WEBVTT - The PGA Tour Season So Far

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.520
<v Speaker 1>I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset.

0:00:02.640 --> 0:00:04.920
<v Speaker 2>When I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:06.960
<v Speaker 2>And when I find my ball in a bride Egg,

0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:11.119
<v Speaker 2>Friday Egg, the dreaded Frida Egg, Frida Egg, fridagg, Frida Egg,

0:00:11.160 --> 0:00:14.120
<v Speaker 2>Bride Egg Lie, I'm about ready to run off the course.

0:00:34.640 --> 0:00:38.080
<v Speaker 2>Welcome back to another edition of the Frida Egg podcast.

0:00:38.400 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 2>Today I am joined by Joseph Lamania. He is a

0:00:41.920 --> 0:00:45.680
<v Speaker 2>regular contributor to The Friday Egg the Fridaygg podcast as

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:48.560
<v Speaker 2>well as one of the co hosts of Full Swing Thoughts,

0:00:48.680 --> 0:00:53.279
<v Speaker 2>are podcast that breaks down every episode of the Netflix

0:00:53.320 --> 0:00:57.520
<v Speaker 2>documentary Full Swing. So I had Joseph on obviously, he's uh,

0:00:57.760 --> 0:01:00.120
<v Speaker 2>he's been on this podcast before. He gets in the

0:01:00.200 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 2>nitty gritty on data, offers kind of a fresh perspective

0:01:03.440 --> 0:01:07.679
<v Speaker 2>on golf. So I wanted to discuss with him what

0:01:07.680 --> 0:01:10.399
<v Speaker 2>we've seen thus far with the PGA Tour calendar, the

0:01:10.520 --> 0:01:15.280
<v Speaker 2>elevated events or designated events, and the recent weeks, as

0:01:15.280 --> 0:01:17.839
<v Speaker 2>well as get into a little bit of a discussion

0:01:18.040 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 2>about data and golf courses. And you know, I think

0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:25.039
<v Speaker 2>we have different viewpoints on what we think are great tests.

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:28.160
<v Speaker 2>And it was interesting to talk about short part fours

0:01:28.240 --> 0:01:31.399
<v Speaker 2>on the PGA Tour, So before we get into that,

0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:35.880
<v Speaker 2>I figured i'd throw together a little intro here, and

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:40.080
<v Speaker 2>you know, with a couple of designated events under our belt,

0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:43.520
<v Speaker 2>the season's kind of starting to take form, and one

0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:47.280
<v Speaker 2>of my favorite aspects of when we go to from

0:01:47.319 --> 0:01:51.040
<v Speaker 2>the West Coast Swing to the Florida Swing, it's maybe

0:01:51.280 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 2>my only favorite aspect of it. I get really sad

0:01:55.240 --> 0:01:57.600
<v Speaker 2>when we leave the West Coast. But it is now

0:01:57.960 --> 0:02:02.120
<v Speaker 2>Masters prep season, and I know the players is in there,

0:02:02.160 --> 0:02:05.800
<v Speaker 2>but really everybody's got their eyes on Augusta. So I

0:02:05.880 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 2>figured i'd do a very early ten Masters favorites. So

0:02:10.720 --> 0:02:13.799
<v Speaker 2>this is being recorded on the twenty third of February

0:02:14.080 --> 0:02:17.480
<v Speaker 2>for anybody that listens later. These are my ten favorites

0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:20.320
<v Speaker 2>heading into the Masters. This is way too early, but

0:02:20.720 --> 0:02:22.560
<v Speaker 2>starting to think about it, maybe you could get some

0:02:22.639 --> 0:02:25.280
<v Speaker 2>value on some of these guys if you're looking to

0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:29.000
<v Speaker 2>do that type of thing. So at number ten, I've

0:02:29.040 --> 0:02:31.960
<v Speaker 2>got Jason Day. He's got four starts in twenty twenty three,

0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:35.720
<v Speaker 2>T eighteen, T seven, fifth, and T nine, and obviously

0:02:35.760 --> 0:02:38.679
<v Speaker 2>that comes at some of the designated events. He's one

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:43.360
<v Speaker 2>of the best Masters players that hasn't won. His career

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:47.720
<v Speaker 2>at Augustin National is incredible. So at number nine, we've

0:02:47.720 --> 0:02:52.480
<v Speaker 2>got Dustin Johnson, who knows how he's playing. If he's

0:02:52.480 --> 0:02:56.600
<v Speaker 2>been playing obviously with liv it kind of you've got

0:02:56.639 --> 0:03:00.639
<v Speaker 2>new benchmarks in terms of how you judge Town and

0:03:01.120 --> 0:03:05.560
<v Speaker 2>DJ incredible career at Augusta National, obviously won the Fall

0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:08.680
<v Speaker 2>Masters a couple of years ago. But he's Dustin Johnson.

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:11.280
<v Speaker 2>I think at this point he still needs to be

0:03:11.720 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 2>on your first page of favorites because he's such a

0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 2>talented player. At number eight, i've got Tony Fenow. He's

0:03:19.800 --> 0:03:23.160
<v Speaker 2>played really well at Augusta before. He's elite in every

0:03:23.240 --> 0:03:26.000
<v Speaker 2>facet of the game of golf except for with the putter,

0:03:26.440 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 2>and really, if he just puts well in a given weeks,

0:03:30.800 --> 0:03:32.919
<v Speaker 2>he's got to be at the top of your list

0:03:32.919 --> 0:03:35.640
<v Speaker 2>of favorites. So if that putter's hot, I love him.

0:03:35.680 --> 0:03:38.040
<v Speaker 2>At Augusta obviously, he was in the final group with

0:03:38.120 --> 0:03:41.760
<v Speaker 2>Tiger back in twenty nineteen, so a place that he's

0:03:41.760 --> 0:03:44.720
<v Speaker 2>had success. He also almost won it on a broken ankle.

0:03:45.720 --> 0:03:49.480
<v Speaker 2>So my next guy is Justin Thomas at number seven.

0:03:49.800 --> 0:03:52.000
<v Speaker 2>He's not really playing great. I think, you know, we

0:03:52.040 --> 0:03:55.840
<v Speaker 2>see JT kind of ebb and flow in form. I

0:03:55.840 --> 0:03:58.200
<v Speaker 2>think if we were looking at one of our one

0:03:58.240 --> 0:04:00.480
<v Speaker 2>of the critiques of Justin Thomas as a player is

0:04:00.480 --> 0:04:04.320
<v Speaker 2>the consistency's not there. But that being said, when he's hot,

0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:06.640
<v Speaker 2>a few players can get as hot as him. He

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:10.000
<v Speaker 2>had his best finish ever at last year's Masters. If

0:04:10.000 --> 0:04:12.080
<v Speaker 2>you kind of look at his chart, it's always been

0:04:12.120 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 2>confounding why he hasn't played well at Augusta National. He

0:04:14.880 --> 0:04:17.240
<v Speaker 2>played pretty well last year, and I think if he

0:04:17.279 --> 0:04:20.320
<v Speaker 2>can figure out like the thirteenth T shot, that is

0:04:20.360 --> 0:04:22.840
<v Speaker 2>a big thing that's really plagued him the way he's

0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:25.400
<v Speaker 2>played thirteen, if he just cleans that up, all of

0:04:25.400 --> 0:04:27.600
<v Speaker 2>a sudden, you're looking at a guy that'll be really

0:04:27.760 --> 0:04:32.159
<v Speaker 2>in the mix. So number six Will Zlataurus and I

0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:35.760
<v Speaker 2>talk with Joseph a little bit about Will in this podcast.

0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:38.200
<v Speaker 2>But you know, after listening to the Laing Ups podcast,

0:04:38.279 --> 0:04:40.120
<v Speaker 2>I was a little worried with the back injury, just

0:04:40.160 --> 0:04:42.880
<v Speaker 2>because he talked about changing his golf swing, and he's

0:04:42.880 --> 0:04:45.880
<v Speaker 2>been such an elite ball striker in his young career

0:04:46.200 --> 0:04:49.400
<v Speaker 2>that that's scary. It was awesome to see him play

0:04:49.720 --> 0:04:52.080
<v Speaker 2>so well at Riviera. I think it put to bed

0:04:52.120 --> 0:04:55.600
<v Speaker 2>a lot of doubts that maybe he, you know, wouldn't

0:04:55.640 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 2>be the same type of player. I saw that he

0:04:57.600 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 2>was talking about going full speed in ap so this

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:03.720
<v Speaker 2>is you know, he played great at Riviera without going

0:05:03.839 --> 0:05:07.080
<v Speaker 2>really ramping up and going at the ball the way

0:05:07.120 --> 0:05:09.880
<v Speaker 2>we've been accustomed to see with his you know, just

0:05:10.360 --> 0:05:13.600
<v Speaker 2>he's sensational from t de Green. He's played great at

0:05:13.640 --> 0:05:17.560
<v Speaker 2>Augusta National. Obviously, it's a huge iron test, and there

0:05:17.560 --> 0:05:19.479
<v Speaker 2>are a few in the world that are better iron

0:05:19.480 --> 0:05:22.960
<v Speaker 2>players than will Zalatrus one of those players that might

0:05:23.000 --> 0:05:25.600
<v Speaker 2>be I think it's a good argument. I don't know.

0:05:25.720 --> 0:05:28.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm not ready to declare one of them better than

0:05:28.200 --> 0:05:32.279
<v Speaker 2>the other. Is my number five pick, Colin Morikawa. He

0:05:32.360 --> 0:05:36.159
<v Speaker 2>finished fifth last year at the Masters. In his first

0:05:36.400 --> 0:05:40.520
<v Speaker 2>Masters he finished forty fourth, the second Master's eighteenth. Last

0:05:40.600 --> 0:05:44.000
<v Speaker 2>year fifth. That tells me somebody's kind of figuring out

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:47.200
<v Speaker 2>the golf course. He's plenty. He's not long, obviously, but

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:52.120
<v Speaker 2>he's long enough for Augusta. And you know, that iron play,

0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:55.360
<v Speaker 2>like what we just talked about with will Zala torres Is,

0:05:55.360 --> 0:05:57.920
<v Speaker 2>is such a weapon at Augusta National. And he's been

0:05:57.960 --> 0:06:02.040
<v Speaker 2>playing really, really well. He has gotten the notoriety of

0:06:02.200 --> 0:06:05.040
<v Speaker 2>a Ram or a Rory or a Scheffler, but he's

0:06:05.080 --> 0:06:09.000
<v Speaker 2>doing everything this year except for winning. So number four

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:13.839
<v Speaker 2>we've got cam Smith. Honestly, it feels low for cam

0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:17.360
<v Speaker 2>at four again he kind of falls in the DJ bucket.

0:06:17.600 --> 0:06:20.359
<v Speaker 2>What do you make of live? And you know, is

0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:24.160
<v Speaker 2>he going to be really competitive coming into the Masters?

0:06:24.680 --> 0:06:28.440
<v Speaker 2>I think all that aside, it's hard to put him

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:33.480
<v Speaker 2>anywhere but here he has nearly won two Masters, he

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:36.640
<v Speaker 2>is the reigning Open champion, and he arguably put together

0:06:36.720 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 2>the best twenty twenty three of any player. This is

0:06:40.120 --> 0:06:43.160
<v Speaker 2>just a course that fits his game so well. Obviously

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:46.400
<v Speaker 2>we've seen some Australians play really well, but there's enough

0:06:46.480 --> 0:06:49.520
<v Speaker 2>width for his you know driver that can get a

0:06:49.520 --> 0:06:52.880
<v Speaker 2>little squirrely, and then around the greens he's just a magician.

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:55.880
<v Speaker 2>So you know with cam Smith, the thing with the

0:06:55.920 --> 0:06:58.640
<v Speaker 2>putting and around the greens, it's just so hard for

0:06:58.720 --> 0:07:01.320
<v Speaker 2>him to surrender strokes, So I still have them at

0:07:01.400 --> 0:07:05.000
<v Speaker 2>number four. Number three is Scotty Scheffler, and this is

0:07:05.240 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 2>again you know, this is a testament to the top two.

0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:11.560
<v Speaker 2>But Scotty won at Scott Steale. He's obviously the reigning

0:07:11.640 --> 0:07:15.120
<v Speaker 2>Masters champion. He's great at every facet of the game

0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:17.760
<v Speaker 2>of golf, and there aren't many guys that can say

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:21.600
<v Speaker 2>that they're excellent at every facet, but Scotty Scheffler is

0:07:21.640 --> 0:07:24.000
<v Speaker 2>one of them. So at three, you know, it's kind

0:07:24.000 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 2>of crazy that he's the third pick, but you know

0:07:26.440 --> 0:07:29.480
<v Speaker 2>that's because at number two is Rory McElroy. And I

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 2>think if you look back to last year's Masters, really,

0:07:32.800 --> 0:07:36.960
<v Speaker 2>if you look at his OWGR page, the consistency is

0:07:37.200 --> 0:07:40.600
<v Speaker 2>unbelievable and for Rory, like he can play bad at

0:07:40.640 --> 0:07:43.640
<v Speaker 2>these majorss, he can have disappointing majors and it's like

0:07:43.640 --> 0:07:46.040
<v Speaker 2>a fifth or an eighth place finish. And I don't

0:07:46.040 --> 0:07:50.040
<v Speaker 2>know many players on this list. I don't know if

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.440
<v Speaker 2>there are any that are in that same vein like

0:07:52.520 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 2>where it feels like a top ten is a disappointment.

0:07:56.520 --> 0:07:58.720
<v Speaker 2>I mean, we saw John Rahm have a really bad

0:07:58.800 --> 0:08:02.840
<v Speaker 2>year in Major's life year and really wasn't competitive in

0:08:03.000 --> 0:08:05.800
<v Speaker 2>most of them. So, like, you know, that's a testament

0:08:05.840 --> 0:08:09.760
<v Speaker 2>to Rory. His floor is obviously way higher than everybody

0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:13.600
<v Speaker 2>else's and you know, last year at the Masters he

0:08:13.680 --> 0:08:15.920
<v Speaker 2>seemed pretty happy. It was like seemed like the first

0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:18.560
<v Speaker 2>time he walked away from the Masters happy. Maybe he

0:08:18.640 --> 0:08:21.760
<v Speaker 2>goes and wins this year. I'm falling into the Rory trap.

0:08:21.800 --> 0:08:23.800
<v Speaker 2>But it definitely feels like he's in a little bit

0:08:23.800 --> 0:08:27.000
<v Speaker 2>different headspace than a lot of years going into the Masters.

0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:30.400
<v Speaker 2>Number one, John ram I'm not sure how you could

0:08:30.440 --> 0:08:34.240
<v Speaker 2>put anybody else here at this point. You know, he's

0:08:34.240 --> 0:08:38.520
<v Speaker 2>got three PGA Tour wins and the year is just

0:08:38.640 --> 0:08:41.440
<v Speaker 2>through the West Coast. It's I think I saw that

0:08:41.440 --> 0:08:44.040
<v Speaker 2>he's the fastest three wins since Johnny Miller on the

0:08:44.080 --> 0:08:48.840
<v Speaker 2>PGA Tour. Obviously, the it's not insignificant the places that

0:08:48.880 --> 0:08:52.840
<v Speaker 2>he's won. Also, Kapalua is actually a great comp for

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:56.360
<v Speaker 2>Augusta National because of the severity of the slight side

0:08:56.360 --> 0:08:59.520
<v Speaker 2>slopes that you face and pretty severe greens that you

0:08:59.600 --> 0:09:03.600
<v Speaker 2>hit in. So Kapalua is a great comp for Augusta National.

0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:06.040
<v Speaker 2>It's a place that he's played really well the last

0:09:06.040 --> 0:09:08.839
<v Speaker 2>two years. And then winning at Riviera, which is a

0:09:09.480 --> 0:09:12.960
<v Speaker 2>really an iron test. You have to be on with

0:09:13.040 --> 0:09:16.280
<v Speaker 2>your iron play at Riviera to win, and that's the

0:09:16.320 --> 0:09:19.480
<v Speaker 2>same thing can be said about Augusta National. He's just

0:09:19.600 --> 0:09:22.680
<v Speaker 2>performing at such a high level through the bag that

0:09:22.800 --> 0:09:26.320
<v Speaker 2>it's hard to imagine him not being a contender at

0:09:26.320 --> 0:09:28.920
<v Speaker 2>Augusta National, and I think he has to be the

0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:32.680
<v Speaker 2>favorite right now. So that's my top ten leaning into

0:09:32.679 --> 0:09:35.640
<v Speaker 2>the Masters. We'll probably do another one of these as

0:09:35.640 --> 0:09:38.840
<v Speaker 2>we get closer, maybe after the Players, but that's what

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 2>I've got as my top ten here about a little

0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:46.319
<v Speaker 2>over a month out from the Masters. So without further ado,

0:09:46.440 --> 0:09:49.560
<v Speaker 2>let's get to our conversation with Joseph Lamannia and thank

0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:58.400
<v Speaker 2>you for listening. All right, Joseph, welcome back. Excited to talk.

0:09:58.480 --> 0:10:02.080
<v Speaker 2>It's obviously been a world wind of a West Coast Swing.

0:10:02.480 --> 0:10:04.600
<v Speaker 2>I think for the most part for the PGA Tour,

0:10:04.800 --> 0:10:08.600
<v Speaker 2>it's been very positive. As Live kicks off this week

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:12.000
<v Speaker 2>down in Mayacoba, there's a lot of things to talk

0:10:12.040 --> 0:10:15.719
<v Speaker 2>about there, but I wanted to get your thoughts and

0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:18.559
<v Speaker 2>big takeaways from the West Coast Swing.

0:10:19.440 --> 0:10:21.480
<v Speaker 1>I think it's been awesome. Yeah, thanks for having me.

0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:24.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm super excited to do this. I thought the West

0:10:24.080 --> 0:10:27.760
<v Speaker 1>Coast Swing was awesome. It delivers every single year, but

0:10:27.840 --> 0:10:30.320
<v Speaker 1>I think this year in particular, it delivered with all

0:10:30.360 --> 0:10:32.559
<v Speaker 1>the best players being at a couple of those events,

0:10:33.080 --> 0:10:37.720
<v Speaker 1>Kapalua Waste Management Genesis. It's awesome to see those guys

0:10:37.760 --> 0:10:39.480
<v Speaker 1>go head to head and it's not a coincidence that

0:10:39.480 --> 0:10:41.360
<v Speaker 1>we got some good duels down the stretch. When you

0:10:41.400 --> 0:10:43.280
<v Speaker 1>get all the best players in the world on the

0:10:43.280 --> 0:10:45.480
<v Speaker 1>same golf course, so a lot to be excited about.

0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:46.840
<v Speaker 1>As somebody who follows the tour.

0:10:47.240 --> 0:10:50.760
<v Speaker 2>I guess, like one thing I had a question about,

0:10:51.440 --> 0:10:54.400
<v Speaker 2>why is it that these events, and this is something

0:10:54.440 --> 0:10:56.600
<v Speaker 2>that I've been kind of thinking about a little bit,

0:10:56.800 --> 0:10:59.960
<v Speaker 2>is like, why do these events feel different than wg's.

0:11:00.880 --> 0:11:04.280
<v Speaker 2>Is it just because they're new and have a different name,

0:11:04.720 --> 0:11:08.320
<v Speaker 2>or is there a tangible reason why these events so

0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:14.200
<v Speaker 2>far feel more competitive more interesting than the WGCs did

0:11:14.400 --> 0:11:15.920
<v Speaker 2>as of even last year.

0:11:16.480 --> 0:11:17.679
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I don't know. I don't know if I have

0:11:17.720 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 1>a great answer to that. The two things that come

0:11:19.679 --> 0:11:22.680
<v Speaker 1>to mind. I think there is something to having a cut.

0:11:23.160 --> 0:11:26.720
<v Speaker 1>I do think it's additive to the tournament. And whether

0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:29.400
<v Speaker 1>or not elevated events in the future have cuts, I

0:11:29.440 --> 0:11:32.079
<v Speaker 1>guess remains to be seen, but I think it does

0:11:32.080 --> 0:11:34.000
<v Speaker 1>add something, and it adds a little bit of character

0:11:34.080 --> 0:11:36.520
<v Speaker 1>starting on the first day versus the first day of

0:11:36.520 --> 0:11:39.480
<v Speaker 1>a WGC feels really flat. The other thing that I

0:11:39.520 --> 0:11:42.920
<v Speaker 1>guess I would mention is I just think there's something

0:11:42.960 --> 0:11:46.959
<v Speaker 1>to the flow of a season, and like in the NFL,

0:11:47.040 --> 0:11:49.600
<v Speaker 1>when you start to get snow games in like November

0:11:49.640 --> 0:11:52.560
<v Speaker 1>and December, there's just like kind of a vibe to

0:11:52.640 --> 0:11:56.240
<v Speaker 1>each sports schedule, and I think the PGA Tour just

0:11:56.280 --> 0:12:00.560
<v Speaker 1>starts off with a lot of energy in January through

0:12:00.920 --> 0:12:04.600
<v Speaker 1>let's say April. I don't know if the elevated events

0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:06.960
<v Speaker 1>late July would pop the same way that these have,

0:12:07.440 --> 0:12:08.960
<v Speaker 1>But I don't know. Just a couple of thoughts that

0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:11.160
<v Speaker 1>come to mind, but I agree these these have been popping.

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:14.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think this is just a very advantageous time

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:18.160
<v Speaker 2>for the PGA Tour. And I don't want to dismiss

0:12:18.240 --> 0:12:21.040
<v Speaker 2>how I advantageous it is to be on the West Coast.

0:12:21.600 --> 0:12:25.000
<v Speaker 2>Just telecast times are better. I was looking, you know,

0:12:25.040 --> 0:12:28.600
<v Speaker 2>and I'm a recent movie out to the West Coast,

0:12:28.600 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 2>but I was looking at at times for this week's Honda.

0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:36.040
<v Speaker 2>It's just crazy. It's like, oh, the first tea times

0:12:36.040 --> 0:12:39.160
<v Speaker 2>at three point fifty in the morning. For me, Like,

0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:42.079
<v Speaker 2>you know, I'm pretty into PGA Tour golf and it's

0:12:42.160 --> 0:12:45.160
<v Speaker 2>like for me to fire up, like the golf's over by,

0:12:46.160 --> 0:12:49.439
<v Speaker 2>you know, roughly like two o'clock. It's hard for somebody

0:12:49.520 --> 0:12:52.720
<v Speaker 2>working to watch that. Or when you look at the weekends,

0:12:52.840 --> 0:12:54.920
<v Speaker 2>you know who your demo is, it's you know, kind

0:12:54.960 --> 0:12:59.080
<v Speaker 2>of middle aged people, and it's like your demo has

0:12:59.160 --> 0:13:04.320
<v Speaker 2>activities like mornings are when school activities are not school

0:13:04.320 --> 0:13:08.880
<v Speaker 2>activities like sports activities are, and so weekend mornings are hard.

0:13:09.200 --> 0:13:11.480
<v Speaker 2>And when you get to this, you know, off the

0:13:11.520 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 2>west one of the things West Coast does and like,

0:13:14.400 --> 0:13:17.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, I think I'm all for it visiting different

0:13:17.240 --> 0:13:19.840
<v Speaker 2>parts of the country, and I think it should. But

0:13:20.040 --> 0:13:22.960
<v Speaker 2>like if the PGA Tour somehow figured out a way

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:25.960
<v Speaker 2>to play the majority of events on the West Coast,

0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:30.439
<v Speaker 2>I think that they would get drastically better TV ratings.

0:13:31.400 --> 0:13:34.640
<v Speaker 1>I think that could be true. Also, like maybe people

0:13:34.720 --> 0:13:37.720
<v Speaker 1>need an off week and maybe you have to lean

0:13:37.760 --> 0:13:39.320
<v Speaker 1>into that a little bit of like, all right, if

0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:42.720
<v Speaker 1>somebody just spent a lot of time watching Genesis on

0:13:42.760 --> 0:13:45.240
<v Speaker 1>their weekend, and then I also spent a lot of

0:13:45.280 --> 0:13:49.840
<v Speaker 1>time watching the Phoenix Open, maybe some of the Honda classics,

0:13:49.880 --> 0:13:52.959
<v Speaker 1>like a catch up week in your life and you're

0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:55.760
<v Speaker 1>doing other things other than watching golf, like for most

0:13:55.840 --> 0:13:59.719
<v Speaker 1>ordinary people, and maybe they tour needs to lean into

0:13:59.720 --> 0:14:01.440
<v Speaker 1>that a little bit, and the Honta Classics just not

0:14:01.480 --> 0:14:03.240
<v Speaker 1>going to put up that kind of viewership numbers. Like

0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:06.400
<v Speaker 1>having expecting fans to watch all of these events back

0:14:06.440 --> 0:14:08.760
<v Speaker 1>to back to back weekends is a pretty big ask.

0:14:09.800 --> 0:14:14.240
<v Speaker 2>Oddly, this week, I'm actually like more excited about the

0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:18.480
<v Speaker 2>Honda than I have in weeks in years prior. And

0:14:18.520 --> 0:14:22.680
<v Speaker 2>I think it's because now it has actually like an

0:14:22.800 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 2>identity and it's not I know, they haven't come out

0:14:26.600 --> 0:14:29.440
<v Speaker 2>and said this, and they haven't done it with FedEx

0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.160
<v Speaker 2>cup points. You know, it's still worth the same amount

0:14:32.200 --> 0:14:37.120
<v Speaker 2>as last week, which is absolutely insane. But for some reason,

0:14:37.840 --> 0:14:41.200
<v Speaker 2>I do I am more excited about this week because

0:14:41.240 --> 0:14:44.800
<v Speaker 2>I know it's not a big event and I'm like, oh,

0:14:44.960 --> 0:14:47.080
<v Speaker 2>this is a smaller event, like maybe we'll see some

0:14:47.160 --> 0:14:51.080
<v Speaker 2>new names, and that actually excites me as a fan

0:14:51.160 --> 0:14:52.840
<v Speaker 2>that tunes in every single week.

0:14:54.200 --> 0:14:56.880
<v Speaker 1>I agree one idea that I'm passionate about that I

0:14:56.880 --> 0:14:59.240
<v Speaker 1>think we talked about briefly on one of these Frida

0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:01.880
<v Speaker 1>egg pods, I don't know, five months ago. I do

0:15:01.960 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 1>think we should have two separate points lists. One of

0:15:05.360 --> 0:15:07.680
<v Speaker 1>them is the playoff points list, so that can be

0:15:07.680 --> 0:15:10.600
<v Speaker 1>your FedEx Cut points. Those are only given out at

0:15:10.680 --> 0:15:15.320
<v Speaker 1>the designated events. And then you could have qualification points,

0:15:15.360 --> 0:15:23.000
<v Speaker 1>which Pomcast points. Sure it's the international currency that translates

0:15:23.000 --> 0:15:27.240
<v Speaker 1>into corn Fairy Tour points translates into Latino America points

0:15:27.280 --> 0:15:33.240
<v Speaker 1>like that. Great, everything's in one and so then I

0:15:33.240 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 1>think it'd be really cool if the Honda Classic you

0:15:35.760 --> 0:15:38.720
<v Speaker 1>have guys playing for money but also for those points

0:15:39.000 --> 0:15:43.640
<v Speaker 1>while you're not diminishing or diluting the FedEx Cup playoff points,

0:15:43.720 --> 0:15:45.560
<v Speaker 1>and then it would really have an identity. I think

0:15:45.560 --> 0:15:48.360
<v Speaker 1>that would flow pretty well with what you're describing. Well.

0:15:48.480 --> 0:15:51.680
<v Speaker 2>What it would do also is it would have like

0:15:51.800 --> 0:15:56.760
<v Speaker 2>significance throughout this event, not just the winner, right, because

0:15:56.880 --> 0:16:02.080
<v Speaker 2>then it would be guys playing their way through points

0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:07.120
<v Speaker 2>into the elevated event. It's like the most important thing

0:16:07.360 --> 0:16:12.880
<v Speaker 2>about elevated event going forward. I feel very strongly about

0:16:12.920 --> 0:16:15.400
<v Speaker 2>this is it can't be just off of like the

0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:19.160
<v Speaker 2>last year's performance. There has to be ways for guys

0:16:19.200 --> 0:16:23.080
<v Speaker 2>to play their way in in the season, otherwise it's

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:24.360
<v Speaker 2>a monumental fail.

0:16:24.920 --> 0:16:27.800
<v Speaker 1>I agree with you. I think the qualification points is

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:30.880
<v Speaker 1>a way you could do that. Also, having fewer golfers

0:16:31.080 --> 0:16:33.680
<v Speaker 1>who are fully exempt for the next year is going

0:16:33.760 --> 0:16:35.360
<v Speaker 1>to take a step in that direction, right because it

0:16:35.360 --> 0:16:39.880
<v Speaker 1>was one hundred and twenty five before that got full exempt,

0:16:39.920 --> 0:16:41.640
<v Speaker 1>that they had their full status into the next year.

0:16:41.680 --> 0:16:43.680
<v Speaker 1>Now it's going to be seventy, So it does open

0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:47.040
<v Speaker 1>up some spots. One random idea, be interested in your

0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:49.840
<v Speaker 1>take on. I do think whether it's FedEx cut points

0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:53.120
<v Speaker 1>or like the separate list, I think fans need to

0:16:53.160 --> 0:16:56.040
<v Speaker 1>start to understand the point system a little better and

0:16:56.160 --> 0:16:58.040
<v Speaker 1>maybe like having.

0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:02.760
<v Speaker 2>A drop of the office the shroop bucks, what's a

0:17:02.800 --> 0:17:03.760
<v Speaker 2>shroop buck worth?

0:17:04.240 --> 0:17:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Sure? But I think maybe having a drop off between

0:17:07.080 --> 0:17:12.000
<v Speaker 1>like okay, tenth place and eleventh place is a steeper

0:17:12.119 --> 0:17:15.240
<v Speaker 1>drop off than just kind of the linear progression that's

0:17:15.240 --> 0:17:17.400
<v Speaker 1>built into the point, so fans can start to understand,

0:17:17.400 --> 0:17:20.159
<v Speaker 1>oh wow, like finishing in the top ten is a

0:17:20.200 --> 0:17:23.080
<v Speaker 1>big is a bigger deal, like this shot is worth

0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot, Like just building in a little more context somewhere,

0:17:27.040 --> 0:17:30.000
<v Speaker 1>like whether it's top ten, top fifteen. I kind of

0:17:30.040 --> 0:17:33.119
<v Speaker 1>think that might be additive on a Sunday when you

0:17:33.119 --> 0:17:35.240
<v Speaker 1>have a player who's tied for twenty fifth trying to

0:17:35.280 --> 0:17:37.080
<v Speaker 1>push for like a top ten spot.

0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:40.919
<v Speaker 2>What if here's just like off of that idea, just

0:17:41.000 --> 0:17:45.760
<v Speaker 2>a thought. What if it was like your point points

0:17:45.800 --> 0:17:49.320
<v Speaker 2>are distributed by how close to the lead you are,

0:17:50.600 --> 0:17:53.440
<v Speaker 2>and if you run away with a tournament and win

0:17:53.520 --> 0:17:57.639
<v Speaker 2>by five, you get more points, and then all of

0:17:57.640 --> 0:18:00.800
<v Speaker 2>a sudden, down the stretch you have say it's a snoozer,

0:18:01.200 --> 0:18:05.640
<v Speaker 2>like somebody's up by four or five and they're pushing

0:18:05.920 --> 0:18:09.720
<v Speaker 2>to get up by more so that they get more points.

0:18:10.320 --> 0:18:13.840
<v Speaker 2>So the points are distributed based off of the proximity

0:18:13.920 --> 0:18:17.600
<v Speaker 2>to the lead, because like a tenth place where you're

0:18:17.680 --> 0:18:20.960
<v Speaker 2>eight shots back is way different than a tenth place

0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:23.960
<v Speaker 2>when you're two shots back and have a real shot

0:18:24.000 --> 0:18:24.360
<v Speaker 2>to win.

0:18:25.000 --> 0:18:26.359
<v Speaker 1>I need to think about it more. I do think

0:18:26.400 --> 0:18:28.480
<v Speaker 1>when a player is winning, the only thing he should

0:18:28.480 --> 0:18:31.280
<v Speaker 1>be focused on is winning. I do think that's true.

0:18:32.080 --> 0:18:35.240
<v Speaker 1>But I like the idea of building in additional layers

0:18:35.240 --> 0:18:38.320
<v Speaker 1>of context, like what what is this person who's in second,

0:18:38.320 --> 0:18:40.240
<v Speaker 1>who's three clear of the guy in third and three

0:18:40.320 --> 0:18:41.800
<v Speaker 1>behind the leader? What's he playing for?

0:18:41.960 --> 0:18:45.800
<v Speaker 2>Like? Yeah, exactly, that's what kind of right. It's like,

0:18:45.840 --> 0:18:50.640
<v Speaker 2>there's there's way different places, right if you lose, say,

0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:54.520
<v Speaker 2>say Rory and rom are duking it out and they're

0:18:54.560 --> 0:18:58.959
<v Speaker 2>like both seven clear of third place, and we have

0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:02.520
<v Speaker 2>like an open between Stenson and Phil going on where

0:19:02.520 --> 0:19:05.679
<v Speaker 2>nobody else on the golf course matters. I feel like

0:19:05.720 --> 0:19:08.960
<v Speaker 2>those two guys should get more points than they would

0:19:08.960 --> 0:19:13.800
<v Speaker 2>normally get for like compared to a tournament that's completely

0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:17.680
<v Speaker 2>up for grabs, and a good balance on the eighteenth

0:19:17.760 --> 0:19:22.480
<v Speaker 2>hole is what ends up leading to somebody winning.

0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:25.600
<v Speaker 1>There's I think there's a balance to be struck though,

0:19:25.640 --> 0:19:28.479
<v Speaker 1>because I don't want to over engineer this thing, and

0:19:28.600 --> 0:19:32.680
<v Speaker 1>fans need to have their minds wrapped around what somebody's

0:19:32.720 --> 0:19:35.000
<v Speaker 1>playing for and what it means. So I wouldn't want

0:19:35.040 --> 0:19:36.760
<v Speaker 1>to make it like, Okay, well you don't really know

0:19:36.760 --> 0:19:39.480
<v Speaker 1>how many points he gets until we run some math

0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:41.840
<v Speaker 1>after the like, you know, an hour after the tournament,

0:19:41.840 --> 0:19:44.440
<v Speaker 1>Like it's got to be pretty clear to figure out that.

0:19:45.000 --> 0:19:47.159
<v Speaker 1>Uh yeah, maybe something I'll play around with in my

0:19:47.200 --> 0:19:49.000
<v Speaker 1>head a little bit. Try to think about what do

0:19:49.000 --> 0:19:50.359
<v Speaker 1>you just while you're saying that, what do you think

0:19:50.359 --> 0:19:52.720
<v Speaker 1>about being able to like pay one hundred and fifty

0:19:52.720 --> 0:19:55.840
<v Speaker 1>FedEx cut points for a Mulligan in an event you

0:19:55.880 --> 0:19:57.360
<v Speaker 1>can cash in some of your points.

0:19:58.920 --> 0:20:01.040
<v Speaker 2>I think that's an appbsolutely absurd.

0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:04.720
<v Speaker 3>I'm kidding, I'm kidding, but it is just funny to

0:20:04.840 --> 0:20:08.439
<v Speaker 3>think about in terms of like, uh, all right, and

0:20:08.520 --> 0:20:11.720
<v Speaker 3>if if they had like real FedEx cup point currency

0:20:11.840 --> 0:20:14.040
<v Speaker 3>that they handed in, you know, like they call the

0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:18.040
<v Speaker 3>rules official over hand at the currency end, I would

0:20:18.040 --> 0:20:19.760
<v Speaker 3>be in on that whole process.

0:20:20.040 --> 0:20:22.320
<v Speaker 2>They should maybe do it with t I O relief

0:20:22.400 --> 0:20:23.400
<v Speaker 2>since that's because.

0:20:23.720 --> 0:20:30.400
<v Speaker 1>I was gonna say, you might might be what Shaffley

0:20:30.400 --> 0:20:31.160
<v Speaker 1>did in Phoenix.

0:20:31.560 --> 0:20:35.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, built up some goodwill in the on the Tour

0:20:35.119 --> 0:20:38.320
<v Speaker 2>of Gentlemen and and gotta got a friendly drop. Any

0:20:38.359 --> 0:20:41.600
<v Speaker 2>other take takeaways from the West Coast Swing, uh, players

0:20:41.640 --> 0:20:43.600
<v Speaker 2>are or course specific?

0:20:44.840 --> 0:20:48.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, a lot of takeaways. Phoenix is awesome. I think

0:20:48.520 --> 0:20:50.879
<v Speaker 1>I already had a high opinion of that golf course,

0:20:50.960 --> 0:20:53.879
<v Speaker 1>but it definitely went up. And that's one question that

0:20:53.920 --> 0:20:55.680
<v Speaker 1>I kind of had for you in my notes Andy,

0:20:55.680 --> 0:20:58.360
<v Speaker 1>as as I was preparing for this pod, like when

0:20:58.359 --> 0:21:00.760
<v Speaker 1>we start to talking about elevating certain events and then

0:21:01.520 --> 0:21:04.360
<v Speaker 1>rotating some of those venues, and some events being elevated

0:21:04.400 --> 0:21:06.959
<v Speaker 1>one year and not another year, I don't know if

0:21:07.000 --> 0:21:10.000
<v Speaker 1>you can de elevate the Phoenix Open and like what

0:21:10.119 --> 0:21:14.520
<v Speaker 1>they have built there, it's a tough question, right, Like,

0:21:14.560 --> 0:21:16.400
<v Speaker 1>if that's not an elevated event and if they don't

0:21:16.400 --> 0:21:19.119
<v Speaker 1>get a super strong field one year, I don't know

0:21:19.119 --> 0:21:21.880
<v Speaker 1>that you're really rewarding one of the tour stops that's

0:21:22.040 --> 0:21:25.480
<v Speaker 1>done something really special with what they've built. So I

0:21:25.520 --> 0:21:28.800
<v Speaker 1>love the Phoenix Open. I think that's a tough question

0:21:29.840 --> 0:21:31.960
<v Speaker 1>to handle. If you're the tour and how you build

0:21:31.960 --> 0:21:33.760
<v Speaker 1>this new schedule, what are your thoughts on that?

0:21:34.440 --> 0:21:38.479
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean I think venues matter a lot, and

0:21:38.520 --> 0:21:40.920
<v Speaker 2>I if I weren't gonna say one of the things

0:21:41.000 --> 0:21:46.760
<v Speaker 2>that is different about these designated events than the wgc's

0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:50.119
<v Speaker 2>you know why they felt different was you were playing

0:21:50.119 --> 0:21:53.800
<v Speaker 2>at Kapalua. You were playing waste management with all the

0:21:53.840 --> 0:21:57.760
<v Speaker 2>fans on Super Bowl week, Like that was fricking awesome

0:21:57.960 --> 0:22:01.080
<v Speaker 2>on a lot of levels, Like is like this is

0:22:01.160 --> 0:22:04.560
<v Speaker 2>the sixteenth hole like my favorite thing in the world. No,

0:22:05.040 --> 0:22:07.760
<v Speaker 2>but it's really cool and it's a one of one

0:22:08.080 --> 0:22:11.400
<v Speaker 2>experience in golf, and that's the type of things that

0:22:11.440 --> 0:22:15.399
<v Speaker 2>you want these tournaments to like, that's what they should

0:22:15.480 --> 0:22:20.120
<v Speaker 2>all be trying to become their own version, like their

0:22:20.240 --> 0:22:25.080
<v Speaker 2>own authentic self, which is what the Phoenix Open is not.

0:22:25.440 --> 0:22:27.439
<v Speaker 2>I'm not saying they should all try and be the

0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:30.919
<v Speaker 2>Phoenix Open. They should all be what they can be,

0:22:31.440 --> 0:22:34.480
<v Speaker 2>do better than anybody else in the Phoenix Opens. Doing

0:22:35.040 --> 0:22:38.200
<v Speaker 2>that there they throw a party better than anybody else

0:22:38.240 --> 0:22:41.320
<v Speaker 2>on tour, and that's why it's thrived, all right. So

0:22:41.520 --> 0:22:44.520
<v Speaker 2>with that in mind, like you go from Phoenix Open

0:22:44.560 --> 0:22:47.280
<v Speaker 2>then to Riviera the best golf course, like you just like,

0:22:47.720 --> 0:22:52.280
<v Speaker 2>I mean, those are three really great unique venues. So

0:22:52.880 --> 0:22:55.840
<v Speaker 2>when we talk about elevating things like, is elevating the

0:22:55.920 --> 0:22:59.159
<v Speaker 2>three m really gonna do that much? Or is that

0:22:59.160 --> 0:23:03.720
<v Speaker 2>that's when I think you run into are you actually

0:23:04.080 --> 0:23:07.840
<v Speaker 2>just is this just the WGC? Because the WGC kind

0:23:07.840 --> 0:23:10.720
<v Speaker 2>of was like a great It was like whipped cream

0:23:10.760 --> 0:23:14.640
<v Speaker 2>on shit, right, all right, this is a really shitty venue.

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:17.160
<v Speaker 2>Like the match play was great the last few years

0:23:17.200 --> 0:23:20.640
<v Speaker 2>at Austin and I'm really sad that's going. But like

0:23:20.680 --> 0:23:24.879
<v Speaker 2>the other ones, the one at Memphis awful. You know,

0:23:24.960 --> 0:23:28.760
<v Speaker 2>Firestone was so tired by the end of that thing.

0:23:29.440 --> 0:23:32.520
<v Speaker 2>Mexico was not. I mean it actually kind of was

0:23:32.560 --> 0:23:36.040
<v Speaker 2>an interesting golf course because of how short it was,

0:23:36.320 --> 0:23:40.560
<v Speaker 2>you know, but it again where it all fell short,

0:23:40.680 --> 0:23:43.280
<v Speaker 2>like the TP that the course they went to in

0:23:43.359 --> 0:23:46.560
<v Speaker 2>China was like a disaster, you know. So you start

0:23:46.560 --> 0:23:49.120
<v Speaker 2>to look at it, and the venues were the issue.

0:23:49.320 --> 0:23:53.760
<v Speaker 2>They never prioritize venues. They don't prioritize venues for the

0:23:53.800 --> 0:23:57.679
<v Speaker 2>most part, but venues are really really important. Like I was,

0:23:57.840 --> 0:24:01.560
<v Speaker 2>I did an intro to the last podcast where I

0:24:01.560 --> 0:24:04.520
<v Speaker 2>talked about how you could do venues and such, and

0:24:04.560 --> 0:24:09.760
<v Speaker 2>I was thinking about certain past tournaments and like one

0:24:09.800 --> 0:24:12.280
<v Speaker 2>of some of the most memorable tournaments on the PGA

0:24:12.359 --> 0:24:16.440
<v Speaker 2>Tour in recent years were the Olympia Fields event with

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:19.560
<v Speaker 2>no fans when Rom and DJ duked it out. That

0:24:19.640 --> 0:24:24.479
<v Speaker 2>was an incredible tournament. Is at a former US Open course.

0:24:25.080 --> 0:24:29.760
<v Speaker 2>I remember the Bethpage tournament that Patrick Reed won was

0:24:29.800 --> 0:24:34.560
<v Speaker 2>a really good finish. The Ridgewood tournament that Bryson one

0:24:34.640 --> 0:24:37.640
<v Speaker 2>that was soaked was really good tournament. Like, it's very

0:24:37.760 --> 0:24:41.040
<v Speaker 2>rare when you go to a great venue that you

0:24:41.119 --> 0:24:42.600
<v Speaker 2>get a bad tournament.

0:24:43.520 --> 0:24:46.520
<v Speaker 1>I agree. Look, venue is a huge part of why

0:24:46.560 --> 0:24:50.720
<v Speaker 1>something's exciting. I think Phoenix Couples a good golf course

0:24:50.840 --> 0:24:54.320
<v Speaker 1>with some serious character, and that's the big question I have, like,

0:24:54.320 --> 0:24:56.000
<v Speaker 1>if you were to de elevate it for a year

0:24:56.040 --> 0:24:57.560
<v Speaker 1>and take some of the wind out of the sales

0:24:57.600 --> 0:25:00.560
<v Speaker 1>of an event that's been building and building and building

0:25:00.640 --> 0:25:04.200
<v Speaker 1>towards something special, what does that do for the Phoenix

0:25:04.240 --> 0:25:06.560
<v Speaker 1>Open over the long run? Like, I don't know if

0:25:06.560 --> 0:25:07.840
<v Speaker 1>you can tell them you're only going to get a

0:25:07.840 --> 0:25:10.159
<v Speaker 1>great field every three years. So I hear you on

0:25:10.200 --> 0:25:12.280
<v Speaker 1>the venues, It's just there's a lot to balance, and

0:25:12.320 --> 0:25:14.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't envy all the puzzle pieces that they have

0:25:14.800 --> 0:25:15.439
<v Speaker 1>to put together.

0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:18.439
<v Speaker 2>I think you could make a case for Phoenix is

0:25:18.480 --> 0:25:22.360
<v Speaker 2>strong enough on its own. You have enough tour players

0:25:22.440 --> 0:25:24.159
<v Speaker 2>as long as you don't do what they did to

0:25:24.200 --> 0:25:27.119
<v Speaker 2>the Honda this week, where you have, like you know,

0:25:27.400 --> 0:25:31.639
<v Speaker 2>four elevated sandwich between four elevated events. I think you

0:25:31.680 --> 0:25:34.040
<v Speaker 2>could make the case that that will still draw a

0:25:34.240 --> 0:25:38.359
<v Speaker 2>very good field, and that event might not need a

0:25:38.480 --> 0:25:40.800
<v Speaker 2>top tier field to be great.

0:25:41.720 --> 0:25:44.400
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I guess money is what you're incentivizing them with, right,

0:25:44.520 --> 0:25:46.359
<v Speaker 1>Like what we'll see what these purses look like. But

0:25:46.400 --> 0:25:50.920
<v Speaker 1>if I'm John Rahm, why do I go play Phoenix?

0:25:51.080 --> 0:25:54.840
<v Speaker 2>They have to play three non elevated event right, right?

0:25:54.880 --> 0:25:58.359
<v Speaker 2>So and I live in Phoenix. This is an easy

0:25:58.359 --> 0:26:01.159
<v Speaker 2>one for me to do. Like, you know, a perfect

0:26:01.240 --> 0:26:05.560
<v Speaker 2>example when we're doing our event schedule for the fried

0:26:05.600 --> 0:26:08.840
<v Speaker 2>Egg where I live, and if it's an event, if

0:26:08.880 --> 0:26:11.280
<v Speaker 2>I could sleep in my own bed, it's like a

0:26:11.320 --> 0:26:14.040
<v Speaker 2>no brainer to host an event, right.

0:26:14.080 --> 0:26:16.520
<v Speaker 1>I hear you. I have a little I have a

0:26:16.520 --> 0:26:19.480
<v Speaker 1>little bit of an aversion to like a stipulation that

0:26:19.520 --> 0:26:22.800
<v Speaker 1>you have to play three non elevate events. It just

0:26:22.920 --> 0:26:25.920
<v Speaker 1>might be necessary, and like that's what that's the hard

0:26:25.960 --> 0:26:28.080
<v Speaker 1>part of what they're doing with trying to build out

0:26:28.080 --> 0:26:29.800
<v Speaker 1>this schedule and get people to show up for the

0:26:29.840 --> 0:26:32.040
<v Speaker 1>non elevated events. It's a difficult challenge.

0:26:32.080 --> 0:26:33.919
<v Speaker 2>What do you think the ideal? So we have the

0:26:33.960 --> 0:26:37.600
<v Speaker 2>four majors we have and then the rest are going

0:26:37.680 --> 0:26:43.280
<v Speaker 2>to be tour events. Honestly, these some of these elevated events,

0:26:43.560 --> 0:26:47.480
<v Speaker 2>like I think Riviera, now that the cash is up

0:26:47.600 --> 0:26:50.680
<v Speaker 2>near the players, that's just a flat out better event

0:26:50.720 --> 0:26:53.200
<v Speaker 2>than the players. And I know that the tour will

0:26:53.200 --> 0:26:55.960
<v Speaker 2>hate to hear that, but it is. It's a better

0:26:56.240 --> 0:26:59.720
<v Speaker 2>tournament than the players. It has more history, it has

0:27:00.320 --> 0:27:02.919
<v Speaker 2>is to at a better golf course, and it's in

0:27:02.960 --> 0:27:04.840
<v Speaker 2>a better place it's a better place to go watch

0:27:04.960 --> 0:27:11.000
<v Speaker 2>golf just in general. Though, like by I'm wondering what

0:27:11.119 --> 0:27:15.120
<v Speaker 2>is the exact what's the right number of events for

0:27:15.400 --> 0:27:20.000
<v Speaker 2>a top player making a schedule. I think it's like fifteen,

0:27:20.920 --> 0:27:24.480
<v Speaker 2>so fifteen non non majors.

0:27:24.359 --> 0:27:28.760
<v Speaker 1>No, including majors. I think fifteen sixteen events is a

0:27:28.760 --> 0:27:32.120
<v Speaker 1>reasonable schedule for a top player, pretty much in line

0:27:32.160 --> 0:27:37.119
<v Speaker 1>with like an NFL schedule. Also, I think it's one

0:27:37.160 --> 0:27:38.840
<v Speaker 1>of the ways I'm thinking about this, not just from

0:27:38.840 --> 0:27:42.119
<v Speaker 1>a player's perspective, but how many weekends a year do

0:27:42.160 --> 0:27:45.560
<v Speaker 1>we think we can demand a fan's attention, And I

0:27:45.600 --> 0:27:48.960
<v Speaker 1>think sixteen is kind of pushing the upper bounds there.

0:27:49.240 --> 0:27:51.919
<v Speaker 1>I think fifteen sixteen is a reasonable number. What's your answer?

0:27:52.560 --> 0:27:55.080
<v Speaker 2>I wasn't sure. I was curious what your take is.

0:27:55.480 --> 0:27:59.080
<v Speaker 2>It feels where they're at right now, feels about right.

0:27:59.560 --> 0:28:02.240
<v Speaker 2>I think the tricky thing is gonna be how you

0:28:02.280 --> 0:28:05.480
<v Speaker 2>fit it all into eight months. That's hard. It's gonna

0:28:05.480 --> 0:28:08.200
<v Speaker 2>be really hard with their you know, with the goal

0:28:08.359 --> 0:28:14.040
<v Speaker 2>of being January to August is really it seems like

0:28:14.200 --> 0:28:19.520
<v Speaker 2>that's their steadfast. It's just hard to me because it limits,

0:28:20.520 --> 0:28:22.400
<v Speaker 2>you know, I think a lot of people want this

0:28:22.440 --> 0:28:25.439
<v Speaker 2>to have some international flavor to it, and if you

0:28:25.640 --> 0:28:28.880
<v Speaker 2>are sticking with January to August, I think it's gonna

0:28:28.920 --> 0:28:32.879
<v Speaker 2>be super hard to have more than like one international

0:28:33.040 --> 0:28:33.879
<v Speaker 2>elevated event.

0:28:34.480 --> 0:28:37.760
<v Speaker 1>I do, this is probably never gonna happen. I think

0:28:37.800 --> 0:28:39.200
<v Speaker 1>one thing that would help them out a lot is

0:28:39.240 --> 0:28:41.720
<v Speaker 1>to get rid of the first two playoff events. Honestly,

0:28:42.560 --> 0:28:43.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm not kidding.

0:28:43.200 --> 0:28:45.040
<v Speaker 2>I think gag rid of the playoffs would be the

0:28:45.040 --> 0:28:46.760
<v Speaker 2>best thing they could do.

0:28:46.800 --> 0:28:49.880
<v Speaker 1>Just have a Tour Championship, eight guys match play, that's

0:28:49.920 --> 0:28:52.800
<v Speaker 1>the finale, and all these other elevated events are how

0:28:52.840 --> 0:28:55.600
<v Speaker 1>you earn points into that. That would be so sweet,

0:28:55.800 --> 0:29:00.440
<v Speaker 1>Like top eight from Riviera, Waste Management, Kapalua. Just just

0:29:00.520 --> 0:29:04.360
<v Speaker 1>those twelve events the majors like the players, and that

0:29:04.800 --> 0:29:07.640
<v Speaker 1>just the top eight guys played the Tour Championship. That'd

0:29:07.680 --> 0:29:10.760
<v Speaker 1>be sweet. What purpose are the playoffs serving other than

0:29:10.800 --> 0:29:13.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure generating a ton of revenue, which I should

0:29:13.000 --> 0:29:14.000
<v Speaker 1>not be dismissive of.

0:29:14.560 --> 0:29:17.719
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think there's obviously the business reason. But if

0:29:17.800 --> 0:29:20.320
<v Speaker 2>you were starting from a clean slate, and I think

0:29:20.360 --> 0:29:23.320
<v Speaker 2>that you know when you're talking about this right now,

0:29:23.360 --> 0:29:26.200
<v Speaker 2>and I think Live is like right now it's down, right,

0:29:26.920 --> 0:29:29.800
<v Speaker 2>but it was down this time last year. And I

0:29:29.840 --> 0:29:33.880
<v Speaker 2>think that it's easy to look at what they're doing now,

0:29:34.360 --> 0:29:37.320
<v Speaker 2>lack of momentum, lack of big players that went there,

0:29:37.520 --> 0:29:40.240
<v Speaker 2>and say it's dead. But I think that's a little

0:29:40.280 --> 0:29:43.240
<v Speaker 2>bit foolish. And if you fall for if you're the

0:29:43.280 --> 0:29:47.000
<v Speaker 2>tour in fall for that trap a second time, you know,

0:29:47.040 --> 0:29:50.760
<v Speaker 2>it's the famous shame on you. It's nothing's ideal, but

0:29:50.880 --> 0:29:55.080
<v Speaker 2>it's important with this type of thing, is like, hey,

0:29:55.080 --> 0:29:58.320
<v Speaker 2>this is ideal if we had a clean slate, exactly

0:29:58.360 --> 0:30:01.560
<v Speaker 2>how we would do it? How close can we get here?

0:30:01.680 --> 0:30:06.240
<v Speaker 2>Because it seems like their partners are pretty open to this.

0:30:06.440 --> 0:30:10.280
<v Speaker 2>And if you're fed acts, if we make this bigger

0:30:10.560 --> 0:30:14.040
<v Speaker 2>and we make this better and we make this more interesting,

0:30:14.600 --> 0:30:16.800
<v Speaker 2>that is good for you in the long run, right,

0:30:16.840 --> 0:30:18.440
<v Speaker 2>And that has to be the messaging.

0:30:19.240 --> 0:30:22.480
<v Speaker 1>Totally agree, And I think you have to start from

0:30:22.520 --> 0:30:25.240
<v Speaker 1>the finish line and work your way backwards, Like what's

0:30:25.240 --> 0:30:28.520
<v Speaker 1>the coolest possible final. I think it's match play, and

0:30:28.560 --> 0:30:30.560
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a limited number of players, and how

0:30:30.600 --> 0:30:32.400
<v Speaker 1>do you get there in the most exciting way? So

0:30:32.680 --> 0:30:35.440
<v Speaker 1>that's my thought is you get rid of the playoffs.

0:30:35.160 --> 0:30:39.360
<v Speaker 2>Always the bird. The match play doesn't work, always falls

0:30:39.400 --> 0:30:41.640
<v Speaker 2>on when there's two players on the golf course. It

0:30:41.720 --> 0:30:45.400
<v Speaker 2>doesn't work if you have eight, eight players every day

0:30:45.480 --> 0:30:49.360
<v Speaker 2>playoff every single spot one through eight have big cash.

0:30:49.440 --> 0:30:55.040
<v Speaker 2>Like if if JT Is playing Scottie Scheffler in the

0:30:55.160 --> 0:30:58.959
<v Speaker 2>sixth match, in the sixth place match for three million

0:30:59.040 --> 0:31:03.680
<v Speaker 2>dollarsference in earnings, guess what, that's going to be pretty

0:31:03.800 --> 0:31:07.360
<v Speaker 2>freaking interesting to watch. None of these guys want to

0:31:07.400 --> 0:31:08.280
<v Speaker 2>lose at that point.

0:31:08.840 --> 0:31:11.320
<v Speaker 1>And we don't have a good way right now to

0:31:11.400 --> 0:31:15.320
<v Speaker 1>look back on a year twenty fourteen, what happened on

0:31:15.360 --> 0:31:18.959
<v Speaker 1>the PGA Tour? Who are the ten best players? Like

0:31:19.240 --> 0:31:21.520
<v Speaker 1>you can use the FedEx Cup standings at the end

0:31:21.520 --> 0:31:23.600
<v Speaker 1>of the year, but we know how systems kind of message, Well,

0:31:23.760 --> 0:31:26.160
<v Speaker 1>it's the warship and now it's even worse.

0:31:26.480 --> 0:31:28.800
<v Speaker 2>You have no clue. You have no clue when you

0:31:28.840 --> 0:31:29.880
<v Speaker 2>look at it now.

0:31:30.080 --> 0:31:32.960
<v Speaker 1>Exactly there's no time capsule, and this would serve as

0:31:32.960 --> 0:31:34.959
<v Speaker 1>that time capsule. It's just eight guys and they're battling

0:31:34.960 --> 0:31:37.280
<v Speaker 1>out every single spot. So yep, I like that.

0:31:49.920 --> 0:31:52.520
<v Speaker 2>All right, Let's take a few moments here to talk

0:31:52.520 --> 0:31:55.640
<v Speaker 2>about one of our partners, Athletic Greens. I started taking

0:31:55.680 --> 0:31:58.840
<v Speaker 2>their product ag one last fall, and I have to

0:31:58.880 --> 0:32:02.560
<v Speaker 2>say that I feel significantly better than I did before.

0:32:03.240 --> 0:32:06.560
<v Speaker 2>The big thing for me beyond you know the nutritional

0:32:06.680 --> 0:32:10.480
<v Speaker 2>value of AG one. There are tons of nutrients, like

0:32:10.640 --> 0:32:13.400
<v Speaker 2>vital nutrients. I think there are seventy five really high

0:32:13.480 --> 0:32:15.920
<v Speaker 2>quality nutrients that you get right at the beginning of

0:32:15.920 --> 0:32:18.600
<v Speaker 2>the morning. The big thing for me is I'm taking

0:32:18.640 --> 0:32:21.920
<v Speaker 2>in the morning. It gets ingrained as a habit, and

0:32:22.320 --> 0:32:26.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm somebody that doesn't do well with habits. I kind

0:32:26.200 --> 0:32:28.240
<v Speaker 2>of tend to fall out of them. This is one

0:32:28.280 --> 0:32:32.040
<v Speaker 2>that I've kept with and it's also enforced other good

0:32:32.120 --> 0:32:36.840
<v Speaker 2>habits this year. So AG one is super easy to do.

0:32:36.920 --> 0:32:40.120
<v Speaker 2>So you just mix powder with some water. It tastes

0:32:40.160 --> 0:32:43.120
<v Speaker 2>pretty good and it gets you set on your way

0:32:43.360 --> 0:32:46.080
<v Speaker 2>right off the bat. It's really good for gut health,

0:32:46.200 --> 0:32:49.400
<v Speaker 2>all sorts of things. So I would highly recommend this

0:32:49.760 --> 0:32:53.560
<v Speaker 2>is it has helped my nutritional routine, help my nutrition

0:32:53.880 --> 0:32:58.720
<v Speaker 2>in twenty twenty three. And if a comprehensive solution is

0:32:58.760 --> 0:33:01.440
<v Speaker 2>what you're looking at what you need from your supplement routine,

0:33:01.480 --> 0:33:06.000
<v Speaker 2>then Athleticgreens is giving you a free one year supply

0:33:06.040 --> 0:33:08.720
<v Speaker 2>of Vitamin D. That stuff's important. It's good for you,

0:33:08.920 --> 0:33:11.800
<v Speaker 2>especially if you're somewhere where there isn't a lot of

0:33:11.880 --> 0:33:15.040
<v Speaker 2>sun this time of year. And five free travel packs

0:33:15.040 --> 0:33:18.440
<v Speaker 2>with your first purchase. So if you go to Athleticgreens

0:33:18.480 --> 0:33:22.960
<v Speaker 2>dot com slash v Frida Egg. That's Athleticgreens dot Com

0:33:22.960 --> 0:33:25.400
<v Speaker 2>slash the Frida Egg. You can check it out. You'll

0:33:25.400 --> 0:33:29.720
<v Speaker 2>get those five free travel packs. Super super convenient if

0:33:29.760 --> 0:33:32.400
<v Speaker 2>you travel a lot. It keeps you on your routine.

0:33:32.440 --> 0:33:35.920
<v Speaker 2>And the vitamin D that's Athleticgreens dot Com Slash the

0:33:36.120 --> 0:33:44.400
<v Speaker 2>Friday Egg. Thanks, and now back to Joseph Lamania.

0:33:45.880 --> 0:33:47.440
<v Speaker 1>Do we want to move on to some player takeaways

0:33:47.440 --> 0:33:50.960
<v Speaker 1>from the Yes player Takeaways? I have like notes on

0:33:51.280 --> 0:33:53.440
<v Speaker 1>probably five or six players, but only a couple that

0:33:53.480 --> 0:33:56.880
<v Speaker 1>I felt had to hit on first. I think you

0:33:57.000 --> 0:34:02.400
<v Speaker 1>have to lead with John Rahm playing some dominant sorry.

0:34:02.360 --> 0:34:03.360
<v Speaker 2>The obvious one.

0:34:03.840 --> 0:34:06.960
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, but I mean it's it's worth, it's worth hammering

0:34:06.960 --> 0:34:11.480
<v Speaker 1>this point home. And I'm was really blown away at Genesis.

0:34:12.400 --> 0:34:15.680
<v Speaker 1>Him not being good off the tee and winning that

0:34:15.719 --> 0:34:19.120
<v Speaker 1>event by a couple of shots is really scary for

0:34:19.600 --> 0:34:22.120
<v Speaker 1>players not named John Rahm on the PGA Tour. He's

0:34:22.160 --> 0:34:23.960
<v Speaker 1>one of the best drivers in the world. He had

0:34:23.960 --> 0:34:26.480
<v Speaker 1>an off driving week and he's still won one of

0:34:26.480 --> 0:34:28.520
<v Speaker 1>the strongest fields in golf by multiple shots at a

0:34:28.560 --> 0:34:31.880
<v Speaker 1>demanding course. His iron play and his putting was amazing. Like,

0:34:32.040 --> 0:34:34.920
<v Speaker 1>good luck. If you plan on beating John Ram this year.

0:34:34.960 --> 0:34:39.000
<v Speaker 2>Do you consider him head and shoulders above everybody else

0:34:39.080 --> 0:34:39.520
<v Speaker 2>right now?

0:34:40.200 --> 0:34:45.240
<v Speaker 1>I think it's pretty disrespectful to say head and shoulders

0:34:45.280 --> 0:34:48.240
<v Speaker 1>above everybody else. I think it's still golf course dependent,

0:34:48.280 --> 0:34:50.719
<v Speaker 1>but he is my favorite at the Masters as of

0:34:50.760 --> 0:34:55.560
<v Speaker 1>this moment. I think Rory and Scheffler are right there.

0:34:55.640 --> 0:34:58.840
<v Speaker 1>Like at Okill, I think Rory has as good of

0:34:58.880 --> 0:35:00.680
<v Speaker 1>a chance as anybody. So I think a lot of

0:35:00.760 --> 0:35:04.040
<v Speaker 1>venues would be like Rory and Rom coin flip, but

0:35:04.640 --> 0:35:06.319
<v Speaker 1>certain venues I'd give the edge to Rom.

0:35:06.480 --> 0:35:09.560
<v Speaker 2>What about you, Yeah, I think I'm a hard I

0:35:09.600 --> 0:35:11.960
<v Speaker 2>have a hard time. I think like just think he

0:35:12.040 --> 0:35:14.040
<v Speaker 2>threw golf in the way it works is like we

0:35:14.160 --> 0:35:17.600
<v Speaker 2>haven't you know everybody like we see guys play like

0:35:17.719 --> 0:35:23.479
<v Speaker 2>this and the reality of since two thousand and eight,

0:35:24.160 --> 0:35:27.880
<v Speaker 2>the reality is is that it's very hard for anybody

0:35:27.920 --> 0:35:31.920
<v Speaker 2>to sustain this for more than a couple months. And

0:35:32.320 --> 0:35:35.120
<v Speaker 2>the thing I fear is that John Rom played his

0:35:35.200 --> 0:35:39.160
<v Speaker 2>best golf from November and we look back and we're

0:35:39.160 --> 0:35:43.560
<v Speaker 2>like John Ram from November of twenty twenty two till

0:35:44.560 --> 0:35:48.200
<v Speaker 2>March of twenty three played the best golf of his career,

0:35:48.600 --> 0:35:51.279
<v Speaker 2>you know, and it's a time capsule. Like we saw

0:35:51.280 --> 0:35:55.239
<v Speaker 2>this with Hideki Matsuyama where he ripped off what four

0:35:55.280 --> 0:35:58.400
<v Speaker 2>wins and six events, but it was in November, you know,

0:35:58.640 --> 0:36:01.000
<v Speaker 2>And this is part of the thing with the schedule, right.

0:36:01.160 --> 0:36:04.719
<v Speaker 2>So with John Rahm, like I he's one of the

0:36:04.760 --> 0:36:07.640
<v Speaker 2>most consistent players in the world, right and he has

0:36:07.719 --> 0:36:10.080
<v Speaker 2>been like one of the most consistent players we've ever

0:36:10.120 --> 0:36:13.600
<v Speaker 2>seen since Tiger. But like my question is is this,

0:36:13.760 --> 0:36:16.800
<v Speaker 2>does this putter, Does the putter that was really cold

0:36:16.920 --> 0:36:19.440
<v Speaker 2>last year stay hot? Do we see that because like

0:36:19.680 --> 0:36:22.279
<v Speaker 2>if all of sudden he becomes an average putter, you know,

0:36:22.360 --> 0:36:25.640
<v Speaker 2>like he was last year, does this all work at

0:36:25.680 --> 0:36:27.879
<v Speaker 2>such a high level. And I think the same thing's

0:36:27.960 --> 0:36:32.120
<v Speaker 2>going on with like Rory. Rory was hot, and you know,

0:36:32.560 --> 0:36:35.000
<v Speaker 2>I watched him play thirty six holes of golf last

0:36:35.000 --> 0:36:38.840
<v Speaker 2>week and I was just after thirty six holes, I'm like,

0:36:39.160 --> 0:36:43.280
<v Speaker 2>this guy did nothing on the greens, like made nothing,

0:36:43.760 --> 0:36:47.280
<v Speaker 2>It had no spectacular breaks, and he's a couple shots

0:36:47.280 --> 0:36:50.319
<v Speaker 2>off the league, you know. And to me, my kind

0:36:50.320 --> 0:36:54.759
<v Speaker 2>of like is like those Scottie, Rory and rom I

0:36:54.840 --> 0:36:58.040
<v Speaker 2>have in a different bucket because they've done things over

0:36:58.040 --> 0:37:00.680
<v Speaker 2>the last eighteen months that like, and I think camp

0:37:00.719 --> 0:37:04.200
<v Speaker 2>Smith probably deserves to be in that bucket too. And

0:37:04.320 --> 0:37:07.480
<v Speaker 2>you look at those three guy or four guys and

0:37:07.600 --> 0:37:11.399
<v Speaker 2>like they've done extraordinary feats over the last really year

0:37:11.840 --> 0:37:15.120
<v Speaker 2>that other players haven't even sniffed that level, because I

0:37:15.120 --> 0:37:18.440
<v Speaker 2>think there's those four guys and a really big drop

0:37:18.480 --> 0:37:20.319
<v Speaker 2>off to the next group of guys.

0:37:21.040 --> 0:37:25.120
<v Speaker 1>Well, I agree with most of that. I think a

0:37:25.160 --> 0:37:27.520
<v Speaker 1>couple other golfers that I've at least one golfer I

0:37:27.600 --> 0:37:31.839
<v Speaker 1>wanted to talk about, is Colin Morikawah coming around on him?

0:37:31.880 --> 0:37:32.080
<v Speaker 2>Now?

0:37:32.560 --> 0:37:35.960
<v Speaker 1>I heard, I watched him, I walked with him at

0:37:35.960 --> 0:37:40.239
<v Speaker 1>Tory Pines. Unbelievable what I saw that day in the

0:37:40.239 --> 0:37:43.879
<v Speaker 1>West Coast Wing. He finished t six at riv missed

0:37:43.880 --> 0:37:46.680
<v Speaker 1>the cut in Phoenix, finished third at Farmers where he

0:37:46.680 --> 0:37:50.000
<v Speaker 1>had a chance to win, and then the second place

0:37:50.040 --> 0:37:51.840
<v Speaker 1>at the Tournament of Champions that he kind of blew

0:37:51.880 --> 0:37:55.640
<v Speaker 1>that lead, he had a chance to win three big

0:37:55.680 --> 0:38:00.399
<v Speaker 1>golf tournaments. Colin Morikawa is so every time I see

0:38:00.480 --> 0:38:02.080
<v Speaker 1>him hit a bad shot, it feels like it shouldn't

0:38:02.120 --> 0:38:05.160
<v Speaker 1>have happened, Like it just looks so natural, like he's

0:38:05.160 --> 0:38:07.080
<v Speaker 1>gonna hit a good shot on every swing. And when

0:38:07.080 --> 0:38:10.360
<v Speaker 1>he's getting it together like this, I would I'm really

0:38:10.840 --> 0:38:12.960
<v Speaker 1>high on what his chances are of winning some big

0:38:13.000 --> 0:38:14.839
<v Speaker 1>golf tournaments in twenty twenty three. So I don't think

0:38:14.840 --> 0:38:17.279
<v Speaker 1>the drop off between like a cam Smith in a

0:38:17.320 --> 0:38:20.480
<v Speaker 1>Morikawa is that huge. And that's coming from somebody who

0:38:20.600 --> 0:38:21.880
<v Speaker 1>views cam Smith very highly.

0:38:22.280 --> 0:38:22.600
<v Speaker 2>M hm.

0:38:22.960 --> 0:38:25.440
<v Speaker 1>Right. Also, I throw Fenw in there too. I think

0:38:25.480 --> 0:38:28.320
<v Speaker 1>for now is he's right, He's right there.

0:38:29.000 --> 0:38:32.640
<v Speaker 2>That's interesting. I don't know. I was actually pretty impressed

0:38:32.640 --> 0:38:36.880
<v Speaker 2>with zeal Taurus at Riviera. That was to me something

0:38:36.920 --> 0:38:40.120
<v Speaker 2>I needed to see, just with hearing on the Nolaying

0:38:40.200 --> 0:38:44.799
<v Speaker 2>Up podcast, Like what he's gone through to alleviate the

0:38:44.840 --> 0:38:47.319
<v Speaker 2>back problems is like a swing change, and it's like

0:38:47.719 --> 0:38:50.319
<v Speaker 2>the scary when you consider how good of a ball

0:38:50.360 --> 0:38:54.120
<v Speaker 2>striker he was and seeing him play really at an

0:38:54.160 --> 0:38:57.640
<v Speaker 2>elite level last week was was you know, I think

0:38:57.680 --> 0:39:00.759
<v Speaker 2>like when you talk about majors, Like he's somebody that's

0:39:00.880 --> 0:39:03.840
<v Speaker 2>kind of right there. So you know another guy that

0:39:04.320 --> 0:39:11.560
<v Speaker 2>obviously I'm Jason Days only thirty five, he's put together

0:39:11.640 --> 0:39:14.200
<v Speaker 2>some of the best golf we've seen out of anybody.

0:39:14.440 --> 0:39:16.960
<v Speaker 2>And it wasn't that long ago. I mean we're talking

0:39:17.000 --> 0:39:20.040
<v Speaker 2>twenty fifteen when he was playing at the best, you know,

0:39:20.239 --> 0:39:20.920
<v Speaker 2>highest level of.

0:39:20.880 --> 0:39:21.600
<v Speaker 1>Anybody in the game.

0:39:21.680 --> 0:39:26.360
<v Speaker 2>Just a decade ago, eight years. I mean, I was

0:39:26.480 --> 0:39:28.840
<v Speaker 2>just like I think, like when you talk about Augusta,

0:39:29.880 --> 0:39:34.120
<v Speaker 2>he's sneakily getting into that like back end conversation of

0:39:34.160 --> 0:39:37.440
<v Speaker 2>like this guy, this is a guy that could sneak

0:39:37.480 --> 0:39:41.160
<v Speaker 2>in there and win because he's had unbelievable form. The

0:39:41.239 --> 0:39:43.880
<v Speaker 2>golf course fits his game because of how good he

0:39:44.000 --> 0:39:47.680
<v Speaker 2>is around the greens. Like the thing about Augusta to

0:39:47.800 --> 0:39:50.200
<v Speaker 2>me is always like the guys that play great at

0:39:50.239 --> 0:39:54.880
<v Speaker 2>Augusta regularly year and year out, they're either a super

0:39:54.920 --> 0:39:59.120
<v Speaker 2>elite drivers or be super elite around the greens and

0:39:59.200 --> 0:40:01.759
<v Speaker 2>know that if they are out of position, they can

0:40:01.840 --> 0:40:04.279
<v Speaker 2>hit it over to a certain spot and get up

0:40:04.280 --> 0:40:06.600
<v Speaker 2>and down the vast majority of the time. And he

0:40:06.640 --> 0:40:09.960
<v Speaker 2>fits more into that bucket and he's got enough pop

0:40:10.520 --> 0:40:13.640
<v Speaker 2>and enough talent that I think, like you know, to

0:40:14.120 --> 0:40:18.000
<v Speaker 2>me him and Justin Rose, like those are sneaky back

0:40:18.120 --> 0:40:23.480
<v Speaker 2>end of your card, potential dark horse masters guys.

0:40:24.200 --> 0:40:27.240
<v Speaker 1>I think we should mention really hardcore iron tests Augusta.

0:40:27.480 --> 0:40:30.680
<v Speaker 1>So like that. Jason Day started to hit his irons

0:40:30.760 --> 0:40:33.040
<v Speaker 1>much better this past fall. He's been playing really well.

0:40:33.719 --> 0:40:35.800
<v Speaker 1>Would He's also snuck inside the top fifty in the

0:40:35.840 --> 0:40:37.960
<v Speaker 1>official World Golf rankings, and now I believe yeah, I

0:40:37.960 --> 0:40:40.560
<v Speaker 1>don't know about Sports Illustrated, but ficial World Golf rankings

0:40:40.560 --> 0:40:42.000
<v Speaker 1>top fifty, and so he.

0:40:42.000 --> 0:40:43.280
<v Speaker 2>Will about that.

0:40:42.840 --> 0:40:48.080
<v Speaker 1>I view him much more positively than Rose personally, just

0:40:48.160 --> 0:40:50.080
<v Speaker 1>based on what we've seen over the last four months.

0:40:50.440 --> 0:40:52.319
<v Speaker 1>But yeah, those are guys to pay attention to. Other

0:40:52.400 --> 0:40:54.320
<v Speaker 1>name we didn't talk about that. I think Warren so

0:40:54.400 --> 0:40:58.560
<v Speaker 1>mention is Max Homa, who put together that's yeah, a

0:40:58.600 --> 0:41:03.279
<v Speaker 1>great West Coast swing, second place at RIV one Farmers.

0:41:03.760 --> 0:41:05.480
<v Speaker 1>It kind of snuck up on me that he finished

0:41:05.480 --> 0:41:09.719
<v Speaker 1>tied for thirdieth century at Capelua, Like really good West

0:41:09.800 --> 0:41:12.600
<v Speaker 1>Coast swing. He's won how many times in the last year,

0:41:12.719 --> 0:41:17.320
<v Speaker 1>three Fortinette and Wells Fargo, Like Maxim was a real player,

0:41:17.320 --> 0:41:19.400
<v Speaker 1>and anybody who dwells on the fact that he's like

0:41:19.400 --> 0:41:21.960
<v Speaker 1>big on social media or like a social media golfer.

0:41:22.000 --> 0:41:24.719
<v Speaker 1>He's not like he's he's now an elite golfer on

0:41:24.760 --> 0:41:28.759
<v Speaker 1>the PGA Tour. He's shown you how many times I'm amazed.

0:41:28.960 --> 0:41:32.360
<v Speaker 1>I mean, he's like a perfect example of like career progression,

0:41:32.640 --> 0:41:35.000
<v Speaker 1>and he's a little bit of a throwback to what

0:41:35.080 --> 0:41:39.920
<v Speaker 1>we are normally see when guys it takes time for

0:41:40.000 --> 0:41:43.360
<v Speaker 1>guys to get comfortable in the in the professional setting,

0:41:43.480 --> 0:41:46.719
<v Speaker 1>Like this is a player of the nineties where he

0:41:46.800 --> 0:41:49.919
<v Speaker 1>gets better and better every year, and now he's having

0:41:49.960 --> 0:41:50.640
<v Speaker 1>career years.

0:41:50.680 --> 0:41:54.719
<v Speaker 2>I think he's in his early thirties, you know, and

0:41:55.200 --> 0:41:58.640
<v Speaker 2>versus like, you know, what has become the norm is

0:41:58.640 --> 0:42:01.239
<v Speaker 2>that he's just like phenoms that come out in their

0:42:01.280 --> 0:42:05.439
<v Speaker 2>standouts from day one, You're Colin Morrikalis, and he's kind

0:42:05.440 --> 0:42:06.440
<v Speaker 2>of the opposite of that.

0:42:07.160 --> 0:42:12.360
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, look Maxoma at Farmers at toy he hit a

0:42:12.400 --> 0:42:14.920
<v Speaker 1>couple of shots that just not many people have, I

0:42:14.920 --> 0:42:18.759
<v Speaker 1>mean straight up like birdying eleven and sixteen, those part

0:42:18.840 --> 0:42:23.120
<v Speaker 1>threes on Saturday, I guess. But his final round, there

0:42:23.160 --> 0:42:24.759
<v Speaker 1>just aren't that many players who can step up and

0:42:24.800 --> 0:42:27.279
<v Speaker 1>hit that shot when they're in contention. So was really

0:42:27.320 --> 0:42:28.600
<v Speaker 1>impressed with Maxhoma.

0:42:28.680 --> 0:42:30.759
<v Speaker 2>I wanted to talk about riv I know that you're

0:42:30.800 --> 0:42:35.480
<v Speaker 2>not a universal praise of riv guy, You've got your questions.

0:42:35.600 --> 0:42:38.800
<v Speaker 2>What is it about Riviera that falls a little short?

0:42:39.480 --> 0:42:42.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm not gonna so I think it's important to say

0:42:42.200 --> 0:42:44.360
<v Speaker 1>I think Rivier is one of the best courses on tour. Like,

0:42:45.200 --> 0:42:48.200
<v Speaker 1>if it's not the best non major, it's right there,

0:42:48.200 --> 0:42:50.719
<v Speaker 1>and it probably is the best non major. So I

0:42:50.719 --> 0:42:52.920
<v Speaker 1>will preface my thoughts with that. I do think some

0:42:53.000 --> 0:42:55.799
<v Speaker 1>of the criticism we like to throw around on other

0:42:55.880 --> 0:42:59.800
<v Speaker 1>courses about being target golf like aren't always some of

0:42:59.840 --> 0:43:03.480
<v Speaker 1>those those same arguments can be applied to Riviera. The

0:43:03.520 --> 0:43:06.400
<v Speaker 1>other thing is that I don't think it always punishes

0:43:06.440 --> 0:43:08.759
<v Speaker 1>you off the tee as much as I would like

0:43:08.800 --> 0:43:12.880
<v Speaker 1>to see John Rahm with some really errant drives, like

0:43:12.920 --> 0:43:16.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm thirteen and you're just not dead at Riviera in

0:43:16.640 --> 0:43:19.359
<v Speaker 1>a way that I kind of like, I just when

0:43:19.400 --> 0:43:21.439
<v Speaker 1>you hit a shot way offline, I want to see there,

0:43:21.560 --> 0:43:24.680
<v Speaker 1>I want to see a serious penalty associated with that.

0:43:24.880 --> 0:43:28.960
<v Speaker 1>So I think personally, I think holds one, four and

0:43:29.040 --> 0:43:33.680
<v Speaker 1>fifteen are not compelling golf holes, and that if there

0:43:33.680 --> 0:43:35.359
<v Speaker 1>are a couple of golf holes that I feel really

0:43:35.360 --> 0:43:37.799
<v Speaker 1>negatively about. It's hard for me to give like the

0:43:38.000 --> 0:43:40.640
<v Speaker 1>most glowing review, even though I do like the golf course.

0:43:41.000 --> 0:43:43.120
<v Speaker 2>Would you feel differently about one if it was a

0:43:43.160 --> 0:43:45.000
<v Speaker 2>part four? No?

0:43:45.000 --> 0:43:49.399
<v Speaker 1>No, I don't ever view I think one whole one.

0:43:49.800 --> 0:43:51.920
<v Speaker 1>I understand it's like a historic T shot, which I

0:43:51.920 --> 0:43:54.160
<v Speaker 1>think is really cool. The T SHOT's cool. But if

0:43:54.200 --> 0:43:56.800
<v Speaker 1>you want to, if you want to make criticisms about

0:43:56.800 --> 0:44:01.440
<v Speaker 1>certain golf courses being target golf, household one like not

0:44:02.560 --> 0:44:05.839
<v Speaker 1>household one, not target golf, I mean you want hit

0:44:05.840 --> 0:44:07.960
<v Speaker 1>it high and straight like isn't that some of the

0:44:08.000 --> 0:44:10.439
<v Speaker 1>criticism we give a lot of golf courses, like what's

0:44:10.440 --> 0:44:11.960
<v Speaker 1>going on on Hoole one that I'm missing?

0:44:12.400 --> 0:44:16.560
<v Speaker 2>I think the green's pretty cool, it's cool. It could

0:44:16.600 --> 0:44:20.279
<v Speaker 2>be cooler with a with a restoration too. It had

0:44:20.520 --> 0:44:23.080
<v Speaker 2>I think a little bit more going on than is

0:44:23.120 --> 0:44:24.879
<v Speaker 2>there right now. If you expand it.

0:44:24.719 --> 0:44:27.480
<v Speaker 1>It's really hard. It's really hard to stop your approach

0:44:27.480 --> 0:44:29.279
<v Speaker 1>shot on that green, and I think that sort of

0:44:29.320 --> 0:44:32.360
<v Speaker 1>turns into like, all right, high, how high can I

0:44:32.400 --> 0:44:34.720
<v Speaker 1>hit it? And get to stop as quickly as possible,

0:44:34.840 --> 0:44:37.880
<v Speaker 1>which is fine, but that's the same criticism we give

0:44:37.920 --> 0:44:39.120
<v Speaker 1>a lot of other golf courses.

0:44:39.520 --> 0:44:42.680
<v Speaker 2>I think that crossing hazard does like one of the

0:44:42.719 --> 0:44:45.640
<v Speaker 2>things that it does do is it negates the distance

0:44:45.680 --> 0:44:48.919
<v Speaker 2>advantage a little bit on a specific hole. The rest

0:44:48.920 --> 0:44:51.640
<v Speaker 2>of the golf course, you know, there's a few places

0:44:52.160 --> 0:44:55.319
<v Speaker 2>that it And this is what Sagres does too, right

0:44:55.440 --> 0:44:59.320
<v Speaker 2>in negating distance. Is it as crossing hazards that prevent

0:44:59.480 --> 0:45:01.680
<v Speaker 2>long hitter. And that's where you see I think a

0:45:01.680 --> 0:45:06.000
<v Speaker 2>little bit more variety of playing styles at Riviera. So

0:45:06.040 --> 0:45:10.520
<v Speaker 2>you got like five, you have one where these crossing hazards,

0:45:10.560 --> 0:45:13.719
<v Speaker 2>you have eleven. If it's downwind, these guys can't hit

0:45:13.800 --> 0:45:17.040
<v Speaker 2>driver on there. And then you know the drivable four

0:45:17.840 --> 0:45:21.440
<v Speaker 2>at not driveable short four which we'll talk about ten

0:45:22.040 --> 0:45:25.200
<v Speaker 2>is reachable for everybody now. So I think one of

0:45:25.239 --> 0:45:28.560
<v Speaker 2>the things that the golf course in the way it

0:45:28.680 --> 0:45:33.080
<v Speaker 2>presents itself, I think it's super democratic in the sense

0:45:33.120 --> 0:45:37.240
<v Speaker 2>of like any type of player shows up at Riviera

0:45:37.360 --> 0:45:40.120
<v Speaker 2>and does feel like they have a good chance. You know,

0:45:40.360 --> 0:45:44.080
<v Speaker 2>if you're a little say, your driver's not your thing, right,

0:45:45.480 --> 0:45:48.480
<v Speaker 2>I mean, Luke Donald has played well at Riviera in

0:45:48.520 --> 0:45:52.640
<v Speaker 2>his career, you know, and he's pretty short and not straight,

0:45:53.120 --> 0:45:54.839
<v Speaker 2>you know, And one of the reasons he could play

0:45:54.880 --> 0:45:59.360
<v Speaker 2>well there was it allows him to beat people with

0:45:59.440 --> 0:46:04.040
<v Speaker 2>his iron play and recovery play. Right. So to me,

0:46:04.600 --> 0:46:09.440
<v Speaker 2>I am a big fan of places that allow players'

0:46:09.520 --> 0:46:16.360
<v Speaker 2>skills to shine more so than punishing players in you know, inaccuracies.

0:46:17.480 --> 0:46:20.719
<v Speaker 1>I don't disagree with you, and I'm not saying like, oh,

0:46:20.840 --> 0:46:22.800
<v Speaker 1>just grow up the rough and then I'd be happy.

0:46:22.840 --> 0:46:24.879
<v Speaker 1>That's not how I That's not how I feel about it.

0:46:25.000 --> 0:46:28.839
<v Speaker 1>I just think when you blow a drive like way offline,

0:46:29.560 --> 0:46:33.439
<v Speaker 1>I like to see it have a significant difference, even

0:46:33.480 --> 0:46:36.440
<v Speaker 1>if it's still feasible to make par. I think it

0:46:36.480 --> 0:46:38.120
<v Speaker 1>should be a lot harder to make par than if

0:46:38.160 --> 0:46:40.200
<v Speaker 1>you hit a drive dead online. And thirteen is a

0:46:40.239 --> 0:46:43.200
<v Speaker 1>really good example where rom like blew that thing so

0:46:43.440 --> 0:46:45.759
<v Speaker 1>far left and if you're in the fair way the.

0:46:47.360 --> 0:46:47.920
<v Speaker 2>Tree.

0:46:48.600 --> 0:46:50.719
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, he was fine. He was fine over where his

0:46:50.800 --> 0:46:53.600
<v Speaker 1>ball ended up. It's not gone where you want to be.

0:46:53.760 --> 0:46:55.200
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I don't know that was.

0:46:55.719 --> 0:46:57.839
<v Speaker 2>I feel like you're discounting how good of a shot

0:46:57.960 --> 0:46:58.560
<v Speaker 2>he hit out.

0:46:58.440 --> 0:47:01.360
<v Speaker 1>Of there was Obviously it's a good shot. It's just

0:47:01.440 --> 0:47:02.759
<v Speaker 1>like there are a lot of courses where you if

0:47:02.800 --> 0:47:05.080
<v Speaker 1>you hit the ball that far off line, like you're

0:47:05.160 --> 0:47:07.280
<v Speaker 1>you're not making you're not making par.

0:47:08.360 --> 0:47:11.719
<v Speaker 2>Like I guess your thing is like Augusta, right, I

0:47:12.040 --> 0:47:15.719
<v Speaker 2>know you love Augusta. And the premise behind what you're

0:47:15.719 --> 0:47:19.280
<v Speaker 2>saying at Augusta is you have plenty of space to play,

0:47:20.200 --> 0:47:23.360
<v Speaker 2>you know, the you have forty to fifty yards of space.

0:47:23.800 --> 0:47:26.879
<v Speaker 2>But when you're off that, that's when it gets very

0:47:27.000 --> 0:47:29.480
<v Speaker 2>very hard to make par right exactly.

0:47:29.560 --> 0:47:32.239
<v Speaker 1>And it's possible if you hit a clever recovery shot

0:47:32.239 --> 0:47:35.719
<v Speaker 1>and then you're probably chipping, but it is it's hard.

0:47:35.760 --> 0:47:37.440
<v Speaker 1>And I'm not just like shooting from the hip here.

0:47:37.440 --> 0:47:39.560
<v Speaker 1>I mean when I look at when I look at

0:47:39.600 --> 0:47:42.520
<v Speaker 1>the data, like why misses at Riviera just aren't penalized

0:47:42.520 --> 0:47:43.280
<v Speaker 1>that heavily.

0:47:43.800 --> 0:47:46.920
<v Speaker 2>So I think an interesting topic here offshoot of this,

0:47:47.239 --> 0:47:50.799
<v Speaker 2>like an interesting discussion of this, is that when you're

0:47:50.840 --> 0:47:55.560
<v Speaker 2>designing golf courses for a tour pro, I think that

0:47:55.560 --> 0:47:59.840
<v Speaker 2>that makes a lot of sense because you can design

0:48:00.560 --> 0:48:04.719
<v Speaker 2>where there's you know, but when you're designing for everybody,

0:48:05.880 --> 0:48:08.520
<v Speaker 2>that's where it gets really hard because most people can't

0:48:08.600 --> 0:48:12.000
<v Speaker 2>keep it on the planet. Right. So I think, like

0:48:12.400 --> 0:48:17.120
<v Speaker 2>the interesting thing is what makes a great golf course

0:48:17.200 --> 0:48:22.480
<v Speaker 2>for everybody might not necessarily make a great golf course

0:48:22.520 --> 0:48:27.799
<v Speaker 2>for testing tour professionals' ability to drive golf ball unless

0:48:28.280 --> 0:48:30.960
<v Speaker 2>you know, and I hate I want to talk about

0:48:31.040 --> 0:48:34.279
<v Speaker 2>the tenth. I hate living in absolutes. I hate it.

0:48:34.640 --> 0:48:38.080
<v Speaker 2>I think that's like where golf architecture goes wrong. But

0:48:38.719 --> 0:48:42.040
<v Speaker 2>I do understand what you're saying. But like you know,

0:48:42.160 --> 0:48:45.560
<v Speaker 2>like the idea of the further you miss offline, the

0:48:45.560 --> 0:48:48.400
<v Speaker 2>more trouble you get in is really hard for the

0:48:48.440 --> 0:48:49.479
<v Speaker 2>eighteen handed gap.

0:48:50.239 --> 0:48:52.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't I don't disagree with you, And I think

0:48:52.440 --> 0:48:54.959
<v Speaker 1>that's maybe an unfortunate realization I've had over the past

0:48:54.960 --> 0:48:58.440
<v Speaker 1>couple of years, is that like bifurcation in golf courses

0:48:58.480 --> 0:49:02.720
<v Speaker 1>almost does make some life of sense. And I think Scottsdale, honestly,

0:49:02.760 --> 0:49:06.080
<v Speaker 1>Andy is probably a good example. Like people love whole seventeen.

0:49:06.320 --> 0:49:07.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm not as high on whole seventeen as a lot

0:49:07.880 --> 0:49:10.520
<v Speaker 1>of people are, but people love whole seventeen. I mean,

0:49:10.560 --> 0:49:13.719
<v Speaker 1>is that a great hole for a six handicap?

0:49:14.280 --> 0:49:17.640
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. I think it. I think it's a

0:49:17.640 --> 0:49:21.719
<v Speaker 2>fine hole. Let's talk about that. So Kevin Van Valkenberg

0:49:21.960 --> 0:49:25.040
<v Speaker 2>from nolaying Up wrote a piece about the tenth Hole,

0:49:26.080 --> 0:49:29.200
<v Speaker 2>and it was titled does the Tenth Hole Riviera Stink?

0:49:29.800 --> 0:49:31.480
<v Speaker 2>Now I read this piece, we got a lot of

0:49:31.560 --> 0:49:35.920
<v Speaker 2>quotes from players ranging from Rory to Tiger to Harris.

0:49:35.960 --> 0:49:39.799
<v Speaker 2>English was in it. And I don't necessarily agree with

0:49:39.840 --> 0:49:43.080
<v Speaker 2>the premise of Kevin's article, but I will say that

0:49:43.200 --> 0:49:46.120
<v Speaker 2>Kevin's article made me think. It made me feel something.

0:49:46.400 --> 0:49:50.359
<v Speaker 2>It made me like, you know, and that is the

0:49:50.400 --> 0:49:53.560
<v Speaker 2>mark of a good article, is when it makes you think,

0:49:53.600 --> 0:49:57.320
<v Speaker 2>it makes you feel something. With the tenth Hole. Really

0:49:57.320 --> 0:50:00.319
<v Speaker 2>the criticism I think, like I have criticism of the

0:50:00.360 --> 0:50:03.880
<v Speaker 2>tenth Hole? Do I think it stinks? And that became

0:50:04.000 --> 0:50:08.040
<v Speaker 2>kind of some discourse this weekend. I don't. I think

0:50:08.080 --> 0:50:11.560
<v Speaker 2>that it is. It is a few tiny tweaks away

0:50:11.560 --> 0:50:15.480
<v Speaker 2>from being very very good. But I think the notion

0:50:15.680 --> 0:50:18.120
<v Speaker 2>that I picked up on in the piece, and you

0:50:18.160 --> 0:50:21.719
<v Speaker 2>can chime in here, is that the reason that the

0:50:21.760 --> 0:50:24.800
<v Speaker 2>fifth the tenth hole might stink is that it's not fair.

0:50:25.600 --> 0:50:29.279
<v Speaker 2>And the idea of fair is that the green is

0:50:29.520 --> 0:50:33.600
<v Speaker 2>very very difficult to drive, and thus takes away the

0:50:33.760 --> 0:50:37.640
<v Speaker 2>chance for an easy or for an attainable eagle we

0:50:37.719 --> 0:50:42.080
<v Speaker 2>see a couple eagles a year at the tenth. But

0:50:42.719 --> 0:50:46.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, I think where I struggle here is the premise.

0:50:46.640 --> 0:50:49.960
<v Speaker 2>I think we're confusing things between short part four and

0:50:50.080 --> 0:50:55.000
<v Speaker 2>drivable part four. The seventeenth at Scott's Sale, which everybody likes,

0:50:55.080 --> 0:50:59.080
<v Speaker 2>I like it is a drivable part four. The tenth

0:50:59.440 --> 0:51:03.239
<v Speaker 2>at Riviera should more be labeled a short part four.

0:51:03.719 --> 0:51:06.840
<v Speaker 2>And one of the virtues of a well done short

0:51:06.880 --> 0:51:11.279
<v Speaker 2>part four, I think, is that the interest comes in

0:51:11.480 --> 0:51:15.680
<v Speaker 2>where you're placing your shot, and we see where guys

0:51:15.760 --> 0:51:19.360
<v Speaker 2>want to place the shot, albeit it's very small places

0:51:19.560 --> 0:51:24.200
<v Speaker 2>right now, and tenthl is drastically different based off of

0:51:24.239 --> 0:51:28.600
<v Speaker 2>pin changes. Right like, some days being just short is

0:51:28.680 --> 0:51:31.920
<v Speaker 2>the best spot to be, some days being long is

0:51:31.960 --> 0:51:34.600
<v Speaker 2>a great spot to be. And if you did a

0:51:34.680 --> 0:51:37.840
<v Speaker 2>little bit of work on the green, that just softened

0:51:37.840 --> 0:51:41.480
<v Speaker 2>the severity of the front. I think that laying up

0:51:41.600 --> 0:51:44.879
<v Speaker 2>would sometimes be a fashionable choice.

0:51:45.080 --> 0:51:47.359
<v Speaker 1>I think that holds kind of far from where laying

0:51:47.480 --> 0:51:51.440
<v Speaker 1>up is going to be a fashionable choice. I like

0:51:51.480 --> 0:51:54.319
<v Speaker 1>whole ten a lot. I also, I would echo that

0:51:54.440 --> 0:51:57.120
<v Speaker 1>I liked the KVV wrote that article because it made

0:51:57.120 --> 0:52:01.040
<v Speaker 1>me think I disagree pretty strongly with it, I think

0:52:01.080 --> 0:52:05.080
<v Speaker 1>where if I were to go down the unfair route.

0:52:05.880 --> 0:52:09.439
<v Speaker 1>Golfer's dispersion patterns with driver are pretty wide. Right, they're

0:52:09.480 --> 0:52:12.600
<v Speaker 1>hitting the ball three hundred yards, much wider than their

0:52:12.600 --> 0:52:15.520
<v Speaker 1>dispersion patterns would have been one hundred years ago. When

0:52:15.560 --> 0:52:19.120
<v Speaker 1>your target gets really small in a tenet riviera, it

0:52:19.200 --> 0:52:21.600
<v Speaker 1>is small, right, you're going long left. Every player is

0:52:21.640 --> 0:52:25.760
<v Speaker 1>doing that, almost every player. Once you start to introduce

0:52:25.800 --> 0:52:29.920
<v Speaker 1>the bushes a little bit, I think that's where the

0:52:30.120 --> 0:52:32.759
<v Speaker 1>unfair word starts to come out, and people are saying, well,

0:52:33.040 --> 0:52:35.040
<v Speaker 1>if a lot of these shots are going to end

0:52:35.120 --> 0:52:37.040
<v Speaker 1>up going in the bushes that are left of the green,

0:52:37.560 --> 0:52:40.640
<v Speaker 1>you're leaving a lot to chance, like just who gets

0:52:40.640 --> 0:52:42.839
<v Speaker 1>good lives? Who's not blocked by a bush? Like who?

0:52:43.080 --> 0:52:47.520
<v Speaker 2>And those bushes weren't there originally, So this is a

0:52:47.640 --> 0:52:52.360
<v Speaker 2>really important point. Those bushes weren't there originally, and the

0:52:52.400 --> 0:52:54.319
<v Speaker 2>club has decided to leave them there.

0:52:55.000 --> 0:52:57.080
<v Speaker 1>And that's where I can kind of get behind, like

0:52:58.200 --> 0:53:01.239
<v Speaker 1>the more you leave to, the more upscoring you leave to,

0:53:01.239 --> 0:53:05.040
<v Speaker 1>what kind of lie you get? That's more where chance

0:53:05.120 --> 0:53:08.800
<v Speaker 1>and unfairness could come in. But I love the idea

0:53:09.120 --> 0:53:11.160
<v Speaker 1>of a part four that nobody's hitting the green, and

0:53:11.200 --> 0:53:14.360
<v Speaker 1>it's all about positioning yourself because in the modern game,

0:53:15.400 --> 0:53:19.040
<v Speaker 1>part four, positioning is almost non existent. It is, it

0:53:19.120 --> 0:53:22.399
<v Speaker 1>is basically non existent because you're you have so much

0:53:22.440 --> 0:53:24.759
<v Speaker 1>spin on your second shot that your ball is just

0:53:24.800 --> 0:53:28.080
<v Speaker 1>not rolling out that much. These guys are not thinking

0:53:28.440 --> 0:53:30.839
<v Speaker 1>that much about which sides of the fairway they want

0:53:30.840 --> 0:53:33.440
<v Speaker 1>to favor. They're trying to take hazards out and maximize

0:53:33.480 --> 0:53:35.640
<v Speaker 1>their chance of hitting the fairway. That's almost true of

0:53:35.640 --> 0:53:38.520
<v Speaker 1>every hole, and so to have a short four where

0:53:38.520 --> 0:53:40.400
<v Speaker 1>you actually got to think a little bit about like,

0:53:40.440 --> 0:53:42.920
<v Speaker 1>all right, if I miss this right, I'm dead, and

0:53:43.080 --> 0:53:44.920
<v Speaker 1>I want to give myself some green to work with.

0:53:44.960 --> 0:53:47.880
<v Speaker 1>When I hit this thirty yard chip, that's cool and

0:53:47.920 --> 0:53:50.960
<v Speaker 1>we just don't see it. So I'm out on a

0:53:51.000 --> 0:53:53.040
<v Speaker 1>lot of the sharp criticism of that hole because it

0:53:53.040 --> 0:53:56.319
<v Speaker 1>introduces fireworks without even using a single water hazard. It's

0:53:56.440 --> 0:53:57.240
<v Speaker 1>it's a cool hole.

0:53:57.560 --> 0:54:01.120
<v Speaker 2>It has huge variability in scoring and out, which I

0:54:01.160 --> 0:54:04.560
<v Speaker 2>think is is what you should be, you know, with

0:54:04.640 --> 0:54:07.319
<v Speaker 2>the tour and the analytics that it provides. Like in

0:54:07.480 --> 0:54:09.799
<v Speaker 2>some holes are great holes that don't have a ton

0:54:09.840 --> 0:54:12.640
<v Speaker 2>of variability, but I think this is one of my

0:54:13.200 --> 0:54:16.840
<v Speaker 2>big criticisms on the narrowing of Augusta National over the

0:54:16.920 --> 0:54:20.080
<v Speaker 2>years was what they've been doing has been taking out

0:54:20.200 --> 0:54:25.839
<v Speaker 2>outcome possible outcomes by removing players' abilities to do things right.

0:54:26.160 --> 0:54:28.120
<v Speaker 2>And one of the things that the tenth at Riviera

0:54:28.239 --> 0:54:32.439
<v Speaker 2>has is a wide range of outcomes. You can make three.

0:54:32.760 --> 0:54:35.239
<v Speaker 2>You could it's out of the box. You could chip it. Like.

0:54:35.280 --> 0:54:38.000
<v Speaker 2>The other thing that I like, I struggle with is

0:54:38.040 --> 0:54:42.440
<v Speaker 2>like talking about like, oh, it's unfair. It's like if

0:54:42.440 --> 0:54:45.400
<v Speaker 2>you're chipping, Like for the most part, these guys are chipping.

0:54:45.440 --> 0:54:49.000
<v Speaker 2>They have such a higher chance of chipping in than

0:54:49.080 --> 0:54:50.800
<v Speaker 2>hooping a seventy yard wedge.

0:54:51.120 --> 0:54:55.040
<v Speaker 1>You know, right, Look I don't I don't disagree with you.

0:54:55.440 --> 0:54:59.200
<v Speaker 2>But but anyways, like the idea, the other thing about

0:54:59.200 --> 0:55:02.160
<v Speaker 2>the tenth at Review that I think is beautiful is

0:55:02.160 --> 0:55:06.600
<v Speaker 2>that nobody, nobody is saying that it is a long

0:55:06.680 --> 0:55:09.279
<v Speaker 2>part three. And I think that you could look at

0:55:09.280 --> 0:55:12.799
<v Speaker 2>the seventeenth of Scottsdale and you could say that's more

0:55:12.840 --> 0:55:15.319
<v Speaker 2>of a long par three than it is a short

0:55:15.400 --> 0:55:19.200
<v Speaker 2>part four. The tenth at Riviera is a short part four.

0:55:19.520 --> 0:55:21.719
<v Speaker 2>If you walk away from that hole with a four,

0:55:22.080 --> 0:55:25.000
<v Speaker 2>you don't feel bad. If you walk away from TPC

0:55:25.120 --> 0:55:29.080
<v Speaker 2>Scottsdale with a four, you feel bad. But from you

0:55:29.080 --> 0:55:33.239
<v Speaker 2>know a ten at Riviera two to seven is in

0:55:33.280 --> 0:55:36.960
<v Speaker 2>the cards and it could be just like a minuscule

0:55:37.040 --> 0:55:40.200
<v Speaker 2>difference between walking away with an easy par and walking

0:55:40.200 --> 0:55:41.400
<v Speaker 2>away with a six or seven.

0:55:42.040 --> 0:55:45.800
<v Speaker 1>Agree. Huge point. I would add, if you think variance

0:55:45.800 --> 0:55:50.120
<v Speaker 1>in scoring outcomes is important, take water, like you need

0:55:50.160 --> 0:55:53.920
<v Speaker 1>to factor in water as well, because I could design

0:55:54.000 --> 0:55:56.360
<v Speaker 1>a hole with a ton of variants. That's not a

0:55:56.360 --> 0:55:58.680
<v Speaker 1>good hole because I just put water everywhere, and there's

0:55:58.719 --> 0:56:03.480
<v Speaker 1>there's fours, there's eight, there's tens. Riviera does it without

0:56:03.520 --> 0:56:07.839
<v Speaker 1>any use of a real penalty coming into play. And

0:56:08.040 --> 0:56:10.080
<v Speaker 1>if somebody wants to say, well, like there's not that

0:56:10.160 --> 0:56:14.160
<v Speaker 1>much variance in scoring outcomes. John Rahm made a difficult

0:56:14.200 --> 0:56:16.880
<v Speaker 1>putt for bogie in his final round that was almost

0:56:16.920 --> 0:56:20.319
<v Speaker 1>a double bogie, and like every player who plays that

0:56:20.360 --> 0:56:22.400
<v Speaker 1>hole knows if they leave themselves in the wrong spot,

0:56:22.719 --> 0:56:24.880
<v Speaker 1>they're gonna make a big number. The reason the variance

0:56:24.920 --> 0:56:28.200
<v Speaker 1>isn't that high always is because nope, it's players are

0:56:28.239 --> 0:56:30.720
<v Speaker 1>scared to take on some of the shots that result

0:56:30.760 --> 0:56:32.120
<v Speaker 1>in a lot of variants. So that's cool.

0:56:32.520 --> 0:56:35.319
<v Speaker 2>It's super cool when you see a guy around the

0:56:35.360 --> 0:56:40.560
<v Speaker 2>green like ten yards from the hole chipping to thirty

0:56:40.600 --> 0:56:43.719
<v Speaker 2>five feet in my opinion, because you're seeing and you

0:56:43.840 --> 0:56:47.880
<v Speaker 2>see other guys go for it. You see real risk aversion,

0:56:48.320 --> 0:56:50.440
<v Speaker 2>and you see other guys that go for it and

0:56:50.520 --> 0:56:53.799
<v Speaker 2>are attempting to you know, like in a way, like

0:56:53.880 --> 0:56:56.600
<v Speaker 2>everybody asks for this off the tee, but then when

0:56:56.600 --> 0:56:59.080
<v Speaker 2>we get around the greens and people have to like

0:56:59.200 --> 0:57:02.759
<v Speaker 2>lay up, then nobody wants it, you know. Like I

0:57:02.760 --> 0:57:05.279
<v Speaker 2>think that we should be looking at people that hit

0:57:05.400 --> 0:57:08.000
<v Speaker 2>and be like, oh, he just laid up there, you know.

0:57:08.160 --> 0:57:11.560
<v Speaker 2>And that's the thing that people aren't talking about, is like, oh,

0:57:11.719 --> 0:57:14.160
<v Speaker 2>like that guy's too chicken to try and hit that chip,

0:57:14.320 --> 0:57:16.120
<v Speaker 2>because there are other guys in the field that do

0:57:16.280 --> 0:57:18.320
<v Speaker 2>try and hit the chip, and then those are usually

0:57:18.320 --> 0:57:21.320
<v Speaker 2>the guys that either walk away with an unbelievable three

0:57:21.840 --> 0:57:25.400
<v Speaker 2>or a six or a five or a seven. You know,

0:57:25.760 --> 0:57:27.920
<v Speaker 2>maybe it I think one guy. I saw one guy

0:57:27.960 --> 0:57:29.880
<v Speaker 2>made a seven without going into a bunker.

0:57:30.720 --> 0:57:33.560
<v Speaker 1>Look, if you ask people who watch golf, what are

0:57:33.560 --> 0:57:35.800
<v Speaker 1>the shots from Riviera over the last five years that

0:57:35.840 --> 0:57:38.680
<v Speaker 1>you remember, a lot of them are gonna come on

0:57:38.720 --> 0:57:41.840
<v Speaker 1>whole ten, like Max Homa in the playoff against the

0:57:41.880 --> 0:57:44.720
<v Speaker 1>Tree was a great shot. Max Holma's bunker shot and

0:57:44.840 --> 0:57:48.120
<v Speaker 1>route to winning. If people remember that it was crazy,

0:57:48.440 --> 0:57:51.520
<v Speaker 1>crazy shot, Like I remember Harold Varner topping his t

0:57:51.680 --> 0:57:54.280
<v Speaker 1>shot when he was near the lead off of number ten,

0:57:54.400 --> 0:57:55.000
<v Speaker 1>probably nervous.

0:57:55.040 --> 0:57:57.000
<v Speaker 2>So we didn't We didn't get to see that one though.

0:57:57.360 --> 0:58:00.720
<v Speaker 1>We just got that is true. That is true. But honestly,

0:58:00.760 --> 0:58:04.040
<v Speaker 1>whole ten it resonates with people, and I think the

0:58:04.040 --> 0:58:07.280
<v Speaker 1>reason is their attention heightens when they're watching somebody play

0:58:07.320 --> 0:58:10.080
<v Speaker 1>whole ten because they know they know that the risk

0:58:10.160 --> 0:58:12.280
<v Speaker 1>is there. And I also we haven't hit on this,

0:58:12.440 --> 0:58:14.560
<v Speaker 1>but I think it comes at a cool place in

0:58:14.600 --> 0:58:17.640
<v Speaker 1>the round two where you have your game, you've already

0:58:17.640 --> 0:58:20.000
<v Speaker 1>played nine holes, you're warmed up, You're gonna get a

0:58:20.040 --> 0:58:22.440
<v Speaker 1>tough challenge, and if you get frustrated by it, you

0:58:22.440 --> 0:58:24.960
<v Speaker 1>have eight holes to recover. Like John Rahm got punched

0:58:25.000 --> 0:58:27.000
<v Speaker 1>in the mouth, All right, John, Like can you handle

0:58:27.040 --> 0:58:29.720
<v Speaker 1>this over the next eight holes? It kind of provides

0:58:29.760 --> 0:58:32.320
<v Speaker 1>a cool like first nine holes, it's in the back

0:58:32.360 --> 0:58:35.240
<v Speaker 1>of my mind, I still got to play that hole excitement,

0:58:35.320 --> 0:58:38.439
<v Speaker 1>and then the rest of the tournament I think it's awesome.

0:58:38.160 --> 0:58:41.520
<v Speaker 2>The way that back nine unfolds. You have scoring opportunity,

0:58:42.160 --> 0:58:45.760
<v Speaker 2>scoring opportunity ten and eleven, but ten is a scoring

0:58:45.800 --> 0:58:50.840
<v Speaker 2>opportunity fraught with danger. Then you go twelve, thirteen, fourteen,

0:58:50.960 --> 0:58:54.280
<v Speaker 2>fifteen is a brute of a stretch. Like if you

0:58:54.320 --> 0:58:57.840
<v Speaker 2>get through those even par you've played very well, and

0:58:57.880 --> 0:59:02.120
<v Speaker 2>then you get sixteen seventeen. Scoring opportunities in eighteen which

0:59:02.240 --> 0:59:04.840
<v Speaker 2>used to be a little bit tougher than it is now,

0:59:05.160 --> 0:59:07.360
<v Speaker 2>but like a you know, you have to hit two

0:59:07.440 --> 0:59:08.840
<v Speaker 2>good shots finisher.

0:59:09.520 --> 0:59:12.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it provides a good cadence of the round. I

0:59:12.920 --> 0:59:16.000
<v Speaker 1>think Rivera has so much character and holes like ten

0:59:16.400 --> 0:59:18.280
<v Speaker 1>are adding a lot of character to the golf course.

0:59:18.560 --> 0:59:21.400
<v Speaker 2>One hole that people love, which I put this in

0:59:21.440 --> 0:59:24.200
<v Speaker 2>my notes, and this will be my last point on this,

0:59:24.560 --> 0:59:28.160
<v Speaker 2>is like when we talk drivable for short. For one

0:59:28.360 --> 0:59:32.200
<v Speaker 2>hole that people have really glombed onto and love more

0:59:32.240 --> 0:59:36.120
<v Speaker 2>than ever is a third at augustin National, and that

0:59:36.320 --> 0:59:40.120
<v Speaker 2>is a short four. It's not a drivable four. It

0:59:40.160 --> 0:59:42.440
<v Speaker 2>is do you lay it up on the ridge? Do

0:59:42.480 --> 0:59:44.720
<v Speaker 2>you hit it down into the valley? If the winds

0:59:44.800 --> 0:59:47.120
<v Speaker 2>down wind? You see guys hit it over the green.

0:59:47.640 --> 0:59:50.200
<v Speaker 2>You know, it's really really hard to hit it onto

0:59:50.240 --> 0:59:52.960
<v Speaker 2>the green. But what you see is you see a

0:59:53.040 --> 0:59:55.520
<v Speaker 2>lot of different ways to play it and a lot

0:59:55.560 --> 0:59:58.680
<v Speaker 2>of different shots from decisions made off the tee. If

0:59:58.680 --> 1:00:01.440
<v Speaker 2>you lay back, you can all bring the bunker into play,

1:00:01.560 --> 1:00:03.560
<v Speaker 2>and then if you hit into the bunker, you feel

1:00:03.560 --> 1:00:06.320
<v Speaker 2>like a real idiot, you know, you know, if you

1:00:06.400 --> 1:00:09.640
<v Speaker 2>hit it down, you see a really really tough shot

1:00:09.840 --> 1:00:12.600
<v Speaker 2>up blind and everything. If you hit it back, it's

1:00:12.600 --> 1:00:16.240
<v Speaker 2>a delicate chip over. So like, that's the thing that's

1:00:16.240 --> 1:00:20.720
<v Speaker 2>super like to me. Seventeen at Scottsdale. I like. I

1:00:20.880 --> 1:00:23.040
<v Speaker 2>like the hole. I think we Garrett and I did

1:00:23.080 --> 1:00:25.560
<v Speaker 2>a podcast about how cool it is. It's a cool hole.

1:00:25.880 --> 1:00:28.439
<v Speaker 2>But one of the things about it is every guy

1:00:28.520 --> 1:00:31.600
<v Speaker 2>is doing the exact same thing on that hole, and

1:00:31.680 --> 1:00:36.160
<v Speaker 2>the best holes are creating different ways to play.

1:00:36.760 --> 1:00:39.520
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I'll be honest, I don't I like I like

1:00:39.560 --> 1:00:42.720
<v Speaker 1>seventeen at Scottsdale. I think it's fine. But when you

1:00:42.720 --> 1:00:44.080
<v Speaker 1>have guys who hit the ball as long as they

1:00:44.080 --> 1:00:46.720
<v Speaker 1>do and you have a water hazard down the left side,

1:00:47.000 --> 1:00:49.840
<v Speaker 1>players really aren't going to challenge the hazard that much,

1:00:49.880 --> 1:00:52.800
<v Speaker 1>and it kind of homogenizes play a little bit. So

1:00:52.800 --> 1:00:54.440
<v Speaker 1>like almost every player is kind of aiming at the

1:00:54.480 --> 1:00:57.280
<v Speaker 1>front right edge of the green. I think a really

1:00:57.280 --> 1:01:01.280
<v Speaker 1>a brilliant short for brings there's more dimensions in That's

1:01:01.280 --> 1:01:03.960
<v Speaker 1>why I'm so optimistic about Whole six at LACC. Like,

1:01:04.000 --> 1:01:06.920
<v Speaker 1>I think Whole six at LACC North is going to

1:01:06.960 --> 1:01:10.840
<v Speaker 1>be I believe the best part best short for that

1:01:10.880 --> 1:01:14.439
<v Speaker 1>we've seen in a while, maybe like in the last

1:01:14.440 --> 1:01:19.920
<v Speaker 1>decade on TV. That hole you have actual options and

1:01:20.240 --> 1:01:22.600
<v Speaker 1>Riviera doesn't present a lot of options on number ten,

1:01:22.640 --> 1:01:24.560
<v Speaker 1>but I still think it's a cool hole because of

1:01:24.600 --> 1:01:27.880
<v Speaker 1>the way it's touchy on and around the greens. Seventeen

1:01:27.920 --> 1:01:30.520
<v Speaker 1>at Scottsdale doesn't present a ton of options. Six at

1:01:30.600 --> 1:01:32.360
<v Speaker 1>LACC North will present options.

1:01:32.480 --> 1:01:36.040
<v Speaker 2>I think, like what the six at LACC North really

1:01:36.080 --> 1:01:40.560
<v Speaker 2>brings to the table and shows is like it's super simple, right,

1:01:40.840 --> 1:01:44.000
<v Speaker 2>but a narrow hole. Yeah yeah, so it kind of

1:01:44.040 --> 1:01:46.640
<v Speaker 2>like goes down to the right. It plays downhill under

1:01:46.680 --> 1:01:49.880
<v Speaker 2>the right. That green is blind from the tee but

1:01:50.000 --> 1:01:52.600
<v Speaker 2>it's just over this like kind of dune. Then you

1:01:52.640 --> 1:01:55.320
<v Speaker 2>get down there and it's a super narrow green. It's

1:01:55.360 --> 1:01:58.160
<v Speaker 2>got some heavy contour in it, but it's on a

1:01:58.200 --> 1:02:01.120
<v Speaker 2>hard angle, so it kind of sits from right to

1:02:01.240 --> 1:02:04.840
<v Speaker 2>left or from left to right, left, back left to

1:02:04.920 --> 1:02:08.200
<v Speaker 2>front right on that angle, there's a bunker in front

1:02:08.240 --> 1:02:10.439
<v Speaker 2>of it, and it's set up right on a hill.

1:02:10.800 --> 1:02:13.240
<v Speaker 2>So you can either play the way the faraway works

1:02:13.320 --> 1:02:16.200
<v Speaker 2>is super wide. You can play straight at the green

1:02:16.720 --> 1:02:18.720
<v Speaker 2>and try and end up in the bunker short, which

1:02:18.720 --> 1:02:20.480
<v Speaker 2>I think a lot of guys are going to do.

1:02:21.200 --> 1:02:24.840
<v Speaker 2>Or you can lay up way left and if you

1:02:24.920 --> 1:02:27.400
<v Speaker 2>go if you push it way left, and this will

1:02:27.440 --> 1:02:29.960
<v Speaker 2>be interesting to see if people get there, you all

1:02:30.000 --> 1:02:31.960
<v Speaker 2>of a sudden are hitting right up the axis of

1:02:32.000 --> 1:02:35.240
<v Speaker 2>the green right. The way the angle of the green

1:02:35.400 --> 1:02:38.200
<v Speaker 2>is is what makes ten at RIV and six it

1:02:38.480 --> 1:02:41.800
<v Speaker 2>at LA so interesting. Is this narrow green on a

1:02:41.840 --> 1:02:45.000
<v Speaker 2>really hard angle, and this is something that could be

1:02:45.080 --> 1:02:47.880
<v Speaker 2>replicated all over the place. The other option in LA

1:02:48.120 --> 1:02:50.400
<v Speaker 2>is hitting it over right, which I think will be

1:02:50.440 --> 1:02:53.280
<v Speaker 2>probably the front bunker and over to the right will

1:02:53.320 --> 1:02:56.360
<v Speaker 2>be the popular spots, because then from over right again

1:02:56.560 --> 1:02:59.120
<v Speaker 2>you're chipping up the axis of the green. It's just

1:02:59.240 --> 1:03:01.919
<v Speaker 2>hard to get over there, and you bring the risk

1:03:02.080 --> 1:03:05.280
<v Speaker 2>of hitting it into native grass or you know, further

1:03:05.400 --> 1:03:08.040
<v Speaker 2>right into trouble. What you know, do I explain that

1:03:08.040 --> 1:03:08.880
<v Speaker 2>well enough.

1:03:09.320 --> 1:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>I think, so we will see what that front bunker

1:03:12.880 --> 1:03:16.400
<v Speaker 1>plays like. But from my experience on that golf course,

1:03:16.440 --> 1:03:19.680
<v Speaker 1>that front bunker may not be the most attractive, especially

1:03:19.680 --> 1:03:21.840
<v Speaker 1>depending on the pin. And I think what's so exciting

1:03:21.840 --> 1:03:26.480
<v Speaker 1>about that hole is that danger is on and around

1:03:26.520 --> 1:03:30.680
<v Speaker 1>the greens at three at Augusta, like you're mentioning, we

1:03:30.800 --> 1:03:33.480
<v Speaker 1>know if you're in the wrong spot to certain pins

1:03:33.520 --> 1:03:36.160
<v Speaker 1>like you are in danger of making a big number.

1:03:36.480 --> 1:03:39.360
<v Speaker 1>Scotti Scheffler chipped in last year on his way to winning,

1:03:39.680 --> 1:03:42.960
<v Speaker 1>but that ball was almost well past the hole and

1:03:43.000 --> 1:03:46.040
<v Speaker 1>now he's got a real problem. And like that, I

1:03:46.080 --> 1:03:49.120
<v Speaker 1>think a fundamental ingredient of a good short Part four

1:03:49.240 --> 1:03:50.800
<v Speaker 1>is that if you leave your ball on the wrong spot,

1:03:50.840 --> 1:03:54.080
<v Speaker 1>you're looking at a big number. And sure Scottsdale can

1:03:54.160 --> 1:03:56.120
<v Speaker 1>kind of do that, but it's doing it with water.

1:03:56.560 --> 1:03:59.000
<v Speaker 1>It's not doing it in a way that is more

1:03:59.000 --> 1:04:02.400
<v Speaker 1>compelling to me, which is like the fescue and the dunes,

1:04:02.840 --> 1:04:06.120
<v Speaker 1>like a six at Lacc North or the way Augusta

1:04:06.160 --> 1:04:07.000
<v Speaker 1>number three does it.

1:04:07.400 --> 1:04:10.080
<v Speaker 2>I'd be interested if if you got rid of the

1:04:10.120 --> 1:04:14.720
<v Speaker 2>water at Scottsdale and that was just a very steep

1:04:14.840 --> 1:04:18.160
<v Speaker 2>shaved off area on the left. Would it be a

1:04:18.160 --> 1:04:18.760
<v Speaker 2>better hole?

1:04:19.840 --> 1:04:22.480
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I would probably prefer it, But like that's

1:04:22.560 --> 1:04:26.360
<v Speaker 1>I always appreciate when there's a steep runoff area that

1:04:26.480 --> 1:04:28.240
<v Speaker 1>presents you with a really challenging hip that you might

1:04:28.320 --> 1:04:29.480
<v Speaker 1>get to try a couple times.

1:04:30.000 --> 1:04:32.880
<v Speaker 2>M hm. I mean that back the back left pin

1:04:33.280 --> 1:04:36.960
<v Speaker 2>is really awesome with Scottsdale because then all of a sudden,

1:04:37.120 --> 1:04:40.680
<v Speaker 2>bailing out right is a bad decision. Right, It's not

1:04:40.720 --> 1:04:42.919
<v Speaker 2>a bad decision with the water there, but it would

1:04:42.920 --> 1:04:46.360
<v Speaker 2>become a very interesting decision with that pin if the

1:04:46.480 --> 1:04:48.919
<v Speaker 2>left was fair away, like which way do you go?

1:04:49.600 --> 1:04:51.840
<v Speaker 2>You know, all of sudden, guys would be trying to

1:04:51.920 --> 1:04:55.840
<v Speaker 2>drive the green more right and it would be just

1:04:55.920 --> 1:04:59.040
<v Speaker 2>hit it out right and chip up right. So you know,

1:04:59.120 --> 1:05:01.920
<v Speaker 2>the water may what people will say is, oh, that

1:05:02.000 --> 1:05:04.680
<v Speaker 2>will make it easier, and scoring average would go down

1:05:04.920 --> 1:05:08.680
<v Speaker 2>with that with removing the water. But would variants go up?

1:05:09.360 --> 1:05:11.640
<v Speaker 1>Variants probably would not go up because of what penalty

1:05:11.680 --> 1:05:15.560
<v Speaker 1>hazards do, but like non penalty hazard related variants would

1:05:15.600 --> 1:05:18.360
<v Speaker 1>go up. And that's I think a better test of golf.

1:05:18.400 --> 1:05:20.600
<v Speaker 1>And you just have to realize when there's water on

1:05:20.640 --> 1:05:23.320
<v Speaker 1>a course or on a hole, players really are going

1:05:23.400 --> 1:05:25.600
<v Speaker 1>to move their target to take that out of play.

1:05:25.800 --> 1:05:28.400
<v Speaker 1>And I think some of the personally, I think some

1:05:28.440 --> 1:05:30.840
<v Speaker 1>of the worst short fors on the PGA Tour are

1:05:30.880 --> 1:05:34.440
<v Speaker 1>holes like I think fifteen at Travelers is pretty boring,

1:05:34.760 --> 1:05:36.680
<v Speaker 1>twenty fourteen Hollow.

1:05:36.480 --> 1:05:38.320
<v Speaker 2>What about twelve at Sawgrass?

1:05:38.640 --> 1:05:41.320
<v Speaker 1>Well, yeah, for sure, I think fourteen at Quail Hollow

1:05:41.360 --> 1:05:46.040
<v Speaker 1>is really boring. Honestly, think about twelve at Sawgrass, fifteen

1:05:46.080 --> 1:05:48.560
<v Speaker 1>at Travelers, and fourteen at Quail Hollow. They're all like

1:05:48.600 --> 1:05:50.920
<v Speaker 1>three hundred yard holes with water on the left where

1:05:50.960 --> 1:05:53.440
<v Speaker 1>every player is happy just being a little short right. Like,

1:05:53.840 --> 1:05:55.560
<v Speaker 1>those aren't compelling par fours to me.

1:05:56.040 --> 1:05:59.320
<v Speaker 2>M yeah, I mean I think the twelve twelve at

1:05:59.520 --> 1:06:03.440
<v Speaker 2>Sawgrass is a perfect example of when you let players

1:06:03.560 --> 1:06:07.640
<v Speaker 2>design a golf hole, you know, it becomes really easy

1:06:07.640 --> 1:06:10.160
<v Speaker 2>to figure out what to do every single time, and

1:06:10.200 --> 1:06:12.360
<v Speaker 2>then they do that. That's what they like, you know

1:06:13.200 --> 1:06:16.440
<v Speaker 2>that that's why they like super tree lined courses that

1:06:16.880 --> 1:06:20.800
<v Speaker 2>they like to say require shot making, is because those

1:06:20.960 --> 1:06:24.800
<v Speaker 2>those narrow courses with that move certain ways tell them

1:06:24.840 --> 1:06:26.080
<v Speaker 2>exactly what they need to do.

1:06:27.080 --> 1:06:29.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't disagree with you. One other other hole that

1:06:30.000 --> 1:06:31.960
<v Speaker 1>I had noted that I'm not sure if this is

1:06:32.000 --> 1:06:34.480
<v Speaker 1>a hole you're super familiar with, but I think seventeen

1:06:34.760 --> 1:06:37.800
<v Speaker 1>at TVC San Antonio is actually a pretty interesting short for.

1:06:38.280 --> 1:06:40.200
<v Speaker 2>You love san Antonio.

1:06:40.520 --> 1:06:43.080
<v Speaker 1>I actually do think that's a pretty good golf course

1:06:43.240 --> 1:06:45.520
<v Speaker 1>for PJ Tour players. But that's an example of a

1:06:45.520 --> 1:06:46.280
<v Speaker 1>hole where.

1:06:46.480 --> 1:06:49.840
<v Speaker 2>Maybe we should elevate the Vo Texas South. Then is it?

1:06:51.800 --> 1:06:53.600
<v Speaker 1>There are better hills for me to die on than that?

1:06:53.720 --> 1:06:57.600
<v Speaker 1>But you can't. You can't just it's not super obvious

1:06:57.640 --> 1:06:59.040
<v Speaker 1>what you should do off the tea there. You can't

1:06:59.080 --> 1:07:00.960
<v Speaker 1>just hit a drive at front right edge of the

1:07:00.960 --> 1:07:04.040
<v Speaker 1>green every time, especially based on the way the wind

1:07:04.080 --> 1:07:05.560
<v Speaker 1>is blowing like that whole can play a lot of

1:07:05.560 --> 1:07:07.400
<v Speaker 1>different ways, So that's something for people to watch. I

1:07:07.400 --> 1:07:09.080
<v Speaker 1>think seventeen of Volariro is a good short.

1:07:08.880 --> 1:07:12.320
<v Speaker 2>For all Right, real quick before we let you go here,

1:07:12.720 --> 1:07:16.480
<v Speaker 2>what are your thoughts on the SI World Golf rankings

1:07:16.520 --> 1:07:18.200
<v Speaker 2>that came out today?

1:07:18.600 --> 1:07:21.320
<v Speaker 1>Oh? Yeah, I'll have more to say about this, but

1:07:22.320 --> 1:07:27.800
<v Speaker 1>you know, when every person who tries to do a

1:07:27.880 --> 1:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>ranking system eventually figures out that the key to building

1:07:32.160 --> 1:07:35.920
<v Speaker 1>a ranking system is building in some mechanism that evaluates

1:07:35.960 --> 1:07:40.360
<v Speaker 1>players across tours. And you leverage the overlap. Right, this

1:07:40.400 --> 1:07:43.080
<v Speaker 1>player played on this tour and then on this tour. Therefore,

1:07:44.040 --> 1:07:46.760
<v Speaker 1>here's how good he or she is, And you know,

1:07:46.800 --> 1:07:49.080
<v Speaker 1>here's a strokes gained associated with that player or whatever.

1:07:49.880 --> 1:07:52.840
<v Speaker 1>You have to have some baseline that's like an international

1:07:52.880 --> 1:07:57.920
<v Speaker 1>currency for that player's skill level. What Sports Illustrated has

1:07:58.040 --> 1:08:03.720
<v Speaker 1>chosen as that currency is your It's like funny to

1:08:03.720 --> 1:08:07.880
<v Speaker 1>even say it out loud, your strokes per distance you played.

1:08:07.920 --> 1:08:10.800
<v Speaker 1>So if you shoot seventy four on a seventy four

1:08:10.880 --> 1:08:14.680
<v Speaker 1>hundred yard golf course, you divide that, and that is

1:08:14.720 --> 1:08:19.880
<v Speaker 1>your skill that they use to determine some strengths, a

1:08:19.920 --> 1:08:23.439
<v Speaker 1>component of the strengths of their fields. That's so beyond bad.

1:08:23.479 --> 1:08:28.400
<v Speaker 1>That's fifth grade math, fifth grade science fair. The only

1:08:28.439 --> 1:08:31.439
<v Speaker 1>reason they're doing it is because it allows live in

1:08:31.560 --> 1:08:34.800
<v Speaker 1>isolated entity that doesn't have crossover in their events, that

1:08:34.800 --> 1:08:37.280
<v Speaker 1>doesn't have players playing on a bunch of tours. It

1:08:37.360 --> 1:08:40.679
<v Speaker 1>allows them a way of ranking those players. So sure,

1:08:40.760 --> 1:08:43.120
<v Speaker 1>go play an eight thousand yard golf course with no

1:08:43.320 --> 1:08:48.240
<v Speaker 1>water hazards, just flat, huge greens, whole course flat. You'll

1:08:48.240 --> 1:08:50.519
<v Speaker 1>show up pretty well in a skill rating like that.

1:08:50.760 --> 1:08:53.360
<v Speaker 1>It's a really smart way to rank golfers good good

1:08:53.360 --> 1:08:54.640
<v Speaker 1>works Sports Illustrated.

1:08:54.840 --> 1:08:59.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's a very clear attempt to get live players

1:08:59.120 --> 1:09:04.360
<v Speaker 2>into world ranking. And one of my favorite aspects of

1:09:04.400 --> 1:09:06.360
<v Speaker 2>it was like one of the players that took the

1:09:06.400 --> 1:09:10.519
<v Speaker 2>veiggest tumbles was Kevin Nah and he was a live

1:09:10.560 --> 1:09:14.479
<v Speaker 2>player that doesn't hit it very far. He's like, it's

1:09:14.560 --> 1:09:17.960
<v Speaker 2>just like it's so comical. It's uh, it was a

1:09:18.280 --> 1:09:21.400
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if that's the best metric. If like, sure,

1:09:21.439 --> 1:09:23.960
<v Speaker 2>that's a great metric for the long hitting live guys

1:09:24.000 --> 1:09:27.040
<v Speaker 2>like Bryson. You know, that's a great way for Bryson.

1:09:27.560 --> 1:09:30.200
<v Speaker 2>But then like they have some shorter guys like West,

1:09:30.240 --> 1:09:32.840
<v Speaker 2>He's not gonna show up well on there, Ian Poulter's

1:09:32.880 --> 1:09:35.479
<v Speaker 2>not gonna show up well on that, or Kevin Not.

1:09:35.760 --> 1:09:38.920
<v Speaker 2>Like they've got these other guys that you know, Graham McDowell, Like,

1:09:39.120 --> 1:09:41.479
<v Speaker 2>none of those guys are gonna rate well on that

1:09:41.800 --> 1:09:43.120
<v Speaker 2>on that ranking system.

1:09:43.760 --> 1:09:46.719
<v Speaker 1>I'm sorry, it's not a good ranking system for anyone.

1:09:46.920 --> 1:09:51.240
<v Speaker 1>That is one of, if you know an ounce about golf,

1:09:51.800 --> 1:09:54.040
<v Speaker 1>one of the worst possible ways that you can try

1:09:54.080 --> 1:09:56.920
<v Speaker 1>to evaluate skill and standardize it. But hey, when you

1:09:56.960 --> 1:09:59.160
<v Speaker 1>have no other way of doing it because you're there's

1:09:59.160 --> 1:10:02.000
<v Speaker 1>no overlap your tour and other tours. That's what you

1:10:02.080 --> 1:10:04.200
<v Speaker 1>have to resort to. You have to resort to something

1:10:04.280 --> 1:10:06.920
<v Speaker 1>like that that says, hey, let's just base it off

1:10:06.960 --> 1:10:09.719
<v Speaker 1>of the scorecard length really stupid.

1:10:10.600 --> 1:10:12.280
<v Speaker 2>All right, well we'll go runing.

1:10:12.000 --> 1:10:12.599
<v Speaker 1>On a positive.

1:10:12.800 --> 1:10:15.559
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, we're in in here. Great to have you on.

1:10:15.680 --> 1:10:17.719
<v Speaker 2>We'll have you on in a couple of weeks probably,

1:10:18.680 --> 1:10:20.639
<v Speaker 2>I don't know. At some point. We got two more

1:10:20.680 --> 1:10:23.840
<v Speaker 2>designated events coming up soon and we're getting, you know,

1:10:24.000 --> 1:10:26.720
<v Speaker 2>the lead up. We're right in Master season now. This

1:10:26.800 --> 1:10:29.360
<v Speaker 2>is the one nice thing about going from the West Coast,

1:10:29.520 --> 1:10:32.880
<v Speaker 2>Like when you leave the West Coast, is it signals

1:10:33.120 --> 1:10:36.920
<v Speaker 2>like this is Master's lead up and we are in

1:10:37.000 --> 1:10:41.360
<v Speaker 2>it obviously coming up here in a little bit.

1:10:41.200 --> 1:10:43.840
<v Speaker 1>More than a month, forty three days or something like that.

1:10:44.280 --> 1:10:46.640
<v Speaker 2>All right, thanks Joseph, thanks for having me.

1:10:46.680 --> 1:10:47.120
<v Speaker 1>It's fun.

1:10:56.600 --> 1:10:58.680
<v Speaker 2>All right. That does it for this episode of the

1:10:58.680 --> 1:11:01.479
<v Speaker 2>Friday Podcast. We will be back early next week. I

1:11:01.560 --> 1:11:05.719
<v Speaker 2>have an interview with Javier Campos, the superintendent at Cal

1:11:05.800 --> 1:11:10.000
<v Speaker 2>Club in San Francisco, that will be up on Tuesday morning.

1:11:10.240 --> 1:11:13.160
<v Speaker 2>It'll be a good chat. I'm doing it tomorrow, so

1:11:13.240 --> 1:11:16.000
<v Speaker 2>I haven't. I can't tell you exactly what's in the chat,

1:11:16.000 --> 1:11:19.639
<v Speaker 2>but it'll be there. This episode was produced and edited

1:11:19.680 --> 1:11:23.080
<v Speaker 2>by Matt Rusch's Thank you Matt. As a quick reminder,

1:11:23.439 --> 1:11:27.559
<v Speaker 2>we have a bunch of photography on the website and

1:11:27.760 --> 1:11:31.080
<v Speaker 2>the big news here is that we are now shipping internationally,

1:11:31.160 --> 1:11:35.360
<v Speaker 2>so posters and prints those now can be shipped internationally.

1:11:35.439 --> 1:11:39.439
<v Speaker 2>So if you're in Canada, UK, Australia you're looking for

1:11:39.720 --> 1:11:41.680
<v Speaker 2>you wish you could get one of those prints that

1:11:41.720 --> 1:11:45.440
<v Speaker 2>we have on our website, now you can, so posters

1:11:45.520 --> 1:11:48.600
<v Speaker 2>and prints are available. We're working on doing more and

1:11:48.640 --> 1:11:51.479
<v Speaker 2>more international shipping this year. I know that we haven't

1:11:51.479 --> 1:11:54.400
<v Speaker 2>been doing it in the past, but we are getting there,

1:11:54.479 --> 1:11:56.840
<v Speaker 2>so bear with us. Right now you can do it

1:11:56.840 --> 1:11:59.439
<v Speaker 2>with Prince. So if you go to the pro shop

1:11:59.520 --> 1:12:03.639
<v Speaker 2>at the Friday dot com you can visit their shop

1:12:03.680 --> 1:12:06.840
<v Speaker 2>to photography. We have over ninety golf courses at this

1:12:06.920 --> 1:12:10.320
<v Speaker 2>point on there, and we have these cool posters. I

1:12:10.320 --> 1:12:13.519
<v Speaker 2>would recommend the posters, they are really neat. I have

1:12:13.600 --> 1:12:17.519
<v Speaker 2>one abandoned dunes that I am awaiting a frame to

1:12:17.560 --> 1:12:20.639
<v Speaker 2>put it in and hang in my office. So thanks

1:12:20.800 --> 1:12:24.519
<v Speaker 2>and we'll be back on Tuesday and Friday next week

1:12:24.560 --> 1:12:25.520
<v Speaker 2>with new episodes.