By John Considine
Almost twenty years ago Bob Rotella published his best-selling book Golf Is Not A Game of Perfect. Rotella's background is psychology and it was his application of psychology to golf that brought him to sporting prominence. Tom Kite wrote the foreword for the book and he testifies to the important influence Rotella had on his career. In chapter 9 Rotella lists an impressive range of golfers who have benefitted from redirecting their attention away from their long-game towards their short-game. But he admits there are some golfers that he cannot help improve. He says about such a player, "this is a player who cannot accept the fact that low scores depend on how well a golfer plays once the ball is within about 120 yards of the hole. This is the player who persists in thinking that golf is about who hits the longest drives or the prettiest 3-irons".
Rotella might revise his views given the changes to the Professional Golfers' Association Tour in the meantime. According to a recently published paper in the Journal of Sports Economics, the average length of the golf courses on the tour has increased, the height of the rough has been reduced, cups have been repositioned to harder locations, while there has been no increase in the number of bunkers. The authors suggest that these changes should have increased the returns to driving relative to putting. Examining the data, the authors of the paper find that this is in fact the case. Carson Baugher, Jonathan Day and Elvin Burford find that prior to 2011, putting ability was the most important determinant of earnings. In 2011 this changed with driving distance becoming the most important determinant of earnings. Putting slipped to second place in 2011 and remained there in 2012. In 2013 putting slipped to third behind driving distance and driving accuracy.
A key year in their analysis is 2008 when "the average length of the golf course on the PGA Tour increased by 37.4 yards". From that year there is a dramatic increase in the returns to driving length and accuracy.
To illustrate their argument on earning they compare the 2013 earnings of Bubba Watson and Bryce Molder. Watson was the 5th longest driver and 122nd best putter. Molder drove the ball 14 years less than the average golfer but was the 4th best putter. Watson earned $1.8m while Molder earned $0.8m. Eight of the top 10 drivers earned more than $1m whereas only 5 of the top 10 putter earned over $1m.
Carson, Day & Burford suggest that the old saying "drive for show and putt for dough" should be replaced by "drive for dough in order to putt for dough".
The evidence presented in the paper is not incompatible with Rotella's views. However, it clearly attaches a greater importance to driving than one might get from Golf Is Not A Game of Perfect. One of the things I found most interesting about the paper is my reaction to it. If someone asked me to guess which of two golfers earned more money, and they said one was a better driver while the other was better from 120 yards to the hole, then I would go with the golfer that was better over the last 120 yards. I find it hard to rationalise my choice.
A key year in their analysis is 2008 when "the average length of the golf course on the PGA Tour increased by 37.4 yards". From that year there is a dramatic increase in the returns to driving length and accuracy.
To illustrate their argument on earning they compare the 2013 earnings of Bubba Watson and Bryce Molder. Watson was the 5th longest driver and 122nd best putter. Molder drove the ball 14 years less than the average golfer but was the 4th best putter. Watson earned $1.8m while Molder earned $0.8m. Eight of the top 10 drivers earned more than $1m whereas only 5 of the top 10 putter earned over $1m.
Carson, Day & Burford suggest that the old saying "drive for show and putt for dough" should be replaced by "drive for dough in order to putt for dough".
The evidence presented in the paper is not incompatible with Rotella's views. However, it clearly attaches a greater importance to driving than one might get from Golf Is Not A Game of Perfect. One of the things I found most interesting about the paper is my reaction to it. If someone asked me to guess which of two golfers earned more money, and they said one was a better driver while the other was better from 120 yards to the hole, then I would go with the golfer that was better over the last 120 yards. I find it hard to rationalise my choice.
RSS Feed