WEBVTT - Takeaways from the 2024 Masters 0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.800 I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When 0:00:02.800 --> 0:00:04.920 I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset. 0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:06.320 And when I find my ball. 0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:09.320 In a bride Egg Friday Egg, the dreaded Friday Friday, 0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:12.560 Frida Egg Egg, Fridagg Bride Egg Lie, I'm about ready 0:00:12.640 --> 0:00:13.680 to run off of the hump. 0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:38.080 Welcome to the Frida Egg Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, 0:00:38.280 --> 0:00:42.720 and today we're doing takeaways from the twenty twenty four Masters. 0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.400 Later on will be joined by Andy Johnson and Shane 0:00:46.479 --> 0:00:50.519 Bacon for their takeaways. But in the meantime, Scotti Scheffler 0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:54.520 is your champion, and he completely outclassed the field on Sunday. 0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:58.720 It was an astounding display of strategy, ball striking, short game, 0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:02.960 even at times putting. This is Scotty's second major and 0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:06.960 second Green jacket, and it's hard not to project that 0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:10.959 many more major titles will be coming his way, though 0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:15.280 we should know from recent experience that nothing is guaranteed. Nonetheless, 0:01:15.600 --> 0:01:19.800 how can anyone beat Scotty Scheffler when he's playing like this? 0:01:20.400 --> 0:01:22.480 That's one of the big questions that I and my 0:01:22.600 --> 0:01:26.559 co host Joseph Lamanna will be tackling today. But first 0:01:26.640 --> 0:01:29.440 we're going to do our traditional in and out segment 0:01:29.640 --> 0:01:31.840 where we talk about what we're in on and what 0:01:31.880 --> 0:01:35.720 we're out on this week. Joseph, what are you in on? 0:01:36.520 --> 0:01:36.959 Garrett? 0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:41.319 I am in on the heightened emotions of championship golf 0:01:41.560 --> 0:01:45.240 and a lot of the moments that that provides. Guys 0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:49.360 are clearly on edge when they're playing majors, especially when 0:01:49.360 --> 0:01:51.840 the conditions are tough. It was super windy out there, 0:01:51.880 --> 0:01:54.760 it was exhausting. There are a lot of bogies. They 0:01:54.800 --> 0:01:57.600 are a lot of worse than bogie, and you saw 0:01:57.640 --> 0:02:02.200 some quite entertaining moments that made their way onto social media. 0:02:02.640 --> 0:02:06.040 I think you were particularly tickled by the Zach Johnson 0:02:06.520 --> 0:02:09.440 telling the patrons head Augusta to f Off. 0:02:10.040 --> 0:02:13.080 I mean, I loved it, and the press conference was 0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:13.960 even funnier. 0:02:14.560 --> 0:02:16.600 But those are the kinds of things that happen at 0:02:16.600 --> 0:02:21.400 major championships, right Phil at Shinnacock, I mean, Zach Johnson 0:02:21.440 --> 0:02:24.680 at Shinnacock. You get these outbursts from players that we 0:02:24.760 --> 0:02:27.240 don't see week in and week out, and maybe some 0:02:27.360 --> 0:02:30.440 of that is the increased per sizes and guys being 0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:33.080 a little bit more comfortable this year with all the 0:02:33.120 --> 0:02:36.440 money that's flown into that's flooded into professional golf, but 0:02:36.919 --> 0:02:39.480 we don't see outbursts very often. There were quite a 0:02:39.480 --> 0:02:41.520 few of them over the past few days, and I 0:02:41.560 --> 0:02:43.959 just think the heightened emotions that come with championship golf, 0:02:44.080 --> 0:02:45.120 it's something that I relish. 0:02:45.200 --> 0:02:47.480 So I'm in on that, yeah. And I think that 0:02:48.320 --> 0:02:53.359 the splitting of the main men's professional golf leagues has 0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:58.200 placed an increased intensity and focus on the majors, and 0:02:58.280 --> 0:03:00.359 so I think that we're going to see that more 0:03:00.400 --> 0:03:06.000 and more, where this kind of pent up energy is 0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:10.720 being saved for these four moments in the year. You know, Garrett, 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.000 what are you went on? I'm going to slip in 0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:17.560 two here, but the first one really quick. I'm in 0:03:17.639 --> 0:03:21.960 on Tiger Woods shaking Vern Lundquist's hand behind the sixteenth 0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:25.760 green on Sunday and saying a few words loved. That 0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:28.640 got me a little teared up. You know, it's just 0:03:28.680 --> 0:03:30.880 a great moment. And if you haven't seen it, you 0:03:30.960 --> 0:03:34.240 listeners out there, go look it up somewhere. Just just 0:03:34.320 --> 0:03:36.600 do a Google search or a Twitter search or something 0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:41.240 and find that that moment between those two legends. 0:03:41.000 --> 0:03:44.240 On X and presumably Instagram ESPN posted a very cool 0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:44.760 video of that. 0:03:45.400 --> 0:03:48.080 Yes, yeah, a little closer up and you got a 0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:51.960 sense for the conversation. Wonderful. The main thing I'm in 0:03:52.000 --> 0:03:56.880 on is Bryson Deshambeau's new and improved attitude. Like this week, 0:03:56.920 --> 0:03:59.560 he was great. He answered all the questions from the 0:03:59.600 --> 0:04:03.080 media good naturedly, even when those questions seem to be 0:04:03.200 --> 0:04:06.920 aimed at eliciting some kind of reaction from him. He's 0:04:06.920 --> 0:04:10.960 still a goofball, but kind of in charming ways. He's 0:04:10.960 --> 0:04:14.920 not nearly as whiny and petulant on the course as 0:04:15.400 --> 0:04:18.159 I've seen him, and he struggled at times this weekend. 0:04:18.200 --> 0:04:20.960 Maybe I just missed the miss those parts, but I 0:04:20.960 --> 0:04:24.640 didn't see it as much. He was expressing gratitude to 0:04:24.680 --> 0:04:27.880 the fans on a consistent basis now a couple of caveats. 0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:32.560 Putting on this kind of performance in the limelight for 0:04:32.640 --> 0:04:35.400 a few weeks a year is easier than doing it 0:04:35.600 --> 0:04:38.400 week in week out on the PGA tour. Like right now, 0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:43.480 he is less in the spotlight than he was before, 0:04:43.800 --> 0:04:47.600 unless you're really following live closely, I suppose. But even that, 0:04:47.720 --> 0:04:49.840 it just seems it seems like there's not as much 0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.560 scrutiny on what the players are doing, and so that's 0:04:54.560 --> 0:04:57.920 one thing. And the other caveat is, of course still 0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:00.240 not a fan of the live affiliation or anything like that. 0:05:00.320 --> 0:05:02.920 I'm not. This is not an endorsement of him or 0:05:03.800 --> 0:05:06.440 that choice. But I just enjoyed him this week, and 0:05:06.839 --> 0:05:10.960 I thought that he showed something different, and he showed, 0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:13.440 you know, the Bryson that was in there that I 0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:18.560 suspected I would enjoy the kind of goofy, fun Bryson. 0:05:19.680 --> 0:05:22.360 He just showed that this week, as opposed to having 0:05:22.400 --> 0:05:24.640 that kind of layer of darkness over him. 0:05:24.920 --> 0:05:27.800 Garrett, I got close to writing this up, like, I 0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:30.720 think you're curious for how you feel about this. I 0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:33.000 think Bryson de Shamba is one of the most earnest 0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:36.479 and honest golfers in professional golf. 0:05:36.600 --> 0:05:36.760 Now. 0:05:36.839 --> 0:05:41.160 I think he's respectfully like kind of an idiot, and 0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:43.479 a lot of the things he's earnest and honest about 0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:48.720 are quite misguided. But I genuinely think that he believes 0:05:48.800 --> 0:05:51.680 everything he's saying to his core. Like one of his 0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:54.919 answers to one of the questions that was posed in 0:05:54.920 --> 0:05:57.279 one of his post rounds at the Masters was something 0:05:57.320 --> 0:05:59.599 around him being divisive, and he was like, you know, 0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:03.039 I don't think I'm divisive at all, and he means that, like, 0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:06.600 I don't think he even realizes some of the decisions 0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:09.200 he's made, and like how it's how it has been divisive. 0:06:09.279 --> 0:06:12.880 And when he's talking about golf courses, like he fully 0:06:12.920 --> 0:06:18.000 believes what he's doing is correct. And I mean, I 0:06:18.080 --> 0:06:21.360 disagree with a lot of what Bryson says right, especially 0:06:21.400 --> 0:06:25.120 around equipment, but he does believe it, and there's something 0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:29.080 refreshing about his Candor, Joseph, what are you out on? 0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:34.520 I am out on the death of the importance of 0:06:34.560 --> 0:06:38.520 making the cut, And with so much changing in the 0:06:38.520 --> 0:06:42.960 professional golf landscape, you have the Live Tour fifty four holes, 0:06:43.080 --> 0:06:46.240 no cut events, and this is not a shot at 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:50.440 Live because the PGA Tour and reforming its product, many 0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:53.760 of the signature events now do not have cut lines, 0:06:54.279 --> 0:06:57.799 and so we have lost the historical significance of top 0:06:57.839 --> 0:07:00.960 players going on these cut streaks. And I think we 0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:04.359 were reminded this past weekend with Tiger Woods making his 0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:08.320 twenty fourth consecutive cut at the Masters what a cut 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:12.080 streak represents. I think they're meaningful. I think it shows 0:07:12.120 --> 0:07:14.840 that you made the weekend, you battled, maybe you were 0:07:14.880 --> 0:07:17.320 a couple off the cut line, you fought your way back, 0:07:17.680 --> 0:07:19.880 and that is now context that is going to be 0:07:19.960 --> 0:07:23.360 missing from the historical record at ninety five percent of 0:07:23.720 --> 0:07:26.560 professional golf events because cut streaks, you're just not going 0:07:26.640 --> 0:07:28.920 to be able to say anymore, Heyzander Schoffley has made, 0:07:29.400 --> 0:07:31.720 you know, thirty five cuts in a row because so 0:07:31.800 --> 0:07:36.320 many of those events are non cut events. But the Masters, 0:07:36.560 --> 0:07:39.760 in preserving its history and tradition, that's going to be 0:07:39.760 --> 0:07:42.040 one of the few places that you can say, like, 0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:44.560 there's a cut streak here, and I think it's significant. 0:07:44.640 --> 0:07:47.920 So it's sort of being in on the significance of 0:07:47.960 --> 0:07:51.520 making the cut and out on how we've kind of 0:07:51.880 --> 0:07:54.080 changed that in a lot of ways in professional golf. 0:07:54.400 --> 0:07:56.280 That's the nature of in and out. You can switch 0:07:56.320 --> 0:07:59.440 it around like that. Yeah, I mean Tiger at this 0:07:59.480 --> 0:08:03.200 point his career seems to have about thirty six holes 0:08:03.200 --> 0:08:06.560 to give, and I'm really glad that there was a 0:08:06.640 --> 0:08:10.640 cut line drama for him to engage in, because even 0:08:10.680 --> 0:08:14.960 if he was saying my intention, my only goal is 0:08:15.000 --> 0:08:18.760 to win this tournament, the cut clearly mattered, and he 0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:24.000 really put forth a monumental effort this week. On those 0:08:24.040 --> 0:08:26.760 first two days to make the cut, he played some 0:08:26.920 --> 0:08:30.840 great golf and then he was pretty exhausted after that, obviously, 0:08:31.160 --> 0:08:34.200 and did not play well on the weekend. But I'm 0:08:34.200 --> 0:08:37.440 glad that there was some intermediate goal for him to 0:08:37.760 --> 0:08:41.160 strive toward. All right, So what I'm out on, I'm 0:08:41.160 --> 0:08:44.199 going the architecture direction here. I'm out on the second 0:08:44.280 --> 0:08:47.800 hole remaining a par five. I think Augusta National should 0:08:47.800 --> 0:08:51.040 be a par seventy one. Now they're never going to 0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.240 do this. But you know, here's why I think this. 0:08:55.800 --> 0:08:59.760 All of the changes to that hole, including moving back 0:08:59.760 --> 0:09:02.880 to this year and pressing it to the left, have 0:09:03.040 --> 0:09:07.199 been to protect the par of five on that hole. 0:09:07.559 --> 0:09:10.360 And in the case of the second hole, these changes 0:09:10.400 --> 0:09:13.560 have not made the hole better. You know, before that 0:09:13.960 --> 0:09:17.920 a good half century ago, they put that bunker in 0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:22.120 the club, had George Cobb put in the bunker on 0:09:22.160 --> 0:09:24.880 the right side of the fairway, changing the nature of 0:09:24.880 --> 0:09:26.640 the whole a bit. They grew in the trees from 0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:29.520 the left side. All of this was done again to 0:09:29.600 --> 0:09:34.200 protect a par five that was vulnerable to scoring pretty 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:37.719 early in its history. And I would argue that these 0:09:37.800 --> 0:09:42.160 changes haven't improved the hole. In the case of eight 0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:45.840 thirteen and fifteen, the other par fives at Augusta National, 0:09:46.840 --> 0:09:49.840 I think those holes are better as par fives because 0:09:50.200 --> 0:09:54.280 the layups on those holes are really interesting to me. 0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:57.280 The layup on the second hole isn't quite as interesting. Yeah, 0:09:57.320 --> 0:10:00.920 you want to position yourself well for a versus a 0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:05.400 left whole location, but it's nothing like what you get 0:10:05.480 --> 0:10:08.800 on eight thirteen and fifteen in terms of like a 0:10:08.920 --> 0:10:13.160 really interesting lay up zone in terms of terrain and 0:10:13.240 --> 0:10:16.440 angles and all of that. So I want those other 0:10:16.520 --> 0:10:19.240 power fives to remain par fives, and lengthening those holes 0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:22.880 is meaningful and makes them more interesting. In the case 0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:25.360 of number two, I don't think any of this has 0:10:25.440 --> 0:10:28.160 improved the whole. I think it would be a terrific 0:10:29.040 --> 0:10:32.400 long par four. And if they were to clear out 0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:35.400 some of the trees on the left, maybe even take 0:10:35.440 --> 0:10:38.800 out that bunker on the right, maybe look at restoring 0:10:39.240 --> 0:10:42.080 the original green on that hole, which was very different 0:10:42.120 --> 0:10:44.480 and kind of preferred an approach from the left side 0:10:44.480 --> 0:10:47.160 of the fairway as opposed to the right. I think 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:50.760 you'd have a great par four. Now does do I 0:10:50.800 --> 0:10:52.680 think par matters do I think they could do all 0:10:52.720 --> 0:10:54.439 of this and keep it apart five. I would be 0:10:54.480 --> 0:10:57.400 fine with that, but the club probably wouldn't be fine 0:10:57.440 --> 0:10:59.719 with that. So I think that changing the part of 0:10:59.760 --> 0:11:02.840 the whole would allow them, would free them up just 0:11:02.880 --> 0:11:05.360 to let that hole be what it wants to be. 0:11:05.760 --> 0:11:06.080 Okay. 0:11:06.160 --> 0:11:08.360 So I think what I was having trouble with as 0:11:08.360 --> 0:11:10.680 you started to unpack that take a little bit was 0:11:10.679 --> 0:11:14.719 parsing out the ways the distinction of par and if 0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:17.600 that matters at all, versus improving the hole. And it 0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:20.959 sounds to me like your emphasis would be on improving 0:11:21.000 --> 0:11:22.680 the whole, Like you don't like the way that it 0:11:22.760 --> 0:11:26.400 plays right now, it's not interesting, versus if you just 0:11:26.400 --> 0:11:28.680 flipped it from a five to a four, you don't 0:11:28.679 --> 0:11:32.400 solve that problem. So fundamentally, you'd like to see that 0:11:32.480 --> 0:11:35.720 bunker remove to increase the wit there and give people 0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:38.760 more options, And it just plays better under those conditions. 0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:40.560 It doesn't play better because there's a four on the 0:11:40.600 --> 0:11:42.480 card instead of a five. Do I have that correctly? 0:11:43.000 --> 0:11:46.360 Absolutely? Yeah. The point would not be to change the 0:11:46.400 --> 0:11:49.440 par The point would be to free up the club 0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:52.360 to stop making these changes that don't improve the whole. 0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.520 All right, So Joseph and I in a second are 0:11:55.559 --> 0:11:58.920 going to do some takeaways from the tournament of our 0:11:58.960 --> 0:12:03.200 own before bringing on Andy Johnson and Shane Bacon for 0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:06.720 their segments. But first let's talk a little bit about 0:12:07.120 --> 0:12:11.640 Echo Golf shoes. The latest shoe from Echo Golf is 0:12:11.679 --> 0:12:16.240 the LT one. This is a sneaker style modern design, 0:12:16.960 --> 0:12:19.080 and what I like about Echo is that they always 0:12:19.120 --> 0:12:23.440 have something new up their sleeves with their designs. This year, 0:12:23.559 --> 0:12:27.880 the LT one features lytr foam you might pronounce that 0:12:28.040 --> 0:12:32.800 lighter lighter foam, which is this advanced bounce and rebound 0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:36.200 material that you'll find embedded in the sole of the shoe. 0:12:36.640 --> 0:12:38.240 What you really need to know about this stuff is 0:12:38.240 --> 0:12:42.280 that it's very flexible, very comfortable, and makes walking eighteen 0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:46.040 holes much easier than it would be otherwise. You can 0:12:46.080 --> 0:12:49.079 also wear the LT one in some serious weather because 0:12:49.200 --> 0:12:52.960 the leather upper is waterproof, not to mention very soft 0:12:53.040 --> 0:12:56.600 and durable. And finally, the Echo LT one is available 0:12:56.640 --> 0:12:59.960 in both laced and boa options, so whatever you prefer there. 0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:03.360 You know, when it comes to golf shoes, quality really matters. 0:13:03.600 --> 0:13:06.800 If you get a substandard or just average shoe, you're 0:13:07.040 --> 0:13:10.280 gonna need to replace it fairly soon. Golf shoes take 0:13:10.280 --> 0:13:14.600 a beating, but with Echo you get real quality, real durability, 0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:17.240 and a shoe that's gonna hold up against all the 0:13:17.320 --> 0:13:19.960 walking and the weather you can throw at it. And 0:13:20.000 --> 0:13:23.080 that's why players like lydia Co, Eric Van Royan and 0:13:23.120 --> 0:13:27.760 Hendrik Stenson wear this shoe. So shop the Echo LT 0:13:28.000 --> 0:13:33.719 one and other Echo products at Echo dot com. All right, Joseph, 0:13:33.760 --> 0:13:37.319 before bringing on Andy and Shane, let's do a couple 0:13:37.320 --> 0:13:40.960 of high level takeaways of our own from this Masters. 0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:43.320 What do you have right off the bat? 0:13:44.080 --> 0:13:47.640 Tell you what, Garrett. I think there's been a true 0:13:47.840 --> 0:13:51.800 changing of the guard. And one of my big takeaways 0:13:51.800 --> 0:13:54.120 from watching this Masters is that there are certain names 0:13:54.120 --> 0:13:57.920 we always associate with playing super well the Masters, and 0:13:58.360 --> 0:14:00.640 I think there are a couple new shares in town. 0:14:01.360 --> 0:14:05.199 We always think about Jordan Spieth as the Augusta specialist, 0:14:05.600 --> 0:14:07.480 and I don't mean to kick him while he's down, 0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:12.480 but missed the cut wasn't competitive this week, entering the 0:14:12.520 --> 0:14:16.440 twenty twenty four Masters, of players who had played at 0:14:16.559 --> 0:14:19.280 least eight rounds at Augusta since the start of twenty 0:14:19.320 --> 0:14:22.720 twenty one, the top two names coming into this tournament 0:14:23.120 --> 0:14:26.560 by strokes gain per round were Will's Alataurus at number 0:14:26.560 --> 0:14:31.480 one and Scotty Scheffler at number two. Those golfers, yet 0:14:31.520 --> 0:14:35.360 again finished in the top ten. Obviously Scotty one, Will's 0:14:35.360 --> 0:14:40.960 Alaturus finished tied for ninth. As we think about Augusta specialists, 0:14:42.120 --> 0:14:45.520 some of those names who we've often associated with greatness 0:14:45.520 --> 0:14:48.600 here again like speed, like a Jason Day, some of 0:14:48.640 --> 0:14:50.960 those names, I think we need to start thinking about 0:14:51.000 --> 0:14:55.680 Scotty Scheffler and Will's Alatoris as the true Augusta specialists, 0:14:56.000 --> 0:14:57.400 and I'm really excited to see what they can do 0:14:57.440 --> 0:15:00.480 in future editions of the Masters. Are going to be 0:15:00.520 --> 0:15:02.520 guys that are staples of the top ten. So that 0:15:02.600 --> 0:15:03.880 was one of my big takeaways. 0:15:04.240 --> 0:15:06.320 I want to get into Scotty Shuffler a little bit, 0:15:06.360 --> 0:15:09.080 but first tell me about Will Zelatorus. Why is he 0:15:09.120 --> 0:15:09.880 in this category? 0:15:11.080 --> 0:15:14.440 Well, coming into this Masters, he have the single best 0:15:14.440 --> 0:15:17.640 strokes gain per round at Augusta and he's only appeared 0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:20.040 here twice, finished in the top ten, both times, gaining 0:15:20.120 --> 0:15:23.400 almost three strokes per round at Augusta, and he just 0:15:23.400 --> 0:15:28.280 finished ninth again. He's one of the truly great iron 0:15:28.320 --> 0:15:31.400 players of this era, at least he has been so 0:15:31.480 --> 0:15:34.720 far in his career, and he's shown that he's really 0:15:34.760 --> 0:15:37.640 comfortable on these greens, especially with the lag putting, which 0:15:38.120 --> 0:15:40.480 is a I'm not gonna say it's an underrated skill 0:15:40.520 --> 0:15:42.760 at Augusta. I think it's pretty appropriately thought of. But 0:15:43.240 --> 0:15:45.400 Will's altaurus can handle those shots, and he's shown a 0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:47.600 lot of touch with a short game here too, hits 0:15:47.600 --> 0:15:49.560 it plenty long off the tee. He's gonna be somebody 0:15:49.560 --> 0:15:51.960 who's doing well. And he's now played here three times 0:15:52.160 --> 0:15:56.240 three top tens, really impressive. And then obviously Scotty, he's 0:15:56.240 --> 0:15:58.480 already won here twice now, so I think people are 0:15:58.560 --> 0:16:01.640 it's well established that Scotti Scheffler's really good here. But 0:16:01.680 --> 0:16:03.640 I think this Zlaturus storyline may go a little bit 0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:06.280 under the radar and people will throw around Speef and 0:16:06.600 --> 0:16:08.560 some of these other names, but it probably Will is 0:16:08.560 --> 0:16:10.600 Alaturus that you need to be talking about in that spot. 0:16:10.920 --> 0:16:14.200 Yeah, that's that's a good find there, because I think 0:16:14.480 --> 0:16:17.040 I noticed that he did well in the in his 0:16:17.080 --> 0:16:21.520 past couple of masters, but maybe not as as well 0:16:21.600 --> 0:16:24.920 as he actually did now. When it comes to Scotty, 0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:30.520 obviously an Augusta Master already. What do you think it 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:33.080 is about his game that suits him so well to 0:16:33.640 --> 0:16:35.400 this course? If you were to, if you were to 0:16:35.480 --> 0:16:38.840 like identify one or two things. 0:16:38.640 --> 0:16:42.320 Garrett, I'll keep this as succinct as possible, But I 0:16:42.400 --> 0:16:48.280 think a very powerful and underrated topic in golf is 0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:53.200 like the conditional tense that if this happens, how do 0:16:53.240 --> 0:16:56.960 you handle it? And if this or if this happens, 0:16:56.960 --> 0:16:59.640 how do you handle it? Almost like if you're a 0:16:59.640 --> 0:17:02.320 computer programmer, you're kind of used to thinking about this, 0:17:02.480 --> 0:17:06.720 like if the user clicks on this function, here's how 0:17:06.720 --> 0:17:09.359 it responds. If there's an error, here's how we handle it. 0:17:09.720 --> 0:17:14.200 And in golf, especially at Augusta National, there's a strong 0:17:14.240 --> 0:17:17.880 relationship between your iron play and your short game. If 0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:21.840 I execute this iron shot, here's where it's gonna end up, 0:17:21.840 --> 0:17:24.200 and I'm gonna have a twelve footer or eighteen footer 0:17:24.280 --> 0:17:26.720 for birdie. If I don't, then I need to have 0:17:26.760 --> 0:17:28.800 the short game to get me out of that situation. 0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:32.040 And what's fascinating to me is that the one player 0:17:32.080 --> 0:17:36.359 that I heard articulate this is Bryson de Shamba over 0:17:36.600 --> 0:17:38.280 the weekend. I don't know if you heard this, but 0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:42.280 he said Augusta National is an intellectual golf course. It's 0:17:42.320 --> 0:17:46.879 a lot of if then else statements, and it's really 0:17:46.920 --> 0:17:49.320 interesting to me to hear somebody articulate it that way. 0:17:49.359 --> 0:17:51.879 It's definitely a way that I've long thought about golf, 0:17:52.200 --> 0:17:55.880 and I think, to answer your question, Scottie Scheffler has 0:17:55.960 --> 0:18:00.240 those if else questions answered. He's in a lie eat 0:18:00.280 --> 0:18:03.400 ball striker. He hits it far and he's magical short game. 0:18:03.680 --> 0:18:05.840 You can get away with some sloppy putting, some sloppy 0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:08.000 short range putting at Augusta. A lot of poor putters 0:18:08.000 --> 0:18:09.800 have had success there. But if I had to boil 0:18:09.840 --> 0:18:13.240 it down, that would be a somewhat succinct way of 0:18:13.240 --> 0:18:13.639 putting it. 0:18:14.280 --> 0:18:14.480 You know. 0:18:14.880 --> 0:18:18.720 I was thinking back on his round and trying his 0:18:18.840 --> 0:18:23.359 round today on Sunday, sinking back on that round and 0:18:23.440 --> 0:18:26.640 trying to figure out how many mistakes he made, and 0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:29.480 I came down on he was he was a bit 0:18:29.560 --> 0:18:34.240 short with his iron on one, but he was short right, 0:18:35.280 --> 0:18:38.919 which is kind of the good miss wasn't going long. 0:18:39.440 --> 0:18:41.840 He wasn't. He was never going long, which I saw 0:18:41.960 --> 0:18:44.359 quite a few players due to that back left pin 0:18:44.440 --> 0:18:46.879 position today and that's dead back there. You can't do 0:18:46.920 --> 0:18:50.280 anything all right, So that was a mistake, but it 0:18:50.400 --> 0:18:52.840 was kind of a good mistake. Then he was in 0:18:52.880 --> 0:18:55.800 the bunker, the fairway bunker on two, which is again 0:18:55.920 --> 0:18:58.119 you know, it's like not ideal, but it's not the 0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:00.640 worst mistake in the world. You just kind of get 0:19:00.680 --> 0:19:02.439 it out of the bunker and then you have an 0:19:02.480 --> 0:19:05.639 approach shot, and he ultimately made part. He wasn't striking 0:19:05.680 --> 0:19:07.840 the ball super well right at the beginning. I don't 0:19:07.840 --> 0:19:09.800 think he hit that approach very well. I forget exactly 0:19:09.880 --> 0:19:12.720 what happened with it. In any case, Then he was 0:19:12.840 --> 0:19:15.439 long on four. That was a mistake. That was like 0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:18.840 his one bad position on the whole. But I don't 0:19:18.880 --> 0:19:21.480 think that he was ever making double bogie from back 0:19:21.480 --> 0:19:24.720 there really like he'd kick kind of a middling chip, 0:19:24.880 --> 0:19:27.199 was short with it and two putt it, and it 0:19:27.240 --> 0:19:30.520 didn't really feel like he was in major threat of 0:19:30.560 --> 0:19:34.679 making double bogie. Then he was short with an iron 0:19:34.720 --> 0:19:38.440 on seven. I guess I can't really think of any 0:19:38.480 --> 0:19:42.920 other mistakes, like major mistakes, particularly in his round, and 0:19:43.280 --> 0:19:46.520 from that point on, I mean, he was conspicuously awesome, 0:19:46.960 --> 0:19:49.600 and so like, what is it about Scotty Scheffler. That 0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:52.240 allows him to get through around like that at augusta 0:19:52.280 --> 0:19:53.960 National of all places. And I think it's what you're 0:19:53.960 --> 0:19:57.840 talking about there, that that ability, that the if then else, 0:19:58.119 --> 0:20:00.000 and those answers to those questions. 0:20:00.600 --> 0:20:05.520 And it should not go without saying that Scotty understands 0:20:05.560 --> 0:20:09.240 golf courses. He understands where you can't miss and then 0:20:09.280 --> 0:20:12.879 takes it out of play and is unbelievable executing on 0:20:14.160 --> 0:20:17.320 his intended strategy. And then if if he miss fires, 0:20:17.119 --> 0:20:19.200 he's still going to be in a spot that's fine, 0:20:19.400 --> 0:20:20.879 and then he's got the short game to get himself 0:20:20.880 --> 0:20:23.400 out of that situation. So I do think it's worth 0:20:23.480 --> 0:20:26.960 calling out that we've talked a lot about Scotty's course management. 0:20:26.960 --> 0:20:28.520 Now it's become a hot topic, but like he just 0:20:28.560 --> 0:20:31.600 has this innate understanding of how to play golf courses. 0:20:32.160 --> 0:20:36.600 Yeah, all right, I'm going to do my takeaway fairly briefly, 0:20:37.280 --> 0:20:39.760 but this is a takeaway really about the kind of 0:20:40.359 --> 0:20:45.840 position of the Masters and the popular golf consciousness, Like 0:20:45.920 --> 0:20:50.639 it's stature as a tournament. The Masters has not been 0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:56.359 all that competitive recently, if you judge competitive by how 0:20:56.440 --> 0:20:59.920 close the contenders are to each other at the very 0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:02.320 end of the tournament. The last time we had a 0:21:02.359 --> 0:21:05.399 playoff in the Masters was twenty seventeen Justin Rose and 0:21:05.400 --> 0:21:09.639 Sergio Garcia. Twenty eighteen, Patrick Reid won by one shot 0:21:09.800 --> 0:21:11.960 over Ricky Fowler, So that was pretty close, but Ricky 0:21:12.000 --> 0:21:13.679 kind of made a charge on the back nine, and 0:21:13.720 --> 0:21:16.960 so for a lot of that day it wasn't really 0:21:17.000 --> 0:21:20.679 that didn't feel that close. Twenty nineteen, Tiger was ahead 0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:22.680 by two going into the seventy second hole and was 0:21:22.720 --> 0:21:26.000 able to play for bogie. Twenty twenty, Dustin Johnson ran 0:21:26.000 --> 0:21:28.960 away with it. Twenty twenty one Hit Deecki ahead by 0:21:29.000 --> 0:21:32.120 two going into the final hole, able to play for bogie. 0:21:32.280 --> 0:21:35.119 Twenty twenty two, Scotty was able to four putt and 0:21:35.160 --> 0:21:38.720 still win by three. Twenty twenty three, rom one by four, 0:21:39.600 --> 0:21:43.359 and this year Scotty pretty much had a stranglehold on 0:21:43.400 --> 0:21:49.160 the tournament from a men quarter forward. So hasn't been 0:21:49.880 --> 0:21:54.479 like a There haven't been huge fireworks on Sunday at 0:21:54.480 --> 0:21:59.119 the Masters recently, and yet in that time it seems 0:21:59.119 --> 0:22:04.159 like the Masters has only grown in popularity, grown in prestige, 0:22:04.680 --> 0:22:08.480 grown in stature, which I think is a tribute to 0:22:08.520 --> 0:22:13.439 the sheer quality of the tournament's execution. It's golf course, 0:22:14.240 --> 0:22:18.720 everything about what they do on site, everything they allow 0:22:18.840 --> 0:22:22.480 to happen with the telecast. It is the quality of 0:22:22.560 --> 0:22:27.320 the product and not necessarily the competitiveness of the final 0:22:27.400 --> 0:22:30.880 day that has made this tournament become more and more 0:22:30.880 --> 0:22:34.040 important and feel like more and more of an event 0:22:34.320 --> 0:22:34.920 over time. 0:22:35.520 --> 0:22:39.000 To the first point, very low variance golf course, and 0:22:39.480 --> 0:22:41.880