What If Scenario: PGA Tour Becomes an All-Putting Tour or an All-Ballstriking Tour

I suspect that 10-15% of current Pros would make the All Putting Tour and nearly all of them would make the All Ball Striking Tour.

I like my chances on the all putting tour, especially seeing as I can stop devoted so much time to full swing and concentrate on putting only. Not to mention if the only gear I need to buy is a putter I can spend my whole budget on an Edel.

I'm a pretty solid putter already, if I spent all my practice time on Aimpoint I'd be on that Tour or at the very least the feeder Tour.

I think even less than the 10 - 15% that the guys mentioned above for the first scenario.  Putting does not really matter that much, so I would think that there could easily be better putters when you take into account the world population.

Second scenario, I would agree with @jamo on the 100.  I suppose there is probably a few guys on the lower tours that can strike the ball really well, but have putting yips.

I'm going to say it's a little higher than zero percent because of the experience they already have ... not necessarily from putting, but from pressure of performing with a lot on the line and that sort of thing.  I'll go 5%.

Ballstriking, I'd say the new tour would be nearly entirely comprised of guys on the current tour.  Every once in a while you hear of a guy like Mac O Grady or Grant Waite (also, a couple of years ago Boo Weekley went through a pretty big slump) who have the prettiest swings on tour but can't putt.  Those type of guys would probably replace a few of your Luke Donald or Justin Leonard types, I imagine.

Let me put it this way.......I'm gonna try Q-school for scenario 1!

1- none

2- 75%

It is a thought provoking question, and I think it does a good job illustrating the disconnect between some of golf's old truisms ("drive for show, putt for dough," etc.) and the data behind what makes great players great.

But to suggest that the answer to the first question is zero, or one, or two...... is a ridiculous overstatement on the other side, I believe. Obviously, there's no way anyone can be right or wrong when answering an unprovable hypothetical, but I will say this. If the over/under betting line were set sufficiently low (say at 5 PGA tour pro's who would carry over into the world's top 125 putters), I would have no problem betting a significant sum of my discretionary $$$ on the "over" side of the equation.

Yup. It would be like Putt-Putt golf! I say one of them makes it..? Maybe Sneds or Stricker that's it. I say 95% make the second tour. My dream would finally come true and Boo Weekley would win the grand slam...

1) 1%

2) 75%

I'm not a gambler.  You couldn't get me to take the under (for my entire life savings) unless you set the line at 126 ... and you couldn't get me to take the over unless you set it at zero.

Fair enough. Out of curiosity, where would you suggest the other 123/124 guys who would qualify for the "putting tour" come from?