There’s a common argument in golf development circles: don’t compare a junior or a college player to tour averages, because the gap is so large it’s meaningless — or worse, discouraging. I understand the instinct. But I think it gets the purpose of the comparison backwards.
Tour average isn’t a target you’re supposed to hit next week. It’s a fixed, stable reference point. And a fixed reference point is exactly what makes a number useful over years of development, not just one season.
The problem with a moving baseline
If you only ever compare yourself to players at your own level, your baseline moves every year — and moves differently depending on who’s in your program, your age group, or your region that season. A junior who’s the best putter in their local field one year might be middle-of-the-pack against a stronger field the next, with zero actual change in their putting. The number swings, but the skill didn’t.
Tour average doesn’t move like that. It’s the same anchor this year, next year, and the year after. That stability is what lets a player or a coach track real, cumulative improvement instead of noise caused by whoever happens to be in the comparison pool that week.
What the gap actually tells you
The size of the gap to tour average isn’t the point — the shape of it is. A junior golfer might be 3.5 strokes per round behind tour average in approach play and 1.3 strokes behind in putting. That’s not a verdict on their overall game. It’s a map. It tells you, in relative terms, which parts of the game are closer to elite and which parts have the most room — and therefore where the highest-leverage practice hours are.
This is true whether the gap is enormous or nearly closed. A mid-major D1 player who’s within half a stroke of tour average off the tee but three strokes behind on approach has a completely different practice priority than one who’s the reverse. You only see that shape clearly when everyone is measured against the same fixed point.
It’s a compass, not a scoreboard
The mistake is treating tour average as competition — as if the goal is to feel good or bad about the gap itself. It’s not a scoreboard. It’s a compass. I use it the same way on tour that a college freshman should use it in their first semester: not to ask “how far away am I,” but “which direction is the gap closing fastest, and which direction isn’t moving at all.”
I’ve felt this directly in my own game. Working through swing changes with my coach this year, the tour-average benchmark for strokes gained off the tee has been the clearest signal of whether the changes are actually working under tournament pressure — not how a single round felt, not scoring average, but the trend against a number that hasn’t moved.
Why this scales down, not just up
For a coach managing a full roster, this is also what makes progress comparable across players who are nowhere near each other in ability. A true freshman and a senior captain can both be tracked against the same fixed benchmark, and both numbers mean something, because neither one is relative to the other — they’re both relative to the same fixed target. That’s a much more honest way to show a team that everyone is improving, even when the scoreboard between teammates looks lopsided.
The takeaway
Comparing yourself to tour average isn’t about closing the whole gap tomorrow. It’s about having one number that doesn’t shift under you, so the direction of improvement is unmistakable — at 15, at 22, or on tour. The gap is information. The trend in that gap is the real story.
Read next: Why Golfers Plateau — And Why Playing More Golf Doesn’t Fix It
