more distance off the tee? Just move to a more forward tee box! Gain twenty to fifty yards instantly! You say the pros can’t do that? Screw them, if they make the cut they can make more than a million dollars a year and finish fiftieth. It’s the amateur players that pay for this game and keep it alive. The USGA needs to seriously consider making separate rules for professional players if they think distance is a problem(which they don’t). Professional tournaments should be played more on courses like Chapultepec in Mexico. Narrow fairways, more trees, difficult greens. Deep US Open type rough is not the answer. The Scots figured out long ago how to make golf more difficult, deep bunkers strategically placed, undulating greens, burns. Best advice for those seeking more distance: get fit for a new driver, don’t just buy off the rack. You could easily pick up twenty yards. And we still have to putt.

Reply Report comment
Matt K

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:57 am

A softer compression ball would hurt a longer player more than a shorter hitter. I think. Don’t know a lot about it but if you take a ball with x compression that player A hits 250 and he compresses it fully. If you make that the limit then player B who hits its 320 will hit that ball shorter, whilst player A loses nothing. Is this sound logic?

Reply Report comment
- Steve
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:23 am
  
  It makes sense in theory, but why should the bigger, faster, stronger guy be punished over everyone else? Whether he’s naturally gifted or busts his butt in the gym, he SHOULD be hitting it a heck of a lot further than the guys that don’t work as hard.
  
  Reply Report comment
Greg Hunter

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:18 am

Good article!

Reply Report comment
- LD
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 9:45 am
  
  One of the best articles I have read on this site.
  
  Reply Report comment
Kyle

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:18 am

There’s a big difference between a sport evolving and the equipment evolving…
So, should they allow metal bats in pro baseball by the same logic of this article?

Isn’t Augusta trying to spend millions just to extend #13? Am I the only one that thinks that’s crazy???

There’s nothing wrong with hitting the ball shorter. it means we can play shorter courses. Shorter courses have a smaller environmental impact, are easier to walk, cheaper to maintain.

Not to mention, if you’re a short hitter, you’re going to be shorter than other players either way. The numbers change, but your comparative disadvantage is the same. So what is the point?

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:49 am
  
  Everything about Augusta is crazy if you think about it… And that hole is only like 515.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Greg V
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 9:15 am
  
  Excellent comment. If the ball is made shorter, we can simply move up to a shorter tee.
  
  Mike Davis recently raised the possibility of a shorter ball for great old short courses such as Myopia Hunt Club. Good – at least the USGA is considering such a change.
  
  It’s time for Bill Payne to advocate for a “Masters” ball.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 10:55 am
  
  Metal bat comparison – Not really relevant. MLB has no way to counteract that effect that would destroy other aspects of the game. Pro golf has several options regarding distance gains and most of them would restore aspects of the game that have faded. If courses want to host PGA Tour/professional events let them do whatever they want to land the event. It’s their money. If you change the setups just about all of the classics can still present the appropriate challenge and excitement. The real argument here is the refusal of the PGA Tour to deal with this. It isn’t USGA or R&A equipment standards.
  
  My guess is 90% of all golfers are almost never playing a set up over 6600 yards. I belong to a private TPC course which can play 7500 yards. I’ve never seen anyone other than some tour members practicing or PGA section events participants play it from all the way back. The most common set up is the “Members” tees which blends the two middle tees and plays about 6400 yards with a 71.2/141 rating. The tips are set at 7400 yards and 76.2/155. If you are scratch or pro maybe this is an issue. T/hat portion of the golfing population is minuscule.
  
  Reply Report comment
- Steve
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:18 am
  
  MLB has changed the ball many times, and they’re currently attempting to do it again…
  
  Reply Report comment
SV

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:15 am

Two things I noticed: 1. 2003 as the year chosen for the baseline was after the greater jump in distance had occurred from multi-piece balls, larger metal drivers and graphite shafts. 2. Citing the driving distance of winners versus tour average does not take into account the course and clubs used for the tee shots (driver vs 3 wood or 3 iron or hybrid).

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:51 am
  
  If you knew how driving distance stats are calculated… They pick two holes running roughly opposite ways where they think most players are very likely to hit drivers.
  
  Reply Report comment
DaveT

Mar 8, 2017 at 8:10 am

Absolutely spot-on!

While the Tour is gaining distance (albeit slowly), I’m losing distance. If the need for distance in order to play increases, it becomes less fun for me. BTW, you also identified expense as the single most difficult problem golf needs to overcome. Making courses longer just makes it worse.

Reply Report comment
Ian

Mar 8, 2017 at 7:54 am

Don’t really care what they do on the tours. I would like to play a shorter ball on a shorter course so that it wouldn’t take me 6 hours to get around.

Reply Report comment
- Crazy
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 8:51 am
  
  You want a shorter ball?? Just move up a set of tees.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - Ian
    
    Mar 8, 2017 at 8:56 am
    
    No moving up a tee would only make the course shorter – I can move the ball out plenty, so all that would do it make it easier. A shorter ball and course would keep the skill requirement up but shorten the round time because I wouldn’t need to walk as far.
    
    Reply Report comment
    - Scott
      
      Mar 8, 2017 at 10:46 am
      
      I am not sure that I understand. You mention playing a long course with a shorter distance ball. Then because the ball goes less, you want to play a shorter course which is different from the one you are currently playing , but you don’t want to move up a set of tees at the course you are playing? All in an effort to save some steps and play in a shorter amount of time? Maybe try tennis.
      
      Reply Report comment
      - Ian
        
        Mar 8, 2017 at 11:14 am
        
        Never said a longer course. Shorter course and shorter ball = fewer steps and more importantly less time.
        
        Reply Report comment
        
        Steve
        
        Mar 8, 2017 at 11:20 am
        
        How about driving a cart… then you can take minimal steps and drive a heck of a lot faster than you walk.
        
        Reply Report comment
        
        George
        
        Mar 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm
        
        I can walk my 6600yd home course in 2h45 without getting out of breath. I played single behind a 4-ball in Scotland taking 3h for 18 holes (no need to play through). And I’ve played 6000yd courses in FL driving a cart that took me 4h. Your argument stinks.
        
        Reply Report comment
- Michael
  
  Mar 8, 2017 at 11:01 am
  
  If it is taking you six hours to play the issue is one of two things or both:
  
  1. You need basic instruction and aren’t really ready to be on the course yet and haven’t learned basic golf etiquette and rules of the game.
  
  And/or …
  
  2. The course where you are playing is horribly mismanaged and there is no rangering program or enforcement of the rules and policies.
  
  Reply Report comment
  - Ian
    
    Mar 8, 2017 at 11:16 am
    
    Thanks bud, off a 5 so you tell me.
    Good course but no marshalls.
    
    Reply Report comment

Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

19th Hole

Vincenzi’s 2024 PGA Championship betting preview: Rising star ready to join the immortals at Valhalla

Published

23 hours ago

May 13, 2024

Matt Vincenzi

The second major of the 2024 season is upon us as the world’s best players will tee it up this week at Valhalla Golf Club in Louisville, Kentucky to compete for the Wanamaker Trophy.

The last time we saw Valhalla host a major championship, Rory McIlroy fended off Phil Mickelson, Henrik Stenson, Rickie Fowler and the creeping darkness that was descending upon the golf course. The Northern Irishman had the golf world in the palm of his hand, joining only Tiger Woods and Jack Nicklaus as players who’d won four major championships by the time they were 25 years old.

Valhalla is named after the great hall described in Norse mythology where the souls of Vikings feasted and celebrated with the Gods. The course is a Jack Nicklaus-design that has ranked among Golf Digest’s “America’s 100 Greatest Courses” for three decades.

Valhalla Golf Club is a par-71 measuring 7,542 yards with Zoysia fairways and Bentgrass greens. The course has rolling hills and dangerous streams scattered throughout and the signature 13th hole is picturesque with limestone and unique bunkering protecting the green. The 2024 PGA Championship will mark the fourth time Valhalla has hosted the event.

The field this week will consist of 156 players, including 16 PGA Champions and 33 Major Champions.

Past Winners of the PGA Championship

2023: Brooks Koepka (-9) Oak Hill
2022: Justin Thomas (-5) Southern Hills
2021: Phil Mickelson (-6) Kiawah Island
2020: Collin Morikawa (-13) TPC Harding Park
2019: Brooks Koepka (-8) Bethpage Black
2018: Brooks Koepka (-16) Bellerive
2017: Justin Thomas (-8) Quail Hollow
2016: Jimmy Walker (-14) Baltusrol
2015: Jason Day (-20) Whistling Straits
2014: Rory McIlroy (-16) Valhalla

In this article and going forward, I’ll be using the Rabbit Hole by Betsperts Golf data engine to develop my custom model. If you want to build your own model or check out all of the detailed stats, you can sign up using promo code: MATTVIN for 25% off any subscription package (yearly is best value).

Key Stats For Valhalla

Let’s take a look at five key metrics for Oak Hill to determine which golfers boast top marks in each category over their past 24 rounds.

1. Strokes Gained: Approach

Valhalla will play as a true all-around test of golf for the world’s best. Of course, it will take strong approach play to win a major championship.

Strokes Gained: Approach Over Past 24 Rounds

Shane Lowry (+1.25)
Scottie Scheffler (+1.09)
Jordan Smith (+1.05)
Tom Hoge (+.96)
Corey Conners (+.94)

2. Strokes Gained: Off the Tee

Valhalla will play long and the rough will be penal. Players who are incredibly short off the tee and/or have a hard time hitting fairways will be all but eliminated from contention this week at the PGA Championship.

Strokes Gained: Off the Tee Over Past 24 Rounds:

Bryson DeChambeau (+1.47)
Scottie Scheffler (+1.11)
Keith Mitchell (+.90)
Alejandro Tosti (+.89)
Ludvig Aberg (+.82)

Strokes Gained: Total on Nickalus Designs

Valhalla is a classic Nicklaus Design. Players who play well at Nicklaus designs should have an advantage coming into this major championship.

Strokes Gained: Total on Nicklaus Designs over past 36 rounds:

Jon Rahm (+2.56)
Scottie Scheffler (+2.48)
Patrick Cantlay (+2.35)
Collin Morikawa (+1.79)
Shane Lowry (+1.57)

Strokes Gained: Tee to Green on Very Long Courses

Valhalla is going to play extremely long this week. Players who have had success playing very long golf courses should be better equipped to handle the conditions of this major championship.

Strokes Gained: Total on Very Long Courses Over Past 24 Rounds:

Scottie Scheffler (+2.44)
Rory McIlroy (+2.24)
Will Zalatoris (+1.78)
Viktor Hovland (+1.69)
Xander Schauffele (+1.60)

Strokes Gained: Total in Major Championships

One factor that tends to play a large role in deciding major championships is which players have played well in previous majors leading up to the event.

Strokes Gained: Total in Major Championships over past 20 rounds:

Scottie Scheffler (+3.14)
Will Zalatoris (+2.64)
Rory McIlroy (+2.49)
Xander Schauffele (+2.48)
Tommy Fleetwood (2.09)

Strokes Gained: Putting on Bentgrass Greens

Valhalla features pure Bentgrass putting surfaces. Players who are comfortable putting on this surface will have an advantage on the greens.

Strokes Gained: Putting on Bentgrass Greens over Past 24 Rounds:

Ludvig Aberg (+1.12)
Denny McCarthy (+1.08)
Matt Fitzpatrick (+0.99)
Justin Rose (+0.93)
J.T. Poston (0.87)

Strokes Gained: Total on Zoysia Fairways

Valhalla features Zoysia fairways. Players who are comfortable playing on this surface will have an advantage on the field.

Strokes Gained: Total on Zoysia Fairways over past 36 rounds:

Justin Thomas (+1.53)
Will Zalatoris (+1.47)
Xander Schauffele (+1.40)
Brooks Koepka (+1.35)
Rory McIlroy (+1.23)

2024 PGA Championship Model Rankings

Below, I’ve compiled overall model rankings using a combination of the key statistical categories previously discussed — SG: Approach (25%), SG: Off the Tee (22%), SG: T2G on Very Long Courses (12%), SG: Putting on Bentgrass (+12%), SG: Total on Nicklaus Designs (12%). SG: Total on Zoysia Fairways (8%), and SG: Total in Major Championships (8%).

Brooks Koepka
Xander Schauffele
Rory McIlroy
Scottie Scheffler
Bryson DeChambeau
Shane Lowry
Alex Noren
Will Zalatoris
Cameron Young
Keith Mitchell
Hideki Matsuyama
Billy Horschel
Patrick Cantlay
Viktor Hovland
Adam Schenk
Chris Kirk
Sahith Theegala
Min Woo Lee
Joaquin Niemann
Justin Thomas

2024 PGA Championship Picks

Ludvig Aberg +1800 (BetMGM)

At The Masters, Ludvig Aberg announced to the golf world that he’s no longer an “up and coming” player. He’s one of the best players in the game of golf, regardless of experience.

Augusta National gave Aberg some necessary scar tissue and showed him what being in contention at a major championship felt like down the stretch. Unsurprisingly, he made a costly mistake, hitting it in the water left of the 11th hole, but showed his resilience by immediately bouncing back. He went on to birdie two of his next three holes and finished in solo second by three shots. With the type of demeanor that remains cool in pressure situations, I believe Ludvig has the right mental game to win a major at this point in his career.

Aberg has not finished outside of the top-25 in his past eight starts, which includes two runner-up finishes at both a “Signature Event” and a major championship. The 24-year-old is absolutely dominant with his driver, which will give him a major advantage this week. In the field he ranks, in Strokes Gained: Off the Tee, and has gained strokes in the category in each of his past ten starts. Aberg is already one of the best drivers of the golf ball on the planet.

In Norse mythology, Valhalla is the great hall where the souls of Vikings feasted and celebrated with the Gods. The Swedes, who are of Old Norse origin, were the last of the three Scandinavian Kingdoms to abandon the Old Norse Gods. A Swede played a major role in the 2014 PGA Championship at Valhalla, and I believe another, Ludvig Aberg, will be the one to conquer Valhalla in 2024.

Bryson DeChambeau +2800 (BetMGM)

Bryson DeChambeau is one of the few players in the world that I believe has the game to go blow-for-blow with Scottie Scheffler. Although he isn’t as consistent as Scheffler, when he’s at his best, Bryson has the talent to beat him.

At The Masters, DeChambeau put forth a valiant effort at a golf course that simply does not suit his game. Valhalla, on the other hand, is a course that should be perfect for the 30-year-old. His ability to overpower a golf course with his driver will be a serious weapon this week.

Bryson has had some success at Jack Nicklaus designs throughout his career as he won the Memorial at Muirfield Village back in 2018. He’s also had incredible results on Bentgrass greens for the entirety of his professional career. Of his 10 wins, nine of them have come on Bentgrass greens, with the only exception being the Arnold Palmer Invitational at Bay Hill. He also has second place finishes at Medinah and TPC Summerlin, which feature Bentgrass greens.

Love him or hate him, it’s impossible to argue that Bryson isn’t one of the most exciting and important players in the game of golf. He’s also one of the best players in the world. A second major is coming soon for DeChambeau, and I believe he should be amongst the favorites to hoist the Wanamaker Trophy this week.

Patrick Cantlay +4000 (FanDuel)

There’s no way of getting around it: Patrick Cantlay has been dissapointing in major championships throughout his professional career. He’s been one of the top players on Tour for a handful of years and has yet to truly contend at a major championship, with the arguable exception of the 2019 Masters.

Despite not winning majors, Cantlay has won some big events. The 32-year-old has won two BMW Championships, two Memorial Tournaments as well as a Tour Championship. His victories at Memorial indicate how much Cantlay loves Nicklaus designs, where he ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Total over his past 36 rounds behind only Scottie Scheffler and Jon Rahm.

Cantlay also loves Bentgrass greens. Six of Cantlay’s seven individual wins on the PGA Tour have come on Bentgrass greens and he also was one of the best putters at the 2023 Ryder cup at Marco Simone (also Bentgrass). At Caves Valley (2021 BMW Championship), he gained over 12 strokes putting to outduel another Bentgrass specialist, Bryson DeChambeau.

Cantlay finished 22nd in The Masters, which was a solid result considering how many elite players struggled that week. He also has two top-ten finishes in his past five PGA Championships. He’s undeniably one of the best players in the field, therefore, it comes down to believing Cantlay has the mental fortitude to win a major, which I do.

Joaquin Niemann +4000 (BetMGM)

I believe Joaquin Niemann is one of the best players in the world. He has three worldwide wins since December and has continued to improve over the course of his impressive career thus far. Still only 25, the Chilean has all the tools to be a serious contender in major championships for years to come.

Niemann has been the best player on LIV this season. Plenty will argue with the format or source of the money on LIV, but no one can argue that beating players such as Jon Rahm, Bryson DeChambeau, Dustin Johnson, Brooks Koepka and Cameron Smith is an unremarkable achievement. Niemann is an elite driver of the golf ball who hits it farther than just about anyone in the field not named Bryson DeChambeau or (arguably) Rory McIlroy.

Niemann is another player who has been fantastic throughout his career on Bentgrass greens. Prior to leaving the PGA Tour, Bentgrass was the only green surface in which Joaco was a positive putter. It’s clearly a surface that he is very comfortable putting on and should fare around and on the greens this week.

Niemann is a perfect fit for Valhalla. His low and penetrating ball flight will get him plenty of runout this week on the fairways and he should have shorter shots into the green complexes than his competitors. To this point in his career, the former top ranked amateur in the world (2018) has been underwhelming in major championships, but I don’t believe that will last much longer. Joaquin Niemann is a major championship caliber player and has a real chance to contend this week at Valhalla.

Your Reaction?

LIKE17
LEGIT6
WOW1
LOL0
IDHT0
FLOP2
OB0
SHANK6

Opinion & Analysis

The Wedge Guy: What really makes a wedge work? Part 2

Published

5 days ago

May 9, 2024

Terry Koehler

In my last post, I explained the basic performance dynamics of “smash factor” and “gear effect” as they apply to your wedges and your wedge play success. If you missed that post, you can read it here.

At the end of that post, I promised “part 2” of this discussion of what makes a wedge work the way it does. So, let’s dive into the other two components of any wedge – the shaft and the grip.

It’s long been said that the shaft is “the engine of the golf club.” The shaft (and grip) are your only connection to all the technologies that are packed into the head of any golf club, whether it be a driver, fairway, hybrid, iron, wedge or even putter.

And you cannot ignore those two components of your wedges if your goal is optimizing your performance.

I’ve long been an advocate of what I call a “seamless transition” from your irons into your wedges, so that the feel and performance do not disconnect when you choose a gap wedge, for example, instead of your iron-set-matching “P-club.” In today’s golf equipment marketplace, more and more golfers are making the investment of time and money to experience an iron fitting, going through trial and error and launch monitor measuring to get just the right shaft in their irons.

But then so many of those same golfers just go into a store and choose wedges off the retail display, with no similar science involved at all. And that’s why I see so many golfers with a huge disconnect between their custom-fitted irons, often with lighter and/or softer graphite or light steel shafts . . . and their off-the-rack wedges with the stock stiff steel ‘wedge flex’ shaft common to those stock offerings.

If your wedge shafts are significantly heavier and stiffer than the shafts in your irons, it is physically impossible for you to make the same swing. Period.

To quickly improve your wedge play, one of the first things you can do is have your wedges re-shafted with the same or similar shaft that is in your irons.

There’s another side of that shaft weight equation; if you don’t have the forearm and hand strength of a PGA Tour professional, you simply cannot “handle” the same weight shaft that those guys play to master the myriad of ‘touch shots’ around the greens.

Now, let’s move on to the third and other key component of your wedges – the grips. If those are not similar in shape and feel to the grips on your irons, you have another disconnect. Have your grips checked by a qualified golf club professionals to make sure you are in sync there.

The one caveat to that advice is that I am a proponent of a reduced taper in your wedge grips – putting two to four more layers of tape under the lower hand, or selecting one of the many reduced taper grips on the market. That accomplishes two goals for your scoring.

First, it helps reduce overactive hands in your full and near-full wedge swings. Quiet hands are key to good wedge shots.

And secondly, it provides a more consistent feel of the wedge in your hands as you grip down for those shorter and more delicate shots around the greens. And you should always grip down as you get into those touch shots. I call it “getting closer to your work.”

So, if you will spend as much time selecting the shafts and grips for your wedges as you do choosing the brand, model, and loft of them, your scoring range performance will get better.

Vincenzi’s 2024 Wells Fargo Championship betting preview: Tommy Fleetwood ready to finally land maiden PGA Tour title

Published

1 week ago

May 6, 2024

Matt Vincenzi

The PGA Tour season ramps back up this week for another “signature event,” as golf fans look forward to the year’s second major championship next week.

After two weaker-field events in the Zurich Classic and the CJ Cup Byron Nelson, most of the best players in the world will head to historic Quail Hollow for one of the best non-major tournaments of the year.

Last season, Wyndham Clark won the event by four shots.

Quail Hollow is a par-71 measuring 7,521 yards that features Bermudagrass greens. The tree-lined, parkland style course can play quite difficult and features one of the most difficult three-hole stretches in golf known as “The Green Mile,” which makes up holes 16-18: two mammoth par 4s and a 221-yard par 3. All three holes have an average score over par, and water is in play in each of the last five holes on the course.

The field is excellent this week with 68 golfers teeing it up without a cut. All of the golfers who’ve qualified are set to tee it up, with the exception of Scottie Scheffler, who is expecting the birth of his first child.

Past Winners at Quail Hollow

2023: Wyndham Clark (-19)
2022: Max Homa (-8)
2021: Rory McIlroy (-10)
2019: Max Homa (-15)
2018: Jason Day (-12)
2017: Justin Thomas (-8) (PGA Championship)
2016: James Hahn (-9)
2015: Rory McIlroy (-21)

Key Stats For Quail Hollow

Strokes Gained: Approach

Strokes gained: Approach will be extremely important this week as second shots at Quail Hollow can be very difficult.

Total SG: Approach Over Past 24 Rounds

Akshay Bhatia (+1.16)
Tom Hoge (+1.12)
Corey Conners (+1.01)
Shane Lowry (+0.93)
Austin Eckroat (+0.82)

Strokes Gained: Off the Tee

Quail Hollow is a long course on which it is important to play from the fairway. Both distance and accuracy are important, as shorter tee shots will result in approach shots from 200 or more yards. With most of the holes heavily tree lined, errant drives will create some real trouble for the players.

Strokes Gained: Off the Tee Past 24 Rounds:

Ludvig Aberg (+0.73)
Rory McIlroy (+0.69)
Xander Schauffele (+0.62)
Viktor Hovland (+0.58)
Chris Kirk (+0.52)

Proximity: 175-200

The 175-200 range is key at Quail Hollow. Players who can hit their long irons well will rise to the top of the leaderboard.

Proximity: 175-200+ over past 24 rounds:

Cameron Young (28’2″)
Akshay Bhatia (29’6″)
Ludvig Aberg (+30’6″)
Sam Burns (+30’6″)
Collin Morikawa (+30’9″)

SG: Total on Tom Fazio Designs

Players who thrive on Tom Fazio designs get a bump for me at Quail Hollow this week.

SG: Total on Tom Fazio Designs over past 36 rounds:

Patrick Cantlay (+2.10)
Rory McIlroy (+1.95)
Tommy Fleetwood (+1.68)
Austin Eckroat (+1.60)
Will Zalatoris (+1.57)

Strokes Gained: Putting (Bermudagrass)

Strokes Gained: Putting has historically graded out as the most important statistic at Quail Hollow. While it isn’t always predictable, I do want to have it in the model to bump up golfers who prefer to putt on Bermudagrass.

Strokes Gained: Putting (Bermudagrass) Over Past 24 Rounds:

Taylor Moore (+0.82)
Nick Dunlap (+.76)
Wyndham Clark (+.69)
Emiliano Grillo (+.64)
Cam Davis (+.61)

Course History

This stat will incorporate players that have played well in the past at Quail Hollow.

Course History over past 36 rounds (per round):

Rory McIlroy (+2.50)
Justin Thomas (+1.96)
Jason Day (+1.92)
Rickie Fowler (+1.83)
Viktor Hovland (+1.78)

Wells Fargo Championship Model Rankings

Below, I’ve compiled overall model rankings using a combination of the five key statistical categories previously discussed — SG: Approach (27%), SG: Off the Tee (23%), SG: Total on Fazio designs (12%), Proximity: 175-200 (12%), SG: Putting Bermuda grass (12%), and Course History (14%).

Wyndham Clark
Rory McIlroy
Xander Schauffele
Shane Lowry
Hideki Matsuyama
Viktor Hovland
Cameron Young
Austin Eckroat
Byeong Hun An
Justin Thomas

2024 Wells Fargo Championship Picks

Tommy Fleetwood +2500 (DraftKings)

I know many out there have Tommy fatigue when it comes to betting, which is completely understandable given his lack of ability to win on the PGA Tour thus far in his career. However, history has shown us that players with Fleetwood’s talent eventually break though, and I believe for Tommy, it’s just a matter of time.

Fleetwood has been excellent on Tom Fazio designs. Over his past 36 rounds, he ranks 3rd in the field in Strokes Gained: Total on Fazio tracks. He’s also been incredibly reliable off the tee this season. He’s gained strokes in the category in eight of his past nine starts, including at The Masters, the PLAYERS and the three “signature events” of the season. Tommy is a golfer built for tougher courses and can grind it out in difficult conditions.

Last year, Fleetwood was the first-round leader at this event, firing a Thursday 65. He finished the event in a tie for 5th place.

For those worried about Fleetwood’s disappointing start his last time out at Harbour Town, he’s bounced back nicely after plenty of poor outings this season. His T7 at the Valero Texas Open was after a MC and T35 in his prior two starts and his win at the Dubai Invitational came after a T47 at the Sentry.

I expect Tommy to bounce back this week and contend at Quail Hollow.

Justin Thomas +3000 (DraftKings)

It’s been a rough couple of years for Justin Thomas, but I don’t believe things are quite as bad as they seem for JT. He got caught in the bad side of the draw at Augusta for last month’s Masters and has gained strokes on approach in seven of his nine starts in 2024.

Thomas may have found something in his most recent start at the RBC Heritage. He finished T5 at a course that he isn’t the best fit for on paper. He also finally got the putter working and ranked 15th in Strokes Gained: Putting for the week.

The two-time PGA champion captured the first of his two major championships at Quail Hollow back in 2017, and some good vibes from the course may be enough to get JT out of his slump.

Thomas hasn’t won an event in just about two years. However, I still believe that will change soon as he’s been one of the most prolific winners throughout his PGA Tour career. Since 2015, he has 15 PGA Tour wins.

Course history is pretty sticky at Quail Hollow, with players who like the course playing well there on a regular basis. In addition to JT’s PGA Championship win in 2017, he went 4-1 at the 2022 Presidents Cup and finished T14 at the event last year despite being in poor form. Thomas can return as one of the top players on the PGA Tour with a win at a “signature event” this week.

Cameron Young +3500 (DraftKings)

For many golf bettors, it’s been frustrating backing Cam Young this season. His talent is undeniable, and one of the best and most consistent performers on the PGA Tour. He just hasn’t broken through with a victory yet. Quail Hollow has been a great place for elite players to get their first victory. Rory McIlroy, Anthony Kim, Rickie Fowler and Wyndham Clark all notched their first PGA Tour win at Quail.

Throughout Cam Young’s career, he has thrived at tougher courses with strong fields. This season, he finished T16 at Riviera and T9 at Augusta National, demonstrating his preference of a tough test. His ability to hit the ball long and straight off the tee make him an ideal fit for Quail Hollow, despite playing pretty poorly his first time out in 2023 (T59). Young should be comfortable playing in the region as he played his college golf at Wake Forest, which is about an hour’s drive from Quail Hollow.

The 26-year-old has played well at Tom Fazio designs in the past and ranks 8th in the field in Strokes Gained: Total on those courses in his last 36 rounds. Perhaps most importantly, this season, Young is the best player on the PGA Tour in terms of proximity from 175-200 in the fairway, which is where a plurality and many crucial shots will come from this week.

Young is an elite talent and Quail Hollow has been kind to players of his ilk who’ve yet to win on Tour.

Byeong Hun An +5000 (FanDuel)

Byeong Hun An missed some opportunities last weekend at the CJ Cup Byron Nelson. He finished T4 and played some outstanding golf, but a couple of missed short putts prevented him from getting to the winning score of -23. Despite not getting the win, it’s hard to view An’s performance as anything other than an overwhelming success. It was An’s fourth top-ten finish of the season.

Last week, An gained 6.5 strokes ball striking, which was 7th in the field. He also ranked 12th for Strokes Gained: Approach and 13th for Strokes Gained: Off the Tee. The South Korean has been hitting the ball so well from tee to green all season long and he now heads to a golf course that should reward his precision.

An’s driver and long irons are absolute weapons. At Quail Hollow, players will see plenty of approach shots from the 175-200 range as well as some from 200+. In his past 24 rounds, Ben ranks 3rd in the field in proximity from 175-200 and 12th in proximity from 200+. Playing in an event that will not end up being a “birdie” fest should help An, who can separate from the field with his strong tee to green play. The putter may not always cooperate but getting to -15 is much easier than getting to -23 for elite ball strikers who tend to struggle on the greens.

Winning a “signature event” feels like a tall task for An this week with so many elite players in the field. However, he’s finished T16 at the Genesis Invitational, T16 at The Masters and T8 at the Arnold Palmer Invitational. The 32-year-old’s game has improved drastically this season and I believe he’s ready to get the biggest win of his career.

Your Reaction?