WEBVTT - Takeaways from the 2023 Open Championship

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:02.840
<v Speaker 1>I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When

0:00:02.840 --> 0:00:04.960
<v Speaker 1>I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:05.920
<v Speaker 1>And when I find my.

0:00:05.920 --> 0:00:08.360
<v Speaker 2>Ball in a bride Egg Friday Egg the Dread and

0:00:08.440 --> 0:00:11.959
<v Speaker 2>Friday Friday Frida Egg Egg, Frida Egg, Bride Egg Lie,

0:00:11.960 --> 0:00:13.720
<v Speaker 2>I'm about ready to run off of the hump.

0:00:34.520 --> 0:00:37.279
<v Speaker 3>Welcome to the Frida Egg Podcast. I'm Garrett Morrison, and

0:00:37.320 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 3>today we are recapping the twenty twenty three Open Championship

0:00:41.760 --> 0:00:45.640
<v Speaker 3>at Royal Liverpool. Brian Harmon pretty much ran away with

0:00:45.680 --> 0:00:48.519
<v Speaker 3>the tournament. He took the lead with an incredible sixty

0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:51.000
<v Speaker 3>five on Friday and he stayed well ahead of the

0:00:51.040 --> 0:00:54.040
<v Speaker 3>field the rest of the way, ended up winning by

0:00:54.200 --> 0:00:59.240
<v Speaker 3>six strokes. I've definitely seen more exciting majors, but there's

0:00:59.320 --> 0:01:03.440
<v Speaker 3>plenty of interesting stuff to discuss. So in this episode

0:01:03.640 --> 0:01:06.000
<v Speaker 3>we're going to dig into two big stories from the

0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:09.720
<v Speaker 3>Open with two different guests. First up, we have Sean

0:01:09.840 --> 0:01:13.360
<v Speaker 3>Martin of PGA tour dot Com talking about the champion,

0:01:13.560 --> 0:01:17.080
<v Speaker 3>Brian Harmon. Sean is very familiar with Harmon, having covered

0:01:17.360 --> 0:01:20.280
<v Speaker 3>Harmon's amateur career, and by the way, you may not

0:01:20.440 --> 0:01:22.679
<v Speaker 3>have known much about Harmon before this week. But he

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.880
<v Speaker 3>was an exceptional amateur golfer. After Sean, we'll call in

0:01:26.959 --> 0:01:30.039
<v Speaker 3>Joseph Lamania for a few takes on the golf course.

0:01:30.240 --> 0:01:33.520
<v Speaker 3>Royal Liverpool was a compelling venue, I thought, and it

0:01:33.600 --> 0:01:37.720
<v Speaker 3>had some unusual traits that maybe other championship golf courses

0:01:37.760 --> 0:01:40.759
<v Speaker 3>can learn from. Joseph is the author of the Finding

0:01:40.800 --> 0:01:43.280
<v Speaker 3>the Edge newsletter, which he should check out, and a

0:01:43.360 --> 0:01:46.319
<v Speaker 3>contributor to the Frida Egg. All right, let's get to

0:01:46.360 --> 0:01:49.280
<v Speaker 3>it right after this break, you'll hear from Sean Martin.

0:01:59.320 --> 0:02:01.760
<v Speaker 3>Our first sponsor for this episode is a new one,

0:02:02.000 --> 0:02:04.720
<v Speaker 3>Ores and Alps. Ores and Alps was founded by two

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 3>women with outdoorsy husbands, so they know what sun wind

0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:12.200
<v Speaker 3>and pollution can do to your skin. But every option

0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:15.720
<v Speaker 3>out there was just too expensive, full of chemicals, or

0:02:15.960 --> 0:02:19.440
<v Speaker 3>simply inconvenient. So they took matters into their own hands

0:02:19.720 --> 0:02:23.600
<v Speaker 3>and the result is simple, clean tsa approved, feel good

0:02:23.720 --> 0:02:27.519
<v Speaker 3>skin care at a manageable price point. So my family

0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.320
<v Speaker 3>and I have been using Oars and Alps products all summer,

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:34.200
<v Speaker 3>and everything from the face and scalp mist to the

0:02:34.360 --> 0:02:38.799
<v Speaker 3>moisturizing body lotion has been a big hit. Specifically, I'd

0:02:38.880 --> 0:02:42.680
<v Speaker 3>like to shout out the hydrating antioxidant SPF fifty spray,

0:02:43.080 --> 0:02:46.000
<v Speaker 3>which has become my and my famili's go to sunscreen.

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:49.480
<v Speaker 3>It was actually named best sunscreen by Men's Health. Has

0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:53.240
<v Speaker 3>a nice fresh scent, it's not greasy, and it's water

0:02:53.400 --> 0:02:57.440
<v Speaker 3>and sweat resistant for eighty minutes. It's just a really solid,

0:02:57.840 --> 0:03:01.840
<v Speaker 3>great sunscreen. I've also I personally enjoyed the go Stick

0:03:01.960 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 3>Clear SPF thirty five. It's just a solid stick that

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:09.240
<v Speaker 3>doesn't melt in the heat. I carry it in my

0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:11.840
<v Speaker 3>golf bag and it just glides on nice and clear,

0:03:12.440 --> 0:03:16.360
<v Speaker 3>super convenient, and so that has been a big part

0:03:16.440 --> 0:03:18.720
<v Speaker 3>of my summer. And when the sun comes out and

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:21.000
<v Speaker 3>it starts to get hot, you really need to take

0:03:21.000 --> 0:03:23.440
<v Speaker 3>care of yourself on the golf course. You know, if

0:03:23.480 --> 0:03:26.679
<v Speaker 3>you're out there, please put sunscreen on. It is such

0:03:26.720 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 3>an important thing to do. So Oris and Alps have

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:33.680
<v Speaker 3>a huge range of skincare products. Go to Orisonalps dot

0:03:33.720 --> 0:03:36.760
<v Speaker 3>com to start building your kit, and when you go there,

0:03:37.120 --> 0:03:41.880
<v Speaker 3>use code egg fifteen to get fifteen percent off all products.

0:03:42.200 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 3>That's Orison Alps dot com. Code egg fifteen for fifteen

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:57.360
<v Speaker 3>percent off all Right. Back to the episode, Sean Martin,

0:03:57.520 --> 0:03:58.840
<v Speaker 3>Welcome back to the podcast.

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:00.840
<v Speaker 4>How you doing good? How are you?

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:05.160
<v Speaker 3>I'm doing okay. Did you have a weird sleep schedule

0:04:05.200 --> 0:04:05.600
<v Speaker 3>this week?

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:08.760
<v Speaker 4>I did not. I think being on the East Coast, honestly,

0:04:08.760 --> 0:04:10.200
<v Speaker 4>I can keep it pretty normal. I get it at

0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:12.280
<v Speaker 4>five am most days, so I hadn't missed too much

0:04:12.280 --> 0:04:13.640
<v Speaker 4>when I woke up. Maybe there were a couple of

0:04:13.680 --> 0:04:16.760
<v Speaker 4>four thirty alarms. Did a little bit of watching it

0:04:16.800 --> 0:04:18.400
<v Speaker 4>on my phone in the gym, trying to keep it

0:04:18.440 --> 0:04:21.160
<v Speaker 4>a fairly normal schedule. I still have a day job,

0:04:21.440 --> 0:04:23.720
<v Speaker 4>still have kids to take care of, so I didn't

0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:25.599
<v Speaker 4>go too far off the rails. No I know Brendan

0:04:25.680 --> 0:04:27.640
<v Speaker 4>or Andy or any thing like that. Nothing overnight.

0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:31.359
<v Speaker 3>I mean. I think Brendan is similar in the sense

0:04:31.400 --> 0:04:35.119
<v Speaker 3>that he's a dad too. Wakes up early anyway, Andy

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:37.599
<v Speaker 3>as well. Andy. Andy wakes up early. But being on

0:04:37.640 --> 0:04:40.520
<v Speaker 3>the East Coast does a major advantage here. I always

0:04:40.520 --> 0:04:43.440
<v Speaker 3>get a little bit screwy during open Week because the

0:04:43.480 --> 0:04:46.920
<v Speaker 3>first day I stay up late to watch the beginning right,

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:49.800
<v Speaker 3>and then I try to reverse it as the week

0:04:49.880 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 3>goes on, and that's the big challenge.

0:04:52.760 --> 0:04:55.120
<v Speaker 4>I grew up in California, so I remember the open

0:04:55.760 --> 0:04:59.120
<v Speaker 4>being on so early. I was shocked my first few

0:04:59.200 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 4>years when I lived in Florida at how late it

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:04.080
<v Speaker 4>seemed to come on almost because I mean with eight

0:05:04.080 --> 0:05:06.160
<v Speaker 4>hours being from California, you could turn that thing on.

0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:06.320
<v Speaker 2>It.

0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:08.920
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, you turn on the night before if you wanted to,

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 4>and so it is even that three hours definitely makes

0:05:12.360 --> 0:05:13.120
<v Speaker 4>a huge difference.

0:05:13.839 --> 0:05:17.280
<v Speaker 3>Yeah for sure. All right, So Brian Harmon is our winner.

0:05:18.240 --> 0:05:21.320
<v Speaker 3>What are a few things that you think he did

0:05:21.520 --> 0:05:25.240
<v Speaker 3>better than anyone else this week? Because he clearly was

0:05:25.680 --> 0:05:26.600
<v Speaker 3>a cut above.

0:05:27.160 --> 0:05:28.800
<v Speaker 4>And I think the big thing was the potter. We

0:05:28.839 --> 0:05:30.240
<v Speaker 4>all saw it. It was hard to miss it. It's such

0:05:30.279 --> 0:05:32.720
<v Speaker 4>a big putter, which makes for plenty of jokes.

0:05:32.760 --> 0:05:35.680
<v Speaker 3>Golf scene from space, Yeah, it's it shows up in

0:05:35.680 --> 0:05:37.120
<v Speaker 3>satellite imagery.

0:05:36.920 --> 0:05:38.880
<v Speaker 4>Between Crystal Lamprect and Brian Harmon.

0:05:39.520 --> 0:05:39.799
<v Speaker 1>Golf.

0:05:39.839 --> 0:05:42.160
<v Speaker 4>Twitter definitely got its fill, probably went over its rate

0:05:42.200 --> 0:05:45.000
<v Speaker 4>limit on high jokes. I think you know it's harmy

0:05:45.320 --> 0:05:45.640
<v Speaker 4>right away.

0:05:45.720 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 3>At a certain point it gets a little bit mean,

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:49.920
<v Speaker 3>right like, I mean, the guys come on, you know

0:05:49.960 --> 0:05:52.560
<v Speaker 3>he can't he can't help it. But yeah, Crystal lamb practice.

0:05:53.120 --> 0:05:55.560
<v Speaker 3>I haven't seen the photo yet of them. We just

0:05:55.600 --> 0:05:57.880
<v Speaker 3>wrapped up the tournament. There is going to be a

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:00.240
<v Speaker 3>photo of the two of them standing next together to

0:06:00.279 --> 0:06:01.680
<v Speaker 3>each other, presumably.

0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:03.160
<v Speaker 4>And Kyle Porter made a great call pulling out the

0:06:03.200 --> 0:06:05.600
<v Speaker 4>air and judge jose Al Tuove photo it definitely fit.

0:06:05.680 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 4>But yeah, I mean the first thing was the potter,

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:09.159
<v Speaker 4>which is one of Brian's strengths. And then you know,

0:06:09.240 --> 0:06:11.280
<v Speaker 4>coming from your own Twitter handle, it was I think

0:06:11.320 --> 0:06:14.359
<v Speaker 4>he hit in two bunkers all week and I thought

0:06:14.360 --> 0:06:18.360
<v Speaker 4>even you saw it the first five holes Sunday, you know,

0:06:18.760 --> 0:06:20.120
<v Speaker 4>he hit it in some spots and it got a

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:22.880
<v Speaker 4>little squirrely, but I mean he really minimized the damage

0:06:22.880 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 4>playing those. I think in one over after he made

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:27.239
<v Speaker 4>the birdier and then quickly getting it back with the birdies,

0:06:27.279 --> 0:06:29.159
<v Speaker 4>and and that was another big thing too, is the

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:31.000
<v Speaker 4>bounce back. I think Justin Ray had the stat I

0:06:31.000 --> 0:06:33.400
<v Speaker 4>think six bogies all week and he followed four of

0:06:33.400 --> 0:06:37.120
<v Speaker 4>them immediately with birdies. So it was just the control

0:06:37.200 --> 0:06:40.040
<v Speaker 4>of staying out of trouble, staying out of the pop bunkers,

0:06:40.400 --> 0:06:43.760
<v Speaker 4>and then just putting fantastically. You know, I think you

0:06:43.800 --> 0:06:45.520
<v Speaker 4>can get away with a little more at a links

0:06:45.560 --> 0:06:47.280
<v Speaker 4>course because you have the option of running it up

0:06:47.279 --> 0:06:50.120
<v Speaker 4>it's one right reason why we see older players contend

0:06:50.160 --> 0:06:52.880
<v Speaker 4>as well, because you know, it's not like it's immediately

0:06:52.960 --> 0:06:55.160
<v Speaker 4>hack out or I can't carry down to the screen.

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:58.320
<v Speaker 4>A guy like Brian Harmon, who's very creative, who talked

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:00.920
<v Speaker 4>about his love of hitting a variety of shots. As

0:07:00.960 --> 0:07:03.520
<v Speaker 4>long as he's at a spot where he can move forward,

0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:04.760
<v Speaker 4>he has a chance to get it on the green

0:07:04.800 --> 0:07:07.159
<v Speaker 4>because he can, you know, use the ground and finagle

0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:08.640
<v Speaker 4>something and roll something on there.

0:07:09.560 --> 0:07:13.120
<v Speaker 3>One quick correction, Brian Harmon actually was in three bunkers

0:07:13.120 --> 0:07:15.520
<v Speaker 3>this week because he found one on the final hole

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 3>of the tournament, and so we tweeted that out prematurely

0:07:20.000 --> 0:07:23.520
<v Speaker 3>and got pretty owned in the replies. So three bunkers,

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:27.920
<v Speaker 3>but he was in two of those bunkers, you know,

0:07:27.960 --> 0:07:30.640
<v Speaker 3>through seventy one holes. Two bunkers. Both of them were

0:07:30.680 --> 0:07:35.320
<v Speaker 3>on Friday when he played extraordinary golf, a sixty five

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:39.760
<v Speaker 3>bogie free and he was in a bad position in

0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:42.440
<v Speaker 3>a fairway bunker on the twelfth hole, had to play

0:07:42.440 --> 0:07:46.480
<v Speaker 3>out backwards, missed the green on his long approach and

0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:49.400
<v Speaker 3>proceeded to chip in. And so that's the kind of

0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:52.080
<v Speaker 3>day that it was for Brian Harmon On Friday. It

0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:55.680
<v Speaker 3>was not an easy golf course, and he played as

0:07:55.760 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 3>good of golf as I think you can play in

0:07:59.000 --> 0:08:02.480
<v Speaker 3>those conditions, so it was super, super impressive. I believe

0:08:02.480 --> 0:08:05.320
<v Speaker 3>he gained eleven strokes putting over the week, So that

0:08:05.440 --> 0:08:07.240
<v Speaker 3>was kind of the story. And this is sort of

0:08:07.240 --> 0:08:10.440
<v Speaker 3>how players win at Royal Liverpool, right, just the control

0:08:10.560 --> 0:08:11.680
<v Speaker 3>and a good putting week.

0:08:11.960 --> 0:08:14.800
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, and really, I mean, outside of the actual the

0:08:14.840 --> 0:08:18.040
<v Speaker 4>game itself, the most impressive thing probably was how he

0:08:18.120 --> 0:08:21.120
<v Speaker 4>kept it together. Sitting on the lead for fifty some

0:08:21.120 --> 0:08:24.000
<v Speaker 4>odd hours. You know, you're sitting there, You're spending multiple

0:08:24.080 --> 0:08:27.200
<v Speaker 4>days going to bed and trying to not think about

0:08:27.240 --> 0:08:30.160
<v Speaker 4>how you're on the precipice of this goal that you've

0:08:30.200 --> 0:08:33.600
<v Speaker 4>devoted your entire life to. And you know, even on

0:08:33.640 --> 0:08:35.440
<v Speaker 4>the golf course, you know, so many other other sports

0:08:35.480 --> 0:08:38.560
<v Speaker 4>are reactive and they last, you know, ninety minutes, let's say,

0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:41.040
<v Speaker 4>and there's constant you know, it's just about reacting to

0:08:41.040 --> 0:08:43.920
<v Speaker 4>what's going around you. Golf is hours on the golf course,

0:08:44.000 --> 0:08:47.160
<v Speaker 4>minutes between shots, and you have all this time that

0:08:47.200 --> 0:08:50.120
<v Speaker 4>you're just still not doing anything really, and then trying

0:08:50.120 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 4>to hit a stationary golf ball and you're just alone

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:53.920
<v Speaker 4>with your thoughts, and so really that was the most

0:08:53.960 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 4>impressive thing because after Friday, with all the putts he

0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:59.640
<v Speaker 4>made the chip in for par you know, everyone's screaming regression.

0:08:59.720 --> 0:09:01.760
<v Speaker 4>Can't keep it up. You know, putter's gonna cool. We're

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:03.360
<v Speaker 4>gonna see him go by the wayside, even with this

0:09:03.400 --> 0:09:06.360
<v Speaker 4>five shot lead. And that's a very reasonable take. So

0:09:07.400 --> 0:09:09.920
<v Speaker 4>for him to withhold it all, to still play strong

0:09:09.960 --> 0:09:14.240
<v Speaker 4>and steady on the weekend while also having to withhold

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:17.440
<v Speaker 4>or withstand the pressure of a five shot lead is humongous.

0:09:18.240 --> 0:09:22.199
<v Speaker 4>You know, with a one shot lead, you are you're

0:09:22.200 --> 0:09:24.320
<v Speaker 4>not looking too far ahead. But when you're five shots

0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:26.600
<v Speaker 4>ahead for that long, it has to be so hard

0:09:26.640 --> 0:09:30.080
<v Speaker 4>to just keep everything in control and even try to

0:09:30.080 --> 0:09:32.080
<v Speaker 4>get a good night's sleep and just go out and

0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:33.040
<v Speaker 4>perform the next day.

0:09:33.760 --> 0:09:37.120
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, you know, usually it's a good theory that somebody

0:09:37.200 --> 0:09:42.520
<v Speaker 3>who is leading a tournament primarily because of a super

0:09:42.559 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 3>hot putter might not be a sustainable leader of that tournament.

0:09:48.040 --> 0:09:51.000
<v Speaker 3>Usually that's like a pretty solid way of thinking. But

0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:55.079
<v Speaker 3>in Brian Harmon's case, he is an extraordinary putter, right,

0:09:55.120 --> 0:09:57.880
<v Speaker 3>He's one of the best putters in the world, and

0:09:57.960 --> 0:10:02.960
<v Speaker 3>so yes, he was, even by his standards, exceptional this

0:10:03.000 --> 0:10:06.560
<v Speaker 3>week on the greens, but it wasn't that surprising to

0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:09.600
<v Speaker 3>see him keep it up on Saturday and Sunday with

0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:10.280
<v Speaker 3>the putter right.

0:10:10.679 --> 0:10:13.120
<v Speaker 4>And also, you know, after two rounds we screamed small

0:10:13.160 --> 0:10:16.000
<v Speaker 4>sample size, small sample size, regression. It's like, well, four

0:10:16.080 --> 0:10:19.080
<v Speaker 4>rounds is still a really small sample, and I mean, really,

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:22.520
<v Speaker 4>a golf career, golf season is a series of small samples.

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 4>Four days is a really small sample. Seventy two holes

0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:27.040
<v Speaker 4>of stroke play, you know, is a good way to

0:10:27.160 --> 0:10:32.120
<v Speaker 4>identify the best player. But also there it's just a

0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:34.679
<v Speaker 4>small lest sample that there is still variants and randomness

0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:36.640
<v Speaker 4>that come into play. And just because a guy has

0:10:36.640 --> 0:10:38.360
<v Speaker 4>a hot putting round or two doesn't mean necessarily that

0:10:38.360 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 4>he's going to regress to the mean. I mean, careers

0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:43.280
<v Speaker 4>are made on these small sample sizes. It's about putting

0:10:43.280 --> 0:10:45.760
<v Speaker 4>four good rounds together. It's not about one hundred and

0:10:45.800 --> 0:10:49.199
<v Speaker 4>sixty two game season. It's you know, Brian Harmon's year,

0:10:49.320 --> 0:10:51.400
<v Speaker 4>His career is made by these four rounds and what

0:10:51.440 --> 0:10:52.920
<v Speaker 4>he did in these four rounds. He could miss the

0:10:52.920 --> 0:10:55.200
<v Speaker 4>rest of his cuts for the rest of the decade

0:10:55.640 --> 0:10:57.439
<v Speaker 4>and he's still the Open champion. He still has a

0:10:57.440 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 4>satisficate saturdaye so is satisfied with being the Open champion.

0:11:02.720 --> 0:11:04.240
<v Speaker 4>He's still gonna be on that Ryder Cup team. And

0:11:04.280 --> 0:11:06.400
<v Speaker 4>I think that's one of the crazy things about golf,

0:11:06.400 --> 0:11:07.840
<v Speaker 4>and I love seeing it in a story like this.

0:11:07.840 --> 0:11:11.079
<v Speaker 4>This guy's thirty six years old, he's been a professional

0:11:11.080 --> 0:11:14.440
<v Speaker 4>for more than a decade, and his career will be

0:11:14.480 --> 0:11:17.640
<v Speaker 4>defined by these four rounds. His life changed in a week.

0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:19.520
<v Speaker 4>And that's the great thing about golf where I think

0:11:19.520 --> 0:11:22.240
<v Speaker 4>it's different than other sports that no matter what he

0:11:22.280 --> 0:11:25.360
<v Speaker 4>does from here, he is the Open champion, all right.

0:11:25.800 --> 0:11:29.559
<v Speaker 3>I don't think many people are super familiar with Brian

0:11:29.600 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 3>Harmon's backstory, but you definitely are. When did you become

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:37.400
<v Speaker 3>aware of Harmon the amateur player?

0:11:37.840 --> 0:11:41.000
<v Speaker 4>They're very familiar with his off course pursuits now, that's.

0:11:41.000 --> 0:11:44.880
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, the hunting and stuff, especially in the UK where

0:11:44.920 --> 0:11:47.080
<v Speaker 3>it seems like that has caused a bit of a

0:11:47.120 --> 0:11:50.000
<v Speaker 3>scandal that he likes to hunt. I think he's a

0:11:50.040 --> 0:11:53.120
<v Speaker 3>bow hunter, right, so this is not really a gun

0:11:53.160 --> 0:11:54.280
<v Speaker 3>thing necessarily, no.

0:11:54.360 --> 0:11:57.000
<v Speaker 4>And I do appreciate I mean, he eats what he kills. Also,

0:11:57.080 --> 0:12:00.240
<v Speaker 4>it's not this you know, sadistic type thing, which a

0:12:00.320 --> 0:12:01.760
<v Speaker 4>trophy hunter, right, he's not.

0:12:02.240 --> 0:12:02.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm not sure.

0:12:02.679 --> 0:12:04.560
<v Speaker 4>I have to tell you where their hamburgers come from.

0:12:04.640 --> 0:12:07.679
<v Speaker 4>But that's another topic. But yes, Brian Harmon, he was

0:12:07.720 --> 0:12:09.520
<v Speaker 4>in this great sweet spot in my career where I

0:12:09.559 --> 0:12:11.720
<v Speaker 4>worked at Golf Week and it was a great role

0:12:11.760 --> 0:12:14.960
<v Speaker 4>of covering college golf and you get to know players well.

0:12:15.320 --> 0:12:17.760
<v Speaker 4>They're excited to talk to the media because usually they've

0:12:17.760 --> 0:12:20.199
<v Speaker 4>done something well. And I was there from two thousand

0:12:20.200 --> 0:12:23.959
<v Speaker 4>and six to twenty thirteen, and Brian Harmon's amateur career

0:12:24.080 --> 0:12:26.080
<v Speaker 4>was two thousand and five to two thousand and nine,

0:12:26.120 --> 0:12:29.040
<v Speaker 4>pretty much his college career. But even before that being

0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:32.640
<v Speaker 4>a humongous golf nerd I mean early two thousands, the

0:12:32.679 --> 0:12:35.760
<v Speaker 4>era of like the Laker, you know, yellow and Purple

0:12:35.840 --> 0:12:37.960
<v Speaker 4>Shaft and the titleist nine to seventy five D and

0:12:38.000 --> 0:12:40.880
<v Speaker 4>the titlest nine nineties. Like in that era of golf,

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:46.640
<v Speaker 4>Brian Harmon was the guy in junior golf, I mean,

0:12:46.679 --> 0:12:50.679
<v Speaker 4>absolutely dominant. And this is before Speeth, this is before

0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:53.400
<v Speaker 4>we kind of got accustomed to teenagers really getting into

0:12:53.440 --> 0:12:57.240
<v Speaker 4>two events and even making cuts and playing well. It

0:12:57.400 --> 0:13:01.040
<v Speaker 4>just was not there was a larger gulf between the

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:03.280
<v Speaker 4>amateur game and especially the junior game. Then there was

0:13:03.760 --> 0:13:06.880
<v Speaker 4>the professional game, and he was just the guy. Two

0:13:06.920 --> 0:13:09.760
<v Speaker 4>time AJGA Player of the Year. He won the US

0:13:09.840 --> 0:13:12.160
<v Speaker 4>Junior in three. The next year he was the medalist

0:13:12.160 --> 0:13:14.040
<v Speaker 4>by eight, which is over thirty six holes, so he

0:13:14.080 --> 0:13:16.760
<v Speaker 4>beat the field by eight at Olympic Club. I was

0:13:16.800 --> 0:13:18.839
<v Speaker 4>looking if you lost to Brian Harmon in stroke play

0:13:18.880 --> 0:13:20.840
<v Speaker 4>at the two thousand and four US Junior by nineteen

0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:24.840
<v Speaker 4>shots over two rounds. He still made match play. And

0:13:24.880 --> 0:13:27.240
<v Speaker 4>then later that summer he made a PJ Tour cut

0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:30.240
<v Speaker 4>at age seventeen. He was calling his players playing partner's mister.

0:13:30.440 --> 0:13:31.760
<v Speaker 4>You know, I think he played a role in Thatcher

0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:34.840
<v Speaker 4>and he called a mister Thatcher would say, sir, I

0:13:34.840 --> 0:13:36.800
<v Speaker 4>mean he was. And then he played in that Walker

0:13:36.840 --> 0:13:38.720
<v Speaker 4>Cup team with Anthony cam at two thousand and five.

0:13:38.840 --> 0:13:40.440
<v Speaker 4>He was the youngest American ever to play in the

0:13:40.440 --> 0:13:43.640
<v Speaker 4>Walker Cup. It was just stuff that, you know, Speeth

0:13:43.679 --> 0:13:45.400
<v Speaker 4>and Thomas came along and did it. But at that

0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:47.560
<v Speaker 4>time guys were not doing that. That was it was

0:13:47.600 --> 0:13:51.280
<v Speaker 4>really unheard of, and he was he was the man.

0:13:51.360 --> 0:13:54.240
<v Speaker 4>He lost his way a little bit at Georgia. He

0:13:54.400 --> 0:13:57.640
<v Speaker 4>describes as being a little banged up, had some trouble

0:13:57.760 --> 0:14:00.240
<v Speaker 4>kind of making the adjustment. He has spoken to about

0:14:00.360 --> 0:14:03.000
<v Speaker 4>just taking some time at each level to adjust. But

0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:04.920
<v Speaker 4>then he did play another Walker cup in O nine

0:14:04.960 --> 0:14:08.600
<v Speaker 4>to close out his college career, so two time Walker Cupper.

0:14:08.640 --> 0:14:11.360
<v Speaker 4>But even when he turned pro, he missed his first

0:14:11.360 --> 0:14:14.800
<v Speaker 4>two Q school attempts at first stage and was playing

0:14:14.840 --> 0:14:16.400
<v Speaker 4>what was called the E Golf Tour at the time,

0:14:16.440 --> 0:14:18.920
<v Speaker 4>playing the mini tours. So an interesting career in the

0:14:18.920 --> 0:14:20.560
<v Speaker 4>fact you had a guy who was really kind of

0:14:21.800 --> 0:14:24.720
<v Speaker 4>unprecedented in a bit. I mean, you had Tiger and

0:14:24.760 --> 0:14:26.520
<v Speaker 4>Field befo him, but he was in really rarefied air

0:14:26.520 --> 0:14:29.640
<v Speaker 4>as a junior golfer. Good college career, but I don't

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:32.760
<v Speaker 4>think really was what would have been expected from him.

0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:35.040
<v Speaker 4>And then comes out of school and is playing mini

0:14:35.040 --> 0:14:36.840
<v Speaker 4>tours for two years because he misses a Q school.

0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:40.600
<v Speaker 4>So this teen phenom who also had to overcome some

0:14:40.600 --> 0:14:41.920
<v Speaker 4>adversity to get to this level.

0:14:42.360 --> 0:14:45.800
<v Speaker 3>A couple of fun stories out there about Brian Harmon

0:14:46.280 --> 0:14:50.600
<v Speaker 3>as a kid. First of all, what did you learn

0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 3>about how Harmon got started in golf, how he became

0:14:54.640 --> 0:14:58.360
<v Speaker 3>interested in the game. It involved a tournament in nineteen

0:14:58.440 --> 0:15:01.160
<v Speaker 3>ninety seven, but maybe not the tournament you would expect

0:15:01.200 --> 0:15:02.280
<v Speaker 3>in nineteen ninety seven.

0:15:02.640 --> 0:15:04.560
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, a lot of people were inspired to play golf

0:15:04.600 --> 0:15:06.520
<v Speaker 4>in nineteen ninety seven, and they were inspired by a

0:15:06.560 --> 0:15:10.600
<v Speaker 4>double digit dominant victory. For Brian, it was Steve jones

0:15:11.040 --> 0:15:13.880
<v Speaker 4>eleven shot win in the Phoenix Open, which is still

0:15:13.880 --> 0:15:15.280
<v Speaker 4>one of the I mean, he'd won the US Open

0:15:15.400 --> 0:15:19.840
<v Speaker 4>last or the previous year, so he was a guy,

0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:21.960
<v Speaker 4>I guess, but it was definitely one of the more

0:15:23.600 --> 0:15:28.320
<v Speaker 4>just random victories, if you will. And Brian he was

0:15:28.360 --> 0:15:30.760
<v Speaker 4>home from school that entire week. He couldn't remember if

0:15:30.760 --> 0:15:32.960
<v Speaker 4>he was sick or if it was spring break or

0:15:33.160 --> 0:15:35.640
<v Speaker 4>some sort of holiday, but he said he watched like

0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:38.040
<v Speaker 4>every minute of it. And also Tiger did make that

0:15:38.040 --> 0:15:40.000
<v Speaker 4>hole in one at TBC scott Still that week, so

0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:42.640
<v Speaker 4>there was also the excitement around that. But I mean,

0:15:42.680 --> 0:15:44.360
<v Speaker 4>Brian says when he played a practice on with Steve

0:15:44.400 --> 0:15:46.960
<v Speaker 4>Jones when he got on tour, he told him, he goes, look,

0:15:47.120 --> 0:15:48.960
<v Speaker 4>you're the reason I got into golf, which I'm sure

0:15:49.040 --> 0:15:51.440
<v Speaker 4>had to just kind of, you know, take Steve Jones

0:15:51.520 --> 0:15:52.880
<v Speaker 4>back a little bit. He probably has not heard that

0:15:52.880 --> 0:15:56.200
<v Speaker 4>statement too many times, despite being a major champion. But

0:15:56.600 --> 0:15:59.920
<v Speaker 4>Brian's parents didn't really play golf. He said the year

0:16:00.520 --> 0:16:02.960
<v Speaker 4>course was like two miles away, so literally would throw

0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:05.120
<v Speaker 4>the clubs on his back and bit two miles to

0:16:05.160 --> 0:16:07.640
<v Speaker 4>the nearby course, and within two years he was breaking eighty.

0:16:08.160 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 3>Yeah. Wow, it's Steve john crazy.

0:16:11.200 --> 0:16:11.720
<v Speaker 1>I love that.

0:16:11.840 --> 0:16:14.880
<v Speaker 3>I mean, that's just so funny to me. But you know,

0:16:15.000 --> 0:16:18.720
<v Speaker 3>also I don't want to insult Steve Jones because this guy,

0:16:18.760 --> 0:16:22.960
<v Speaker 3>as he said, was a real player. Another story that

0:16:23.080 --> 0:16:27.120
<v Speaker 3>I love about Harmon as a young golfer is one

0:16:27.120 --> 0:16:30.120
<v Speaker 3>that gets told a lot on Twitter these days. That

0:16:30.240 --> 0:16:33.240
<v Speaker 3>might be a little bit overplayed in some ways, but

0:16:33.320 --> 0:16:37.040
<v Speaker 3>I believe that you were the initial reporter to put

0:16:37.080 --> 0:16:41.680
<v Speaker 3>this story out there about what happened at the two

0:16:41.760 --> 0:16:45.200
<v Speaker 3>thousand and nine nc Double A's. Brian Harmon at that point,

0:16:45.280 --> 0:16:49.160
<v Speaker 3>I believe, is a senior at Georgia and he comes

0:16:49.240 --> 0:16:52.960
<v Speaker 3>up against Ricky Fowler. Could you tell me how this

0:16:53.200 --> 0:16:55.960
<v Speaker 3>match ended up unfolding in the end.

0:16:56.280 --> 0:16:59.280
<v Speaker 4>Yeah. So we're at Inverness in toled Ohio, the famous

0:16:59.320 --> 0:17:02.280
<v Speaker 4>Inverness Club, the first year the ncla's had gone to

0:17:02.320 --> 0:17:04.920
<v Speaker 4>this match play format, and the two teams that year

0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:10.240
<v Speaker 4>are Oklahoma State and Georgia. Oklahoma State has Fowler Morgan Hoffman.

0:17:10.440 --> 0:17:12.360
<v Speaker 4>I want to say Kevin Tway is also on that team.

0:17:12.400 --> 0:17:15.000
<v Speaker 4>He might have been a year later. And Georgia is

0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:18.680
<v Speaker 4>some iteration of Harmon Harris English Hudson Swafford. I mean,

0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:21.320
<v Speaker 4>just two teams that are stacked with future tour players,

0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.440
<v Speaker 4>and you have stroke play qualifying and Georgia does not

0:17:25.560 --> 0:17:29.680
<v Speaker 4>play well, and they actually tie for seventh place in

0:17:29.760 --> 0:17:35.040
<v Speaker 4>stroke play and the tiebreaker. So the best man in

0:17:35.080 --> 0:17:38.000
<v Speaker 4>my wedding actually played in that nine text A and

0:17:38.119 --> 0:17:40.560
<v Speaker 4>M team that goes on to win. They tied for

0:17:40.680 --> 0:17:46.000
<v Speaker 4>seventh with Georgia and my friend Matt. He was the

0:17:46.040 --> 0:17:49.480
<v Speaker 4>fifth man on that team. His score never counted in

0:17:49.520 --> 0:17:51.920
<v Speaker 4>the stroke play, but the tie breaker was your fifth

0:17:51.920 --> 0:17:56.239
<v Speaker 4>man score, and so text A and M because his

0:17:56.280 --> 0:17:59.840
<v Speaker 4>fifth man score beat Georgia's fifth man score. Georgia was

0:17:59.840 --> 0:18:02.160
<v Speaker 4>the eight seed, tex An M was the seven seed,

0:18:02.200 --> 0:18:05.320
<v Speaker 4>and Oklahoma State had one going away, and so they

0:18:05.320 --> 0:18:08.359
<v Speaker 4>got text A M got to avoid Oklahoma State, the powerhouse,

0:18:08.720 --> 0:18:10.520
<v Speaker 4>and it set up really the one to two matches

0:18:10.560 --> 0:18:18.000
<v Speaker 4>in the first round. Unfortunately, so I believe then coaches

0:18:18.000 --> 0:18:19.719
<v Speaker 4>didn't set the matches. It was just based on your

0:18:19.720 --> 0:18:23.159
<v Speaker 4>golf stat ranking. So it's Ricky falavers Brian Harmon and

0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:27.160
<v Speaker 4>Ricky I don't know the exact details, but he's leading.

0:18:28.000 --> 0:18:31.320
<v Speaker 4>He makes a putt and after the fact you find

0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:33.199
<v Speaker 4>out that it was just kind of an oversight that

0:18:33.520 --> 0:18:36.960
<v Speaker 4>Ricky and Mike McGraw left the green without putting the

0:18:36.960 --> 0:18:40.400
<v Speaker 4>flag in. But you know Brian Harmon, you know, being

0:18:40.520 --> 0:18:43.640
<v Speaker 4>a smaller guy, he is very fiery.

0:18:44.880 --> 0:18:47.000
<v Speaker 3>And maybe a little chip on his shoulder.

0:18:47.000 --> 0:18:50.240
<v Speaker 4>Exactly totally, and he will admit that and sees the

0:18:50.280 --> 0:18:53.920
<v Speaker 4>flag now put in, and that just grinds his gears

0:18:54.160 --> 0:18:56.040
<v Speaker 4>and he goes on, I believe, to birdie four holes

0:18:56.040 --> 0:18:59.720
<v Speaker 4>in a row, the last four holes to win the match,

0:19:00.359 --> 0:19:03.399
<v Speaker 4>for Georgia to win the team match in advance, and

0:19:03.440 --> 0:19:05.160
<v Speaker 4>I mean it did it. Put I mean Ricky Feller

0:19:05.240 --> 0:19:06.919
<v Speaker 4>had to go into the locker room, and I mean

0:19:06.960 --> 0:19:08.719
<v Speaker 4>he came out and his eyes were red. He had

0:19:08.760 --> 0:19:11.680
<v Speaker 4>been crying. And then text Am goes on to win,

0:19:11.760 --> 0:19:15.480
<v Speaker 4>and my friend Matt the Great, the late great ROMBLICKI

0:19:15.520 --> 0:19:18.280
<v Speaker 4>wrote this great article about how Matt this like upstanding,

0:19:18.320 --> 0:19:23.320
<v Speaker 4>like good GPA community service, all this stuff helped text

0:19:23.320 --> 0:19:26.040
<v Speaker 4>am win with, you know, by being the fifth man

0:19:26.080 --> 0:19:28.840
<v Speaker 4>who's the throat score contributions greater than his his golf.

0:19:28.880 --> 0:19:30.240
<v Speaker 4>I think was the way they phrased it, which base

0:19:30.400 --> 0:19:32.360
<v Speaker 4>was like it wasn't that good, but like he did

0:19:32.400 --> 0:19:34.520
<v Speaker 4>help them win, and he has the ring to prove it.

0:19:34.560 --> 0:19:36.919
<v Speaker 4>So we always joke about that as well. But I

0:19:36.920 --> 0:19:39.320
<v Speaker 4>mean it was Brian Harmon in a nutshell of a

0:19:39.440 --> 0:19:43.879
<v Speaker 4>very just a good competitor, good ship on his shoulder

0:19:43.920 --> 0:19:45.200
<v Speaker 4>that I think we saw this week. And actually I

0:19:45.200 --> 0:19:49.879
<v Speaker 4>do have one more texting with Justin Huber about about

0:19:50.240 --> 0:19:51.800
<v Speaker 4>Brian Harmon, because I was looking at those two thousand

0:19:51.840 --> 0:19:54.200
<v Speaker 4>and four US Junior scores and I think Hubert lost

0:19:54.200 --> 0:19:58.320
<v Speaker 4>to him by twenty four and Justin says he warmed

0:19:58.400 --> 0:20:01.520
<v Speaker 4>up to him. Warmed up next at the Olympic Club range.

0:20:01.520 --> 0:20:03.560
<v Speaker 4>He says he was a better wedge player fifteen than

0:20:03.560 --> 0:20:06.199
<v Speaker 4>I ever was. He hit the pan at least twice

0:20:06.240 --> 0:20:08.040
<v Speaker 4>and hit probably ten out of ten from one hundred

0:20:08.080 --> 0:20:09.920
<v Speaker 4>yards inside a four foot circle on the range next

0:20:09.920 --> 0:20:11.760
<v Speaker 4>to me. I thought I should go home. Then we

0:20:11.800 --> 0:20:13.359
<v Speaker 4>had a fog delay and he's laying on a couch

0:20:13.400 --> 0:20:15.560
<v Speaker 4>taking a nap during it, and I'm stressed out about

0:20:15.560 --> 0:20:17.679
<v Speaker 4>playing and he's just napping, goes out and shoots sixty

0:20:17.680 --> 0:20:21.720
<v Speaker 4>six sixty five, So pretty good story.

0:20:21.760 --> 0:20:23.720
<v Speaker 3>These are the kinds of stories that you hear about

0:20:23.920 --> 0:20:27.080
<v Speaker 3>Brian Harmon as an amateur. There's a bit of a

0:20:27.119 --> 0:20:30.639
<v Speaker 3>gap between I think how current golf fans view Brian

0:20:30.640 --> 0:20:35.320
<v Speaker 3>Harmon and how his peers and competitors do on the

0:20:35.359 --> 0:20:38.760
<v Speaker 3>PGA Tour, because if you ask tour pros who are

0:20:38.800 --> 0:20:43.080
<v Speaker 3>about Brian Harmon's age about the guy, they're like, no, seriously,

0:20:43.359 --> 0:20:48.040
<v Speaker 3>this guy is unbelievable, but he just didn't quite do

0:20:48.200 --> 0:20:51.880
<v Speaker 3>it in his career so far on the PGA Tour.

0:20:51.920 --> 0:20:54.639
<v Speaker 3>And he's in his mid thirties, so like, this has

0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:57.600
<v Speaker 3>been a long time. Why do you think his skill set?

0:20:57.640 --> 0:20:59.280
<v Speaker 3>I mean, he's been a really good pro. I don't

0:20:59.280 --> 0:21:03.359
<v Speaker 3>want to misrep present this. He's won two substantial PGA

0:21:03.440 --> 0:21:05.840
<v Speaker 3>Tour events, the John Deere Classic and the Wells Fargo,

0:21:06.480 --> 0:21:09.119
<v Speaker 3>as well as the QBE Shootout, which everybody seems to

0:21:09.400 --> 0:21:13.360
<v Speaker 3>forget that he won with He one with Patton Kauseaire.

0:21:13.440 --> 0:21:16.600
<v Speaker 3>I believe it was either okay, I was gonna Sayton

0:21:16.600 --> 0:21:18.679
<v Speaker 3>because I or Jason Kokrak is one of those. But

0:21:19.000 --> 0:21:23.920
<v Speaker 3>in any case, Harmon wasn't as dominant as a pro

0:21:24.080 --> 0:21:26.600
<v Speaker 3>as he was as an amateur, especially initially when he

0:21:26.640 --> 0:21:29.360
<v Speaker 3>was on the many tours and kind of struggling. Why

0:21:29.359 --> 0:21:32.840
<v Speaker 3>do you think his skill set didn't immediately translate to

0:21:32.880 --> 0:21:35.080
<v Speaker 3>the PGA Tour. Do you have a theory about that

0:21:35.320 --> 0:21:37.439
<v Speaker 3>or is it just kind of the randomness of golf.

0:21:38.000 --> 0:21:39.800
<v Speaker 4>I thought he had a great quote about it this

0:21:39.840 --> 0:21:42.399
<v Speaker 4>week when asked about it, when he said that he

0:21:42.480 --> 0:21:45.000
<v Speaker 4>played just so freely as a junior, and you can

0:21:45.080 --> 0:21:46.840
<v Speaker 4>kind of see. I mean, people got on about the

0:21:46.880 --> 0:21:51.040
<v Speaker 4>waggles and the amount of waggles there were, but I

0:21:51.040 --> 0:21:53.560
<v Speaker 4>think he's fairly quick in his decision making, and even

0:21:53.600 --> 0:21:57.760
<v Speaker 4>in the waggles, he's he's quick, and he's moving. He's

0:21:57.760 --> 0:22:00.560
<v Speaker 4>not kind of and so I he just kind of

0:22:00.640 --> 0:22:02.480
<v Speaker 4>is rapid fire. I think when things are going well,

0:22:02.520 --> 0:22:04.160
<v Speaker 4>and so I think when he was a junior, things

0:22:04.160 --> 0:22:06.600
<v Speaker 4>are rolling, He's winning everything. You know, he said nobody

0:22:06.600 --> 0:22:12.000
<v Speaker 4>could beat me. I think he just was free wheeling,

0:22:12.119 --> 0:22:14.480
<v Speaker 4>you know, And you get to the tour and you

0:22:14.480 --> 0:22:17.080
<v Speaker 4>get to harder golf courses, there's more trouble, there's more rough,

0:22:17.119 --> 0:22:20.400
<v Speaker 4>the fairways are narrower, the greens are firmer, and if

0:22:20.440 --> 0:22:22.720
<v Speaker 4>you don't have I think that easily can kind of

0:22:23.160 --> 0:22:25.200
<v Speaker 4>some doubt can creep in, especially when you're someone who's

0:22:25.200 --> 0:22:27.440
<v Speaker 4>had success at so many levels. And even he said

0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:30.159
<v Speaker 4>no one junior golf could beat him, which was I mean,

0:22:30.200 --> 0:22:31.840
<v Speaker 4>it wasn't even really being braggadocia. I think it was

0:22:31.920 --> 0:22:34.720
<v Speaker 4>kind of true. But then he gets out, you know,

0:22:34.880 --> 0:22:36.919
<v Speaker 4>college golf, there's more players who are good, and then

0:22:37.280 --> 0:22:39.240
<v Speaker 4>has some struggles off the bat as a pro and

0:22:39.240 --> 0:22:42.200
<v Speaker 4>I think you just realize there's tons of good players here.

0:22:43.040 --> 0:22:44.879
<v Speaker 4>There's our guys who can beat me, There's thousands of

0:22:44.920 --> 0:22:46.720
<v Speaker 4>guys who can beat me, he said. And so I

0:22:46.800 --> 0:22:49.280
<v Speaker 4>think just that you lose that free wheeling self a

0:22:49.320 --> 0:22:52.920
<v Speaker 4>little bit, and you get a little cautious, get a

0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:55.120
<v Speaker 4>little doubt, And I think I definitely think that's part

0:22:55.119 --> 0:22:57.760
<v Speaker 4>of it. And I think too, it's just you know,

0:22:57.800 --> 0:22:59.920
<v Speaker 4>you look at it and it is like it's not sex,

0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:04.960
<v Speaker 4>but it's this incredible consistency. You know, he's kept his card.

0:23:04.960 --> 0:23:06.720
<v Speaker 4>I think he said twelve straight years, which he's really

0:23:06.760 --> 0:23:09.680
<v Speaker 4>proud of, and there is something to that. It's it's

0:23:09.680 --> 0:23:11.480
<v Speaker 4>not sexy, and I know he expected more out of

0:23:11.520 --> 0:23:13.800
<v Speaker 4>himself and more and people expected more out of him.

0:23:13.840 --> 0:23:19.639
<v Speaker 4>But maybe it's a lack of length, but it's just

0:23:19.680 --> 0:23:22.800
<v Speaker 4>a it didn't really pop until like this week, and

0:23:22.840 --> 0:23:24.639
<v Speaker 4>then even at the Wells Farga would be a great field.

0:23:24.640 --> 0:23:27.840
<v Speaker 4>But I don't know, I really don't know. It's a

0:23:27.880 --> 0:23:29.760
<v Speaker 4>it's a strange game, and I think there's a lot

0:23:29.760 --> 0:23:33.359
<v Speaker 4>of guys like Brian Harmon's. You know, I tweeted that

0:23:33.520 --> 0:23:35.399
<v Speaker 4>his career kind of has the ebbs and flows that

0:23:35.600 --> 0:23:40.480
<v Speaker 4>most do over this time period, and I think it's

0:23:40.520 --> 0:23:42.280
<v Speaker 4>just the nature of the game. And I mean, I

0:23:42.359 --> 0:23:44.320
<v Speaker 4>kind of it sounds bad, but I kind of refer

0:23:44.400 --> 0:23:46.679
<v Speaker 4>to him in a text as the next Jimmy Walker,

0:23:46.760 --> 0:23:50.560
<v Speaker 4>which honestly that sounds like a slight but it's really not.

0:23:50.920 --> 0:23:51.800
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:23:51.960 --> 0:23:53.760
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, ask Andy to pull up the list of Feedest

0:23:53.760 --> 0:23:55.399
<v Speaker 4>Cup number ones, and I mean, he's all over it.

0:23:55.440 --> 0:23:57.520
<v Speaker 4>But you know, he played on multiple national teams, won

0:23:57.600 --> 0:24:01.560
<v Speaker 4>a major one eight times, let's say, and so this

0:24:01.600 --> 0:24:03.960
<v Speaker 4>could be the catalyst for Brian Harmon who realize he

0:24:03.960 --> 0:24:06.639
<v Speaker 4>can beat some people and do some of the stuff

0:24:06.640 --> 0:24:08.080
<v Speaker 4>he did. But I think I do think, you know,

0:24:08.080 --> 0:24:11.040
<v Speaker 4>you see it even with guys like Speef and when

0:24:11.080 --> 0:24:12.760
<v Speaker 4>guys come out and get on a heater right out

0:24:12.760 --> 0:24:15.400
<v Speaker 4>of the gate, that there's periods in your life where

0:24:15.400 --> 0:24:17.840
<v Speaker 4>nothing can go wrong, and then when that first thing

0:24:17.880 --> 0:24:20.840
<v Speaker 4>goes wrong, it can take a while to get over it. Right,

0:24:21.680 --> 0:24:23.639
<v Speaker 4>you get punched in the face the first time, like

0:24:24.080 --> 0:24:25.879
<v Speaker 4>you know, you go through these. When Speed came out,

0:24:25.960 --> 0:24:28.200
<v Speaker 4>he was rolling and winning everything and all the putts

0:24:28.200 --> 0:24:32.920
<v Speaker 4>are going in and life's easy, and it's it's hard

0:24:32.920 --> 0:24:34.840
<v Speaker 4>one to get hit in the mouth the first time,

0:24:34.960 --> 0:24:36.199
<v Speaker 4>and so there could be some of that as well

0:24:36.240 --> 0:24:38.320
<v Speaker 4>that takes while to come over and get that confidence back.

0:24:39.359 --> 0:24:44.560
<v Speaker 3>So I have kind of a philosophical wondering that's related

0:24:44.600 --> 0:24:48.080
<v Speaker 3>to what you're talking about here. This whole story would

0:24:48.080 --> 0:24:51.880
<v Speaker 3>seem to have some kind of appeal. A guy who

0:24:52.000 --> 0:24:57.080
<v Speaker 3>is incredible as a junior, doesn't quite live up to

0:24:57.119 --> 0:25:00.879
<v Speaker 3>expectations when he turns pro, has a solid career but

0:25:01.000 --> 0:25:05.639
<v Speaker 3>not an extraordinary one, and then he arrives at the

0:25:05.680 --> 0:25:11.120
<v Speaker 3>Open Championship and he absolutely obliterates the field with frankly

0:25:11.359 --> 0:25:15.520
<v Speaker 3>beautiful golf. You would think that this story would be

0:25:15.720 --> 0:25:19.720
<v Speaker 3>very appealing to a lot of golf fans, and I

0:25:19.720 --> 0:25:22.199
<v Speaker 3>think it probably is appealing to some golf fans, but

0:25:22.200 --> 0:25:24.360
<v Speaker 3>there's also a lot of people that we've heard from

0:25:24.359 --> 0:25:28.520
<v Speaker 3>this week who are unhappy about seeing somebody like Brian

0:25:28.560 --> 0:25:32.000
<v Speaker 3>Harmon dominate this tournament. And there's a couple of threads

0:25:32.040 --> 0:25:34.000
<v Speaker 3>to that. One is that he ran away with it

0:25:34.400 --> 0:25:36.640
<v Speaker 3>and there was never really any threat to his lead,

0:25:37.080 --> 0:25:39.600
<v Speaker 3>and so we didn't get to see a really dynamic

0:25:39.880 --> 0:25:44.280
<v Speaker 3>tournament where the outcome was at all in doubt at

0:25:44.359 --> 0:25:47.400
<v Speaker 3>any point except for maybe a few times early on

0:25:47.480 --> 0:25:51.000
<v Speaker 3>Saturday or early on Sunday. But the other thread to

0:25:51.040 --> 0:25:55.320
<v Speaker 3>it is that often golf fans just don't really love

0:25:55.440 --> 0:25:59.520
<v Speaker 3>seeing an underdog win. I believe that if John rahm

0:25:59.720 --> 0:26:03.760
<v Speaker 3>Orry McElroy we're running away with this tournament, that fans

0:26:03.800 --> 0:26:06.800
<v Speaker 3>would be more riveted to it. And so I wonder

0:26:06.840 --> 0:26:10.199
<v Speaker 3>why you think that in golf we don't root for

0:26:10.240 --> 0:26:14.199
<v Speaker 3>the underdog more, or that underdog stories don't seem to

0:26:14.280 --> 0:26:18.680
<v Speaker 3>have the appeal that they do in other sports.

0:26:18.920 --> 0:26:22.560
<v Speaker 4>I think it's the where were you win? Factor? So

0:26:22.920 --> 0:26:25.640
<v Speaker 4>you see some dominant win by Rom or Rory, who

0:26:25.680 --> 0:26:28.720
<v Speaker 4>are putting on Hall of Fame careers, they are all

0:26:28.760 --> 0:26:32.760
<v Speaker 4>time greats, and you can kind of remember where you

0:26:32.880 --> 0:26:37.200
<v Speaker 4>were when they won this tournament by you know, ten shots,

0:26:37.359 --> 0:26:39.960
<v Speaker 4>and you remember where you were when they put on

0:26:40.000 --> 0:26:44.639
<v Speaker 4>this all time historic performance. And I mean, the odds

0:26:44.680 --> 0:26:48.280
<v Speaker 4>are that Brian Harmon's Open Championship win is going to

0:26:49.000 --> 0:26:51.200
<v Speaker 4>just kind of be lost to history. You know, we'll

0:26:51.240 --> 0:26:53.080
<v Speaker 4>move on. It's I mean, you have to have a

0:26:53.119 --> 0:26:54.520
<v Speaker 4>heck of a career to become a Hall of Famer,

0:26:54.600 --> 0:26:59.160
<v Speaker 4>let's say. And so I think that it's not gonna

0:26:59.160 --> 0:27:00.800
<v Speaker 4>be one that you're going to tell your kids about

0:27:00.840 --> 0:27:04.399
<v Speaker 4>right that you saw this one, whereas with Rory or

0:27:04.440 --> 0:27:06.200
<v Speaker 4>rom it could be you know, where were you when

0:27:06.240 --> 0:27:10.080
<v Speaker 4>Tiger won the Masters by by twelve? Where were you

0:27:10.200 --> 0:27:11.840
<v Speaker 4>when I mean, I remember where I was when the

0:27:11.960 --> 0:27:16.560
<v Speaker 4>ninety nine Ryder Cup happened. It's just it's different when

0:27:16.560 --> 0:27:18.640
<v Speaker 4>a star wins. You feel like you're I think because

0:27:18.680 --> 0:27:22.879
<v Speaker 4>you don't have the team dynamic of other sports, where

0:27:25.040 --> 0:27:27.520
<v Speaker 4>you know, if your team is in it, you're rooting

0:27:27.560 --> 0:27:29.320
<v Speaker 4>for your team, but if they're not, then you're probably

0:27:29.359 --> 0:27:35.159
<v Speaker 4>rooting for the underdog. You're in part because when Butler wins,

0:27:35.240 --> 0:27:37.600
<v Speaker 4>or George Mason or whoever you that's the same. It's

0:27:37.600 --> 0:27:38.960
<v Speaker 4>the opposite side of it, but it is the where

0:27:38.960 --> 0:27:41.840
<v Speaker 4>were you win? You know, I remember when FAU made

0:27:41.840 --> 0:27:42.760
<v Speaker 4>its final four run.

0:27:42.840 --> 0:27:46.240
<v Speaker 3>Let's say, yeah, they're like beating Duke or something, yeah,

0:27:46.359 --> 0:27:48.800
<v Speaker 3>or North Carolina, you know which is. You know, if

0:27:48.800 --> 0:27:51.320
<v Speaker 3>you're not a fan of one of those teams, then

0:27:51.359 --> 0:27:54.040
<v Speaker 3>you like to see them lose. Yeah, But that's not

0:27:54.119 --> 0:27:57.119
<v Speaker 3>really the case with dominant golfers very much. With Rory

0:27:57.160 --> 0:27:59.480
<v Speaker 3>and rom you know, most fans I think want to

0:27:59.480 --> 0:28:00.000
<v Speaker 3>see them win.

0:28:00.880 --> 0:28:05.560
<v Speaker 4>They do, and I think it is funny how it is.

0:28:05.640 --> 0:28:07.560
<v Speaker 4>It is so different. I look at you know, I

0:28:07.600 --> 0:28:09.840
<v Speaker 4>look at a win like Harmon, like yeah, I mean

0:28:10.680 --> 0:28:14.000
<v Speaker 4>as a writer, I know, like writing Roaring Ram, you're

0:28:14.000 --> 0:28:17.920
<v Speaker 4>writing something of historical significance, significance possibly whereas but like Harmon,

0:28:17.960 --> 0:28:20.480
<v Speaker 4>I look at a guy like Brian Harmon, who you know,

0:28:20.560 --> 0:28:22.320
<v Speaker 4>he shows up to the golf course every day for

0:28:22.720 --> 0:28:25.399
<v Speaker 4>however many years and hits balls and goes to this

0:28:25.440 --> 0:28:28.919
<v Speaker 4>whole routine, you know, hoping to win a major, thinking

0:28:28.960 --> 0:28:31.880
<v Speaker 4>he could win a major, seeing guys who he's probably

0:28:31.920 --> 0:28:37.200
<v Speaker 4>better than win a major, but it hasn't happened for

0:28:37.280 --> 0:28:39.920
<v Speaker 4>him until now, And just what it would be like

0:28:40.040 --> 0:28:41.520
<v Speaker 4>and how to even relate it to my own life

0:28:41.560 --> 0:28:47.600
<v Speaker 4>of just doing something consistently for ten fifteen years with

0:28:47.680 --> 0:28:49.920
<v Speaker 4>no idea what the result is going to be, and

0:28:50.080 --> 0:28:55.240
<v Speaker 4>just the discipline it takes to just keep doing it

0:28:55.520 --> 0:28:58.880
<v Speaker 4>with no idea what the outcome is going to be.

0:28:58.920 --> 0:29:00.720
<v Speaker 4>You know, I think so much I look at my

0:29:00.760 --> 0:29:02.640
<v Speaker 4>own life of like I like to tweet and then

0:29:02.640 --> 0:29:05.040
<v Speaker 4>see how many people like the tweet right because instant.

0:29:05.440 --> 0:29:07.400
<v Speaker 4>But I'm like, what if I picked something that really

0:29:07.440 --> 0:29:09.640
<v Speaker 4>meant a lot to me? You know? He talked to

0:29:09.680 --> 0:29:13.479
<v Speaker 4>this week about someone told him to do something that

0:29:14.160 --> 0:29:16.040
<v Speaker 4>when you're doing it you lose track of time, that

0:29:16.360 --> 0:29:19.080
<v Speaker 4>you love it that much that while you're doing that activity,

0:29:19.160 --> 0:29:21.360
<v Speaker 4>the world melts away. Kind of, I was like, well,

0:29:21.360 --> 0:29:24.080
<v Speaker 4>what if I just you know, picked something, figure out

0:29:24.120 --> 0:29:26.200
<v Speaker 4>what that was for me, spend ten years on it,

0:29:26.240 --> 0:29:28.440
<v Speaker 4>Let's say writing a book, being a writer. What if

0:29:28.480 --> 0:29:29.920
<v Speaker 4>I just said I'm gonna write a book and I'm

0:29:29.920 --> 0:29:33.400
<v Speaker 4>gonna spend an hour a day on it for ten years.

0:29:33.920 --> 0:29:36.240
<v Speaker 4>It may not be good, it may sell be a

0:29:36.280 --> 0:29:38.479
<v Speaker 4>best seller, it may do nothing, but I'm I'm going

0:29:38.520 --> 0:29:40.520
<v Speaker 4>to go down this path with no idea how it ends,

0:29:40.960 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 4>and just keep going down this path that to me

0:29:43.120 --> 0:29:45.440
<v Speaker 4>is really admirable and something frankly that I would love

0:29:45.480 --> 0:29:48.160
<v Speaker 4>to see in my own life. And for Brian Harmon,

0:29:48.200 --> 0:29:50.120
<v Speaker 4>that's you know, that's what this has been. He shows

0:29:50.160 --> 0:29:52.440
<v Speaker 4>up every day and he hits balls and goes through

0:29:52.440 --> 0:29:55.440
<v Speaker 4>his drills and you know, does the same stuff and

0:29:55.480 --> 0:29:58.480
<v Speaker 4>plays a bazillion tournaments a year and has played probably

0:29:58.480 --> 0:30:01.000
<v Speaker 4>five hundred golf tournaments in his life, thinking of you

0:30:01.040 --> 0:30:02.760
<v Speaker 4>when the British Open one day, but never knowing, and

0:30:02.760 --> 0:30:04.840
<v Speaker 4>then he finally does. And I mean, the satisfaction that

0:30:04.920 --> 0:30:07.240
<v Speaker 4>has to bring is immense.

0:30:07.440 --> 0:30:11.360
<v Speaker 3>And we should appreciate that. And yet somehow it's hard

0:30:11.400 --> 0:30:14.360
<v Speaker 3>to engulf. But once you put it that way and

0:30:14.440 --> 0:30:17.560
<v Speaker 3>you try to relate to it, then it certainly becomes

0:30:17.840 --> 0:30:22.880
<v Speaker 3>more meaningful because this type of achievement is frankly more,

0:30:24.080 --> 0:30:26.680
<v Speaker 3>I want to say, it's more common just across life,

0:30:27.160 --> 0:30:31.360
<v Speaker 3>right where you work at something hard through your twenties

0:30:31.960 --> 0:30:35.360
<v Speaker 3>into your thirties and then it starts to pay off.

0:30:35.880 --> 0:30:42.440
<v Speaker 3>Usually people aren't successful or acclaimed right away right like

0:30:42.520 --> 0:30:47.520
<v Speaker 3>some recent great golfers have been. Usually, just in life,

0:30:47.920 --> 0:30:51.640
<v Speaker 3>it takes us a while to find our thing and

0:30:51.720 --> 0:30:55.200
<v Speaker 3>to develop that skill set and that set of achievements

0:30:55.600 --> 0:30:57.800
<v Speaker 3>that then eventually pays off. And so that's what we

0:30:57.840 --> 0:31:01.080
<v Speaker 3>saw with Brian Harmon this week. That should be satisfying.

0:31:01.520 --> 0:31:03.440
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, I mean for Rory and Rahm in some ways,

0:31:03.480 --> 0:31:06.280
<v Speaker 4>it's probably easier to go to the driving range every day.

0:31:06.320 --> 0:31:08.200
<v Speaker 4>It's like, man, if I keep work and keep working this,

0:31:08.280 --> 0:31:10.680
<v Speaker 4>I'm probably gonna pick off a major, win a bunch

0:31:10.720 --> 0:31:12.920
<v Speaker 4>of big tournaments, you know, add to my Hall of

0:31:12.920 --> 0:31:15.120
<v Speaker 4>Fame career. But for like Brian Harmon, who spent twelve

0:31:15.200 --> 0:31:19.360
<v Speaker 4>years on tour, he's won twice. I mean, obviously it

0:31:19.360 --> 0:31:21.320
<v Speaker 4>provides a very nice living for your family and you

0:31:21.400 --> 0:31:25.600
<v Speaker 4>need to do that. But you show to the golf

0:31:25.600 --> 0:31:29.680
<v Speaker 4>course just not knowing what's going to come out of it.

0:31:29.720 --> 0:31:32.560
<v Speaker 4>I don't know. To me, it'd be easy to become

0:31:32.600 --> 0:31:39.920
<v Speaker 4>cynical or give up, or become lackadaisical. And you know,

0:31:40.080 --> 0:31:42.720
<v Speaker 4>I think Brian Harmon, though, I really like that quote

0:31:42.720 --> 0:31:47.440
<v Speaker 4>about doing something where the world melts away while you're

0:31:47.480 --> 0:31:50.520
<v Speaker 4>doing it, where time just you forget about time, because

0:31:50.520 --> 0:31:51.959
<v Speaker 4>I think we look at Brian Harmon we're like, oh,

0:31:51.960 --> 0:31:55.600
<v Speaker 4>it's from Georgia Haunt's Simple Story whatever. But to me,

0:31:55.800 --> 0:31:59.080
<v Speaker 4>he's actually a really pretty introspective guy who really loves

0:31:59.120 --> 0:32:02.320
<v Speaker 4>golf down with him in twenty seventeen, after the after

0:32:02.360 --> 0:32:04.920
<v Speaker 4>Aaron Hills, just to kind of do an interview because

0:32:04.960 --> 0:32:06.720
<v Speaker 4>that looked like maybe that was when Brian Harmon was

0:32:06.760 --> 0:32:10.479
<v Speaker 4>finally gonna, you know, reach this level that we all

0:32:10.480 --> 0:32:12.840
<v Speaker 4>thought he was, or fulfill all the expectations. He'd come

0:32:12.880 --> 0:32:14.960
<v Speaker 4>close to Aaron Hills, he'd won earlier that year at

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:17.560
<v Speaker 4>Wells Fargo being a good field, and so it seemed

0:32:17.600 --> 0:32:20.000
<v Speaker 4>like that was when Brian Harmon was going to break out.

0:32:20.040 --> 0:32:24.080
<v Speaker 4>And he gave this really good quote about he was

0:32:24.120 --> 0:32:26.360
<v Speaker 4>at the Humana that back then the Palm Springs event,

0:32:26.600 --> 0:32:28.280
<v Speaker 4>and it was his thirtieth birthday and he's having a

0:32:28.280 --> 0:32:31.000
<v Speaker 4>barbecue and he's just like he's like, man, I turned thirty.

0:32:31.040 --> 0:32:33.880
<v Speaker 4>I'm like the end is near. Not so much like

0:32:33.920 --> 0:32:36.920
<v Speaker 4>I'm gonna die tomorrow. But you know, earlier in your life,

0:32:36.960 --> 0:32:40.360
<v Speaker 4>you know, you graduate high school, graduate college, you meet someone,

0:32:40.400 --> 0:32:42.640
<v Speaker 4>you get married, you have kids. There's always like milestones, right,

0:32:42.640 --> 0:32:43.800
<v Speaker 4>but you hit a certain point in your life where

0:32:43.800 --> 0:32:46.880
<v Speaker 4>you stop hitting those milestones and is like, Okay, most

0:32:46.880 --> 0:32:48.320
<v Speaker 4>of my career is actually behind me, and so if

0:32:48.360 --> 0:32:51.200
<v Speaker 4>I want to accomplish the things that I think that

0:32:51.200 --> 0:32:53.360
<v Speaker 4>I should accomplish and want to accomplish, like I need

0:32:53.360 --> 0:32:56.080
<v Speaker 4>to take this thing seriously. And it was just a

0:32:56.120 --> 0:32:59.200
<v Speaker 4>really interesting it was partly pondering his mortality. It was

0:32:59.240 --> 0:33:01.640
<v Speaker 4>mostly about golf, but it was it was a really

0:33:01.640 --> 0:33:04.400
<v Speaker 4>interesting perspective I've really never heard fromyone before of like

0:33:05.520 --> 0:33:07.880
<v Speaker 4>of just pondering the end. I mean, this is the

0:33:07.880 --> 0:33:09.479
<v Speaker 4>way he phrased it. So the end was the end

0:33:09.520 --> 0:33:11.440
<v Speaker 4>is approaching kind of more of his golf grouper, I

0:33:11.440 --> 0:33:13.160
<v Speaker 4>think also his life and also too so when he

0:33:13.160 --> 0:33:15.560
<v Speaker 4>gets the end of his life knowing like, hey, did

0:33:15.560 --> 0:33:17.680
<v Speaker 4>I really accomplish the things I wanted to? And did

0:33:17.680 --> 0:33:19.400
<v Speaker 4>I do the things necessary to accomplish the things that

0:33:19.440 --> 0:33:22.320
<v Speaker 4>I wanted to? So I always have found that really interesting.

0:33:22.960 --> 0:33:24.440
<v Speaker 4>I think some of those quotes come out this week too,

0:33:24.440 --> 0:33:27.240
<v Speaker 4>that he's act, he's a pretty he's a he gives

0:33:27.240 --> 0:33:29.360
<v Speaker 4>good quotes, he's a good thinker, he thinks about things.

0:33:29.360 --> 0:33:29.680
<v Speaker 4>I think.

0:33:30.440 --> 0:33:33.680
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, that's uh, that's that's something that people should read

0:33:33.800 --> 0:33:37.560
<v Speaker 3>up on. Brian Harmon is certainly not just another sort

0:33:37.560 --> 0:33:41.080
<v Speaker 3>of assembly line pro from Georgia, although he has some

0:33:41.200 --> 0:33:45.160
<v Speaker 3>elements of that in him, he also has definitely something

0:33:45.200 --> 0:33:48.360
<v Speaker 3>else about him. All Right, Sean as always really fun

0:33:48.360 --> 0:33:51.479
<v Speaker 3>to talk to you. Let's take another break here, and

0:33:51.760 --> 0:33:54.640
<v Speaker 3>after that, I'm going to bring on Joseph Lamania to

0:33:54.720 --> 0:34:03.680
<v Speaker 3>chat about the golf course. This episode of the Frida

0:34:03.680 --> 0:34:07.200
<v Speaker 3>Egg Podcast is brought to you by Gooder Gooder mikes

0:34:07.320 --> 0:34:11.240
<v Speaker 3>twenty five dollars active sunglasses that don't slip, don't bounce,

0:34:11.400 --> 0:34:15.680
<v Speaker 3>and are one hundred percent polarized. My personal favorite pair

0:34:15.800 --> 0:34:18.799
<v Speaker 3>of Gooders is called Just Knock It On. They're in

0:34:18.880 --> 0:34:22.760
<v Speaker 3>what Gooder calls the BFG style. This is for large

0:34:22.840 --> 0:34:25.440
<v Speaker 3>noggins and I just wear them all the time. I

0:34:25.480 --> 0:34:27.879
<v Speaker 3>wear them everywhere. I wear them when I go out

0:34:27.920 --> 0:34:30.799
<v Speaker 3>to play golf. I recently took them out on the

0:34:30.880 --> 0:34:34.360
<v Speaker 3>lake for a stand up paddle boarding and kayaking trip.

0:34:34.719 --> 0:34:36.880
<v Speaker 3>That's something we've been doing more of this summer, my

0:34:36.880 --> 0:34:39.960
<v Speaker 3>family and I. We've got a new stand up paddle

0:34:39.960 --> 0:34:42.919
<v Speaker 3>board and our friends have some kayaks and we've been

0:34:42.920 --> 0:34:45.880
<v Speaker 3>getting out on some lakes and rivers in the Pacific Northwest.

0:34:45.880 --> 0:34:48.680
<v Speaker 3>It's been really fun. But what you need is a

0:34:48.719 --> 0:34:52.000
<v Speaker 3>really solid pair of sunglasses that just stays on your

0:34:52.040 --> 0:34:56.279
<v Speaker 3>face and functions well. And this pair of Gooders that

0:34:56.280 --> 0:34:58.719
<v Speaker 3>I have that just knock it on are very light.

0:34:59.080 --> 0:35:03.680
<v Speaker 3>They sit nice, uncomfortable, steady on my face. They're again

0:35:03.760 --> 0:35:06.680
<v Speaker 3>one hundred percent polarized, and you don't have to be

0:35:07.160 --> 0:35:10.040
<v Speaker 3>super precious about them because they're just twenty five dollars

0:35:10.080 --> 0:35:14.600
<v Speaker 3>and it's not a huge tragedy if you happen for

0:35:14.640 --> 0:35:17.239
<v Speaker 3>some reason to lose them. So, if you want to

0:35:17.280 --> 0:35:19.760
<v Speaker 3>support the show and pick up a pair of Gooders,

0:35:20.160 --> 0:35:24.239
<v Speaker 3>Gooder is giving Fridagg listeners free shipping on your first order.

0:35:24.520 --> 0:35:28.080
<v Speaker 3>You can go to Gooder dot com slash TFE and

0:35:28.320 --> 0:35:32.640
<v Speaker 3>use the code TFE to get free shipping. Gooder offers

0:35:32.680 --> 0:35:36.960
<v Speaker 3>a thirty day money back guarantee and one hundred percent satisfaction.

0:35:37.480 --> 0:35:40.760
<v Speaker 3>So find your pair at g oo d r dot

0:35:40.760 --> 0:35:45.360
<v Speaker 3>com slash tfe and use code TFE to get free shipping.

0:35:45.800 --> 0:35:54.080
<v Speaker 3>Right back to the episode, Joseph Lemania, the final Men's

0:35:54.120 --> 0:35:57.080
<v Speaker 3>major of the year is in the books. Are you

0:35:57.320 --> 0:35:59.280
<v Speaker 3>sad or are you relieved?

0:35:59.640 --> 0:36:03.200
<v Speaker 2>What do you mean that the Tour Championships in August? No,

0:36:03.480 --> 0:36:09.120
<v Speaker 2>I'm both. I'm sad, but it's also like, scarcity is

0:36:09.160 --> 0:36:12.440
<v Speaker 2>what we advocate for, right, So I'm glad they are

0:36:12.480 --> 0:36:15.320
<v Speaker 2>only for majors. It's special that we get to experience

0:36:15.360 --> 0:36:17.440
<v Speaker 2>them in the windows that they exist, and then the

0:36:17.480 --> 0:36:20.560
<v Speaker 2>wait until next April. There's something nice about it. So

0:36:21.280 --> 0:36:24.120
<v Speaker 2>mixed emotions, but I actually really enjoyed this Open Championship.

0:36:24.719 --> 0:36:28.400
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I enjoyed many aspects of it as well. Not

0:36:28.640 --> 0:36:32.920
<v Speaker 3>everybody was as into it as we were, perhaps, but

0:36:33.480 --> 0:36:36.760
<v Speaker 3>one of the reasons you and I were more into

0:36:36.800 --> 0:36:39.280
<v Speaker 3>it than a lot of people is that the course

0:36:39.719 --> 0:36:43.399
<v Speaker 3>was really interesting to watch be played. And so that's

0:36:43.480 --> 0:36:45.719
<v Speaker 3>what we're going to talk about here. I asked you

0:36:45.800 --> 0:36:48.040
<v Speaker 3>to come up with three different takes on the golf

0:36:48.080 --> 0:36:51.000
<v Speaker 3>course or all Liverpool. Of course, as always, you tend

0:36:51.040 --> 0:36:53.640
<v Speaker 3>to approach things from a competitive perspective, you know, how

0:36:53.680 --> 0:36:56.879
<v Speaker 3>the course plays for a field of elite players. There's

0:36:56.880 --> 0:37:00.080
<v Speaker 3>a separate discussion to be had about the aesthetics of

0:37:00.120 --> 0:37:03.040
<v Speaker 3>Hoylake and some of the recent design changes that have

0:37:03.120 --> 0:37:05.640
<v Speaker 3>been made there. I'm actually going to write a bit

0:37:05.719 --> 0:37:08.800
<v Speaker 3>about that for the Fried Egg, But what we're talking

0:37:08.800 --> 0:37:12.000
<v Speaker 3>about right now is slightly different, focusing more on the

0:37:12.040 --> 0:37:16.719
<v Speaker 3>strategic and testing aspects of the course. So what's the

0:37:16.719 --> 0:37:18.719
<v Speaker 3>first thing you want to touch on it when it

0:37:18.719 --> 0:37:19.680
<v Speaker 3>comes to Royal Liverpool.

0:37:20.200 --> 0:37:22.600
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, hot button issue is the internal out of

0:37:22.640 --> 0:37:27.080
<v Speaker 2>bounds I think, especially leading up to the tournament, there

0:37:27.120 --> 0:37:29.799
<v Speaker 2>was a mixture of opinions on it. I think once

0:37:29.800 --> 0:37:34.280
<v Speaker 2>the tournament started most people were into it. I'm very

0:37:34.320 --> 0:37:37.000
<v Speaker 2>pro the internal out of bounds that was on three

0:37:37.040 --> 0:37:40.680
<v Speaker 2>and eighteen. As you've noted multiple times throughout the week.

0:37:40.760 --> 0:37:43.560
<v Speaker 2>Important to note that those are not artificial lines like

0:37:43.600 --> 0:37:46.360
<v Speaker 2>there's a berm in there, and it they serve a purpose.

0:37:46.640 --> 0:37:50.120
<v Speaker 2>It denotes the practice range. But that like that aside,

0:37:50.840 --> 0:37:55.200
<v Speaker 2>it's important. But even that aside, if it were artificial,

0:37:55.680 --> 0:37:57.319
<v Speaker 2>I shouldn't say that I would sign off on it

0:37:57.360 --> 0:38:00.200
<v Speaker 2>if it were artificial. But I'm a huge fan of

0:38:00.280 --> 0:38:02.279
<v Speaker 2>the internal out of bounds on those holes and the

0:38:02.320 --> 0:38:06.520
<v Speaker 2>strategic test that it presented. I've heard some calls for like, well,

0:38:06.640 --> 0:38:09.000
<v Speaker 2>is out of bounds rule a good rule? Like should

0:38:09.040 --> 0:38:11.279
<v Speaker 2>you really have to hit from the original position or

0:38:11.280 --> 0:38:15.440
<v Speaker 2>maybe should it be lateral hazard? Like no, I am

0:38:15.719 --> 0:38:18.440
<v Speaker 2>very here for having to rete when you hit a

0:38:18.480 --> 0:38:20.960
<v Speaker 2>shot into a spot that's out of bounds. I thought

0:38:21.000 --> 0:38:24.319
<v Speaker 2>it was unbelievable. It made three and eighteen infinitely more

0:38:24.360 --> 0:38:26.919
<v Speaker 2>exciting and it was something completely different than we see

0:38:26.960 --> 0:38:27.520
<v Speaker 2>most weeks.

0:38:27.719 --> 0:38:29.719
<v Speaker 1>So I thought that was like a star of.

0:38:29.640 --> 0:38:33.480
<v Speaker 2>The Major Championship, both those holes three and eighteen, right.

0:38:33.719 --> 0:38:36.479
<v Speaker 3>And so first of all, you mentioned that I've gone

0:38:36.480 --> 0:38:38.520
<v Speaker 3>through this a number of times this week on Twitter

0:38:38.600 --> 0:38:43.799
<v Speaker 3>and elsewhere. Once again, internal out of bounds is a

0:38:44.000 --> 0:38:48.680
<v Speaker 3>tricky term for what this actually is because at one

0:38:48.760 --> 0:38:51.920
<v Speaker 3>time it was not internal out of bounds. It was

0:38:52.000 --> 0:38:57.920
<v Speaker 3>not property that belonged to Royal Liverpool or Hoylake. It

0:38:58.000 --> 0:39:01.719
<v Speaker 3>was it was a separate of the property that the

0:39:01.719 --> 0:39:04.880
<v Speaker 3>golf course. You know, it wasn't part of the golf course.

0:39:05.080 --> 0:39:07.200
<v Speaker 3>I think when people hear internal lot out of bounds,

0:39:07.200 --> 0:39:10.360
<v Speaker 3>they automatically assume that it's like another part of the

0:39:10.400 --> 0:39:14.040
<v Speaker 3>golf course, another fair way or something that has been

0:39:14.680 --> 0:39:17.799
<v Speaker 3>somewhat arbitrarily marked as out of bounds, which is what

0:39:17.840 --> 0:39:21.839
<v Speaker 3>you've referred to as artificial internal out of bounds. So

0:39:22.120 --> 0:39:25.040
<v Speaker 3>that's one thing I think that the just the term

0:39:25.360 --> 0:39:27.640
<v Speaker 3>is what made people mad this week, as opposed to

0:39:28.440 --> 0:39:30.919
<v Speaker 3>what was actually on the ground at the golf course,

0:39:30.960 --> 0:39:36.879
<v Speaker 3>which is a historic burm and enclosure that have never

0:39:36.960 --> 0:39:41.480
<v Speaker 3>been an intended part of the course. But you mentioned

0:39:41.480 --> 0:39:44.760
<v Speaker 3>that you like the rule stroke in distance, the threat

0:39:44.800 --> 0:39:47.319
<v Speaker 3>of that penalty you think does some good things for

0:39:47.480 --> 0:39:49.840
<v Speaker 3>the strategy of the whole. I was unsure about this

0:39:50.000 --> 0:39:53.720
<v Speaker 3>myself going into the tournament. Would this make players too

0:39:53.760 --> 0:39:57.080
<v Speaker 3>conservative in their approach to these holes? Would it mean

0:39:57.120 --> 0:40:00.920
<v Speaker 3>that nobody challenged the hazards alone on the right side

0:40:01.080 --> 0:40:03.759
<v Speaker 3>of eighteen and three? And so what did you make

0:40:03.800 --> 0:40:05.640
<v Speaker 3>of that? Like, do you think it would have been

0:40:05.680 --> 0:40:10.160
<v Speaker 3>different if this had been just a hazard and a

0:40:10.200 --> 0:40:12.320
<v Speaker 3>stroke penalty as opposed to the stroke and distance.

0:40:13.200 --> 0:40:18.839
<v Speaker 2>Maybe, but players are conservative with water anyway, so it

0:40:18.920 --> 0:40:23.319
<v Speaker 2>might have had a slight difference, but not overly impactful.

0:40:23.360 --> 0:40:26.120
<v Speaker 2>But beyond that, like, I just think it plays much

0:40:26.160 --> 0:40:29.520
<v Speaker 2>more interestingly and it's much more intimidating. If you have

0:40:29.600 --> 0:40:33.040
<v Speaker 2>to hit another shot, like you've uncapped downside, you might

0:40:33.080 --> 0:40:35.600
<v Speaker 2>make a nine on that hole. If you spray a

0:40:35.640 --> 0:40:38.799
<v Speaker 2>couple out of bounds, it's far more intimidating than having

0:40:38.840 --> 0:40:42.040
<v Speaker 2>water there. You hit into the water, you drop, you

0:40:42.080 --> 0:40:45.400
<v Speaker 2>make five or six. Like, we don't see big numbers

0:40:45.440 --> 0:40:49.560
<v Speaker 2>anymore and professional golf in part because players have adapted

0:40:49.600 --> 0:40:53.080
<v Speaker 2>a more modern strategy of avoiding those hazards. But it's

0:40:53.160 --> 0:40:55.440
<v Speaker 2>nice when it comes into play and when it's scary,

0:40:55.520 --> 0:40:57.239
<v Speaker 2>and when there's a wind coming off your left and

0:40:57.280 --> 0:40:58.960
<v Speaker 2>there's out of bounds to the right, Like, that is

0:40:59.000 --> 0:41:00.000
<v Speaker 2>an interesting dynamic.

0:41:01.000 --> 0:41:02.360
<v Speaker 1>I don't think that should go away.

0:41:03.000 --> 0:41:05.239
<v Speaker 2>One kick I've kind of been on is talking a

0:41:05.239 --> 0:41:08.280
<v Speaker 2>little bit about how everything in professional golf has gotten easier,

0:41:08.280 --> 0:41:11.800
<v Speaker 2>which is not a unique idea, right, Equipment's gotten easier,

0:41:12.239 --> 0:41:15.840
<v Speaker 2>there's more information, there's track man, there's course management.

0:41:16.360 --> 0:41:19.040
<v Speaker 3>The agronomy has made everything easier too. I mean the

0:41:19.640 --> 0:41:21.320
<v Speaker 3>quality of the greens and the fairways.

0:41:21.800 --> 0:41:22.920
<v Speaker 1>Everything's easier.

0:41:22.960 --> 0:41:25.640
<v Speaker 2>So is it really a problem that you're going to

0:41:25.719 --> 0:41:28.040
<v Speaker 2>have to re tee if you spray one out right

0:41:28.200 --> 0:41:30.920
<v Speaker 2>off the golf course? Like I'm here for it.

0:41:31.320 --> 0:41:35.160
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, what specifically did you see about the strategy of

0:41:35.239 --> 0:41:38.200
<v Speaker 3>those holes that you liked? Because they I mean it's

0:41:38.239 --> 0:41:41.120
<v Speaker 3>not just that the internal out of bounds quote unquote

0:41:41.120 --> 0:41:44.160
<v Speaker 3>internal out of bounds is there. It's that these holes

0:41:44.760 --> 0:41:48.840
<v Speaker 3>incorporate the line of that out of bounds in pretty

0:41:48.880 --> 0:41:49.600
<v Speaker 3>cool ways. Right.

0:41:50.360 --> 0:41:52.640
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think both there's something to chew on with

0:41:52.680 --> 0:41:56.839
<v Speaker 2>both of those holes. So whole three is a it's

0:41:56.880 --> 0:41:59.160
<v Speaker 2>a clever example of.

0:41:59.360 --> 0:42:01.799
<v Speaker 1>Hey, if you're going to want to.

0:42:01.040 --> 0:42:03.839
<v Speaker 2>Take driver out of golfer's hands. The way you do

0:42:03.880 --> 0:42:06.920
<v Speaker 2>that is it's got to be really penal on a

0:42:06.960 --> 0:42:09.160
<v Speaker 2>wide miss, which the out of bounds to the right

0:42:09.200 --> 0:42:12.160
<v Speaker 2>clearly was, and generally it has to be wider in

0:42:12.200 --> 0:42:14.480
<v Speaker 2>the fairway for shots that are less than driver. So

0:42:15.280 --> 0:42:17.920
<v Speaker 2>at long iron length, the fairway was pretty wide there.

0:42:18.239 --> 0:42:19.840
<v Speaker 2>If you wanted to hit driver, you had to carry

0:42:19.840 --> 0:42:23.000
<v Speaker 2>the corner and if you went a little left you

0:42:23.040 --> 0:42:26.160
<v Speaker 2>were in the fescue, which was actually pretty playable. But

0:42:26.400 --> 0:42:29.120
<v Speaker 2>if you've sprayed it out right ob and you're hitting

0:42:29.120 --> 0:42:31.680
<v Speaker 2>three from the t box, and then on the approach shot,

0:42:32.440 --> 0:42:34.719
<v Speaker 2>if you spray it out right again, you're out of

0:42:34.719 --> 0:42:38.000
<v Speaker 2>bounds because the approach ran the entire length of the

0:42:38.040 --> 0:42:40.480
<v Speaker 2>berm and the ob to the right. So you had

0:42:40.520 --> 0:42:42.840
<v Speaker 2>some shots that got flared out right, some approach shots

0:42:42.840 --> 0:42:46.239
<v Speaker 2>that ended up out of bounds. It's it was cool, right,

0:42:46.280 --> 0:42:49.040
<v Speaker 2>the more aggressive you were off the tee, you gave

0:42:49.040 --> 0:42:52.239
<v Speaker 2>yourself an easier approach shot. A lot of guys just

0:42:52.320 --> 0:42:54.120
<v Speaker 2>kind of fired a long iron down the left side

0:42:54.160 --> 0:42:55.600
<v Speaker 2>of the fairway, which is what I would have done

0:42:55.640 --> 0:42:57.439
<v Speaker 2>in that instance, and then you don't have to take

0:42:57.480 --> 0:42:59.840
<v Speaker 2>on quite as much of the ob on the right.

0:42:59.680 --> 0:43:02.279
<v Speaker 1>But there was a lot players talked.

0:43:02.040 --> 0:43:04.800
<v Speaker 2>About that being an actual decision point in their rounds

0:43:04.960 --> 0:43:08.040
<v Speaker 2>versus ninety five ninety eight percent of holes that we

0:43:08.080 --> 0:43:09.759
<v Speaker 2>see week in and week out you don't really have

0:43:09.840 --> 0:43:10.480
<v Speaker 2>to think about.

0:43:11.400 --> 0:43:12.840
<v Speaker 1>So that's that's all. Three.

0:43:13.719 --> 0:43:15.960
<v Speaker 2>Do you have any thoughts on hoole three? Before we

0:43:16.080 --> 0:43:17.160
<v Speaker 2>talked briefly about eighteen.

0:43:17.640 --> 0:43:20.240
<v Speaker 3>I love whole three. It's the opener for the members,

0:43:20.719 --> 0:43:23.280
<v Speaker 3>and I think part of the magic of it being

0:43:23.440 --> 0:43:26.360
<v Speaker 3>an opener is that it's so the opposite of a

0:43:26.400 --> 0:43:30.480
<v Speaker 3>gentle handshake. It just goes hard in the opposite direction,

0:43:31.000 --> 0:43:34.840
<v Speaker 3>which I think is a really great way for golf

0:43:35.040 --> 0:43:40.600
<v Speaker 3>architecture to violate unwritten rules. You know, there's an unwritten

0:43:40.640 --> 0:43:43.480
<v Speaker 3>rule that the first hole should get players away from

0:43:43.520 --> 0:43:46.600
<v Speaker 3>the clubhouse and you know, let them take their hacks

0:43:46.640 --> 0:43:49.000
<v Speaker 3>and stuff like that, and in general, I think that's

0:43:49.040 --> 0:43:51.400
<v Speaker 3>not a bad principle. I think it makes sense. But

0:43:51.520 --> 0:43:55.040
<v Speaker 3>if you're going to work against it, then go the

0:43:55.120 --> 0:43:58.719
<v Speaker 3>opposite direction all the way. Commit to it. And that's

0:43:58.760 --> 0:44:01.760
<v Speaker 3>what I appreciate about hole three, or for the members

0:44:01.880 --> 0:44:07.040
<v Speaker 3>hole one. So then eighteen, this is god the rerouting

0:44:07.080 --> 0:44:09.720
<v Speaker 3>has messed with my head, but it's sixteen for the members.

0:44:10.600 --> 0:44:13.160
<v Speaker 3>I think it's a great finishing hole, you know. I

0:44:13.200 --> 0:44:15.560
<v Speaker 3>think it's probably a better finishing hole than it is

0:44:15.600 --> 0:44:19.000
<v Speaker 3>a sixteenth hole. And maybe that's the main reason for

0:44:19.120 --> 0:44:23.600
<v Speaker 3>the rerouting, But there was some real jeopardy on that

0:44:23.680 --> 0:44:24.880
<v Speaker 3>hole this week for sure.

0:44:25.320 --> 0:44:27.160
<v Speaker 2>Clearly, what those two holes have in common is the

0:44:27.200 --> 0:44:29.200
<v Speaker 2>OB is in play on the T shot and it

0:44:29.280 --> 0:44:32.320
<v Speaker 2>runs the entire length of the hole. So what eighteen

0:44:32.440 --> 0:44:35.879
<v Speaker 2>had in particular is that at some point you had

0:44:35.920 --> 0:44:39.560
<v Speaker 2>to take on some serious danger because the bunkers surrounding

0:44:39.560 --> 0:44:43.160
<v Speaker 2>the green were penal, especially that string on the left side.

0:44:43.120 --> 0:44:46.479
<v Speaker 3>Left side, especially to a left pin where we saw

0:44:46.480 --> 0:44:48.840
<v Speaker 3>some disasters exactly.

0:44:48.920 --> 0:44:52.080
<v Speaker 2>So if you want to really bail out on your

0:44:52.080 --> 0:44:55.440
<v Speaker 2>T shot, you may end up with a reasonably long

0:44:55.760 --> 0:44:59.919
<v Speaker 2>approach in and it's some the second shot you're gonna

0:44:59.920 --> 0:45:02.000
<v Speaker 2>have to take on some danger with the right side

0:45:02.080 --> 0:45:05.320
<v Speaker 2>and challenging the OB a little bit. You can't really

0:45:05.320 --> 0:45:08.040
<v Speaker 2>just play along the fescue the entire hole. Eventually, you're

0:45:08.080 --> 0:45:09.759
<v Speaker 2>gonna have to hit a daring shot if you want

0:45:09.800 --> 0:45:12.400
<v Speaker 2>to make power better, especially if you want to make birdie.

0:45:12.880 --> 0:45:16.239
<v Speaker 2>So I appreciated that about it. The second shot was

0:45:16.320 --> 0:45:18.680
<v Speaker 2>no gimme. Even if you hit a great t shot

0:45:18.920 --> 0:45:20.440
<v Speaker 2>like you were gonna have to navigate a lot of

0:45:20.480 --> 0:45:24.399
<v Speaker 2>trouble again flair one out right so be You even

0:45:24.440 --> 0:45:27.839
<v Speaker 2>had some golfers who got really conservative with their tea

0:45:27.880 --> 0:45:30.399
<v Speaker 2>shots went out left into the fescue and then it's

0:45:30.400 --> 0:45:32.560
<v Speaker 2>hard to control your ball out of there. Hit second

0:45:32.560 --> 0:45:35.399
<v Speaker 2>shots out of bounds. Ricky Fowler hit a few out

0:45:35.400 --> 0:45:38.600
<v Speaker 2>of bounds right. You had to take on the trouble

0:45:38.600 --> 0:45:40.799
<v Speaker 2>at some point, and I appreciated that about the hole.

0:45:41.200 --> 0:45:44.560
<v Speaker 3>All right. What's your second big note about the golf

0:45:44.640 --> 0:45:45.360
<v Speaker 3>course from the week?

0:45:45.800 --> 0:45:50.080
<v Speaker 2>Well, sticking with the theme of penalties, the bunkers, that

0:45:50.160 --> 0:45:54.680
<v Speaker 2>the penal hazards that the bunkers were this week. It's

0:45:54.719 --> 0:45:57.640
<v Speaker 2>been a while since we've seen bunkers as penal as

0:45:57.680 --> 0:46:01.000
<v Speaker 2>these ones were at Royal Liverpool, and that something I appreciate.

0:46:01.320 --> 0:46:05.360
<v Speaker 2>To challenge these golfers, really make them think about their lines.

0:46:05.600 --> 0:46:08.160
<v Speaker 2>It has to be a stiff penalty, and both on

0:46:08.160 --> 0:46:11.560
<v Speaker 2>the fairway bunkers and in the green side bunkers. It

0:46:11.600 --> 0:46:13.600
<v Speaker 2>was no gimme that a lot of them are coming

0:46:13.600 --> 0:46:16.560
<v Speaker 2>out sideways. You had some players hitting shots backwards. You

0:46:16.640 --> 0:46:18.880
<v Speaker 2>had a couple of players putting in the bunkers just

0:46:18.920 --> 0:46:21.520
<v Speaker 2>to get to a shallow to the more flat spot

0:46:21.840 --> 0:46:23.400
<v Speaker 2>in the middle of the bunker instead of being up

0:46:23.400 --> 0:46:27.440
<v Speaker 2>against the lip. They were legitimate penalties this week, and

0:46:27.560 --> 0:46:31.480
<v Speaker 2>that restores a lot of shot value, both on the

0:46:31.520 --> 0:46:34.320
<v Speaker 2>approach and on the tee shots. It's a constant threat

0:46:34.320 --> 0:46:35.840
<v Speaker 2>of a big number that kind of keeps you on

0:46:35.920 --> 0:46:38.040
<v Speaker 2>edge for your entire round. So I thought that was

0:46:38.080 --> 0:46:39.760
<v Speaker 2>a refreshing watch this week.

0:46:40.480 --> 0:46:43.480
<v Speaker 3>It changed the way players played off the tee right.

0:46:43.880 --> 0:46:46.239
<v Speaker 3>And this is not a new take about Royal Liverpool.

0:46:46.960 --> 0:46:50.200
<v Speaker 3>This has been around in you know, our kind of

0:46:50.360 --> 0:46:53.880
<v Speaker 3>like twenty first century discourse about this golf course since

0:46:54.120 --> 0:46:58.320
<v Speaker 3>Tiger won basically while keeping the driver in the bag,

0:46:58.840 --> 0:47:02.080
<v Speaker 3>and so did you basically see that kind of tactic

0:47:02.160 --> 0:47:05.560
<v Speaker 3>from Brian Harmon this week, that sort of conservatism off

0:47:05.560 --> 0:47:06.040
<v Speaker 3>the tee.

0:47:06.400 --> 0:47:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Brian Harmon hit some drivers.

0:47:08.080 --> 0:47:11.160
<v Speaker 2>I think overall you saw much more conservative play off

0:47:11.160 --> 0:47:15.040
<v Speaker 2>the tee, largely from the field than in most weeks.

0:47:15.640 --> 0:47:18.560
<v Speaker 2>That said, I actually think this setup and how playable

0:47:18.560 --> 0:47:21.400
<v Speaker 2>the fescue was lent itself to kind of some more

0:47:21.440 --> 0:47:24.280
<v Speaker 2>aggressive play than some players went. I think some players

0:47:24.320 --> 0:47:26.879
<v Speaker 2>got anchored a little bit to the idea, oh, Tiger

0:47:26.920 --> 0:47:29.279
<v Speaker 2>Woods never hit driver here, like this week, I'm just

0:47:29.280 --> 0:47:31.680
<v Speaker 2>gonna hit a bunch of irons off the tee, when honestly,

0:47:31.680 --> 0:47:32.920
<v Speaker 2>I think there were some holes where I would have

0:47:32.920 --> 0:47:38.080
<v Speaker 2>gotten pretty aggressive with driver, especially as conditions were pretty calm.

0:47:38.840 --> 0:47:43.320
<v Speaker 2>But generally speaking, the combination of a lot of wind

0:47:43.520 --> 0:47:48.200
<v Speaker 2>with bunkers, especially at your driver length, that were extremely penal,

0:47:49.120 --> 0:47:52.520
<v Speaker 2>that's going to result in some conservative play when the

0:47:52.560 --> 0:47:54.760
<v Speaker 2>wind died down a little bit, especially when the fescue

0:47:54.840 --> 0:47:57.200
<v Speaker 2>is playable, I would have gotten I would have been

0:47:57.239 --> 0:47:59.200
<v Speaker 2>ripping some driver out there, though, I will say that.

0:48:00.320 --> 0:48:03.320
<v Speaker 3>And I think it created varied play off the tee

0:48:03.520 --> 0:48:06.040
<v Speaker 3>this week, which is sort of what I appreciated. And

0:48:06.360 --> 0:48:11.319
<v Speaker 3>I think what the argument for the less brutal rough

0:48:11.440 --> 0:48:15.279
<v Speaker 3>might be. I really liked the rough here, not necessarily

0:48:15.320 --> 0:48:20.560
<v Speaker 3>purely for reasons of strategy, but more that it was inconsistent, unpredictable,

0:48:21.160 --> 0:48:25.360
<v Speaker 3>and fit with the natural environment of the course in

0:48:25.400 --> 0:48:29.080
<v Speaker 3>a really nice way that you rarely see at US courses.

0:48:29.680 --> 0:48:32.400
<v Speaker 3>But I think the fact that players could really play

0:48:32.520 --> 0:48:36.280
<v Speaker 3>most of the time out of the rough effectively meant

0:48:36.280 --> 0:48:39.880
<v Speaker 3>that taking driver on some holes was the play. You

0:48:39.920 --> 0:48:43.040
<v Speaker 3>had to make a judgment on individual holes about whether

0:48:43.120 --> 0:48:46.440
<v Speaker 3>you were going to go after it, because you know,

0:48:46.760 --> 0:48:49.600
<v Speaker 3>it wasn't for sure that you should keep the driver

0:48:49.880 --> 0:48:53.040
<v Speaker 3>in the bag on all these holes. Sometimes that little

0:48:53.360 --> 0:48:56.360
<v Speaker 3>area up around, you know, three hundred to three hundred

0:48:56.360 --> 0:48:59.120
<v Speaker 3>and thirty yards off the tee, Yeah, there was some

0:48:59.239 --> 0:49:02.600
<v Speaker 3>rough up there, but you can take that chance, especially

0:49:02.600 --> 0:49:05.000
<v Speaker 3>if you can get past the fairway bunkers. I think

0:49:05.040 --> 0:49:07.200
<v Speaker 3>that was sort of the calculus on some of the holes,

0:49:07.480 --> 0:49:11.400
<v Speaker 3>whereas on others it was like, driver is super risky here,

0:49:11.960 --> 0:49:15.239
<v Speaker 3>and you know if you're playing the percentages and you're

0:49:15.239 --> 0:49:16.399
<v Speaker 3>probably not hitting driver.

0:49:17.120 --> 0:49:17.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah.

0:49:17.360 --> 0:49:19.920
<v Speaker 2>And I think it's important to note that those fairways

0:49:19.960 --> 0:49:24.640
<v Speaker 2>are very narrow. So if you had super narrow fairways

0:49:24.680 --> 0:49:29.560
<v Speaker 2>and then unplayable fescue right off of the fairways, it

0:49:29.560 --> 0:49:32.960
<v Speaker 2>would result in a little bit of a The dimensions

0:49:32.960 --> 0:49:35.960
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't necessarily fit the modern game super well. So I

0:49:36.000 --> 0:49:40.240
<v Speaker 2>think it makes sense to have playable fescue. Could probably

0:49:40.239 --> 0:49:42.960
<v Speaker 2>make an argument for some graduated fescue.

0:49:42.960 --> 0:49:43.960
<v Speaker 1>I don't know how people.

0:49:43.760 --> 0:49:45.799
<v Speaker 2>Always feel about that, but that's why I like, I

0:49:45.800 --> 0:49:50.520
<v Speaker 2>think whole five stood out to me where there's the

0:49:50.520 --> 0:49:53.239
<v Speaker 2>gorse bush on the left and to dog leg left,

0:49:53.280 --> 0:49:55.440
<v Speaker 2>So the more left you go, you're kind of shortening

0:49:55.440 --> 0:49:58.080
<v Speaker 2>the hole. But if you pull it a little left

0:49:58.160 --> 0:50:01.000
<v Speaker 2>or Brian harmon a lefty, if you flared out left,

0:50:01.680 --> 0:50:06.120
<v Speaker 2>wide miss goes into the gorse bush, significant penalty versus

0:50:06.320 --> 0:50:08.960
<v Speaker 2>more narrow misses might just be a little bit in

0:50:09.000 --> 0:50:12.839
<v Speaker 2>the fescue or right and still playable. So I think

0:50:12.920 --> 0:50:15.919
<v Speaker 2>that hole stands out as one that I like off

0:50:15.960 --> 0:50:17.840
<v Speaker 2>of the tea, where you have that gradience in the

0:50:17.880 --> 0:50:22.279
<v Speaker 2>penalties online is rewarded taking on more risk and going

0:50:22.360 --> 0:50:24.480
<v Speaker 2>left might incur a big penalty.

0:50:24.840 --> 0:50:27.239
<v Speaker 1>So I really liked the way that hole set up

0:50:27.239 --> 0:50:27.640
<v Speaker 1>off the tea.

0:50:28.520 --> 0:50:33.960
<v Speaker 3>What did you make of the fact that after Day one,

0:50:34.080 --> 0:50:37.960
<v Speaker 3>Royal Liverpool and the RNA decided to change the presentation

0:50:38.320 --> 0:50:41.600
<v Speaker 3>of the bunkers a little bit. Much was made going

0:50:41.600 --> 0:50:44.320
<v Speaker 3>into the tournament about how the bottoms of the bunkers

0:50:44.800 --> 0:50:48.120
<v Speaker 3>would be flat so that balls would not roll back

0:50:48.520 --> 0:50:52.480
<v Speaker 3>toward the middle, which allows players to play out of

0:50:52.520 --> 0:50:57.360
<v Speaker 3>them because they're not up against the stack sod lips

0:50:57.560 --> 0:51:00.719
<v Speaker 3>of the bunkers so often. But when they're flat, I

0:51:00.719 --> 0:51:03.440
<v Speaker 3>would even say that most of the time you end

0:51:03.520 --> 0:51:06.560
<v Speaker 3>up against the face of the bunker, because when your

0:51:06.560 --> 0:51:08.399
<v Speaker 3>ball lands in the bunker, it's going to run out

0:51:08.400 --> 0:51:11.560
<v Speaker 3>a little bit on a flat bottom and just come

0:51:11.600 --> 0:51:14.520
<v Speaker 3>to a stop once it hits that wall. And so

0:51:14.600 --> 0:51:16.360
<v Speaker 3>on the first day we saw a lot of players

0:51:16.400 --> 0:51:21.759
<v Speaker 3>just like absolutely boned in the bunkers. By the second

0:51:21.800 --> 0:51:25.239
<v Speaker 3>day of the championship, that had changed. What did you

0:51:25.280 --> 0:51:26.360
<v Speaker 3>make of that? If anything?

0:51:27.160 --> 0:51:29.120
<v Speaker 2>Pretty hard and fasttable for me is I don't like

0:51:29.120 --> 0:51:31.319
<v Speaker 2>to see changes made between rounds one and two. So

0:51:33.000 --> 0:51:35.279
<v Speaker 2>in terms of the competitive integrity of the tournament, I

0:51:35.360 --> 0:51:38.400
<v Speaker 2>just don't like to see modifications made between rounds one

0:51:38.440 --> 0:51:41.799
<v Speaker 2>and two. I'd rather see you wait till after round two,

0:51:42.280 --> 0:51:45.319
<v Speaker 2>once both waves have experienced the same conditions or the

0:51:45.320 --> 0:51:50.680
<v Speaker 2>conditions as similar as possible. That said, I don't have

0:51:50.719 --> 0:51:55.319
<v Speaker 2>a super strong opinion on the small tweak that was

0:51:55.360 --> 0:51:59.040
<v Speaker 2>made to the presentation of the bunkers. Will say, I

0:51:59.040 --> 0:52:01.959
<v Speaker 2>don't think bunkers are penal enough generally that we see

0:52:02.239 --> 0:52:04.920
<v Speaker 2>fifty one weeks of the year, so I'm never gonna

0:52:04.920 --> 0:52:08.279
<v Speaker 2>complain about bunkers being too penal. Don't hit it there,

0:52:09.040 --> 0:52:12.560
<v Speaker 2>so I don't think it had to be done, but

0:52:13.239 --> 0:52:16.080
<v Speaker 2>I don't feel I don't land super strongly one way

0:52:16.160 --> 0:52:18.360
<v Speaker 2>or the other. I just don't like to see changes

0:52:18.360 --> 0:52:20.799
<v Speaker 2>made between rounds one and two. And I'm never going

0:52:20.880 --> 0:52:23.840
<v Speaker 2>to complain about a bunker being too penal. It's always

0:52:23.840 --> 0:52:24.839
<v Speaker 2>an option to avoid it.

0:52:25.400 --> 0:52:28.160
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, I think, I agree. I think in this case,

0:52:28.239 --> 0:52:30.520
<v Speaker 3>the reason that I'm sort of with you and I

0:52:30.560 --> 0:52:33.440
<v Speaker 3>don't feel too strongly about the change that was made

0:52:34.040 --> 0:52:38.200
<v Speaker 3>is that the bunkers were still really brutal round two

0:52:38.239 --> 0:52:41.400
<v Speaker 3>and on. They were still places that you did not

0:52:41.560 --> 0:52:44.200
<v Speaker 3>want to be right, and I get that they were

0:52:44.239 --> 0:52:48.000
<v Speaker 3>trying to reel that in a little bit. I don't

0:52:48.000 --> 0:52:51.480
<v Speaker 3>know if it was necessary really, but they did it,

0:52:51.880 --> 0:52:54.960
<v Speaker 3>and the difference was, unless you were, like really paying

0:52:55.080 --> 0:52:58.920
<v Speaker 3>super close attention, the difference was pretty minimal.

0:52:59.640 --> 0:53:00.000
<v Speaker 1>All right.

0:53:00.600 --> 0:53:03.400
<v Speaker 3>Third take on the golf course. What's your kind of

0:53:03.440 --> 0:53:06.120
<v Speaker 3>final thought that you want to put out there about it?

0:53:06.520 --> 0:53:09.680
<v Speaker 2>Sure, this might be slightly controversial, so it's eager for

0:53:09.719 --> 0:53:13.160
<v Speaker 2>your opinion here as I was forming my opinion of

0:53:13.200 --> 0:53:15.919
<v Speaker 2>the golf course over the course of the four days.

0:53:15.920 --> 0:53:19.239
<v Speaker 2>But really likes be more than that, because in the

0:53:19.320 --> 0:53:22.640
<v Speaker 2>lead up to the tournament itself, I will caveat this

0:53:22.760 --> 0:53:25.080
<v Speaker 2>with I know. Something some people have said about Royal

0:53:25.120 --> 0:53:27.680
<v Speaker 2>Liverpool is you don't appreciate it as much the first

0:53:27.680 --> 0:53:29.920
<v Speaker 2>time you play it, and over time you come to

0:53:29.960 --> 0:53:31.040
<v Speaker 2>appreciate it more and more.

0:53:31.120 --> 0:53:34.680
<v Speaker 3>So, Yeah, notice what people say, especially who are like

0:53:34.800 --> 0:53:37.000
<v Speaker 3>members of the course or who have played the course

0:53:37.520 --> 0:53:39.799
<v Speaker 3>many times. There are a lot of subtleties out here

0:53:39.840 --> 0:53:43.480
<v Speaker 3>that you don't necessarily notice on television or playing it

0:53:43.560 --> 0:53:45.799
<v Speaker 3>the first time. It grows on.

0:53:45.719 --> 0:53:49.640
<v Speaker 2>You as more iterations of the Open Championship are played here.

0:53:49.680 --> 0:53:51.360
<v Speaker 2>I'm sure I'll pick up on some of these things

0:53:51.360 --> 0:53:55.120
<v Speaker 2>and update my opinion. I think Royal Liverpool is a

0:53:55.160 --> 0:54:01.040
<v Speaker 2>little bit redundant and that monotonous might be too strong

0:54:01.080 --> 0:54:05.640
<v Speaker 2>of a word, but I like the redundant qualities it has.

0:54:05.840 --> 0:54:09.600
<v Speaker 2>But it's kind of the same thing over and over

0:54:09.680 --> 0:54:13.160
<v Speaker 2>on a lot of holes, which is avoid the bunkers

0:54:14.000 --> 0:54:17.840
<v Speaker 2>off the tee, like control your ball in the wind.

0:54:18.840 --> 0:54:20.800
<v Speaker 2>There's not a whole lot going on on the greens.

0:54:21.560 --> 0:54:24.360
<v Speaker 2>Most of the course is flat. A lot of the

0:54:24.360 --> 0:54:27.880
<v Speaker 2>holes are pretty similar to me, So one my litmus

0:54:27.880 --> 0:54:31.520
<v Speaker 2>test right now that I like for architecture and for

0:54:31.600 --> 0:54:34.560
<v Speaker 2>professional golf, but also just for playing in general is

0:54:34.560 --> 0:54:35.800
<v Speaker 2>how many holes could you draw?

0:54:36.480 --> 0:54:36.840
<v Speaker 1>After?

0:54:37.360 --> 0:54:40.440
<v Speaker 2>And if somebody watched let's say three days of the

0:54:40.440 --> 0:54:44.160
<v Speaker 2>Open Championship this week, and they maybe watched three hours

0:54:44.200 --> 0:54:47.520
<v Speaker 2>a day, how many holes could they name at Royal

0:54:47.560 --> 0:54:49.879
<v Speaker 2>Liverpool and draw. I think some of the holes would

0:54:49.920 --> 0:54:53.480
<v Speaker 2>run together a little bit, so I think in the

0:54:53.560 --> 0:54:56.560
<v Speaker 2>variety column I wouldn't give it the highest marks, And

0:54:56.600 --> 0:54:58.960
<v Speaker 2>maybe if I played it more, if I saw it

0:54:59.000 --> 0:55:01.160
<v Speaker 2>in person, i'd feel differ diferently, But I think it

0:55:01.239 --> 0:55:03.120
<v Speaker 2>was a little bit of a redundant test. What's your

0:55:03.120 --> 0:55:03.839
<v Speaker 2>reaction to that?

0:55:04.680 --> 0:55:07.000
<v Speaker 3>I see where that comes from, for sure. And it's

0:55:07.120 --> 0:55:10.120
<v Speaker 3>notable that the holes that we've already talked about, like

0:55:10.239 --> 0:55:14.960
<v Speaker 3>three and eighteen are really ones that stand out from

0:55:15.000 --> 0:55:19.160
<v Speaker 3>the rest, that have a different feature on them that

0:55:20.080 --> 0:55:24.000
<v Speaker 3>grabs you immediately when you see it and fixes itself

0:55:24.000 --> 0:55:27.839
<v Speaker 3>in your memory. Seventeen the new par three was sort

0:55:27.840 --> 0:55:31.000
<v Speaker 3>of like that, but maybe not in entirely the best

0:55:31.040 --> 0:55:34.279
<v Speaker 3>way for different reasons. I would yeah, exactly. I would

0:55:34.360 --> 0:55:39.880
<v Speaker 3>say that fourteen, that Harry hole along the Dune ridge

0:55:40.400 --> 0:55:43.520
<v Speaker 3>is memorable for several reasons, the alpshole the par three

0:55:44.200 --> 0:55:47.160
<v Speaker 3>along the Dune Ridge, But yeah, I mean some of

0:55:47.200 --> 0:55:51.959
<v Speaker 3>the inland dog leg holes with bunkers left and right

0:55:52.680 --> 0:55:57.120
<v Speaker 3>usually staggered in the landing zone, and a similar type

0:55:57.120 --> 0:56:02.200
<v Speaker 3>of sort of angled green you run together when you

0:56:02.239 --> 0:56:05.880
<v Speaker 3>watch the course during a tournament, for sure, And I

0:56:05.880 --> 0:56:08.799
<v Speaker 3>think that some of this is baked in to the

0:56:08.960 --> 0:56:13.280
<v Speaker 3>history and the architecture of the course, where especially before

0:56:13.600 --> 0:56:17.319
<v Speaker 3>Harry Colt came and made changes updated the course to

0:56:17.360 --> 0:56:21.280
<v Speaker 3>the golden age of golf course architecture in the nineteen twenties,

0:56:21.719 --> 0:56:26.400
<v Speaker 3>naturalized some things, redid some greens. Until that point, Royal

0:56:26.400 --> 0:56:31.000
<v Speaker 3>Liverpool was sort of your classic Victorian golf course in

0:56:31.080 --> 0:56:33.520
<v Speaker 3>some ways. It was on Link's land. It wasn't a

0:56:33.560 --> 0:56:36.279
<v Speaker 3>boring inland course by any means. It's always had some

0:56:36.480 --> 0:56:40.040
<v Speaker 3>cool undulation, even if it's small undulation in the fairways.

0:56:40.080 --> 0:56:44.000
<v Speaker 3>But the architecture there involved before Harry Colt, a lot

0:56:44.000 --> 0:56:48.680
<v Speaker 3>of kind of cross bunkers and steeplechase type hazards that

0:56:48.719 --> 0:56:53.960
<v Speaker 3>were a little bit repetitive, and that were intentionally repetitive

0:56:54.040 --> 0:56:56.800
<v Speaker 3>because that at one time was sort of the style.

0:56:56.960 --> 0:57:00.000
<v Speaker 3>You wanted to test the drive. Can you carry this bunker,

0:57:00.520 --> 0:57:02.640
<v Speaker 3>test the approach, can you carry this next bunk? Or

0:57:02.680 --> 0:57:05.160
<v Speaker 3>if you achieve that, then you've done your job and

0:57:05.239 --> 0:57:08.040
<v Speaker 3>you can have a chance at a good score. And

0:57:08.080 --> 0:57:10.920
<v Speaker 3>I think that even after Harry Colt made the changes

0:57:10.960 --> 0:57:12.960
<v Speaker 3>that he did in the twenties, that some of that

0:57:13.200 --> 0:57:17.840
<v Speaker 3>essence still stayed at Royal Liverpool, some of that repetitiveness,

0:57:18.320 --> 0:57:21.360
<v Speaker 3>and that's just an aspect of the course. Another factor

0:57:21.400 --> 0:57:23.720
<v Speaker 3>here is that I think a lot of the greens

0:57:23.720 --> 0:57:28.120
<v Speaker 3>have been monkeyed with in the modern era. Since the

0:57:28.440 --> 0:57:31.320
<v Speaker 3>nineteen eighties and nineties, a lot of the greens have

0:57:31.440 --> 0:57:35.360
<v Speaker 3>been renovated and they've gotten some of these little runoffs,

0:57:35.560 --> 0:57:40.720
<v Speaker 3>the kind of scoopy runoffs that have some interesting playing

0:57:40.800 --> 0:57:44.959
<v Speaker 3>characteristics that are certainly testing and allow for a number

0:57:44.960 --> 0:57:47.840
<v Speaker 3>of different recovery shots. But to me, a lot of

0:57:47.880 --> 0:57:51.480
<v Speaker 3>the inland greens have started to look pretty similar because

0:57:51.640 --> 0:57:56.280
<v Speaker 3>of this modern construction method that has been used, and

0:57:56.360 --> 0:58:00.800
<v Speaker 3>some of the artistry of Harry Colt's green, or some

0:58:00.840 --> 0:58:04.800
<v Speaker 3>of the uniqueness of the kind of pre modern greens

0:58:04.840 --> 0:58:09.800
<v Speaker 3>at the course has gone away in favor of this

0:58:09.920 --> 0:58:13.840
<v Speaker 3>more modern style around them. And that's something that I

0:58:13.880 --> 0:58:18.240
<v Speaker 3>would say makes some of the holes repetitive too, because

0:58:18.280 --> 0:58:20.960
<v Speaker 3>you know, used to be that this week's whole one

0:58:21.920 --> 0:58:25.800
<v Speaker 3>for the members seventeen. The whole called Royal used to

0:58:25.840 --> 0:58:31.160
<v Speaker 3>have a unique green pressed up against the road. Everybody said,

0:58:31.680 --> 0:58:33.960
<v Speaker 3>everybody who saw this green said it was a masterpiece.

0:58:34.760 --> 0:58:36.680
<v Speaker 3>You know, that one's no longer there, and instead we

0:58:36.760 --> 0:58:40.000
<v Speaker 3>have this green that was originated by I believe Donald

0:58:40.040 --> 0:58:43.880
<v Speaker 3>Steele and maybe renovated by Martin Hottree and just has

0:58:43.960 --> 0:58:47.360
<v Speaker 3>these little, you know, scoopy runoffs around it, And so

0:58:47.680 --> 0:58:51.840
<v Speaker 3>we don't have that injection of distinctiveness on that whole

0:58:51.920 --> 0:58:55.919
<v Speaker 3>anymore that the course used to have. To those points

0:58:56.000 --> 0:58:58.760
<v Speaker 3>kind of make sense, you know, how this has emerged

0:58:58.800 --> 0:59:00.920
<v Speaker 3>over time. You know, this is kind of part of

0:59:00.920 --> 0:59:02.760
<v Speaker 3>what the course is, I guess, but it has been

0:59:03.200 --> 0:59:05.480
<v Speaker 3>made more so maybe in recent years.

0:59:05.800 --> 0:59:06.320
<v Speaker 1>No, it does.

0:59:06.440 --> 0:59:10.360
<v Speaker 2>I'm a proponent of the tight runoff areas, so I

0:59:10.400 --> 0:59:14.720
<v Speaker 2>can't be too critical of the flat greens. And also,

0:59:15.600 --> 0:59:18.240
<v Speaker 2>you know, without appreciating the tight runoff areas because they

0:59:18.240 --> 0:59:21.560
<v Speaker 2>do a lot for the approach shot value and then

0:59:21.600 --> 0:59:24.720
<v Speaker 2>for some delicate chips around the greens. It just felt

0:59:24.720 --> 0:59:27.480
<v Speaker 2>like every putt players were hitting was pretty flat and

0:59:27.560 --> 0:59:30.320
<v Speaker 2>maybe had a tin of other movement in it. But yeah,

0:59:30.440 --> 0:59:33.720
<v Speaker 2>really easy golf course to put on. Don't tell that

0:59:33.760 --> 0:59:38.520
<v Speaker 2>to Cameron Young or Scottie Scheffler. But overall, mild greens

0:59:38.520 --> 0:59:40.320
<v Speaker 2>that I don't think had a ton of character. And

0:59:40.360 --> 0:59:44.000
<v Speaker 2>if you said to somebody, hey, you know, draw this green,

0:59:44.120 --> 0:59:45.680
<v Speaker 2>like how does this green break?

0:59:46.040 --> 0:59:47.080
<v Speaker 1>I don't think it show.

0:59:47.200 --> 0:59:49.160
<v Speaker 2>Maybe it just didn't display as well on TV, but

0:59:49.400 --> 0:59:51.200
<v Speaker 2>I thought the greens were pretty boring overall.

0:59:51.280 --> 0:59:52.240
<v Speaker 1>L liked the golf course.

0:59:52.520 --> 0:59:56.240
<v Speaker 2>Would be excited to see another Open championship here because

0:59:56.280 --> 1:00:00.640
<v Speaker 2>again the style of repetition, it's a good style, strategic

1:00:00.680 --> 1:00:02.520
<v Speaker 2>and it's fun. But a lot of holes kind of

1:00:02.560 --> 1:00:06.280
<v Speaker 2>ran together for me. I think like two, six, seven,

1:00:06.360 --> 1:00:10.680
<v Speaker 2>eight nine, like twelve, fifteen, sixteen, A lot of those

1:00:10.720 --> 1:00:13.080
<v Speaker 2>holes like didn't do a whole lot for me.

1:00:13.640 --> 1:00:16.000
<v Speaker 3>What did you make of the new seventeenth hole?

1:00:16.480 --> 1:00:20.880
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this this feels like some hot water here. I

1:00:20.960 --> 1:00:24.760
<v Speaker 2>kind of land somewhere in the middle. So I appreciate

1:00:24.840 --> 1:00:31.760
<v Speaker 2>the argument that the masterful work, original architecture like that

1:00:31.760 --> 1:00:35.080
<v Speaker 2>that shouldn't be meddled with, and that makes sense.

1:00:34.880 --> 1:00:37.800
<v Speaker 3>To me, and I don't think like to that point,

1:00:37.920 --> 1:00:42.440
<v Speaker 3>I'm not sure that the thirteenth hole from members fifteen

1:00:42.880 --> 1:00:46.440
<v Speaker 3>for the Championships that Harry Colt designed going Inland was

1:00:46.520 --> 1:00:49.560
<v Speaker 3>ever considered like one of the best holes at this course.

1:00:49.880 --> 1:00:56.000
<v Speaker 3>So right, No, the Dowie hole, the Dowie hole was

1:00:56.320 --> 1:00:59.720
<v Speaker 3>the Dawi is was what this week was number nine

1:01:00.240 --> 1:01:03.760
<v Speaker 3>And yeah, that one was considered to be an amazing hole,

1:01:03.840 --> 1:01:06.520
<v Speaker 3>but the pros didn't like that. Kind of a separate subject.

1:01:06.560 --> 1:01:10.040
<v Speaker 3>But the hole that was replaced by seventeen this week

1:01:10.720 --> 1:01:14.280
<v Speaker 3>was a par three that ran Inland that Harry cult designed,

1:01:14.920 --> 1:01:18.360
<v Speaker 3>but I don't think was ever like among the top

1:01:18.440 --> 1:01:21.960
<v Speaker 3>tier of cult holes at Hoylake, gotcha?

1:01:22.040 --> 1:01:26.000
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Well that all that aside, I do think it

1:01:26.000 --> 1:01:27.920
<v Speaker 2>stood out a little bit as like this doesn't really

1:01:27.960 --> 1:01:31.640
<v Speaker 2>look like the rest of a Royal Liverpool. Yeah, Garrett,

1:01:31.680 --> 1:01:34.640
<v Speaker 2>am I correct that reworking that hole, though, added a

1:01:34.680 --> 1:01:38.439
<v Speaker 2>significant amount of length to what they played as whole

1:01:38.440 --> 1:01:42.400
<v Speaker 2>eighteen yes this week, and I do think like that

1:01:42.560 --> 1:01:46.000
<v Speaker 2>is a byproduct of modern technology, so that it should

1:01:46.000 --> 1:01:48.760
<v Speaker 2>be called out. I also think Holy eighteen with modern

1:01:48.800 --> 1:01:51.720
<v Speaker 2>technology plays much better at the length it played than

1:01:51.760 --> 1:01:54.560
<v Speaker 2>if it were fifty yards shorter, so I have to

1:01:54.600 --> 1:01:58.920
<v Speaker 2>appreciate that when within this discussion, I don't think seventeen

1:02:00.120 --> 1:02:03.120
<v Speaker 2>was a great hole. I don't think it created the drama,

1:02:03.320 --> 1:02:05.280
<v Speaker 2>even if the conditions have been a little bit better.

1:02:05.480 --> 1:02:08.720
<v Speaker 2>I just don't think it was that engaging of a hole.

1:02:10.080 --> 1:02:13.080
<v Speaker 2>Don't love the idea of messing around too much with

1:02:13.920 --> 1:02:16.160
<v Speaker 2>Harry Colt's architecture, even if it wasn't one of his

1:02:16.240 --> 1:02:21.320
<v Speaker 2>best holes, But this part I will not back down from.

1:02:22.560 --> 1:02:26.800
<v Speaker 2>I do think the closing stretch of a tournament, having

1:02:26.840 --> 1:02:29.720
<v Speaker 2>some holes that heighten your attention and then get you

1:02:29.800 --> 1:02:32.240
<v Speaker 2>engaged and you know some big numbers are at play

1:02:33.080 --> 1:02:37.040
<v Speaker 2>is a very positive attribute of a golf course, and

1:02:37.680 --> 1:02:40.000
<v Speaker 2>some of the implications of that are dangerous because you

1:02:40.080 --> 1:02:44.000
<v Speaker 2>might have some courses then trying to rework sixteen through

1:02:44.040 --> 1:02:46.840
<v Speaker 2>eighteen if they want to host big golf tournaments, and

1:02:46.880 --> 1:02:48.959
<v Speaker 2>I'm not sure how I feel about that, probably feel

1:02:48.960 --> 1:02:49.800
<v Speaker 2>pretty negatively.

1:02:50.920 --> 1:02:51.400
<v Speaker 1>But as an.

1:02:51.440 --> 1:02:57.000
<v Speaker 2>Entertainment product, a highly volatile closing stretch, it creates a

1:02:57.040 --> 1:03:00.200
<v Speaker 2>lot of excitement and it makes the championship better, So

1:03:00.240 --> 1:03:03.400
<v Speaker 2>I can appreciate that. Don't think seventeen nailed it. Don't

1:03:03.440 --> 1:03:04.800
<v Speaker 2>love the hole, but.

1:03:06.960 --> 1:03:08.040
<v Speaker 1>There's a lot going on.

1:03:08.040 --> 1:03:11.920
<v Speaker 2>In that reworking that I think all warrants discussion.

1:03:12.080 --> 1:03:17.760
<v Speaker 3>The lengthening of eighteen probably was a major consideration in

1:03:17.800 --> 1:03:21.920
<v Speaker 3>rerouting that hole that we haven't talked about enough. I

1:03:21.960 --> 1:03:24.960
<v Speaker 3>think everybody regarded eighteen as one of the highlights of

1:03:25.560 --> 1:03:28.920
<v Speaker 3>this course during this tournament, and so it's worth mentioning

1:03:28.960 --> 1:03:31.240
<v Speaker 3>that it would have been a different type of hole

1:03:31.880 --> 1:03:36.720
<v Speaker 3>if seventeen didn't turn into what it is now. Now

1:03:37.920 --> 1:03:42.200
<v Speaker 3>talking about the execution of this idea of having a

1:03:42.280 --> 1:03:46.200
<v Speaker 3>dramatic par three right near the finish, which, as you say,

1:03:46.760 --> 1:03:49.800
<v Speaker 3>is a good idea for championship golf. We've seen this

1:03:50.000 --> 1:03:53.440
<v Speaker 3>proven out at any number of courses, maybe most famously

1:03:53.640 --> 1:03:58.040
<v Speaker 3>TPC Sagrass, which was mentioned as potentially even an inspiration

1:03:58.760 --> 1:04:04.240
<v Speaker 3>for this remaining of the clothes at Hoylake. The execution

1:04:04.560 --> 1:04:07.960
<v Speaker 3>of it, I think just didn't quite get there. What

1:04:08.000 --> 1:04:12.000
<v Speaker 3>we saw basically was that in calm conditions, this hole

1:04:13.080 --> 1:04:17.080
<v Speaker 3>was just green and regulation after green and regulation. You know,

1:04:17.120 --> 1:04:21.760
<v Speaker 3>it is eighty two percent on Saturday, and that can

1:04:21.800 --> 1:04:25.880
<v Speaker 3>be fine, right, These are pros sometimes the you know,

1:04:25.960 --> 1:04:30.280
<v Speaker 3>greens hit from that distance especially is that high. But

1:04:30.320 --> 1:04:32.680
<v Speaker 3>the thing is, once you're on this green, there's not

1:04:32.840 --> 1:04:36.280
<v Speaker 3>that much interesting that happens. It's basically a bunch of

1:04:36.280 --> 1:04:39.720
<v Speaker 3>flat putts, So once you get on the green, the

1:04:39.800 --> 1:04:43.080
<v Speaker 3>drama is sort of over. So if players are hitting

1:04:43.080 --> 1:04:45.760
<v Speaker 3>the green a lot, then the drama isn't quite there.

1:04:47.000 --> 1:04:51.360
<v Speaker 3>Then when it's windy, if it's really windy, then the

1:04:51.440 --> 1:04:54.760
<v Speaker 3>hole maybe tips into ridiculousness a little bit. You know,

1:04:54.800 --> 1:04:59.200
<v Speaker 3>it was forty eight percent greens and regulation on Friday

1:04:59.560 --> 1:05:04.080
<v Speaker 3>when it that was the windiest toughest day of this championship.

1:05:04.720 --> 1:05:08.360
<v Speaker 3>And so if the conditions really come in hard, players

1:05:08.400 --> 1:05:10.840
<v Speaker 3>are missing the green a lot and they're finding themselves

1:05:10.840 --> 1:05:15.120
<v Speaker 3>in these really really penal pop bunkers, especially on the

1:05:15.200 --> 1:05:18.640
<v Speaker 3>right hand side of this green, where the recovery is

1:05:19.080 --> 1:05:23.000
<v Speaker 3>very very difficult. Long is super dead, short is not good,

1:05:23.440 --> 1:05:28.240
<v Speaker 3>left is not terrible, but not great. And so I'm

1:05:28.240 --> 1:05:33.040
<v Speaker 3>not sure I necessarily love this hole in any conditions.

1:05:33.440 --> 1:05:36.560
<v Speaker 2>I think I probably enjoy it much more on a

1:05:36.560 --> 1:05:39.120
<v Speaker 2>windy day than on a calm day, even if it

1:05:39.160 --> 1:05:40.760
<v Speaker 2>borders on like maybe.

1:05:40.520 --> 1:05:42.440
<v Speaker 1>A little ridiculous.

1:05:42.520 --> 1:05:44.560
<v Speaker 2>Ridiculous is maybe too strong of a word, But I

1:05:44.600 --> 1:05:46.880
<v Speaker 2>hear you, I think one part of the hole, and

1:05:46.920 --> 1:05:49.520
<v Speaker 2>that this idea is occurring to me in real time,

1:05:49.640 --> 1:05:51.840
<v Speaker 2>so you can check me on this. But I don't

1:05:51.840 --> 1:05:54.720
<v Speaker 2>think it gets much more interesting based on the pin location.

1:05:55.280 --> 1:05:58.800
<v Speaker 3>And no that yeah, yeah, I mean maybe if it's

1:05:58.800 --> 1:06:01.360
<v Speaker 3>like a right pin, where that right bunker that is

1:06:01.400 --> 1:06:04.360
<v Speaker 3>the worst place to be is really in play. Maybe,

1:06:04.840 --> 1:06:07.640
<v Speaker 3>but especially if it's a front pin, everybody's just going

1:06:07.680 --> 1:06:09.120
<v Speaker 3>to the middle of the green and putting back.

1:06:09.680 --> 1:06:14.000
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, Like it doesn't really change your targets like a

1:06:14.080 --> 1:06:14.640
<v Speaker 2>whole lot.

1:06:14.680 --> 1:06:16.120
<v Speaker 1>I mean, the dead spots are still deaf.

1:06:16.200 --> 1:06:17.880
<v Speaker 3>If it's on the right, yeah, it doesn't change your target.

1:06:17.880 --> 1:06:19.200
<v Speaker 3>You're playing in the middle of the green if it's

1:06:19.200 --> 1:06:20.040
<v Speaker 3>on the right, yeah. Yeah.

1:06:20.160 --> 1:06:21.960
<v Speaker 2>So I think that was the part that was kind

1:06:21.960 --> 1:06:24.880
<v Speaker 2>of standing out to me versus like TPC Sawgrass, which

1:06:24.920 --> 1:06:27.440
<v Speaker 2>seventeen isn't necessarily my favorite Part three in the world,

1:06:27.520 --> 1:06:30.520
<v Speaker 2>but though each of those pin locations has a distinct

1:06:30.960 --> 1:06:34.160
<v Speaker 2>character to it, like you're hitting different shots to those

1:06:34.200 --> 1:06:37.680
<v Speaker 2>pin locations, and I don't think seventeen at Royal Liverpool

1:06:37.760 --> 1:06:41.520
<v Speaker 2>had that at all. So for me, a brilliant Part

1:06:41.600 --> 1:06:45.080
<v Speaker 2>three does depend on where the pin is and it

1:06:45.120 --> 1:06:47.640
<v Speaker 2>plays a little bit differently. So I just wasn't quite

1:06:47.680 --> 1:06:51.680
<v Speaker 2>as engaged by seventeen. But look like there's compared to

1:06:51.720 --> 1:06:53.320
<v Speaker 2>a lot of Part three's we see week in and

1:06:53.360 --> 1:06:55.880
<v Speaker 2>week out, like I'd rather watch that, But you're right,

1:06:56.600 --> 1:06:58.400
<v Speaker 2>wouldn't give it like the most glowing review either.

1:06:58.800 --> 1:07:01.040
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, maybe my standards are a little bit too high there,

1:07:01.120 --> 1:07:04.080
<v Speaker 3>or I'm I'm might be I might be a little

1:07:04.120 --> 1:07:07.920
<v Speaker 3>quick to criticize because I really I don't like the

1:07:08.120 --> 1:07:12.040
<v Speaker 3>waste bunker work between the tea and the green there.

1:07:12.080 --> 1:07:15.040
<v Speaker 3>But we don't need to go down that particular rabbit

1:07:15.080 --> 1:07:18.200
<v Speaker 3>hole right now in this conversation, and so it's very

1:07:18.240 --> 1:07:21.400
<v Speaker 3>possible that I have a general kind of ill feeling

1:07:21.440 --> 1:07:24.760
<v Speaker 3>about this hole that I'm applying to the strategic merits

1:07:24.760 --> 1:07:27.840
<v Speaker 3>of it as well. I don't know if your model

1:07:27.880 --> 1:07:32.320
<v Speaker 3>is the seventeenth that's t TPC Sawgrass fine, But one

1:07:32.320 --> 1:07:35.720
<v Speaker 3>of the things that makes seventeen at Sawgrass so awesome

1:07:36.040 --> 1:07:39.080
<v Speaker 3>is that the green is incredible and the pin positions

1:07:39.120 --> 1:07:42.240
<v Speaker 3>are so different, and so I don't know, I think

1:07:42.280 --> 1:07:44.920
<v Speaker 3>that's that might be the part that's missing for me

1:07:45.080 --> 1:07:50.280
<v Speaker 3>is some internal contour and differentiation in the green, which

1:07:50.320 --> 1:07:52.720
<v Speaker 3>may not have been really practical to create because the

1:07:52.720 --> 1:07:54.280
<v Speaker 3>green itself is so small.

1:07:54.960 --> 1:07:56.400
<v Speaker 2>I think maybe part of the problem with it is

1:07:56.400 --> 1:08:00.360
<v Speaker 2>the way danger kind of surrounds the entire green. Yeah,

1:08:00.400 --> 1:08:03.400
<v Speaker 2>and when there's that much danger on all sides, it

1:08:03.440 --> 1:08:06.440
<v Speaker 2>almost like it just becomes purely execution. There's not a

1:08:06.480 --> 1:08:09.080
<v Speaker 2>whole lot of like risk reward based on the pin,

1:08:09.240 --> 1:08:11.480
<v Speaker 2>So I don't know's it's.

1:08:11.320 --> 1:08:14.880
<v Speaker 3>Middle, middle, middle every time, especially since there's not much

1:08:15.040 --> 1:08:19.240
<v Speaker 3>internal contour. There's nothing else to consider except for the hazards,

1:08:19.640 --> 1:08:23.720
<v Speaker 3>and the hazards are basically equidistant from the middle of

1:08:23.760 --> 1:08:25.840
<v Speaker 3>the green, and so that's where you're going. I mean,

1:08:25.920 --> 1:08:28.479
<v Speaker 3>maybe you edge a little bit left, because if you

1:08:28.520 --> 1:08:31.679
<v Speaker 3>miss left, then you're if you're a decent bunker player,

1:08:31.720 --> 1:08:34.520
<v Speaker 3>you're probably making par whereas if you miss right, you're

1:08:34.560 --> 1:08:37.280
<v Speaker 3>in some real danger of making a big number. So

1:08:37.439 --> 1:08:39.760
<v Speaker 3>maybe maybe that's a little adjustment. But the green is

1:08:39.800 --> 1:08:42.000
<v Speaker 3>so small that I think you would agree that that

1:08:42.120 --> 1:08:47.519
<v Speaker 3>adjustment would be very minute, you know, exactly. Yeah, Okay,

1:08:47.880 --> 1:08:50.960
<v Speaker 3>all right, that's seventeen at hoy Lake and we've got

1:08:51.000 --> 1:08:54.120
<v Speaker 3>your three takes on the golf course. Joseph, thank you

1:08:54.160 --> 1:08:56.320
<v Speaker 3>so much for that, and thank you in general for

1:08:56.360 --> 1:08:59.639
<v Speaker 3>coming on the post major podcasts this year. They've they've

1:08:59.680 --> 1:09:03.639
<v Speaker 3>all been really interesting. Always appreciate your thoughts. So let's

1:09:03.640 --> 1:09:04.040
<v Speaker 3>do it again.

1:09:04.080 --> 1:09:04.240
<v Speaker 4>Soon.

1:09:04.320 --> 1:09:05.240
<v Speaker 3>Let's do it again next year.

1:09:05.680 --> 1:09:08.639
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, talk to you after the Tour Championship. Appreciate it, Garrett,

1:09:08.800 --> 1:09:09.519
<v Speaker 2>all right, thanks man.

1:09:19.920 --> 1:09:22.960
<v Speaker 3>This episode of the Frida Egg podcast was edited by

1:09:23.040 --> 1:09:26.439
<v Speaker 3>Natt Rusius. Thank you, Matt, and thank you especially for

1:09:26.520 --> 1:09:29.960
<v Speaker 3>working on the weekend during the Open Championship. One of

1:09:29.960 --> 1:09:31.920
<v Speaker 3>the best ways to support the Frida Egg is to

1:09:32.000 --> 1:09:35.080
<v Speaker 3>join Club TFE. Just go to the Frida Egg dot

1:09:35.120 --> 1:09:38.639
<v Speaker 3>com slash membership and check out what we're offering there.

1:09:39.240 --> 1:09:42.920
<v Speaker 3>We had lots of Open Week content, including a post

1:09:42.920 --> 1:09:45.400
<v Speaker 3>with some of the best writing that's ever been done

1:09:45.720 --> 1:09:50.320
<v Speaker 3>about Hoylake from authors like Bernard Darwin and Patrick Dickinson.

1:09:50.400 --> 1:09:53.960
<v Speaker 3>Just some really interesting stuff, along with some historical images

1:09:54.000 --> 1:09:57.800
<v Speaker 3>that we found. This week, Andy wrote a profile of

1:09:58.280 --> 1:10:02.880
<v Speaker 3>North Barrick Great Course in Scotland with some beautiful photos

1:10:02.920 --> 1:10:05.519
<v Speaker 3>that they took last year when they were there, along

1:10:05.520 --> 1:10:09.479
<v Speaker 3>with some really nice analysis and reflections about the golf course.

1:10:10.240 --> 1:10:14.000
<v Speaker 3>There's a great community in clubtf that's developing. In the

1:10:14.040 --> 1:10:18.639
<v Speaker 3>comment sections on these posts, people say such interesting fun things.

1:10:19.000 --> 1:10:20.800
<v Speaker 3>We had a lot of discussion this week about the

1:10:20.840 --> 1:10:25.280
<v Speaker 3>Open Championship itself, along with a Club TFE pool that

1:10:25.600 --> 1:10:27.639
<v Speaker 3>I haven't actually looked at the results of but I'll

1:10:27.640 --> 1:10:30.440
<v Speaker 3>have to check that out after I get off the microphone.

1:10:30.600 --> 1:10:35.280
<v Speaker 3>So CLUBTFE the Friday dot Com slash membership really fun

1:10:35.320 --> 1:10:38.719
<v Speaker 3>experience there. Go check that out. Thank you for listening,

1:10:38.960 --> 1:10:40.080
<v Speaker 3>and we'll be back again soon