WEBVTT - What Is the Biggest Question in Golf? 0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.520 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. 0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:04.920 When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:06.920 And when I find my ball in a fried egg 0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:11.840 Friday egg, the dreaded Frida Egg, Friday fridagg Bride Egg. 0:00:11.720 --> 0:00:13.640 Lie, I'm about ready to run off of the hump. 0:00:37.159 --> 0:00:40.960 Welcome back to another edition of the Friday Golf Podcast. 0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:43.800 I am your host, Andy Johnson, and today I got 0:00:43.800 --> 0:00:46.519 a fun podcast for you guys. I think I am 0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:50.560 joined by a few different guests, and I pose the 0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:55.720 question to an assortment of people, what is the biggest 0:00:55.800 --> 0:00:58.920 question in golf that you're thinking about a lot? 0:00:59.080 --> 0:00:59.280 You know? 0:00:59.360 --> 0:01:02.480 So, what is the big topic that you don't necessarily 0:01:02.560 --> 0:01:06.400 know the answer to, or just a general topic that 0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:09.840 you're thinking about a lot when it comes to regards 0:01:09.880 --> 0:01:15.000 to golf. So the guests for this podcast are Kyle Porter, 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:19.040 who is the author of a great newsletter, The Normal Sporter. 0:01:19.160 --> 0:01:22.760 He writes on CBS Sports, also a co host of 0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:27.280 the First Cut podcast. Brian Schneider, a golf course architect. 0:01:27.560 --> 0:01:30.039 You know, He's built a lot of new courses that 0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:32.319 are getting a lot of claim, restored, a lot of 0:01:32.319 --> 0:01:35.920 great golf courses, worked with Tom Doak for years and 0:01:35.959 --> 0:01:40.600 then also Roberto Castro. Roberto is a co host of 0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:44.480 the Course Record podcast, a former PGA tour player, and 0:01:44.520 --> 0:01:47.600 I think, just in general, a deep thinker. So before 0:01:47.640 --> 0:01:51.080 we get into this podcast, let's talk a little bit 0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:55.560 about our sponsor, Red Rooster Golf. Red Rooster's great. They 0:01:55.600 --> 0:01:58.640 are partnering with us for our club TFE gift and 0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:01.720 they've got a great deal for you guys. These are 0:02:01.760 --> 0:02:05.560 great gloves. I love my Red Rooster glove. I'm a 0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:07.840 big fan of it, and they have an awesome deal 0:02:08.200 --> 0:02:12.760 Buy two, get one free on premium headcovers, belts, and 0:02:12.840 --> 0:02:16.799 performance socks. These are new products. They just launched their 0:02:16.800 --> 0:02:19.320 new braided belts which have been a big hit so far, 0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:22.919 stylish neutral colors, and they got a bunch of sizes available. 0:02:23.320 --> 0:02:25.919 The socks are a popular item as well. Who doesn't 0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:28.240 need a good pair of socks, and they offer a 0:02:28.280 --> 0:02:31.040 bunch of colors to choose from, as well as long 0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:33.840 or short options. So on top of that by two 0:02:33.960 --> 0:02:37.640 get one free deal, they also have a buy one 0:02:37.639 --> 0:02:40.959 glove and get the second fifty percent off and all 0:02:40.960 --> 0:02:43.520 you have to do there is use the code fifty 0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:47.520 Fried So these are award winning gloves. They are tremendous gloves, 0:02:47.639 --> 0:02:51.160 really soft, great leather. You just have to use the 0:02:51.160 --> 0:02:53.520 code fifty fried to buy one glove and get the 0:02:53.520 --> 0:02:56.480 second fifty percent off. And then they also have these 0:02:56.520 --> 0:03:00.080 new products such as belts, socks, and headcovers. Check it 0:02:59.880 --> 0:03:12.000 out at redroostergolf dot com. All right, Kyle Porter, I 0:03:12.040 --> 0:03:14.640 gotta ask, what's your one big question for golf? 0:03:16.400 --> 0:03:19.840 So I'm I'm I'm super excited that you brought me on. 0:03:19.960 --> 0:03:25.600 I think about this stuff a lot, and I you know, 0:03:25.600 --> 0:03:26.880 one of the one of the things I go to 0:03:26.960 --> 0:03:30.480 a lot, Andy is like putting things in historical context 0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:33.720 and perspective. And this is stuff that we all talk 0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:36.120 about when we're on the road together and just chopping 0:03:36.160 --> 0:03:38.920 it up and hanging out. And I think my one 0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.600 big question for golf right now, and I want to 0:03:41.680 --> 0:03:43.240 I want to frame it a couple of different ways, 0:03:43.280 --> 0:03:46.680 but is how do we how do we classify how 0:03:46.760 --> 0:03:51.400 much major championship? Winning major championships matters? Right? And that's 0:03:52.320 --> 0:03:56.760 probably always been a question for people like us who 0:03:56.840 --> 0:04:01.040 are trying to contextualize this stuff and and and make 0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:04.720 it relatable for fans or for or peers or whatever. 0:04:04.840 --> 0:04:08.840 But that is that's my one big question for golf 0:04:08.920 --> 0:04:09.280 right now. 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:15.000 It's an interesting one because it's I think like when 0:04:15.000 --> 0:04:17.640 you look at I think there's like majors. If you 0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:21.599 look at the list of most major wins, it's pretty 0:04:21.680 --> 0:04:24.360 like you go down and it's not you know, there's 0:04:24.360 --> 0:04:26.119 a couple of people that you're like, maybe they should 0:04:26.120 --> 0:04:29.480 add more, maybe they should add less. But for the 0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:33.200 most part, I think it's pretty good. I think the 0:04:33.240 --> 0:04:36.960 one thing, I think we're definitely in an era where 0:04:37.839 --> 0:04:41.120 it's harder to win a major than ever before. M H. 0:04:41.760 --> 0:04:44.080 I think there are you know, there's a number of factors. 0:04:44.080 --> 0:04:47.320 I think there's more talent. I think there's you know, 0:04:47.680 --> 0:04:50.880 I think the equipment. The current equipment makes it a 0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:53.839 little bit harder for the talent to separate, which might 0:04:53.920 --> 0:04:57.240 make the run of Scottie Scheffler's on even more impressive. 0:04:58.640 --> 0:05:01.720 But I think, like my question to you would be, 0:05:01.960 --> 0:05:05.000 if you were going to make the argument that majors 0:05:05.240 --> 0:05:11.559 are a poor contextualization of a player, who who would 0:05:11.560 --> 0:05:13.480 you point to specifically. 0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:18.400 A poor contextualization. Well, I think somebody like Adam Scott 0:05:18.400 --> 0:05:23.280 comes to mind, right, Adam Scott is like you think 0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:26.440 about somebody like John Daly who has two major wins 0:05:26.480 --> 0:05:28.279 and Adam Scott has won, and you're like, well, that 0:05:28.360 --> 0:05:33.599 an't those guys are very like Adam Scott is just 0:05:34.480 --> 0:05:37.960 objectively a better golfer than John Daly. But if we 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:40.760 go by majors, and this is what everybody runs to, right, 0:05:40.800 --> 0:05:43.320 it is like, oh well, and especially I think over 0:05:43.320 --> 0:05:46.080 the last two years, this has become even more heightened 0:05:46.120 --> 0:05:49.520 of like, oh, well, majors, it's the only thing that matters. 0:05:49.560 --> 0:05:53.119 None of this other stuff even matters, And even even 0:05:53.279 --> 0:05:55.279 those of us who are trying to be nuanced about it, 0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:58.080 you're like, well, I mean yeah, kind of, but like 0:05:59.279 --> 0:06:02.520 I don't know, though Western Open should still matter, and 0:06:02.560 --> 0:06:07.039 you if you study golf history at all, they weren't 0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:08.960 the only thing that matters. It mattered to win the 0:06:08.960 --> 0:06:13.040 North South, it mattered to win all these different opens 0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:16.640 and other countries. You know, Like, I just I get it, 0:06:16.680 --> 0:06:19.560 but I also hate that it's the case that sometimes 0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:22.520 we only run to majors to kind of judge guys 0:06:22.640 --> 0:06:23.479 careers by. 0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:26.720 I think you bring up a couple of points that 0:06:27.000 --> 0:06:32.920 have a lot to chew on, right, I think the 0:06:32.960 --> 0:06:36.080 one of the big things I think that you hit 0:06:36.120 --> 0:06:40.360 on was the idea of scaling the PGA Tour as 0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.880 a business. And when you think about scaling a business, 0:06:44.400 --> 0:06:48.919 you think about making efficiencies and making things repeatable. And 0:06:49.000 --> 0:06:51.800 one of the things that the PGA Tour did to 0:06:51.960 --> 0:06:56.680 scale their business is they've made their tournaments very repeatable. 0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:00.400 And there's a sameness to them, which is dominic, the 0:07:00.480 --> 0:07:05.560 individual charm of each one and maybe the significance of 0:07:05.600 --> 0:07:08.839 each one. And I think, like, what's what's fascinating to 0:07:08.880 --> 0:07:13.520 think about is like the majors in golf have evolved 0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:17.000 and changed over time. Right, the Western Open at one 0:07:17.000 --> 0:07:19.800 time was a major, you know, the Canadian Open was 0:07:19.840 --> 0:07:24.880 considered by many to be a major. Are we going 0:07:24.920 --> 0:07:27.480 to get to a point like is there a future 0:07:27.520 --> 0:07:31.720 where a different tournament's considered a major? I know, you know, 0:07:32.080 --> 0:07:35.120 and and what does that look like? But I agree 0:07:35.240 --> 0:07:40.800 to certain I think like when when you've one of 0:07:40.840 --> 0:07:46.520 the issues that pro golf faces is that that the 0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:50.920 tournaments that aren't majors, as you hit on, mean less 0:07:50.960 --> 0:07:55.480 than ever before. So how do you how do you 0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:58.360 make them mean more? And I think there has to 0:07:58.400 --> 0:08:03.280 be some individuality to them for them to mean something. 0:08:04.160 --> 0:08:07.880 Well, that's where you know, the idea of a global 0:08:07.880 --> 0:08:11.720 tour I think has some really bad business implications, but 0:08:11.760 --> 0:08:16.040 I think it has a ton of appeal if in 0:08:16.080 --> 0:08:18.680 that respect, because you're like, oh, the Australian Open has 0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:21.200 like a real identity, Like he might not have great players, 0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:25.960 but it has like a true identity, right, and something 0:08:26.000 --> 0:08:27.600 like the Scottish Open, if you take it to the 0:08:27.680 --> 0:08:30.600 right places it has it has a true identity. So 0:08:30.680 --> 0:08:34.280 I think that there are ways to kind of mold 0:08:34.520 --> 0:08:38.400 or shape a global tour around that idea. I've got 0:08:38.400 --> 0:08:40.360 a question for you. This is one that I kind 0:08:40.360 --> 0:08:42.200 of wanted to use as a jumping off point into 0:08:42.240 --> 0:08:45.800 all this. But my question, and this is sort of 0:08:45.800 --> 0:08:50.240 meant to be provocative, but my question is, is Scottischeffer 0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:53.080 the best golfer in the world in twenty twenty four? 0:08:54.720 --> 0:08:59.960 I think absolutely right, I would agree, But he also 0:09:00.160 --> 0:09:02.480 hasn't been the best major championship. 0:09:01.880 --> 0:09:05.640 Golfer because of Bryson in his performance. 0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:09.559 Because Bryson has been Bryston's like like cut away from 0:09:09.559 --> 0:09:11.680 being like like winning two majors this year. 0:09:12.800 --> 0:09:16.079 Well, this is the tricky thing too with Scotty in 0:09:16.160 --> 0:09:20.960 Bryson specifically, like these two players, the fact that we're 0:09:21.000 --> 0:09:24.520 in this era where they play on different tours, where 0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:29.079 they don't go up against each other. I I generally 0:09:29.160 --> 0:09:32.800 don't like the argument of Scotty's doing this against the 0:09:32.840 --> 0:09:36.600 weakest PGA tour fields. And some time I don't agree 0:09:36.720 --> 0:09:39.280 generally like that because you look at the body of 0:09:39.400 --> 0:09:43.640 work and it's like, okay, so maybe one or two 0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:46.720 of these wins has gone away, and it's still uber 0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:49.560 impressive if you if you brought all the live players in, 0:09:49.760 --> 0:09:56.160 like maybe one or two he doesn't win. But I 0:09:56.200 --> 0:09:58.839 think that's like the tricky thing with just golf right 0:09:58.880 --> 0:10:01.720 now is that you're looking looking at a you know, 0:10:02.040 --> 0:10:06.000 his greatest rival, Scotty's greatest rival last year is gone 0:10:06.640 --> 0:10:09.480 mm hmm. He's played against him twice and and that 0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:12.000 player has been a shell of what he once was 0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:16.600 those two times. Now Bryson's brought come up and become 0:10:16.679 --> 0:10:20.960 this great player, but then you know he hasn't Like 0:10:21.679 --> 0:10:24.720 the requisite thing is he hasn't won a lot on live. 0:10:25.320 --> 0:10:28.840 It's just like it's a very difficult time to determine 0:10:28.880 --> 0:10:31.760 who the best player is. And I think this was 0:10:31.800 --> 0:10:35.480 where golf was going in general, whether the tour split 0:10:35.559 --> 0:10:38.240 or not, with the with the with the events that 0:10:38.440 --> 0:10:42.240 you know, there's only a handful. It's so hard to 0:10:42.360 --> 0:10:46.040 judge because there's only a handful of times where you 0:10:46.120 --> 0:10:49.120 see the best players in the world playing on the 0:10:49.160 --> 0:10:55.440 greatest venues. Like everybody golf is player versus course. The 0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:58.320 venue stuff is important, and we see that at the majors. 0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:01.000 And I think that's the other aspect of this is 0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:04.960 that there are so few events that these guys all 0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:08.560 play in together, and there's then so few other events 0:11:08.600 --> 0:11:12.199 where the majority of the top guys play together on 0:11:12.280 --> 0:11:13.560 really great golf courses. 0:11:14.480 --> 0:11:17.800 I totally agree with you about venues, but I also 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:20.360 think that sort of makes the case for Bryson, right, 0:11:20.440 --> 0:11:23.520 Like Bryson was awesome at Pinehurst, he was really good 0:11:23.559 --> 0:11:25.640 at Gusta Nashal Intel like kind of kind of be 0:11:25.720 --> 0:11:29.400 in there. I wouldn't make I would not make the 0:11:29.480 --> 0:11:31.480 argument that Bryson's been the best golfer in the world 0:11:31.520 --> 0:11:33.800 in twenty twenty four. But I think you could if 0:11:33.840 --> 0:11:38.040 you sort of put a lot of weight on venue 0:11:38.120 --> 0:11:44.160 major like all those things now the like to combat 0:11:44.200 --> 0:11:46.040 that you would say, well, Scotty won. The players like, 0:11:46.080 --> 0:11:48.880 that's a big deal. That's a championship course, you know, 0:11:49.160 --> 0:11:51.720 And so I don't know. I just and this is 0:11:51.760 --> 0:11:53.760 sort of why I brought it up, is because I 0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:58.280 don't really know how to think properly about all this stuff. 0:11:58.480 --> 0:12:00.240 The other thing, I put this out on Twitter the 0:12:00.280 --> 0:12:03.360 other day, but I asked people to name the five 0:12:03.360 --> 0:12:06.240 best golfers from the last ten years. Pretty straightforward question, 0:12:06.640 --> 0:12:12.320 and it brought about a lot of debate because people 0:12:12.400 --> 0:12:15.840 value different things, right, Some people value strokes gained, some 0:12:15.880 --> 0:12:20.360 people value tournament wins, some people value major wins. You know. 0:12:20.520 --> 0:12:22.800 There's just a bunch of different directions that you can 0:12:22.840 --> 0:12:26.120 go with that. But the place that I landed is like, Okay, 0:12:26.160 --> 0:12:35.920 you've got my five, where Brooks, DJ, Scottie, Rom and Rory. Okay, 0:12:35.920 --> 0:12:38.400 you start going down the list, Well, where's Jordan Speed. 0:12:38.440 --> 0:12:41.000 He's won thirteen times in the last ten years, including 0:12:41.080 --> 0:12:44.520 three majors, And honestly, the guy that you might replace 0:12:45.400 --> 0:12:49.120 on that list with Speed could be Rory. Even though 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:53.520 Rory's been unequivocally like the best at golf, like getting 0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:55.000 the ball in the hole in a few strokes over 0:12:55.000 --> 0:12:57.360 the last ten years, because he doesn't have that major. 0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:00.839 And so I just I don't know how to think 0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:08.920 so and I mean I didn't I So I just 0:13:09.320 --> 0:13:12.680 I like Rory would one hundred percent trade his last 0:13:12.679 --> 0:13:16.720 ten years for speets, even though Rory's been a lot better, 0:13:16.880 --> 0:13:18.720 you know. And so I just I think some of 0:13:18.760 --> 0:13:21.679 that stuff is just And golf's weird, right because you 0:13:21.679 --> 0:13:24.240 you almost want to be at one end of the 0:13:24.240 --> 0:13:25.880 spectrum or the other. You don't care if you miss 0:13:25.920 --> 0:13:27.440 ting cuts in a row as long as you win 0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:29.880 ten times in a row. And that that to me, 0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:34.720 is a little different than maybe some other sports. The 0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.480 way that you're expected to perform. 0:13:37.559 --> 0:13:40.199 Yeah, this is this is a lot here, there's a 0:13:40.240 --> 0:13:43.200 lot to unpackage. But I think this is like the 0:13:44.120 --> 0:13:46.560 crux of of golf. I think it's even like the 0:13:46.640 --> 0:13:48.280 crux of how we judge golf. 0:13:48.880 --> 0:13:49.160 YEP. 0:13:49.320 --> 0:13:52.040 I think if you're a if you're a great player. 0:13:53.080 --> 0:13:56.440 And I there's a great Tiger Woods quote about this. 0:13:56.600 --> 0:13:59.680 I wish I had a handy, but he basically said, like, 0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:03.440 all I'm trying to be is more consistent. And I 0:14:03.480 --> 0:14:09.400 think like what gets undervalued maybe and what gets winning 0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.280 maybe gets overvalued. And I think this is what you're saying. 0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:19.600 Majors are they overvalued? Consistency is what every great player 0:14:19.680 --> 0:14:21.960 is trying to do. How can I be at my 0:14:22.160 --> 0:14:25.880 top level as often as possible? Yeah, And if you 0:14:25.920 --> 0:14:29.280 think about golf like these majors, maybe I'm not going 0:14:29.360 --> 0:14:34.120 to say they're random occurrences, but there's the semi random 0:14:34.280 --> 0:14:38.360 aspect of majors and bounces, and you know, maybe there's 0:14:38.480 --> 0:14:41.040 just something in your life that happens a given week, 0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:43.680 or like you just you had your A game the 0:14:43.720 --> 0:14:47.800 week two weeks before, but not then if you look 0:14:47.840 --> 0:14:51.600 at that through the lens of just pure consistency, if 0:14:51.600 --> 0:14:55.600 that's your judge, then Jordan Speak's nowhere near that list 0:14:56.120 --> 0:14:59.320 because for the last five years he's been a shell 0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:02.760 of of what he was for the first five years 0:15:02.760 --> 0:15:05.920 of the period that you're looking at. But if you 0:15:05.960 --> 0:15:09.120 look at it just purely off of like my my 0:15:09.320 --> 0:15:14.720 highest ceiling, top accomplishments, I it's it's a it's kind 0:15:14.720 --> 0:15:20.480 of like a body of work versus like a a 0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:23.040 who comes in every week. And I think if you 0:15:23.120 --> 0:15:25.960 compared it to like something that everybody would relate to 0:15:26.120 --> 0:15:28.520 is like do you want to do you want somebody 0:15:28.560 --> 0:15:32.720 to work for you that has like really great moments 0:15:33.680 --> 0:15:36.280 and maybe some like moments where you're like where where 0:15:36.280 --> 0:15:39.320 did they go? Or the person that comes in and 0:15:39.360 --> 0:15:43.200 maybe doesn't deliver the high highest end moments all the time, 0:15:43.320 --> 0:15:47.160 but is there all the time giving you high level performances. 0:15:47.520 --> 0:15:51.520 It said, it's I think that probably every sport has 0:15:51.560 --> 0:15:54.120 a little bit of this, right yeah. 0:15:54.160 --> 0:15:56.120 And I think like I even as you're saying that, 0:15:56.200 --> 0:15:58.200 I'm coaching my son's ten year old baseball team, and 0:15:58.240 --> 0:16:00.400 the kids that I want on the team are not 0:16:00.560 --> 0:16:03.040 the high ceiling low floor guys. I don't want that 0:16:03.320 --> 0:16:06.080 because I don't know what I'm getting weak to week. 0:16:06.160 --> 0:16:09.400 I want the guys that are consistently even if they're 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:12.080 not the higher ceiling, I want them at the same 0:16:12.200 --> 0:16:14.560 level all the time. This goes back to the Adam 0:16:14.600 --> 0:16:17.920 Scott John Daily thing, like if you there's a way 0:16:17.960 --> 0:16:21.200 to look at John Daly's resume, just his resume, like 0:16:21.200 --> 0:16:23.120 if you take his name out of it and whatever, 0:16:23.600 --> 0:16:25.640 you could say that's a that's a better resume than 0:16:25.680 --> 0:16:29.000 Adam Scott's resume. I probably wouldn't make that argument because 0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:31.200 Adam Scott's want a lot more, but John Daly has 0:16:31.240 --> 0:16:34.160 more majors, right, but Adam Scott, Like if you just 0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:37.440 like look at the twenty five years of Adam Scott, 0:16:37.480 --> 0:16:40.920 you're like, it's not even like a conversation, and so 0:16:41.040 --> 0:16:44.960 that's where Yeah, it's so I think you're right. It 0:16:45.080 --> 0:16:48.760 is so hard because of a little bit of randomness 0:16:48.800 --> 0:16:51.440 here and there. Think about Sergio Garcia, it's got like 0:16:51.480 --> 0:16:55.120 twenty five top tens at major's, and then Sean mckeel 0:16:55.160 --> 0:16:57.640 almost has more maj like he's like a shot away 0:16:57.640 --> 0:16:59.400 from having more majors than him. 0:17:00.080 --> 0:17:05.040 Yeah, I mean, it's it's even like Mark o'meira, where 0:17:05.200 --> 0:17:08.159 like barco'meira has two. They came at the end of 0:17:08.160 --> 0:17:11.640 his career. They came at a technological change like inflection 0:17:11.760 --> 0:17:14.960 point in the game. And at the time before he 0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:17.280 won those two majors, he was known as king King 0:17:17.320 --> 0:17:19.959 of the bees, right where he would he'd win all 0:17:20.000 --> 0:17:24.560 the bottom tier tour events versus you know, then he 0:17:24.600 --> 0:17:28.080 wins two majors and it completely changes the way they're 0:17:28.119 --> 0:17:30.440 thought about it. But also like you know, like Lee 0:17:30.520 --> 0:17:33.680 Janssen's a good comparison to like Lee Jansen wins two 0:17:33.760 --> 0:17:37.199 US opens in an era, a very specific era of 0:17:37.400 --> 0:17:40.960 US Open setup. How do we like he was not 0:17:41.040 --> 0:17:43.919 a prolific winner or a pro like he was a 0:17:43.960 --> 0:17:46.400 good player. I'm not trying to he was a very 0:17:46.400 --> 0:17:49.760 good player, but like he wasn't he didn't have longevity. 0:17:50.000 --> 0:17:53.640 He he was, you know, and he won majors at 0:17:53.640 --> 0:17:57.919 a time where like a specific type of setup was rewarded, 0:17:59.240 --> 0:18:04.080 you know. I it's it's a fascinating debate, and I 0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:08.920 don't I think like I did this points system years ago, 0:18:09.080 --> 0:18:12.080 a couple of years ago, where it was like I 0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:15.119 gave I think I want to say ten points for 0:18:15.280 --> 0:18:19.800 major wins maybe, Okay, yeah, I remember think five points 0:18:19.840 --> 0:18:23.320 for like a player's win, and then like three points 0:18:23.359 --> 0:18:27.200 for what I considered a great tour event, and then 0:18:27.280 --> 0:18:33.280 one point for all other like PGA Tour, European Tour wins, 0:18:33.520 --> 0:18:37.919 and then one point for major top fives. Yeah, was 0:18:38.280 --> 0:18:40.560 kind of how I tried to do it. I think 0:18:40.640 --> 0:18:45.159 that's there has to be a way too, because that 0:18:45.440 --> 0:18:50.760 to me rewarded consistency and longevity, right because like we're 0:18:51.160 --> 0:18:54.400 where Brooks would have a ton of points because of 0:18:54.440 --> 0:18:57.879 the maj the major wins where he got diminished on 0:18:58.119 --> 0:19:00.520 was like he didn't rack up. You know, we can 0:19:00.600 --> 0:19:03.639 week out PGA Tour wins. Yeah, and I think I 0:19:03.640 --> 0:19:06.720 think how it lives. You know, you'd have more. I 0:19:06.720 --> 0:19:08.959 think what you're describing, I'd get in trouble, I'd make 0:19:09.080 --> 0:19:10.800 live one pointers and it. 0:19:10.800 --> 0:19:14.240 Is yeah, for sure. What you're describing, though, is is 0:19:14.280 --> 0:19:19.719 a It is like who's good at golf over a 0:19:19.720 --> 0:19:22.399 long period of time. And I think sometimes people just 0:19:22.520 --> 0:19:27.280 run to like your resume of wins and it's like, yeah, 0:19:27.359 --> 0:19:31.040 that stuff, it does matter, but it I think people 0:19:31.119 --> 0:19:37.400 do overvalue. I don't know this sounds dumb to say, 0:19:37.480 --> 0:19:39.840 but I think people have overvalue wins a little bit, 0:19:40.040 --> 0:19:43.320 you know, like but then winning is so hard, so 0:19:43.400 --> 0:19:46.960 it's like, well, maybe maybe we don't. Did you read 0:19:47.000 --> 0:19:48.360 both Simmon's Book of Basketball? 0:19:48.520 --> 0:19:52.120 Oh yeah, right, and just. 0:19:51.040 --> 0:19:52.879 Just the idea of like the pyramid. I think I 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:56.159 think that would be such a fascinating thing to dive into, 0:19:56.880 --> 0:19:59.760 like it like really in detail and in depth like 0:19:59.800 --> 0:20:04.080 he did in golf history, because it's it's you know, 0:20:04.240 --> 0:20:08.520 you can you can kind of compare things maybe better 0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:11.000 in golf than any anywhere else, just because you're playing 0:20:11.040 --> 0:20:13.480 some of this, I mean the old courses. People you've 0:20:13.480 --> 0:20:17.359 always played it in in major championship history. It's it's 0:20:17.920 --> 0:20:20.320 I think that's a really interesting thing about golf, is 0:20:20.800 --> 0:20:24.439 you you can kind of compare eras not great, but 0:20:24.520 --> 0:20:27.159 a little bit better than maybe in some other sports. 0:20:27.840 --> 0:20:32.800 Yeah, I think it's hard. It's it's it's hard with 0:20:32.920 --> 0:20:37.680 the eras because I just can't and I'm I respect 0:20:37.720 --> 0:20:39.879 the history of the game, I can't get to a 0:20:39.920 --> 0:20:44.920 point where I believe that the Jack, the era Jack 0:20:45.080 --> 0:20:49.360 was playing in where he won eighteen major championships is 0:20:50.880 --> 0:20:54.560 is like this era, I just have a hard time 0:20:55.000 --> 0:21:02.240 buying the competition level was was Apple's apples? No, I agree, 0:21:02.800 --> 0:21:06.800 I agree with you, But I do think the pyramid idea. 0:21:07.040 --> 0:21:09.480 I think what would happen if you dove in deep 0:21:09.840 --> 0:21:13.159 would be that it would you be able to figure 0:21:13.160 --> 0:21:18.080 out like a kind of like a coefficient for different eras. Right, 0:21:18.440 --> 0:21:21.800 what's what's golf like? Yeah? 0:21:21.600 --> 0:21:22.760 Yeah, what's an equivalent? 0:21:23.080 --> 0:21:28.640 And maybe it's a point seven you know factor where 0:21:28.640 --> 0:21:31.280 you just you know, it's seventy percent or something. 0:21:31.680 --> 0:21:35.119 But yeah, there's there's a great post on Data Golf 0:21:35.200 --> 0:21:38.560 where they talk about how golf, how professional golf has 0:21:38.560 --> 0:21:41.720 gotten better, like they go back basically to I think 0:21:41.720 --> 0:21:44.480 the seventies or eighties kind of Jack Jack Nicholas's time, 0:21:44.520 --> 0:21:48.560 and they statistically show like, hey, here's how it's gotten better. 0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:54.320 The variance of scoring is getting tighter, and that means 0:21:54.600 --> 0:21:58.199 golf is getting deeper, and therefore it's more difficult to 0:21:58.440 --> 0:22:02.560 sort of separate yourself than it was fifty sixty years ago. 0:22:02.600 --> 0:22:05.840 And I think there's a yeah, there's a there's a 0:22:05.880 --> 0:22:09.080 real argument to be made there for that. 0:22:10.720 --> 0:22:14.640 Well, this was, uh, this was a fun chat. We're 0:22:14.640 --> 0:22:18.479 gonna have to die in three hours on that, I know. Well, uh, 0:22:18.840 --> 0:22:20.440 we got to work on the pyramid. 0:22:20.480 --> 0:22:20.760 I might. 0:22:20.880 --> 0:22:24.160 I was thinking the other day about rebooting the points 0:22:24.400 --> 0:22:28.080 thing because it needs an update. But it it'd be 0:22:28.119 --> 0:22:31.800 fascinating to look at like what Bryson is because Rice 0:22:31.920 --> 0:22:35.159 is a super interesting one with this, like where he 0:22:35.240 --> 0:22:37.960 would rank on that on that top players the last 0:22:38.040 --> 0:22:41.639 ten years, because he's he's sneakily won a lot. 0:22:42.160 --> 0:22:45.880 He did he won like five times or not five, 0:22:45.880 --> 0:22:47.920 I think he won three or four times in twenty eighteen. 0:22:49.920 --> 0:22:55.080 Do you award points for YouTube victories or no YouTube challenges? 0:22:56.200 --> 0:23:02.720 Maybe? I mean Scott great like even with his master's troubles. 0:23:03.720 --> 0:23:05.840 He's got like a great majors record. 0:23:06.480 --> 0:23:09.200 I know he's he's he's been. 0:23:09.400 --> 0:23:13.320 I mean, he's twenty five of the time basically top ten. 0:23:14.000 --> 0:23:15.560 He's been in a bunch of US Opens. He was 0:23:15.640 --> 0:23:19.639 kind of he shot like forty seven in that Tory 0:23:19.680 --> 0:23:21.760 Pines US Open. On the back nine, he was like 0:23:21.880 --> 0:23:22.679 leading that one. 0:23:22.760 --> 0:23:25.480 I thought he was going to win that one. Another 0:23:25.520 --> 0:23:32.639 big boy victory. Ridiculous to look back at old photos. 0:23:32.359 --> 0:23:36.199 What's the over under for his major total? 0:23:36.400 --> 0:23:38.040 Like now three and a half? 0:23:38.440 --> 0:23:40.840 Three and a half, Okay, what do you think? Where 0:23:40.840 --> 0:23:43.720 would you go? I always go under. We talked about 0:23:43.720 --> 0:23:47.240 this after the Masters, you and I did. I think 0:23:47.240 --> 0:23:49.320 it's so easy after a guy wins to be like, oh, 0:23:49.560 --> 0:23:53.560 over for sure. But the arc of golf history is 0:23:53.600 --> 0:23:57.920 that it's just it never. I don't think guys ever 0:23:57.960 --> 0:23:59.760 win as many as it feels like they're going to 0:24:00.000 --> 0:24:04.320 after they've won a couple, and I would go under. 0:24:05.240 --> 0:24:07.520