Driving distance aside, what is the single biggest difference between tour players and scratch/good golfers?

[getitdaily]

Next biggest difference is proximity with irons.

[wagolfer7]

56 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Yes, SG data. This notion they get up and down from everywhere is false (tour avg is 50% from the sand, 60% total for scrambling). The notion they make every putt is false (putting is typically where scratch and pros are statistically the closest). The notion they rarely miss a green is false (tour avg is 11-12 GIRs). 

 

I play with a variety of + handicap guys pretty frequently, including D1 or former D1 players, occasionally some guys with status. The most glaring difference to me is not how far they hit it (which they do), but how far they consistently hit it. Their avg drive and max drive are not far apart and they typically are never in any real trouble off the tee. And on approach shots, particularly from 200+ yards out. A lot of players 5 or better can stick a wedge to a few feet, but very few can hit the green from 200+ out.  Basically every par 5 they are either on the green or at the very least greenside. The best wedge player in the world is still going to lose strokes to someone with just a decent short game who is within 30 yards of the hole. For some reason the stuffed wedge is more memorable than the ho-hum 2 putt birdie.

 

 Are they better at everything else as well? Absolutely, but the question was is the single biggest difference besides driving, and all of data points to one thing. 

 

Yes I've seen you post the data before.  It's hard to argue against when no other data can disprove it otherwise.  

 

Curious again - do they show what the average course rating / slope is for the amateur data vs what the PGA tour's is?  

 

I'd imagine that I would be lower in every category if I played courses that hard.  And possibly not evenly distributed.  Maybe I hit near the same amount of fairways, but go down on GIR's because of course length and my up/down percentage goes down because rough is thicker, greens faster, pins harder placement etc.  

 

I guess my real point would be....is it really an apples to apples comparison?  Just thinking out loud.  I'm not debating the data....it's been supported enough on here and I get it.  

 

I had a buddy that played D1 and tried to make it on the Canadian Tour.  He could barely break 80 out there and said the courses were setup tougher than anything he's ever seen.  That's just one guy and his opinion.  Curious if anyone else has experience with course conditions at a higher level.  If it really is that big of a difference? When you hear commentators say that most amateurs would struggle to break 100 at US Open course, makes me wonder how much harder those courses they play really are.       

[bluedot]

Proximity of approach, period.  There is a mountain of data now, thanks to Shotlink and the work of Mark Broadie and others that proves this beyond any reasonable doubt. As Monte said above, that is the separator at every level. 

 

Put a scratch player and a Tour pro 30’ from the hole, and it’s very close to a tossup. Move them back to 50 yds and the difference is small but significant. Put them at 150, and the differences become noticeable. At 450, there is no comparison.  On a 7500 yd golf course, turn out the lights…

 

Tour pros, like all professional athletes, have crazy hand eye coordination, but the single biggest reason they have great up and down percentages is because of WHERE they miss, and that’s a function of ball striking.  
 

The stats that correlate the most closely to winning money on Tour are all about ball striking, not short game and putting. If that’s the separator ON TOUR, how in the world could the difference between a Tour pro and an amateur be anything else?
 

 

 

 

[MK7Golf21]

Depends on the course they are playing. I’ve played top level courses that the pros play tournaments at and it can be easier than your local course and more difficult in certain ways. Greens are generally perfect, you just start it on your line and they roll pretty true. I find putting much easier vs your local public course. Bunkers are in perfect condition with decent amount of sand, fairways are nice. If the tournament grows out the rough and make the greens so fast they can’t hold anything then that’s a different story (US Open)
 

 

 

[gentles]

2 hours ago, wagolfer7 said:

 

All the best golfers I've played with that tried to make it on a tour all pretty much said "putting" or "100 yards and in" or both.  I've never heard ball striking or iron play.  Not saying that's not true, just the 8-10 best golfers I ran into in my life all said the above.   

the OP specifically asked about the gap between a scratch golfer and a tour pro, not between the guys you’re talking about who are all likely well into the +4-6 range. 
 

I think the reason they answered that way is it’s really tangible and easy to see the impact of short game on score - you either get up and down or you don’t, 3 shots vs 2.

 

The real gold for strokes gained data is it shows the value of partial shots over a round.  Hitting it longer or closer counts for fractions of a shot which add up but it’s hard to point to it and say it’s obviously the difference

 

Long game has way less variability than short game, which matters over long term. You can be the worlds best short game player but if you get junk lies or miss in bad spots on any given day you’re still going to struggle - whereas being able to hit solid approach shots has less external factors that influence success. Rory gets the benefit of his driving distance every time he has a driver in his hand 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

18 minutes ago, wagolfer7 said:

 

Yes I've seen you post the data before.  It's hard to argue against when no other data can disprove it otherwise.  

 

Curious again - do they show what the average course rating / slope is for the amateur data vs what the PGA tour's is?  

 

I'd imagine that I would be lower in every category if I played courses that hard.  And possibly not evenly distributed.  Maybe I hit near the same amount of fairways, but go down on GIR's because of course length and my up/down percentage goes down because rough is thicker, greens faster, pins harder placement etc.  

 

I guess my real point would be....is it really an apples to apples comparison?  Just thinking out loud.  I'm not debating the data....it's been supported enough on here and I get it.  

 

I had a buddy that played D1 and tried to make it on the Canadian Tour.  He could barely break 80 out there and said the courses were setup tougher than anything he's ever seen.  That's just one guy and his opinion.  Curious if anyone else has experience with course conditions at a higher level.  If it really is that big of a difference? When you hear commentators say that most amateurs would struggle to break 100 at US Open course, makes me wonder how much harder those courses they play really are.       

I had a buddy who was a scratch when I was playing the Nike/Kornferry.  We played the day before he was coming to watch me.  He shot 70, I shot 72 at a local course.  We got the to event and played Sunday before tournament week.  The rough, firmness and speed of the greens overwhelmed him.  He pitched and putted better than I did that day.  I again shot 70 and he shot 85.  It’s why a scratch can beat a tour pro on a given day at their home course, but would lose by 10+ shots on a tour level course.

 

Now conditions aren’t always that tough.  See the Amex…but more often than nit, a scratch can’t handle pins 3 paces from the edge half the day course conditions, because they just don’t hit the ball well enough.  
 

 

[MonteScheinblum]

There’s a reason so many tour players and high level non tour players hire Fawcett.  They are under the same misconceptions as everyone else and he’s sets them in the right direction.

 

Statistically, golfers just don’t make that many putts.  3 putt avoidance is where you lower handicap, not making more putts.  Hitting it closer reduces 3 putts.
 

if you improve pitching proximity 33% it doesn’t reduce your scores that much. 
 

Let’s say you’re average Joe improves a certain pitch shot average from 15 feet to 10 feet.  He scores won’t go down, because golfers don’t make that many more 10 footers than 15 footers.

 

He hits 2 more greens a round, scores go WAY down.

 

This cliche comes from watching golf on TV Sunday, when all the miracles are shown.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by MonteScheinblum

[MK7Golf21]

16 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I had a buddy who was a scratch when I was playing the Nike/Kornferry.  We played the day before he was coming to watch me.  He shot 70, I shot 72 at a local course.  We got the to event and played Sunday before tournament week.  The rough, firmness and speed of the greens overwhelmed him.  He pitched and putted better than I did that day.  I again shot 70 and he shot 85.  It’s why a scratch can beat a tour pro on a given day at their home course, but would lose by 10+ shots on a tour level course.

 

Now conditions aren’t always that tough.  See the Amex…but more often than nit, a scratch can’t handle pins 3 paces from the edge half the day course conditions, because they just don’t hit the ball well enough.  
 

 

memorial tournament is same way, Jack has the rough super thick and long for the tournament. You can’t miss fairways or severely penalized. From what I’ve heard the members there don’t play those conditions. 

[CasualLie]

26 minutes ago, MonteScheinblum said:

…but more often than not, a scratch can’t handle pins 3 paces from the edge half the day course conditions, because they just don’t hit the ball well enough.  

 

 

 

This is the perfect example.  Scratch golfers will struggle.  I don't even know what you call a 15 cap playing with tucked pins other than hacking, yet just about every public course setup on Saturdays tucks the pins and wonders why rounds take 5 hours... But I digress...

[Ty_Webb]

2 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I get tired of having to argue that short game, while very important, is not the separator.  Everyone tells me I’m wrong and stupid, so I’m done even trying. 
 

One guy lit me up and told me a failed player like myself doesn’t know anything because he and his future TV playing 13 year old are on the trenches 6 days a week.

 

Short game is to save you when you stink.

 

How close you hit the ball to the hole is the great equalizer and hitting it farther makes that easier.  It’s what separates every skill level.

The tired cliches don’t just litter swing discussions. 

 

Lee Trevino in like the 1880s said "two things that don't last very long, dogs that chase cars and pros who putt for pars". People have known since forever that it's the long game that matters most, but for some reason they kid themselves that the short game is where it's at. I don't know why, but as I'm sure you're aware, it's pervasive.

[chisag]

2 hours ago, OnTheBag said:

After 30+ years of carrying their bags and a low single capper myself, the biggest difference is consistency and distance control.  I do not think raw distance has much to do with it. 

 

 

... I was lucky enough to get paired up with a guy that has win multiple times on the mini tours in town to qualify for Phoenix Open. Distance certainly was a big help as he averaged around 330 off the tee and shot 7 under on the front hitting every fairway and every green. The most impressive thing to me was driving it that far, he had quite a few shots all day long in that 40-90 yd range and he put the ball inside 3-6 feet every single time and made the putt. Usually a little lower flight that hit, hopped forward and came back about 3 feet. Just amazing control. Faced with multiple half and 3/4 wedges I am gonna stick some close but I will also have some 10 footers and a 15-20 footer isn't out of the question. 

[MonteScheinblum]

24 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Lee Trevino in like the 1880s said "two things that don't last very long, dogs that chase cars and pros who putt for pars". People have known since forever that it's the long game that matters most, but for some reason they kid themselves that the short game is where it's at. I don't know why, but as I'm sure you're aware, it's pervasive.

…and all they want to do is tell everyone with a different idea how wrong and stupid they are.

[dvq9654]

2 hours ago, MonteScheinblum said:

I get tired of having to argue that short game, while very important, is not the separator.  Everyone tells me I’m wrong and stupid, so I’m done even trying. 
 

One guy lit me up and told me a failed player like myself doesn’t know anything because he and his future TV playing 13 year old are on the trenches 6 days a week.

 

Short game is to save you when you stink.

 

How close you hit the ball to the hole is the great equalizer and hitting it farther makes that easier.  It’s what separates every skill level.

The tired cliches don’t just litter swing discussions. 

 

Why do people keep arguing against this? Can anyone name a single pro in recent memory who was a top 10 player, or even a consistent top 50 player because they putted it lights out? 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. How many great ball strikers have overcome average at best short games to be elite players? Off hand:

 

- Adam Scott

- Sergio

- Ernie Els 

- Colin Morikawa 

- Dustin Johnson

- Bubba Watson 

 

That list above literally took me two seconds to write. There are plenty more (e.g., Bernhard Langer). Ball striking and tee to green is king and strokes gained proves it. Stop living in the past, and accept that "drive for show, putt for dough" was never true and never will be. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by dvq9654

[MonteScheinblum]

10 minutes ago, dvq9654 said:

Why do people keep arguing against this? Can anyone name a single pro in recent memory who was a top 10 player, or even a consistent top 50 player because they putted it lights out? 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. How many great ball strikers have overcome average at best short games to be elite players? Off hand:

 

- Adam Scott

- Sergio

- Ernie Els 

- Colin Morikawa 

- Dustin Johnson

- Bubba Watson 

 

That list above literally took me two seconds to write. There are plenty more (e.g., Bernhard Langer). Ball striking and tee to green is king and strokes gained proves it. Stop living in the past, and accept that "drive for show, putt for dough" was never true and never will be. 

Not just argue, call you stupid and hurl personal insults.

 

Funny thing is, I never once lost a putting contest, or a match to someone who snidely said DFSPFD.  Because the people who say that hit it shirt and suck at putting too.

[Krt22]

43 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

Lee Trevino in like the 1880s said "two things that don't last very long, dogs that chase cars and pros who putt for pars". People have known since forever that it's the long game that matters most, but for some reason they kid themselves that the short game is where it's at. I don't know why, but as I'm sure you're aware, it's pervasive.

I think it’s easier for delusional golfers to think pros have some “mythical” short  short game or “wizard like” putting than admit they simply they strike the ball that much better than everyone else. 

For the avg coulda shoulda woulda scratch guy, it’s a lot easier on the ego to say the differentiator is something intangible than it is to admit their ball striking simply isn’t as good as they think it is.
 

Some even use the same exact tactics to explain why they are short off the tee as well. They say things like pros are “athletic freaks” or have “Gumby like flexibility” or “insane fast twitch”.  Now those things are also all true, but the thing they don’t point out is how much more efficient pros swing the club, how little motion they waste with compensations.

[golfarb1]

12 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I think it’s easier for delusional golfers to think pros have some “mythical” short  short game or “wizard like” putting than admit they simply they strike the ball that much better than everyone else. 

For the avg coulda shoulda woulda scratch guy, it’s a lot easier on the ego to say the differentiator is something intangible than it is to admit their ball striking simply isn’t as good as they think it is.
 

Some even use the same exact tactics to explain why they are short off the tee as well. They say things like pros are “athletic freaks” or have “Gumby like flexibility” or “insane fast twitch”.  Now those things are also all true, but the thing they don’t point out is how much more efficient pros swing the club, how little motion they waste with compensations.

Touring pros are the  best in their sport .  Nobody disputes that the pros strike the ball much better than anyone else .Touring pros have above average mobility and athletic skills specific to golf . They make fewer mistakes and require fewer compensations later in their swings . Some are athletic freaks , like Dustin Johnson . 
But many possess magician like qualities in their short games 

Lee Trevino , who was quoted earlier was the best wedge player of all time . 
For the average player or even the scratch player , it is easier to develop a better short game than it is to make changes in a swing with ingrained problems . 
 

[MPStrat]

As mentioned there is a threshold of swing speed that is required to play on tour that most amateurs will never get near. Aside from that you can be scratch and not hit it all that well and you can certainly be very inconsistent. But as skill level goes up, so does the ability to repeat. The guys who are always in the top 10 have the most repeatable games. There are 5 handicaps whose best 5 shots in a round are tour caliber, but they usually have several round-killing misses. A pros motion is much more repeatable than a scratch player. That doesn’t mean all tour pros have swings that would win the p system contest or the Instagram beauty pageant, it means they repeat what they do over and over again. Some dismiss this as 100% innate ability, but there are also some like Bryson who turn over every stone to make their motion more repeatable. A teacher I know named Mike Emery believes the best of the best players (not always knowingly) use certain anatomical extremes for repeatability.  

 

[MonteScheinblum]

14 minutes ago, MPStrat said:

As mentioned there is a threshold of swing speed that is required to play on tour that most amateurs will never get near. Aside from that you can be scratch and not hit it all that well and you can certainly be very inconsistent. But as skill level goes up, so does the ability to repeat. The guys who are always in the top 10 have the most repeatable games. There are 5 handicaps whose best 5 shots in a round are tour caliber, but they usually have several round-killing misses. A pros motion is much more repeatable than a scratch player. That doesn’t mean all tour pros have swings that would win the p system contest or the Instagram beauty pageant, it means they repeat what they do over and over again. Some dismiss this as 100% innate ability, but there are also some like Bryson who turn over every stone to make their motion more repeatable. A teacher I know named Mike Emery believes the best of the best players (not always knowingly) use certain anatomical extremes for repeatability.  

 

Emory is a good egg.  Tell him I said hello.

[golfarb1]

1 hour ago, dvq9654 said:

Why do people keep arguing against this? Can anyone name a single pro in recent memory who was a top 10 player, or even a consistent top 50 player because they putted it lights out? 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. How many great ball strikers have overcome average at best short games to be elite players? Off hand:

 

- Adam Scott

- Sergio

- Ernie Els 

- Colin Morikawa 

- Dustin Johnson

- Bubba Watson 

 

That list above literally took me two seconds to write. There are plenty more (e.g., Bernhard Langer). Ball striking and tee to green is king and strokes gained proves it. Stop living in the past, and accept that "drive for show, putt for dough" was never true and never will be. 

1.Phil-often wild the tee, but a true magician with the wedge and short game

2. Zach Johnson-2 time major winner . He was short off of the tee a good ball striker  who possessed a superb short game .

3. Lucas Donald- was # 1 for 56 weeks- short off the tee - had a terrific short game 

4. Graeme McDowell- US Open champion

short off the tee with a very good short game . # 4 in the WORLD 

5. David Toms-PGA champion and  US Senior Open champion in 2018- Fine swing but short off of the tee - can shoot the lights out around the green 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2022 by golfarb1

[gentles]

1 hour ago, golfarb1 said:

. 
For the average player or even the scratch player , it is easier to develop a better short game than it is to make changes in a swing with ingrained problems . 
 

this wasn’t the original question posed by OP. The average 90s shooter likely has a number of glaring technical flaws which with proper instruction and application will reap far more rewards than chipping practice. 

 

Phil was an above average driver (not super accurate but very long) at his best. The deterioration of his driving in the last few years almost solely explains his decline in the game.

ZJ is the same as Phil - he went from being a serviceable driver, then switched to PXG driver, became one of the worst drivers on tour and has barely sniffed a top ten in 3 years. 

You’ve listed a handful of exceptions to the rule, which is that by and large the pga tour is chock full of relatively long, good iron players, some who putt and chip better than others.

[golfarb1]

3 hours ago, dvq9654 said:

Why do people keep arguing against this? Can anyone name a single pro in recent memory who was a top 10 player, or even a consistent top 50 player because they putted it lights out? 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. How many great ball strikers have overcome average at best short games to be elite players? Off hand:

 

- Adam Scott

- Sergio

- Ernie Els 

- Colin Morikawa 

- Dustin Johnson

- Bubba Watson 

 

That list above literally took me two seconds to write. There are plenty more (e.g., Bernhard Langer). Ball striking and tee to green is king and strokes gained proves it. Stop living in the past, and accept that "drive for show, putt for dough" was never true and never will be. 

I was never referring to the average 90 shooter , but the low handicap -scratch golfer . At that level ingrained swing habits are increasing difficult to change . 
Phil has always been long and also had period of wildness off of the tee. . 


 

[gentles]

2 hours ago, golfarb1 said:

I was never referring to the average 90 shooter , but the low handicap -scratch golfer . At that level ingrained swing habits are increasing difficult to change . 
Phil has always been long and also had period of wildness off of the tee. . 


 

the comment about ingrained habits being hard to change - why would that not apply to short game shots? If short game was easier for anyone to improve why are there bad chippers and pitchers on tour?

[MikeCVGA]

12 hours ago, ShupeSC said:

Biggest difference is the ability to play a new course every week. A lot of +4/+5 guys can tear their home course or near by courses up every day, but being able to travel, sleep in a different bed every week, keep workout routine up and play good is hard to do… 

I think there is a lot of truth to this. For example: I play in a Veteran Golfer's league which allows me to play 15-20 different courses throughout the season. My buddies, who I get together with once a year for a three day golf weekend all play their home course consistently with very few opportunities to play other courses. They are all 12-15 HDCP, I'm a 21. Yet, when we went to Pinehurst last summer I was beating them gross. They of course said I fluffed my handicap, but in reality I was just better at playing a foreign course than they were. 

[iceman1118]

I started playing golf 6 years ago. Turning 36 this year. I play to a home and traveling 2 handicap. I did not grow up playing, watching, and certainly never grew up hearing drive for show, putt for dough. That’s BS in my opinion. 
 

I drive it decently far pretty consistently, generally a 280-290 carry. I strike my irons well. I hit a lot of greens. But here is what I see in my “shortish” time playing this game. Yes, putting and short game is important. Can’t argue that. However, you have to hit fairways and hit greens in order to SCORE. That is the whole point of golf, lowest number of strokes to get the ball in the hole. So, in order to do that, you have to keep the ball in play, hit a lot of fairways, and hit a ton of greens. So be a good ball striker. Plain and simple. Being a good ball striker in theory leads to more fairways, more greens, and again in theory, iron and wedge shots that will be closer to the hole more often than not. If you can hit your approach shots close (relatively speaking), you will have a low handicap and score most days. If you are missing greens and have to rely on short game to SAVE YOUR SCORE, you are behind the 8 ball. If you can strike it well and you find the majority of your birdie putts from a distance that can keep you from 3 putting, then I think you are in good shape to score. Every once in a while you still stick a wedge close and make the 5 footer for birdie. Hell you may even drop the occasional 20 footer for birdie. But staring at 40 and 50 foot birdie putts all day? Three jacks all day. Don’t care who you are. 
 

And in my opinion, here is the kicker. If you are not able to find a lot of mid and short irons/wedges into some of the par 4s, tee it forward. Plain and simple. Even a guy like me with my length, I start to struggle around 7200 yards. That is where I know that I may not break 80 that day. I always laugh when I hear people say “Let’s play from the back. I need the length for my game.” Then they drive it a crooked 235 all day and they are 6 iron length into a par 4. Makes zero sense to me. 
 

Ball striking, distance control with irons and wedges, and distance off the tee are key.  I have not figured out which order of importance those factors are yet, but those are the factors. These factors lead to shorter birdie putt opportunities. That leads to scoring. In my humble opinion and shorter experience with this game than the majority of you, taking all ego out of the equation, that is what I firmly believe. And to answer the OP’s question, that is what your pros do best. 
 

@MonteScheinblum, always a pleasure to hear your opinions on these topics. Especially when I agree with it. Makes me realize I am not crazy!

[BombinJim]

7 hours ago, golfarb1 said:

3. Lucas Donald- was # 1 for 56 weeks- short off the tee - had a terrific short game

When he was #1 in the world it was due to his long game improving tremendously (short game stayed good obviously). Brodie talked about this in Every Shot Counts.

[vman]

The separator is quality of strike and the commitment to the shot that this affords them.

[johnrobison]

8 hours ago, golfarb1 said:

1.Phil-often wild the tee, but a true magician with the wedge and short game

2. Zach Johnson-2 time major winner . He was short off of the tee a good ball striker  who possessed a superb short game .

3. Lucas Donald- was # 1 for 56 weeks- short off the tee - had a terrific short game 

4. Graeme McDowell- US Open champion

short off the tee with a very good short game . # 4 in the WORLD 

5. David Toms-PGA champion and  US Senior Open champion in 2018- Fine swing but short off of the tee - can shoot the lights out around the green 

 

 

Even better than their short game was their iron game from 150-225. Pretty much all pros have terrific short games, anyway. People dismiss the great approach shots for some reason and get all excited when a guy holes out or gets tight from green-side. The statistical fact is that the biggest differentiator is their approach game from distance. That's not anecdotal - it's derived from actual data.

[brutus27]

The mental game.
Overall confidence, all other things being equal.

[stephenmatt]

Consistency, ball striking, touch around the green, putting, driving... The list goes on. They are better at everything and not just a little bit better. I am assuming a scratch golfer compared to a tour pro is essentially like a 10 handicap compared to a scratch golfer.

Edited February 6, 2022 by stephenmatt

[MonteScheinblum]

2 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Even better than their short game was their iron game from 150-225. Pretty much all pros have terrific short games, anyway. People dismiss the great approach shots for some reason and get all excited when a guy holes out or gets tight from green-side. The statistical fact is that the biggest differentiator is their approach game from distance. That's not anecdotal - it's derived from actual data.

In most debates in golf and life, you can always find data that supports both sides and you can present the data to fit your belief.  In this case, the short game rules all crowd has

 

I know you are, but what am I

Im rubber, you're glue

I don’t make trash I burn it

I just know

 

The only data I have ever seen that supports that short game is the separator, is once every couple of years, a guy blows it all over the map and makes everything and finishes 3rd.

 

Having a good short game to recover when you hit a bad shot is huge. No one debates that.  However, common sense dictates a guy hitting 12 greens is going to almost always beat a guy who hit 6.  Does the guy who hits 6 beat the guy that hits 12 occasionally?  Of course, but it’s not the norm.

 

People lose sense of this because they all remember the times the guy that chipped in twice and bombed in a bunch of 40 footers, beat the guy that was 12 feet all day and kept burning edges….by 1.

 

The issue is that’s a 1 out if 10.  9 times out of 10 there are no chip ins, no bombed in 40 footers and not all of those 12 footers burned the edge and the ball striker wins by 5-10.

 

Have there been mediocre ball strikers that won on tour….of course.  However, most of the all time greats were known as great strikers.  Nicklaus was well known for his average short game.  As was Hogan.  People bring up Tiger’s short game wizardry, but we would have never seen it, had he not been possibly the greatest iron player of all time.

Edited January 29, 2022 by MonteScheinblum