WEBVTT - On-the-Ground Insights from Pinehurst and a 2014 U.S. Open Rewind

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.800
<v Speaker 1>I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When

0:00:02.800 --> 0:00:04.920
<v Speaker 1>I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.

0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>And when I find my ball.

0:00:06.120 --> 0:00:08.960
<v Speaker 2>In a brid egg Friday Egg, the dreaded Frida Egg

0:00:09.039 --> 0:00:12.040
<v Speaker 2>Frida Egg, Frida Egg, Brian Egg, Frida Egg Bride egg Lie.

0:00:11.920 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>I'm about ready to run off of the hump course game.

0:00:34.560 --> 0:00:37.400
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Frida Egg a Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett

0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:41.000
<v Speaker 1>Morrison and the twenty twenty four US Open at Pinehurst

0:00:41.120 --> 0:00:45.240
<v Speaker 1>number two is starting tomorrow, so I thought i'd bring

0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:48.680
<v Speaker 1>on Joseph Lamonia, who was on site for Friday Egg Golf,

0:00:49.360 --> 0:00:52.680
<v Speaker 1>and we will just talk about a few things. First,

0:00:52.760 --> 0:00:55.080
<v Speaker 1>I think his initial thoughts on the course. Joseph was

0:00:55.120 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>out there this morning walking around and seeing what there

0:00:58.880 --> 0:01:02.360
<v Speaker 1>was to see. And second, the lessons that we both

0:01:02.440 --> 0:01:06.679
<v Speaker 1>learned from rewatching the last US Open held at Pinehurst

0:01:06.800 --> 0:01:10.319
<v Speaker 1>number two, which was in twenty fourteen and one in

0:01:10.480 --> 0:01:15.280
<v Speaker 1>dominant fashion by Martin Kaimer. Both Joseph and I rewatched

0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.959
<v Speaker 1>that final round telecast just to glean any insights we

0:01:19.120 --> 0:01:22.160
<v Speaker 1>could from it. I think it's always informative to look

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.520
<v Speaker 1>at these past tournaments and try to get detailed about

0:01:25.800 --> 0:01:28.559
<v Speaker 1>how the course actually played, because it's easy to forget

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:31.080
<v Speaker 1>a lot of the things that happened ten years ago.

0:01:31.520 --> 0:01:33.720
<v Speaker 1>So our basic intention here is to give you the

0:01:33.720 --> 0:01:38.200
<v Speaker 1>most specific and accurate impression possible about how we expect

0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>the number two course to play this week and which

0:01:41.040 --> 0:01:45.119
<v Speaker 1>skill sets we believe will be rewarded with that. Let's

0:01:45.120 --> 0:01:47.240
<v Speaker 1>bring on, Joseph. How you doing, my friend?

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:50.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm doing great, Garrett. You said that the goal is

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.800
<v Speaker 2>to give people the best, the most accurate possible impression,

0:01:53.880 --> 0:01:55.600
<v Speaker 2>So what could possibly go wrong?

0:01:56.680 --> 0:02:01.360
<v Speaker 1>Exactly? I'm setting high expectations and just hoping that we

0:02:01.480 --> 0:02:03.680
<v Speaker 1>get most of the way there. That's the idea.

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:06.680
<v Speaker 2>Sounds great, Well, yeah, I'm super excited for this tournament.

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:09.079
<v Speaker 2>You know the golf course super well. I feel like

0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:11.120
<v Speaker 2>I know the golf course very well, So excited to

0:02:11.120 --> 0:02:13.680
<v Speaker 2>do this pod and kind of that back and forth

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:16.200
<v Speaker 2>what we think the tournament's going to play like, because

0:02:16.639 --> 0:02:19.919
<v Speaker 2>at least heart in recent memory, it's hard to think

0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:22.440
<v Speaker 2>of a tournament where I'm hearing such a divergence of

0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:25.480
<v Speaker 2>opinions on how this golf course is going to play like.

0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:27.840
<v Speaker 2>I've had people messaging me that they think it's just

0:02:27.960 --> 0:02:30.840
<v Speaker 2>bombs away. Other people think short hitters are going to

0:02:30.880 --> 0:02:33.600
<v Speaker 2>be completely fine. Some people think short game is going

0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:35.960
<v Speaker 2>to be everything. Other people think since you can put

0:02:35.960 --> 0:02:38.480
<v Speaker 2>from around the greens, short game means nothing. This week,

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:40.120
<v Speaker 2>it's kind of all over the board.

0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:44.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, it's interesting. I want to actually let's get into

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:47.680
<v Speaker 1>that right off the bat. So what has been the

0:02:47.800 --> 0:02:50.880
<v Speaker 1>general chatter about the course and what do you make

0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:53.480
<v Speaker 1>of it? Having walked around the course, where do you

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:56.520
<v Speaker 1>come down in this debate about how the course is

0:02:56.560 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 1>going to play in various ways?

0:02:59.240 --> 0:03:02.160
<v Speaker 2>I don't know what all the chatter has been because

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:04.440
<v Speaker 2>I try to kind of not pay too much attention

0:03:04.480 --> 0:03:06.520
<v Speaker 2>to that and just focus on how I think it's

0:03:06.560 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 2>gonna play. Honestly, Garrett, what I saw in person was

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:13.720
<v Speaker 2>what I expected, and I think the main thing that

0:03:13.760 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 2>I've been looking for, and I think this is something

0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:17.800
<v Speaker 2>you're gonna hear from a lot of people, like how

0:03:17.840 --> 0:03:20.440
<v Speaker 2>penal is some of this grass once you get off

0:03:20.480 --> 0:03:23.240
<v Speaker 2>the fairway. One thing I've heard a bunch of caddies saying,

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:25.280
<v Speaker 2>and I think you're gonna hear people say, is if

0:03:25.280 --> 0:03:28.480
<v Speaker 2>you just get like a foot or two off the fairway,

0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:30.600
<v Speaker 2>it's gonna be much more penal than if you're like

0:03:31.280 --> 0:03:34.520
<v Speaker 2>ten feet or you know, fifteen twenty five feet off

0:03:34.600 --> 0:03:38.320
<v Speaker 2>the fairway, then there's more thin areas. I think that

0:03:38.440 --> 0:03:41.560
<v Speaker 2>narrative is gonna is a little overblown. And when people

0:03:41.600 --> 0:03:44.640
<v Speaker 2>taking it to the next step and saying, since it's

0:03:44.680 --> 0:03:48.200
<v Speaker 2>true that being ten yards off is better than being

0:03:48.320 --> 0:03:51.360
<v Speaker 2>one yard off, just bombs away, I don't see it

0:03:51.400 --> 0:03:54.440
<v Speaker 2>that way. I don't think bombers and just getting reckless

0:03:54.480 --> 0:03:57.000
<v Speaker 2>and bashing driver everywhere is a good strategy here. So

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:00.840
<v Speaker 2>not expecting that, yeah, well, I mean if you just

0:04:00.920 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 2>bashed driver everywhere, there's a lot of bottlenecking around where

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:09.720
<v Speaker 2>your shots are going to land, first of all, and

0:04:09.760 --> 0:04:14.200
<v Speaker 2>then there's just that randomness that happens. And if a

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:19.440
<v Speaker 2>player embraces that and says, whatever the outcome is, I'm

0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:22.039
<v Speaker 2>fine with it as long as I stick to my

0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:26.000
<v Speaker 2>strategy of hitting it as hard as I can, then

0:04:26.080 --> 0:04:30.000
<v Speaker 2>I almost respect that because that is really a stand

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:33.280
<v Speaker 2>that that player is taking at this course as opposed

0:04:33.320 --> 0:04:36.359
<v Speaker 2>to other courses where the outcomes are just a little

0:04:36.360 --> 0:04:40.520
<v Speaker 2>more consistent, even if they're pretty penal. Agree, And I

0:04:40.560 --> 0:04:42.200
<v Speaker 2>would take a little bit of that approach, Like I

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:44.800
<v Speaker 2>think there's some opportunities to get aggressive out there, but

0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:50.040
<v Speaker 2>I think on TV you'll see some balls end up

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:53.480
<v Speaker 2>in the fix stuff. But with a totally fine lie,

0:04:53.839 --> 0:04:57.080
<v Speaker 2>that's not an easy shot, like it's still coming into

0:04:57.160 --> 0:05:00.680
<v Speaker 2>these greens and how demanding and die of ball they are.

0:05:00.839 --> 0:05:03.320
<v Speaker 2>I wouldn't want like one hundred and sixty yard shot,

0:05:03.360 --> 0:05:05.520
<v Speaker 2>even if the live feels pretty clean and it's on

0:05:05.600 --> 0:05:08.479
<v Speaker 2>sands like the fairway is still providing you a big

0:05:08.480 --> 0:05:11.440
<v Speaker 2>advantage there. So I just don't why I agree to

0:05:11.480 --> 0:05:13.760
<v Speaker 2>an extent that this isn't going to be like a

0:05:13.760 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 2>hardcore accuracy test and you don't need to be amazing

0:05:16.920 --> 0:05:19.200
<v Speaker 2>off the t you to thrive here. I think you

0:05:19.240 --> 0:05:21.680
<v Speaker 2>can just go ahead and spray. It is not necessarily

0:05:21.720 --> 0:05:23.760
<v Speaker 2>an accurate narrative, okay.

0:05:24.520 --> 0:05:27.679
<v Speaker 1>And then where do you come down on the debate

0:05:27.920 --> 0:05:31.919
<v Speaker 1>over whether this is going to be a very difficult

0:05:32.400 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 1>US Open more of a traditional US Open, even though

0:05:36.360 --> 0:05:39.000
<v Speaker 1>this is a fairly non traditional US Open course, but

0:05:39.360 --> 0:05:42.520
<v Speaker 1>traditional in the sense that around even par is going

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:46.520
<v Speaker 1>to be possibly a winning score and people will get

0:05:46.520 --> 0:05:50.480
<v Speaker 1>to see some carnage, or will it be a little

0:05:50.520 --> 0:05:54.520
<v Speaker 1>bit easier or lower scoring than people expect.

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:57.800
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it's it's super difficult to say score to par

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 2>without seeing exactly how firm this place this is gonna

0:06:00.520 --> 0:06:02.960
<v Speaker 2>because if they really if it gets super baked out,

0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 2>obviously extremely difficult. I don't know i'd be interested in

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:10.640
<v Speaker 2>what like the Vegas number is right now, but something

0:06:10.680 --> 0:06:14.479
<v Speaker 2>around like six to eight under seems reasonable. But I

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 2>think until we have a good grasp on firmness, it's

0:06:16.880 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 2>gonna be hard to say anything definitively. Doesn't look like

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:22.120
<v Speaker 2>it's gonna rain anymore, and I don't think there's gonna

0:06:22.120 --> 0:06:25.520
<v Speaker 2>be a lot of wind. So something in that the

0:06:25.800 --> 0:06:28.400
<v Speaker 2>range of eight under feels reasonable, but even like pin

0:06:28.480 --> 0:06:31.360
<v Speaker 2>locations have a huge impact on that, So I don't know.

0:06:31.600 --> 0:06:33.240
<v Speaker 2>Something in that ballpark seems reasonable to me.

0:06:33.279 --> 0:06:36.760
<v Speaker 1>What do you think? I think that you're right that

0:06:36.880 --> 0:06:40.120
<v Speaker 1>it's gonna be It's gonna be one of those situations

0:06:40.560 --> 0:06:43.599
<v Speaker 1>where some people are gonna be unhappy with how low

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:47.200
<v Speaker 1>the scoring is and other people are going to be

0:06:47.800 --> 0:06:51.279
<v Speaker 1>legitimate in pointing out that it's actually really hard. I

0:06:51.279 --> 0:06:54.320
<v Speaker 1>don't think anybody's going to be satisfied. I don't think

0:06:54.360 --> 0:07:00.320
<v Speaker 1>it's possible to satisfy us open fans these days, partly

0:07:00.400 --> 0:07:02.720
<v Speaker 1>because of how far players hit the ball and how

0:07:02.800 --> 0:07:05.960
<v Speaker 1>straight they hit it, and the equipment and the technique

0:07:06.400 --> 0:07:09.600
<v Speaker 1>that they now have at their disposal, these courses are

0:07:09.640 --> 0:07:11.800
<v Speaker 1>just way too short. Pinehurst is going to be seventy

0:07:11.800 --> 0:07:14.720
<v Speaker 1>five hundred yards this week, and that's kind of like

0:07:15.160 --> 0:07:18.480
<v Speaker 1>too short for these guys. And so if it does

0:07:18.560 --> 0:07:22.520
<v Speaker 1>get soft out there for whatever reason, because maybe you know,

0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 1>the course gets more rain than expected, then guys could

0:07:26.280 --> 0:07:30.120
<v Speaker 1>go low. But my suspicion is that the USGA is

0:07:30.160 --> 0:07:33.200
<v Speaker 1>going to be pretty restrained in the setup, but it's

0:07:33.240 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 1>still going to be hard, but it's just not going

0:07:36.000 --> 0:07:39.880
<v Speaker 1>to be winged Foot nineteen seventy four. We kind of

0:07:39.880 --> 0:07:43.679
<v Speaker 1>have to put that idea of a US Open behind

0:07:43.760 --> 0:07:47.440
<v Speaker 1>us because it's just not happening anymore. And by the way,

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:52.800
<v Speaker 1>there continue to be really puzzling in bad takes about

0:07:52.800 --> 0:07:56.560
<v Speaker 1>the lacc Us Open circulated out there. I'm sure that

0:07:56.600 --> 0:08:00.000
<v Speaker 1>there will be some kind of contrast set up between

0:08:00.480 --> 0:08:03.640
<v Speaker 1>last year's US Open and this US Open. But the

0:08:03.640 --> 0:08:07.360
<v Speaker 1>fact of the matter is that that was a hard

0:08:07.520 --> 0:08:11.440
<v Speaker 1>US Open pretty much after the first day, and that

0:08:11.560 --> 0:08:17.320
<v Speaker 1>course defended itself fairly well after that first round when

0:08:17.400 --> 0:08:20.000
<v Speaker 1>it was just a bit softer than I think the

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 1>setup crew expected, and so I mean there's just that

0:08:26.960 --> 0:08:29.400
<v Speaker 1>it's almost like it doesn't matter what happens on the course.

0:08:29.840 --> 0:08:32.640
<v Speaker 1>What matters is the narrative that people spin out of it.

0:08:33.200 --> 0:08:36.599
<v Speaker 2>I'm with you, Garrett, and I think we have to

0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:39.600
<v Speaker 2>be careful what we want here, like careful what you

0:08:39.679 --> 0:08:44.120
<v Speaker 2>asked for. There's always trade offs in what people want, right,

0:08:44.200 --> 0:08:47.160
<v Speaker 2>Like the firmer they make the golf course, the shorter

0:08:47.240 --> 0:08:49.719
<v Speaker 2>it's gonna play because the ball rolls forever, so you're

0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:53.040
<v Speaker 2>gonna have fewer long irons in. And the main thing though,

0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:55.559
<v Speaker 2>is if you make these greens too firm, there are

0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:58.080
<v Speaker 2>certain holes where there is nowhere to land the ball,

0:08:58.160 --> 0:09:02.079
<v Speaker 2>like the fifteenth hole right now, long part three, there's

0:09:02.240 --> 0:09:04.840
<v Speaker 2>almost nowhere to hit that shot and keep it on

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:08.560
<v Speaker 2>the green. So you could get carnage quote unquote by

0:09:08.960 --> 0:09:12.400
<v Speaker 2>really cranking it up it being extremely firm and fast,

0:09:12.480 --> 0:09:15.800
<v Speaker 2>But at that point it almost turns into golf. It's

0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:18.520
<v Speaker 2>a little bit gimmicky. I'm all for a hard test,

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:22.880
<v Speaker 2>but these are small ish greens. I know that they

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 2>play much smaller than the square footage, So the square

0:09:24.920 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 2>footage isn't that relevant. Here, they play really small if

0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:31.679
<v Speaker 2>you crank it up. So I'm again I want to

0:09:31.679 --> 0:09:34.920
<v Speaker 2>see demanding shots. I want to see some blow up numbers.

0:09:34.960 --> 0:09:36.800
<v Speaker 2>But you're not going to get that much of that

0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:39.520
<v Speaker 2>without making it kind of a ridiculous test.

0:09:40.360 --> 0:09:44.000
<v Speaker 1>We have already heard from a couple of players so

0:09:44.120 --> 0:09:49.200
<v Speaker 1>far this week, most notably Wyndom Clark about the early

0:09:49.320 --> 0:09:55.000
<v Speaker 1>week firmness of the Greens. Wyndam Clark called them borderline

0:09:55.200 --> 0:09:58.880
<v Speaker 1>on Monday and said said if they push them any

0:09:58.960 --> 0:10:01.800
<v Speaker 1>firmer and faster than then it would be borderline. And

0:10:01.840 --> 0:10:04.480
<v Speaker 1>then he followed that up with saying, actually they already

0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.560
<v Speaker 1>are borderline. Now I had some issues with this comment.

0:10:07.679 --> 0:10:11.439
<v Speaker 1>I think that talking that way on Monday of Championship

0:10:11.440 --> 0:10:14.240
<v Speaker 1>week is kind of lame. It does seem like he

0:10:14.400 --> 0:10:16.360
<v Speaker 1>was trying to work the refs a little bit and

0:10:16.400 --> 0:10:19.040
<v Speaker 1>say you better not make it any faster out there,

0:10:19.120 --> 0:10:22.040
<v Speaker 1>or I'm not going to be happy. But in any case,

0:10:22.440 --> 0:10:26.600
<v Speaker 1>that's Wyndham Clark's Monday position. Maybe he'll be happier with

0:10:26.640 --> 0:10:28.960
<v Speaker 1>it as the week goes on. But as you were

0:10:28.960 --> 0:10:32.640
<v Speaker 1>walking around the course today, Joseph, what was your own

0:10:32.920 --> 0:10:35.959
<v Speaker 1>sense of how firm and fast the greens were and

0:10:36.360 --> 0:10:38.600
<v Speaker 1>the other elements of the course out there. What's the

0:10:38.600 --> 0:10:39.960
<v Speaker 1>firmness level at this point.

0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:44.400
<v Speaker 2>It's firm, Garrett, But it seems reasonable to me, and

0:10:44.440 --> 0:10:47.680
<v Speaker 2>the golf course is supposed supposed to play firm. So yeah,

0:10:47.760 --> 0:10:49.440
<v Speaker 2>it's a lot different than a week in and week

0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:53.320
<v Speaker 2>out PGA Tour setup. But it didn't feel to me

0:10:53.440 --> 0:10:55.320
<v Speaker 2>like it was on the edge from what I saw.

0:10:55.880 --> 0:10:58.920
<v Speaker 2>I do think though, a big part to keep in mind,

0:10:59.120 --> 0:11:01.600
<v Speaker 2>like I was watching on the sixth hole today, the

0:11:01.640 --> 0:11:05.080
<v Speaker 2>part of three is just in general this you're gonna

0:11:05.080 --> 0:11:07.360
<v Speaker 2>see this over and over again where the landing area

0:11:07.440 --> 0:11:09.760
<v Speaker 2>is so small that what it encourages players to do.

0:11:09.800 --> 0:11:12.040
<v Speaker 2>Like let's say the pin is back on six like

0:11:12.080 --> 0:11:14.640
<v Speaker 2>it was today in the practice round, you're not really

0:11:14.640 --> 0:11:17.959
<v Speaker 2>considering pushing that ball back there because it takes a

0:11:18.000 --> 0:11:19.600
<v Speaker 2>big hop and goes over the back of the green.

0:11:19.640 --> 0:11:24.200
<v Speaker 2>You have a serious problem. So I understand Wyndham's concern

0:11:24.240 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 2>on it getting too firm, because then you're almost like

0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.240
<v Speaker 2>playing short of a bunch of greens, which you are

0:11:29.360 --> 0:11:31.520
<v Speaker 2>going to have to do at Pinehurst, and I think

0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:33.199
<v Speaker 2>that's again a big part of the reason short game

0:11:33.240 --> 0:11:37.839
<v Speaker 2>is going to be rewarded here, but the USGA has

0:11:37.840 --> 0:11:40.440
<v Speaker 2>a difficult job here of getting the right firmness level.

0:11:40.440 --> 0:11:42.080
<v Speaker 2>Didn't see anything today that concerned me.

0:11:42.800 --> 0:11:45.760
<v Speaker 1>I thought Michael Kim made a really good point on

0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:50.439
<v Speaker 1>Twitter the other day when he actually quote tweeted Friday

0:11:50.520 --> 0:11:55.440
<v Speaker 1>Golf's tweet about Wyndham's comments and said, there's been a

0:11:55.559 --> 0:12:00.480
<v Speaker 1>shift in the setup approach that most organizations are taking

0:12:00.520 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>to big golf tournaments now, where they actually start off

0:12:03.640 --> 0:12:07.920
<v Speaker 1>the week with firmer and faster greens than they intend

0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.360
<v Speaker 1>to have later in the week, and they kind of

0:12:10.480 --> 0:12:14.440
<v Speaker 1>rain them in as the week goes on instead of

0:12:14.520 --> 0:12:18.600
<v Speaker 1>starting softer and firming them up as the week goes on. Now,

0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:22.760
<v Speaker 1>I'm not exactly sure what the agonomic explanation for this

0:12:22.840 --> 0:12:25.480
<v Speaker 1>approach would be, but that does seem right to me

0:12:26.600 --> 0:12:29.480
<v Speaker 1>that that is the approach that's being taken at big

0:12:29.520 --> 0:12:32.600
<v Speaker 1>tournaments now, not just at the US Open, but other

0:12:32.640 --> 0:12:34.800
<v Speaker 1>tournaments where we hear comments early in the week from

0:12:34.840 --> 0:12:38.360
<v Speaker 1>players saying it is insanely firm out here, and then

0:12:38.559 --> 0:12:41.000
<v Speaker 1>as the week goes on, we hear more and more

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:44.720
<v Speaker 1>about the setup crew going out there and syringing the greens,

0:12:44.800 --> 0:12:47.080
<v Speaker 1>laying a little bit of water down and kind of

0:12:47.120 --> 0:12:51.480
<v Speaker 1>controlling speed by making them slower as opposed to controlling

0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.280
<v Speaker 1>speed by allowing them to bake out.

0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:58.160
<v Speaker 2>I agree, Yeah, it does seem like they're doing that again,

0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:01.360
<v Speaker 2>Like today kind of looks like what I would expect

0:13:01.360 --> 0:13:04.319
<v Speaker 2>it to look like, so especially with maybe if you

0:13:04.360 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 2>have more than a seven iron coming in like one

0:13:06.280 --> 0:13:09.480
<v Speaker 2>big hop, and if you land it too far like

0:13:09.520 --> 0:13:11.920
<v Speaker 2>middle of the green or middle back of the green,

0:13:11.960 --> 0:13:13.880
<v Speaker 2>like it's going over, it's bouncing over. I think the

0:13:13.880 --> 0:13:15.480
<v Speaker 2>people who like firm and fast are going to be

0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:18.120
<v Speaker 2>happy with his championship. But nothing about what I've seen

0:13:18.120 --> 0:13:20.959
<v Speaker 2>suggests that they're pushing the line at all. So I'd

0:13:20.960 --> 0:13:24.679
<v Speaker 2>be interested in if the USGA would corroborate Michael Kim's comments.

0:13:24.720 --> 0:13:26.000
<v Speaker 2>But it seems sensible to me.

0:13:26.600 --> 0:13:29.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, we might as well ask actually, come to think

0:13:29.640 --> 0:13:32.640
<v Speaker 1>of it, I'll write that down and send that question.

0:13:32.760 --> 0:13:37.080
<v Speaker 1>So in any case, the other big issue going into

0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:39.200
<v Speaker 1>the week, it seems related to the setup in the

0:13:39.200 --> 0:13:44.520
<v Speaker 1>golf course, is the short game technique that players might

0:13:44.679 --> 0:13:49.679
<v Speaker 1>use around the greens. Famously, in twenty fourteen, Martin Kaimer

0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:52.520
<v Speaker 1>did really well with a putter around the greens and

0:13:52.559 --> 0:13:57.400
<v Speaker 1>he was visibly uncomfortable hitting wedges off of that short

0:13:57.400 --> 0:14:01.600
<v Speaker 1>grass surface bermuda grass surface. Around the greens. He much

0:14:01.640 --> 0:14:04.360
<v Speaker 1>preferred to take the putter and he did really, really

0:14:04.360 --> 0:14:06.920
<v Speaker 1>well with it. So you know, as you're going around

0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 1>the course, are you keeping an eye on the techniques

0:14:09.480 --> 0:14:11.960
<v Speaker 1>that players are using, the different approaches that they're using,

0:14:12.040 --> 0:14:13.320
<v Speaker 1>and what did you see?

0:14:13.760 --> 0:14:16.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there's a lot of putting, and I think putting's

0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 2>a good strategy this week, Garrett, You're also going to

0:14:20.280 --> 0:14:23.400
<v Speaker 2>see some people use woods around the greens. Saw some

0:14:23.520 --> 0:14:27.000
<v Speaker 2>of that. I think a lot of it's going to

0:14:27.040 --> 0:14:29.480
<v Speaker 2>come down to reading your lie and which direction the

0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.280
<v Speaker 2>grain is going. But I would expect to see a

0:14:32.280 --> 0:14:35.480
<v Speaker 2>lot of putter, and I think it's pretty smart. So

0:14:36.200 --> 0:14:38.680
<v Speaker 2>I think like Victor Hovelin is a good example where

0:14:39.520 --> 0:14:41.800
<v Speaker 2>he I think in his press conference he said something

0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:44.800
<v Speaker 2>like it might be sixty forty for him, sixty putter

0:14:44.880 --> 0:14:47.720
<v Speaker 2>and forty percent trying some kind of chip shot. He's

0:14:47.760 --> 0:14:50.440
<v Speaker 2>a player that's historically struggled with the short game a

0:14:50.440 --> 0:14:54.600
<v Speaker 2>little bit, maybe resembling Kimer in some way, like the

0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:57.320
<v Speaker 2>elite ball striker. The short game has given him some issues.

0:14:57.560 --> 0:14:59.200
<v Speaker 2>I think watching what he does around the greens is

0:14:59.200 --> 0:15:01.640
<v Speaker 2>going to be really interesting. You'll probably see a good

0:15:01.640 --> 0:15:02.680
<v Speaker 2>amount of putter from him.

0:15:03.040 --> 0:15:06.360
<v Speaker 1>Okay, cool, so a lot of putter out there. I

0:15:06.360 --> 0:15:10.320
<v Speaker 1>would be curious to specifically see what a player like

0:15:10.440 --> 0:15:13.240
<v Speaker 1>Jordan Speith is going to do around the greens, because

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:18.080
<v Speaker 1>Speef is one a great chipper. He's very confident off

0:15:18.120 --> 0:15:21.000
<v Speaker 1>of any surface with a lob wedge, and he sticks

0:15:21.040 --> 0:15:23.680
<v Speaker 1>to that lob wedge right. He uses his sixty degree

0:15:24.240 --> 0:15:28.320
<v Speaker 1>in pretty much every situation around the greens everywhere, and

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:32.840
<v Speaker 1>uses different shot types with it right. He's able to

0:15:32.880 --> 0:15:34.480
<v Speaker 1>hit it low, he's able to hit it high and

0:15:35.160 --> 0:15:39.120
<v Speaker 1>do a bunch of things with right exactly. And so

0:15:39.160 --> 0:15:42.000
<v Speaker 1>I'm curious to see what he would do at Pinehurst.

0:15:42.160 --> 0:15:45.520
<v Speaker 1>Somebody who is really good at chipping and also pretty

0:15:45.560 --> 0:15:48.720
<v Speaker 1>consistent in the club that he uses around the greens.

0:15:49.160 --> 0:15:52.000
<v Speaker 1>If he too is putting and hitting some of these

0:15:52.040 --> 0:15:56.240
<v Speaker 1>like hybrid chips or fairway wood chips, then you really

0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:59.760
<v Speaker 1>know that something is different here and that just about

0:16:00.000 --> 0:16:02.840
<v Speaker 1>everybody is going to be keeping the ball low around

0:16:02.880 --> 0:16:03.440
<v Speaker 1>the greens.

0:16:03.720 --> 0:16:05.680
<v Speaker 2>It's a good point, and maybe the other player i'd

0:16:05.680 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 2>call out somewhat similar similar there is Cam Smith, who yes,

0:16:11.280 --> 0:16:14.560
<v Speaker 2>is elite with his wedges around a green, but he

0:16:14.640 --> 0:16:17.440
<v Speaker 2>also I think the Australian angle, and this is something

0:16:17.480 --> 0:16:19.960
<v Speaker 2>that I had in my notes to bring up. Cam's

0:16:20.040 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 2>used to this type of golf. I don't know if Pinehurst.

0:16:22.080 --> 0:16:24.280
<v Speaker 2>I've never been to Australia, but I do think there's

0:16:24.680 --> 0:16:29.040
<v Speaker 2>some resemblance there and seeing some past Australian slash New

0:16:29.120 --> 0:16:32.040
<v Speaker 2>Zealand's success here makes some sense to me. So I

0:16:32.040 --> 0:16:33.960
<v Speaker 2>think Cam's going to have a good feel for what

0:16:34.080 --> 0:16:36.280
<v Speaker 2>shots he should try, and he could be another player

0:16:36.320 --> 0:16:38.880
<v Speaker 2>to look at where if he's going to the putter,

0:16:38.920 --> 0:16:41.360
<v Speaker 2>it's not because he's incapable of hitting that short game

0:16:41.360 --> 0:16:44.000
<v Speaker 2>shot maybe like Martin Kaimer was, but because Cam knows

0:16:44.400 --> 0:16:46.520
<v Speaker 2>that more often than not, that's the right shot that

0:16:46.560 --> 0:16:47.880
<v Speaker 2>you should try.

0:16:47.920 --> 0:16:53.120
<v Speaker 1>Cool. What are some standout holes for you strategically on

0:16:53.160 --> 0:16:54.040
<v Speaker 1>the course this week?

0:16:54.840 --> 0:16:57.480
<v Speaker 2>One of my favorite holes out here, Garrett, and I

0:16:57.520 --> 0:17:00.520
<v Speaker 2>feel like maybe you're not as high on this hole,

0:17:00.560 --> 0:17:02.640
<v Speaker 2>so it is interested in your opinion. I think the

0:17:02.720 --> 0:17:06.639
<v Speaker 2>seventh hole is awesome and the way that there's a

0:17:06.680 --> 0:17:09.040
<v Speaker 2>bunker that kind of juts out down the right side,

0:17:09.440 --> 0:17:13.760
<v Speaker 2>but overall the fairway dog legs gently to the right

0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:17.120
<v Speaker 2>and angles to the right, so that the more you

0:17:17.160 --> 0:17:20.359
<v Speaker 2>take the ball down the left side, the more you

0:17:21.520 --> 0:17:23.520
<v Speaker 2>the higher the chance that you run out into the

0:17:23.520 --> 0:17:27.000
<v Speaker 2>thick stuff. So picking a target off the tee is

0:17:27.040 --> 0:17:30.160
<v Speaker 2>pretty interesting. And like we saw in the twenty fourteen

0:17:30.200 --> 0:17:33.720
<v Speaker 2>final round rewatching that Martin Kaimer ended up down the left,

0:17:33.800 --> 0:17:35.359
<v Speaker 2>like if you can pull some kind of iron or

0:17:35.359 --> 0:17:37.800
<v Speaker 2>some kind of wood, but that's not the safest shot,

0:17:37.800 --> 0:17:39.080
<v Speaker 2>Like if you pull it a little bit, you might

0:17:39.160 --> 0:17:40.679
<v Speaker 2>end up in the thick stuff. So I really like

0:17:40.760 --> 0:17:42.800
<v Speaker 2>that hole in the way that it kind of asks

0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 2>a unique question of players, at least off of the tee.

0:17:45.480 --> 0:17:47.159
<v Speaker 2>I mean, if you're hitting a little flip wedge in.

0:17:47.280 --> 0:17:49.240
<v Speaker 2>But I think seven's a pretty cool t shot to

0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:49.800
<v Speaker 2>keep an eye on.

0:17:50.240 --> 0:17:53.280
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I guess you're right that I'm not as enthusiastic

0:17:53.280 --> 0:17:56.760
<v Speaker 1>about that hole as some others, and probably as I

0:17:56.800 --> 0:18:00.159
<v Speaker 1>should be. I don't have any particular reason for not

0:18:00.920 --> 0:18:04.600
<v Speaker 1>rating the seventh hole as highly as some other holes

0:18:04.600 --> 0:18:07.240
<v Speaker 1>in that same stretch of the golf course. I just

0:18:07.359 --> 0:18:11.520
<v Speaker 1>really love the eighth hole, And so you know, when

0:18:11.560 --> 0:18:14.280
<v Speaker 1>I'm playing the seventh hole, what I'm thinking about is

0:18:14.320 --> 0:18:16.520
<v Speaker 1>like I'm about to play the eighth hole, which might

0:18:16.560 --> 0:18:19.399
<v Speaker 1>be my favorite or one of my two favorite holes

0:18:19.760 --> 0:18:23.399
<v Speaker 1>on the golf course, where that the fairway matched with

0:18:23.480 --> 0:18:28.200
<v Speaker 1>the land is so cool. The seventh hole, I guess

0:18:28.280 --> 0:18:31.520
<v Speaker 1>the thing that I didn't love about it when I

0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:36.800
<v Speaker 1>played it the most recent time was how that area

0:18:37.600 --> 0:18:41.480
<v Speaker 1>right of the fairway, the native area and the set

0:18:41.520 --> 0:18:45.320
<v Speaker 1>of bunkers that the fairway wraps around is presented now

0:18:45.800 --> 0:18:50.760
<v Speaker 1>because it has become pretty penal and I only really

0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:54.840
<v Speaker 1>took a quick look at it. I didn't like research

0:18:54.920 --> 0:18:57.760
<v Speaker 1>this take thoroughly enough by walking out there and looking

0:18:58.240 --> 0:19:02.800
<v Speaker 1>what exactly was done. But to me it just seemed

0:19:02.920 --> 0:19:09.200
<v Speaker 1>like exhibit a of planting too much wiregrass, making it

0:19:09.440 --> 0:19:13.800
<v Speaker 1>less random and a little bit less forgiving in the

0:19:13.840 --> 0:19:18.359
<v Speaker 1>interest of making sure that players wouldn't try to cut

0:19:18.359 --> 0:19:20.840
<v Speaker 1>off too much of it and make the hole too short.

0:19:21.560 --> 0:19:25.920
<v Speaker 1>And so I wish they had backed off a bit

0:19:26.040 --> 0:19:30.159
<v Speaker 1>on the wiregrass there. But that's really my only issue

0:19:30.160 --> 0:19:32.320
<v Speaker 1>with the hole at this point. Otherwise it's just a

0:19:32.359 --> 0:19:35.080
<v Speaker 1>matter of not loving it as much as some of

0:19:35.119 --> 0:19:37.200
<v Speaker 1>the other holes on the course. No, that's fair.

0:19:37.240 --> 0:19:38.800
<v Speaker 2>I think what I like about the seventh toal is

0:19:38.800 --> 0:19:41.760
<v Speaker 2>something that I just love about Pinehurst in general, which

0:19:41.800 --> 0:19:44.840
<v Speaker 2>is that at most courses we watch players week in

0:19:44.880 --> 0:19:47.000
<v Speaker 2>and week out, they're kind of picking a target line

0:19:47.040 --> 0:19:50.440
<v Speaker 2>and swinging hard on that line right like less center

0:19:50.480 --> 0:19:52.560
<v Speaker 2>of the fairway because there's a water hazard down the

0:19:52.640 --> 0:19:56.120
<v Speaker 2>right and ripdriver and just hopefully you're taking a swing

0:19:56.160 --> 0:20:00.520
<v Speaker 2>that has a relatively tight dispersion. And that's it. On

0:20:00.560 --> 0:20:04.880
<v Speaker 2>the seventh hole, the line, the distance control is part

0:20:04.920 --> 0:20:06.840
<v Speaker 2>of that t shot, and that's something that you've talked

0:20:06.840 --> 0:20:10.000
<v Speaker 2>about the way that other fairways angle as well. It's

0:20:10.000 --> 0:20:11.840
<v Speaker 2>a cool part of this hole that sure, you can

0:20:12.160 --> 0:20:14.040
<v Speaker 2>take a certain line, but it depends how far you

0:20:14.119 --> 0:20:15.840
<v Speaker 2>hit it on that line and how much you're going

0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:17.359
<v Speaker 2>to be reward and what your web shot is going

0:20:17.400 --> 0:20:19.119
<v Speaker 2>to look like. In so I think that's what I

0:20:19.200 --> 0:20:21.320
<v Speaker 2>like about the seventh hole. It's just something completely different

0:20:21.359 --> 0:20:23.680
<v Speaker 2>than a lot of at least a lot of other

0:20:23.680 --> 0:20:24.720
<v Speaker 2>courses on the PGA tour.

0:20:25.760 --> 0:20:28.120
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and that's true. And I think that the thing

0:20:28.160 --> 0:20:31.600
<v Speaker 1>that makes the seventh hole different at Pinehurst is that

0:20:31.680 --> 0:20:35.600
<v Speaker 1>the angle of the fairway is more acute than it

0:20:35.680 --> 0:20:39.440
<v Speaker 1>is on other holes that have diagonal fairways, and that

0:20:39.560 --> 0:20:42.800
<v Speaker 1>puts an extra emphasis on distance control off the tee

0:20:43.320 --> 0:20:46.000
<v Speaker 1>because if you hit it on the right line, and

0:20:46.040 --> 0:20:48.560
<v Speaker 1>you hit it a little bit too far, you're pretty

0:20:48.680 --> 0:20:51.080
<v Speaker 1>likely on the seventh hole to go through the fairway

0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:54.240
<v Speaker 1>on the other side, whereas on other holes the diagonal

0:20:54.359 --> 0:20:57.119
<v Speaker 1>isn't quite as severe, so you have a bit more

0:20:57.240 --> 0:21:00.000
<v Speaker 1>room for error. But the seventh hole, if you tug

0:21:00.160 --> 0:21:01.879
<v Speaker 1>that a little bit left, which I think is a

0:21:01.880 --> 0:21:04.640
<v Speaker 1>common thing to do on that hole because the right

0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:09.000
<v Speaker 1>side of the hole is so intimidating, then you're probably

0:21:09.040 --> 0:21:13.439
<v Speaker 1>going to find some kind of chancey lie in the

0:21:13.520 --> 0:21:15.520
<v Speaker 1>native area on the other side of the fairway. So

0:21:16.320 --> 0:21:18.480
<v Speaker 1>it is fun to watch. I will give the hole

0:21:18.560 --> 0:21:21.280
<v Speaker 1>that any other holes that stood out to.

0:21:21.240 --> 0:21:25.000
<v Speaker 2>You overall, Gary, and not to take this in the

0:21:25.040 --> 0:21:28.320
<v Speaker 2>negative direction versus the positive. But like I'm I've always

0:21:28.320 --> 0:21:32.119
<v Speaker 2>been a little underwhelmed with the stretch between eleven to fourteen,

0:21:32.280 --> 0:21:35.159
<v Speaker 2>and I'm especially bringing that up because i know how

0:21:35.240 --> 0:21:37.560
<v Speaker 2>high you are on that stretch of holes, so I'm

0:21:37.560 --> 0:21:40.840
<v Speaker 2>like a little underwhelmed by that stretch. But I think

0:21:41.160 --> 0:21:43.320
<v Speaker 2>the fifth hole in particular is like going to be

0:21:43.400 --> 0:21:45.320
<v Speaker 2>one of the most fun holes to watch all week,

0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:48.199
<v Speaker 2>So the positive there, The one that I think is

0:21:48.200 --> 0:21:49.680
<v Speaker 2>going to be super fun would be five, and then

0:21:49.680 --> 0:21:52.440
<v Speaker 2>maybe a little underwhelmed by the eleven to fourteen stretch.

0:21:53.040 --> 0:21:56.240
<v Speaker 1>Okay, what underwhelms you about the eleven to fourteen stretch?

0:21:56.400 --> 0:21:57.360
<v Speaker 1>And I also love five.

0:21:57.400 --> 0:21:59.800
<v Speaker 2>By the way, I don't know that it's that I

0:21:59.800 --> 0:22:01.359
<v Speaker 2>think think any of the holes aren't bad, but I

0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:07.960
<v Speaker 2>just think so much of the they seem relatively tame. They're hard,

0:22:08.000 --> 0:22:12.840
<v Speaker 2>they're long, but there's nothing super diabolical about them, and

0:22:12.880 --> 0:22:15.719
<v Speaker 2>maybe it's just where they fall and the routing, but

0:22:15.840 --> 0:22:18.040
<v Speaker 2>I just don't find those holes to stand out as

0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:21.040
<v Speaker 2>much having played there, like trying to think back on

0:22:21.119 --> 0:22:23.640
<v Speaker 2>the shots that I had to play like, they're pretty straightforward.

0:22:24.320 --> 0:22:26.639
<v Speaker 2>I'd be interested in your counter argument to some of that.

0:22:26.760 --> 0:22:31.359
<v Speaker 2>But the thirteenth hole in particular, I don't think that's

0:22:31.960 --> 0:22:33.960
<v Speaker 2>that fun of a hole when they make it drivable,

0:22:34.440 --> 0:22:36.760
<v Speaker 2>And maybe we'll get into that with three watching from

0:22:36.760 --> 0:22:40.400
<v Speaker 2>twenty fourteen, but it's such a narrow layup, it's an

0:22:40.440 --> 0:22:43.159
<v Speaker 2>obvious just hit driver up there, and being in some

0:22:43.240 --> 0:22:46.480
<v Speaker 2>of those green side bunkers isn't that much of a problem.

0:22:46.840 --> 0:22:49.800
<v Speaker 2>There's nothing extreme enough around that green to make you

0:22:49.840 --> 0:22:52.360
<v Speaker 2>think twice about hitting a driver up there, or three

0:22:52.400 --> 0:22:55.040
<v Speaker 2>would for a lot of these guys. So that might

0:22:55.080 --> 0:22:57.520
<v Speaker 2>be a hole that there could be some eagles and

0:22:57.560 --> 0:22:59.800
<v Speaker 2>definitely a lot of birdies, but it's a pretty benign

0:23:00.720 --> 0:23:03.200
<v Speaker 2>drivable for when they set it up to be drivable,

0:23:03.240 --> 0:23:06.280
<v Speaker 2>that laying up's just not really an attractive option given

0:23:06.320 --> 0:23:07.639
<v Speaker 2>how narrow that layup would be.

0:23:08.359 --> 0:23:10.879
<v Speaker 1>I agree with that about thirteen. I do not like

0:23:10.920 --> 0:23:13.280
<v Speaker 1>it as a driveable par four, and that was one

0:23:13.359 --> 0:23:17.439
<v Speaker 1>of my takeaways from watching the twenty fourteen telecast. I

0:23:17.480 --> 0:23:20.720
<v Speaker 1>think that it's a really cool short part four that

0:23:20.760 --> 0:23:23.760
<v Speaker 1>they've made worse by narrowing it on the left side.

0:23:24.480 --> 0:23:26.800
<v Speaker 1>I think the big question on that hole is like

0:23:27.160 --> 0:23:30.080
<v Speaker 1>what club you're taking off the tee and where you're

0:23:30.160 --> 0:23:34.240
<v Speaker 1>laying up to give yourself the best chance of a

0:23:34.320 --> 0:23:38.560
<v Speaker 1>non terrifying wedge approach into the green. I think that's

0:23:38.600 --> 0:23:41.680
<v Speaker 1>the spirit of the hole, and for me it really works.

0:23:42.080 --> 0:23:44.520
<v Speaker 1>Maybe it doesn't work as well for professionals because of

0:23:44.520 --> 0:23:47.360
<v Speaker 1>how far they hit the driver now, but I think

0:23:47.359 --> 0:23:50.879
<v Speaker 1>it's a wonderful short part four for amateurs at the

0:23:51.000 --> 0:23:53.240
<v Speaker 1>very least, and that's usually the perspective I take when

0:23:53.280 --> 0:23:56.639
<v Speaker 1>I'm judging a hole to be good or not. You know,

0:23:56.720 --> 0:23:59.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm not thinking quite as much about how a US

0:23:59.240 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Open field would approach that because that's one time every

0:24:03.440 --> 0:24:07.359
<v Speaker 1>few years as opposed to every single day, you know,

0:24:07.560 --> 0:24:09.879
<v Speaker 1>like many many people playing this course. So it is

0:24:09.920 --> 0:24:11.840
<v Speaker 1>a course for amateurs.

0:24:11.160 --> 0:24:11.760
<v Speaker 2>Totally fair.

0:24:12.320 --> 0:24:15.920
<v Speaker 1>All right. Before we get into our thoughts about the

0:24:15.960 --> 0:24:20.840
<v Speaker 1>twenty fourteen US Open more in depth, I'd like to

0:24:20.840 --> 0:24:24.800
<v Speaker 1>say a word about Echo Golf shoes. The latest shoe

0:24:24.920 --> 0:24:28.440
<v Speaker 1>from Echo Golf is the LT one. This is a

0:24:28.800 --> 0:24:32.800
<v Speaker 1>sneaker style modern design, and what I like about Echo

0:24:32.840 --> 0:24:35.320
<v Speaker 1>is that they always have something new up their sleeves

0:24:35.400 --> 0:24:38.680
<v Speaker 1>with the tech in their shoes. This year, the LT

0:24:38.840 --> 0:24:44.400
<v Speaker 1>one features lighter foam lytr Foam, which is this advanced

0:24:44.760 --> 0:24:48.119
<v Speaker 1>bounce and rebound material that you'll find embedded in the

0:24:48.119 --> 0:24:50.240
<v Speaker 1>sole of the shoe. What you really need to know

0:24:50.280 --> 0:24:53.600
<v Speaker 1>about this stuff is that it's very flexible, very comfortable,

0:24:53.960 --> 0:24:57.080
<v Speaker 1>and makes walking eighteen holes much easier than it would

0:24:57.119 --> 0:24:59.680
<v Speaker 1>be otherwise. You can also wear the LT one in

0:24:59.720 --> 0:25:04.280
<v Speaker 1>some serious weather because the leather upper is waterproof, not

0:25:04.359 --> 0:25:08.160
<v Speaker 1>to mention soft and durable. Finally, the Echo LT one

0:25:08.320 --> 0:25:12.000
<v Speaker 1>is available in both laced and boa options. You know,

0:25:12.040 --> 0:25:15.120
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to golf shoes, quality really matters. If

0:25:15.119 --> 0:25:18.320
<v Speaker 1>you get a substandard or just average shoe, you're going

0:25:18.359 --> 0:25:21.719
<v Speaker 1>to need to replace it pretty quickly because golf shoes

0:25:21.800 --> 0:25:24.960
<v Speaker 1>take a beating. But with Echo you get real quality,

0:25:25.160 --> 0:25:27.879
<v Speaker 1>real durability, and a shoe that's going to hold up

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:30.960
<v Speaker 1>against all the walking and the weather you can throw

0:25:31.000 --> 0:25:33.880
<v Speaker 1>at it. And that's why players like Lydia Co, Eric

0:25:34.000 --> 0:25:38.399
<v Speaker 1>Van Ruyan, and Hendrik Stenson wear this shoe. So shop

0:25:38.520 --> 0:25:41.959
<v Speaker 1>the Echo LT one and other Echo products at Echo

0:25:42.520 --> 0:25:48.399
<v Speaker 1>dot com. That's Echo Ecco dot com, All right, Joseph.

0:25:48.640 --> 0:25:53.280
<v Speaker 1>We rewatched the twenty fourteen US soapen the final round,

0:25:53.359 --> 0:25:56.639
<v Speaker 1>which is available on YouTube for anybody who's interested in

0:25:56.760 --> 0:26:03.520
<v Speaker 1>watching five hours of Martin Kimer being the obvious winner

0:26:03.600 --> 0:26:08.560
<v Speaker 1>all day long. Clearly not the most compelling final round

0:26:08.760 --> 0:26:12.840
<v Speaker 1>competitively that has ever happened in major championship golf, but

0:26:13.359 --> 0:26:18.440
<v Speaker 1>certainly gives a perspective on how this course might play

0:26:18.440 --> 0:26:20.640
<v Speaker 1>this week, and that's why we watched it to try

0:26:20.640 --> 0:26:25.000
<v Speaker 1>to pick up some insights about Pinehurst Number two and

0:26:25.040 --> 0:26:28.639
<v Speaker 1>how pros might approach it now. Obviously, We're ten years

0:26:28.640 --> 0:26:32.560
<v Speaker 1>on and pros will be playing this course differently even

0:26:32.680 --> 0:26:36.960
<v Speaker 1>than they did ten years ago. But let's talk about

0:26:37.160 --> 0:26:41.840
<v Speaker 1>basic overall impressions of the twenty fourteen US Open. What

0:26:41.880 --> 0:26:45.440
<v Speaker 1>were some of your thoughts and notes about this round

0:26:45.480 --> 0:26:45.840
<v Speaker 1>of golf?

0:26:46.320 --> 0:26:51.240
<v Speaker 2>Probably my biggest takeaway and least instructive was that we

0:26:51.320 --> 0:26:55.840
<v Speaker 2>missed Johnny Miller badly. And if anybody wants, let's start there.

0:26:56.320 --> 0:27:00.600
<v Speaker 2>If anybody wants some incredible Johnny Miller lines and seeing him,

0:27:00.960 --> 0:27:03.679
<v Speaker 2>I would highly recommend going and going back and watching

0:27:03.680 --> 0:27:06.560
<v Speaker 2>the twenty fourteen final round. Garrett, I don't know what

0:27:07.160 --> 0:27:11.320
<v Speaker 2>your favorite was. I saw that you tweeted out Keegan

0:27:11.359 --> 0:27:14.399
<v Speaker 2>Bradley was wearing some pretty bright red shoes that Johnny

0:27:14.400 --> 0:27:18.000
<v Speaker 2>Miller kept alluding to Dorothy from Wizard of Oz and

0:27:18.400 --> 0:27:21.560
<v Speaker 2>like Keik and Bradley would take a swing and Johnny

0:27:21.600 --> 0:27:23.920
<v Speaker 2>would be like, you know, click click, and the balls

0:27:23.960 --> 0:27:26.320
<v Speaker 2>about to go near the hole, like he just over

0:27:26.359 --> 0:27:27.240
<v Speaker 2>and over again, and.

0:27:27.200 --> 0:27:28.240
<v Speaker 1>I was dying.

0:27:29.359 --> 0:27:31.480
<v Speaker 2>Absolutely a highlight for me with some of the Johnny

0:27:31.520 --> 0:27:32.119
<v Speaker 2>Miller quotes.

0:27:32.800 --> 0:27:36.680
<v Speaker 1>He would not let it go about Keegan's red shoes,

0:27:37.000 --> 0:27:42.560
<v Speaker 1>and then you know, among other Sartorial commentary Johnny Miller.

0:27:43.359 --> 0:27:46.600
<v Speaker 1>When Ricky Fowler was kind of falling well behind Martin

0:27:46.680 --> 0:27:49.760
<v Speaker 1>Kaimer and it was obvious that he wasn't going to

0:27:49.840 --> 0:27:53.600
<v Speaker 1>win that day, Johnny said something to the effect of, well,

0:27:53.680 --> 0:27:55.639
<v Speaker 1>I guess you got to try something other than that

0:27:55.680 --> 0:27:57.919
<v Speaker 1>orange outfit, because it doesn't seem to be working.

0:27:58.240 --> 0:28:03.040
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, on sun birdle specifically, Yeah, on Sundays, try try

0:28:03.080 --> 0:28:06.479
<v Speaker 2>something else on Sundays, Ricky. Yeah, there was this. There

0:28:06.520 --> 0:28:09.120
<v Speaker 2>was a part where Sergio hits a chip I think

0:28:09.119 --> 0:28:11.480
<v Speaker 2>it was on six, and it hits a sprinkler head

0:28:11.520 --> 0:28:15.080
<v Speaker 2>and flies like way back and off the green. It's

0:28:15.080 --> 0:28:18.480
<v Speaker 2>a bad break, but the broadcast is emphasizing how bad

0:28:18.480 --> 0:28:20.320
<v Speaker 2>of a break it was, and Johnny's like, well he

0:28:20.320 --> 0:28:21.800
<v Speaker 2>did chili dip it, though it would have been way

0:28:21.800 --> 0:28:24.560
<v Speaker 2>short anyway. He just gives it to you straight. I

0:28:24.880 --> 0:28:27.480
<v Speaker 2>love it. And one comment I wanted that he made

0:28:27.480 --> 0:28:29.480
<v Speaker 2>that I wanted to get your opinion on. He says

0:28:29.960 --> 0:28:32.720
<v Speaker 2>near the end of the broadcast, to me, these greens

0:28:32.760 --> 0:28:35.840
<v Speaker 2>are over the top. Literally, I just think they need

0:28:35.880 --> 0:28:38.040
<v Speaker 2>to be redone back to where Ross had them. What

0:28:38.160 --> 0:28:40.160
<v Speaker 2>was your reaction to hearing Johnny Miller say that on

0:28:40.200 --> 0:28:42.360
<v Speaker 2>the telecast it just came out of nowhere.

0:28:43.120 --> 0:28:46.480
<v Speaker 1>It did. It felt like Johnny just got into the

0:28:46.320 --> 0:28:48.880
<v Speaker 1>to the mode of saying negative things, and that was

0:28:49.000 --> 0:28:51.680
<v Speaker 1>just one more negative thing to say, because he wasn't

0:28:51.720 --> 0:28:54.960
<v Speaker 1>like setting up that take. As the telecast went on,

0:28:55.160 --> 0:28:59.880
<v Speaker 1>it just kind of flew in when Kimer and Fowler

0:28:59.880 --> 0:29:03.080
<v Speaker 1>were playing the fifteenth hole, right, which is a very

0:29:03.240 --> 0:29:07.400
<v Speaker 1>very severely domed green. The funny thing about it is

0:29:07.440 --> 0:29:10.920
<v Speaker 1>that I sort of agree with him, but not for

0:29:10.960 --> 0:29:16.520
<v Speaker 1>the reasons that maybe he had for saying that. I

0:29:16.600 --> 0:29:19.760
<v Speaker 1>do think that the original ross greens at Pinehurst number

0:29:19.800 --> 0:29:23.360
<v Speaker 1>two were lower to the ground, and that they made

0:29:23.360 --> 0:29:28.480
<v Speaker 1>a conscious decision not to restore them because they needed

0:29:28.480 --> 0:29:31.280
<v Speaker 1>the course to be as difficult as it was in

0:29:31.320 --> 0:29:33.800
<v Speaker 1>twenty fourteen and be as difficult as it will be

0:29:34.360 --> 0:29:37.560
<v Speaker 1>in twenty twenty four And a big part of the

0:29:37.600 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 1>difficulty of the course obviously these days, is that you know,

0:29:43.120 --> 0:29:47.240
<v Speaker 1>approach shots repel off from the middle, and if the

0:29:47.280 --> 0:29:50.400
<v Speaker 1>course didn't have that, then we would have much much

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:54.920
<v Speaker 1>lower scoring US opens at it. So I see why

0:29:54.960 --> 0:29:57.960
<v Speaker 1>they didn't restore the ross greens, but I think that

0:29:58.000 --> 0:30:01.560
<v Speaker 1>the course would probably be a bit better and more

0:30:01.680 --> 0:30:05.000
<v Speaker 1>varied if they did. But Johnny's reasons for saying that,

0:30:05.040 --> 0:30:06.560
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. I think he just had the feeling

0:30:06.600 --> 0:30:09.960
<v Speaker 1>at the moment that what happened to Kimer's ball was unfair,

0:30:10.440 --> 0:30:12.400
<v Speaker 1>and so he just went ahead and made that comment.

0:30:12.480 --> 0:30:18.120
<v Speaker 1>But it is glaring how much more willing Johnny Miller

0:30:18.720 --> 0:30:23.200
<v Speaker 1>was to be negative and to say true but critical

0:30:23.280 --> 0:30:26.719
<v Speaker 1>things about players and the shots that they were hitting

0:30:27.320 --> 0:30:32.400
<v Speaker 1>than anybody who's on any network telecast today. And the

0:30:32.600 --> 0:30:36.800
<v Speaker 1>element that Johnny brought to those telecasts was just fantastic.

0:30:36.960 --> 0:30:39.040
<v Speaker 1>So anyway, I'd like to move on from that and

0:30:39.080 --> 0:30:41.520
<v Speaker 1>talk a little bit more about the play. But that

0:30:41.760 --> 0:30:44.800
<v Speaker 1>is like a huge thing that is so obvious when

0:30:44.840 --> 0:30:50.840
<v Speaker 1>you watch those older NBC telecasts that everybody misses Johnny Miller.

0:30:51.520 --> 0:30:53.120
<v Speaker 1>So what were some of the things that you saw

0:30:53.280 --> 0:30:55.800
<v Speaker 1>in terms of shots that players were hitting and the

0:30:56.720 --> 0:30:59.640
<v Speaker 1>style of the course and the skill set that it

0:30:59.720 --> 0:31:01.040
<v Speaker 1>was rewarding that day.

0:31:02.280 --> 0:31:04.800
<v Speaker 2>I think the shot that might stand out to me

0:31:04.880 --> 0:31:07.520
<v Speaker 2>most from the entire thing is pretty early in the telecast.

0:31:07.560 --> 0:31:10.240
<v Speaker 2>Phil Mickelson has a bunker shot on the ninth green

0:31:10.960 --> 0:31:14.920
<v Speaker 2>that is right on the edge of being a good

0:31:14.920 --> 0:31:17.040
<v Speaker 2>shot but then falls off all the way down the

0:31:17.040 --> 0:31:20.000
<v Speaker 2>front of that green and something that people just need

0:31:20.040 --> 0:31:22.200
<v Speaker 2>to be prepared for this week. I'm sure it's already

0:31:22.200 --> 0:31:24.360
<v Speaker 2>been hammered home a little bit. Johnson Wagner has been

0:31:24.400 --> 0:31:26.959
<v Speaker 2>hitting some chip shots from around the green on Golf Channel.

0:31:27.160 --> 0:31:31.840
<v Speaker 2>The ninth hole is terrifying, like, yeah, when the pin's back,

0:31:31.920 --> 0:31:35.080
<v Speaker 2>you can go long and you have a problem front

0:31:35.080 --> 0:31:40.400
<v Speaker 2>pins terrifying like that green is so severe that that

0:31:40.800 --> 0:31:43.360
<v Speaker 2>was the shot that was most shocking to me and

0:31:43.560 --> 0:31:46.480
<v Speaker 2>illuminated the importance of short games. So I've even seen

0:31:46.520 --> 0:31:49.000
<v Speaker 2>a little bit as if we've already touched on of

0:31:49.080 --> 0:31:52.000
<v Speaker 2>people saying that since you can putt from some around

0:31:52.000 --> 0:31:54.640
<v Speaker 2>some of these greens, maybe short game won't be that

0:31:54.720 --> 0:31:56.720
<v Speaker 2>big of a deal. I do not agree with that.

0:31:56.720 --> 0:31:59.560
<v Speaker 2>I think short game is going to be extremely important

0:31:59.560 --> 0:32:02.240
<v Speaker 2>in that feel. Nicholson's shot was illustrative of why.

0:32:03.760 --> 0:32:07.240
<v Speaker 1>There was also a hole in one on nine during

0:32:07.240 --> 0:32:09.400
<v Speaker 1>the final round from Your Guy the twenty fourteen US

0:32:09.400 --> 0:32:17.160
<v Speaker 1>Open by Zach Johnson. Yeah. Absolutely. They replayed it about

0:32:17.400 --> 0:32:20.840
<v Speaker 1>fifteen times, and it happened early in the day, so

0:32:20.880 --> 0:32:24.280
<v Speaker 1>they had plenty of opportunities to revisit it. But so

0:32:24.320 --> 0:32:28.160
<v Speaker 1>when it comes to Martin Kaymer big runaway here, like

0:32:28.240 --> 0:32:30.920
<v Speaker 1>nobody had a chance. What do you think it was

0:32:30.960 --> 0:32:35.560
<v Speaker 1>about Kimer's game that made him so solid at this

0:32:35.760 --> 0:32:38.760
<v Speaker 1>US Open, And what can we learn from that and

0:32:39.080 --> 0:32:41.880
<v Speaker 1>apply to our expectations for this week.

0:32:42.440 --> 0:32:45.800
<v Speaker 2>It's a good question. I'm kind of expecting that this

0:32:46.000 --> 0:32:49.040
<v Speaker 2>US Open will reward a very different type of player

0:32:49.080 --> 0:32:51.480
<v Speaker 2>than we see week in and week out. It shouldn't

0:32:51.480 --> 0:32:54.240
<v Speaker 2>be lost that Martin Kimer was an extremely good golfer

0:32:54.280 --> 0:32:57.320
<v Speaker 2>at the time. His ball striking was incredible that week.

0:32:57.960 --> 0:33:01.680
<v Speaker 2>But I think, for example, his ability to put from

0:33:01.720 --> 0:33:06.360
<v Speaker 2>around the greens, I don't think that means that there's

0:33:06.360 --> 0:33:07.960
<v Speaker 2>going to be an inclination to say that short game

0:33:08.000 --> 0:33:10.080
<v Speaker 2>isn't as important because you can do that, But that's

0:33:10.080 --> 0:33:12.640
<v Speaker 2>a different type of short game shot that certain players

0:33:12.680 --> 0:33:15.000
<v Speaker 2>are more well equipped to handle than others. So I

0:33:15.000 --> 0:33:17.560
<v Speaker 2>think what Martin Kimer illustrates is, Yeah, if you're a

0:33:17.560 --> 0:33:20.800
<v Speaker 2>great ball striker and you're creative around the greens, it

0:33:20.880 --> 0:33:22.600
<v Speaker 2>might not be the type of around the green shot

0:33:22.640 --> 0:33:25.880
<v Speaker 2>we're accustomed to seeing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't

0:33:25.920 --> 0:33:29.080
<v Speaker 2>take an enormous amount of skill. So I think we

0:33:29.120 --> 0:33:32.680
<v Speaker 2>could see some different names in the mix. I like

0:33:32.720 --> 0:33:35.320
<v Speaker 2>the Australian angle a little bit. As I've already mentioned.

0:33:36.240 --> 0:33:38.440
<v Speaker 2>Could there be a runaway winner, Yeah, but I wouldn't

0:33:38.440 --> 0:33:41.080
<v Speaker 2>expect that just from seeing one instance of that in

0:33:41.080 --> 0:33:41.760
<v Speaker 2>twenty fourteen.

0:33:43.320 --> 0:33:48.480
<v Speaker 1>Okay, So going into the final round in twenty fourteen,

0:33:49.280 --> 0:33:51.600
<v Speaker 1>these were the players who were in the mix. Top

0:33:51.640 --> 0:33:55.880
<v Speaker 1>of the leaderboard. You had Martin Kaimer. You had Eric Compton,

0:33:56.960 --> 0:33:59.800
<v Speaker 1>one of the great kind of random high finishes, and

0:33:59.800 --> 0:34:04.520
<v Speaker 1>then major that I can remember. Eric Compton made what

0:34:04.720 --> 0:34:09.160
<v Speaker 1>was it six major starts and made two cuts, one

0:34:09.200 --> 0:34:12.319
<v Speaker 1>of which was a T two at Pinehurst number two

0:34:12.280 --> 0:34:15.200
<v Speaker 1>and twenty fourteen, and the other was like fifty first

0:34:15.200 --> 0:34:18.759
<v Speaker 1>place or something at the next year's Masters. So this

0:34:19.040 --> 0:34:21.600
<v Speaker 1>was like, obviously he was a great player, but this

0:34:21.760 --> 0:34:26.080
<v Speaker 1>was a truly random type of contender Eric Compton, So

0:34:26.120 --> 0:34:28.680
<v Speaker 1>I don't know much about what his game was. He

0:34:28.760 --> 0:34:33.759
<v Speaker 1>certainly wasn't super long. You had Ricky Fowler basically at

0:34:33.760 --> 0:34:37.640
<v Speaker 1>his peak, this was peak Ricky Fowler. You had Dustin Johnson,

0:34:38.200 --> 0:34:45.080
<v Speaker 1>Hendrik Stenson, Brant Snedeker, Brooks Koepka, Matt Kocher, Kevin nah

0:34:45.160 --> 0:34:48.399
<v Speaker 1>Those were the players going into the final round who

0:34:48.440 --> 0:34:54.719
<v Speaker 1>were lingering around even par or under and in Kymer's case,

0:34:54.719 --> 0:34:58.359
<v Speaker 1>obviously significantly under par. So what do you take away

0:34:58.400 --> 0:35:01.200
<v Speaker 1>from that group of players? Is there anything to take

0:35:01.200 --> 0:35:02.520
<v Speaker 1>away from that group of players?

0:35:02.960 --> 0:35:05.160
<v Speaker 2>I think that you could see some randomness and some

0:35:05.200 --> 0:35:08.000
<v Speaker 2>players that you normally wouldn't see contend. I think the

0:35:08.080 --> 0:35:11.719
<v Speaker 2>key to this US Open, similar to twenty fourteen, is

0:35:11.760 --> 0:35:15.919
<v Speaker 2>like controlling the ball and having good iron playing short game.

0:35:16.000 --> 0:35:18.479
<v Speaker 2>A player that came to mind or comes to mind

0:35:18.520 --> 0:35:21.880
<v Speaker 2>thinking about that statistical profile is Kevin Nah back in

0:35:21.920 --> 0:35:24.799
<v Speaker 2>that in that era when Kevin Na was a much

0:35:24.800 --> 0:35:27.040
<v Speaker 2>better golfer than he is now, Like not the longest

0:35:27.040 --> 0:35:29.759
<v Speaker 2>off of the tee, but I wouldn't be looking at

0:35:29.760 --> 0:35:32.760
<v Speaker 2>off the tee as a huge indicator of success this week.

0:35:33.080 --> 0:35:35.799
<v Speaker 2>You can get away with a little bit of there's

0:35:35.800 --> 0:35:37.560
<v Speaker 2>some whipp and even if you get a little off

0:35:37.600 --> 0:35:39.879
<v Speaker 2>of that, you can get away with some fine lies

0:35:39.920 --> 0:35:41.239
<v Speaker 2>as long as you have a good short game. So

0:35:41.239 --> 0:35:43.719
<v Speaker 2>I think Kevin Nah's instructive of what we could see

0:35:43.719 --> 0:35:45.800
<v Speaker 2>this week, and then just the general like you're mentioning

0:35:45.800 --> 0:35:48.359
<v Speaker 2>with Eric Compton, I think you could see a long

0:35:48.400 --> 0:35:51.279
<v Speaker 2>shot or two that hasn't necessarily contended in a major,

0:35:51.320 --> 0:35:53.799
<v Speaker 2>get into contention this week at Piners, and we might

0:35:53.840 --> 0:35:56.640
<v Speaker 2>see some really good players like Scotti Scheffler, Xander Schaffley

0:35:57.719 --> 0:36:00.120
<v Speaker 2>get thrown off, especially on one of these long long

0:36:00.239 --> 0:36:03.239
<v Speaker 2>par threes, run into a bogie, a double bogie and

0:36:03.280 --> 0:36:05.279
<v Speaker 2>not be in the mix. And I don't think much

0:36:05.320 --> 0:36:07.440
<v Speaker 2>is surprise us, at least in this tournament.

0:36:08.239 --> 0:36:11.719
<v Speaker 1>So that element of randomness and the potential for a

0:36:11.760 --> 0:36:15.839
<v Speaker 1>long shot winner or a group of long shot contenders

0:36:16.560 --> 0:36:18.880
<v Speaker 1>is something that I think will be a big part

0:36:19.400 --> 0:36:22.160
<v Speaker 1>of the discussion this week because we just came off

0:36:22.160 --> 0:36:27.560
<v Speaker 1>a major at Valhalla where the number one defense of

0:36:27.600 --> 0:36:32.480
<v Speaker 1>the course was that it generated a leaderboard full of

0:36:32.560 --> 0:36:37.200
<v Speaker 1>players that are recognizable and that we all acknowledge as

0:36:37.239 --> 0:36:42.200
<v Speaker 1>today's best players. And a lot of people were saying, yeah,

0:36:42.280 --> 0:36:45.279
<v Speaker 1>I don't really like this course either. This is not

0:36:45.440 --> 0:36:50.280
<v Speaker 1>my preferred style of architecture or setup, but you can't

0:36:50.320 --> 0:36:56.520
<v Speaker 1>deny what Valhalla does in producing this type of leaderboard. Now,

0:36:56.560 --> 0:37:00.319
<v Speaker 1>what we're saying going into Pinehurst is that it's kind

0:37:00.320 --> 0:37:05.480
<v Speaker 1>of the opposite where the course does seem to be

0:37:05.600 --> 0:37:10.200
<v Speaker 1>capable of generating some more random outcomes. And so do

0:37:10.239 --> 0:37:12.360
<v Speaker 1>you think that's going to be a problem for the

0:37:12.440 --> 0:37:16.279
<v Speaker 1>USGA and Pinehurst number two this week. And are we

0:37:16.880 --> 0:37:19.440
<v Speaker 1>you and I Joseph going to get some blowback from

0:37:19.520 --> 0:37:23.279
<v Speaker 1>people who are saying, you guys were shitting on Valhalla

0:37:23.520 --> 0:37:26.640
<v Speaker 1>all PGA Championship week and now we come into Pinehurst

0:37:26.640 --> 0:37:28.960
<v Speaker 1>and you say it's a great course, but look at

0:37:28.960 --> 0:37:30.800
<v Speaker 1>this leaderboard? Who are these random people?

0:37:32.840 --> 0:37:37.000
<v Speaker 2>Garrett? I think the best case study or example of

0:37:37.040 --> 0:37:41.360
<v Speaker 2>this will be the fifteenth hole here at Pinehurst, where

0:37:42.880 --> 0:37:45.640
<v Speaker 2>there is almost nowhere to land that golf ball and

0:37:45.719 --> 0:37:48.160
<v Speaker 2>it can roll into some really tricky spots. That is

0:37:48.360 --> 0:37:50.799
<v Speaker 2>not necessarily the type of hole you would build if

0:37:50.840 --> 0:37:53.799
<v Speaker 2>you wanted the number one ranked golfer to show up

0:37:53.800 --> 0:37:55.320
<v Speaker 2>at the top of the leaderboard at the end of

0:37:55.360 --> 0:37:57.840
<v Speaker 2>the week. Right if they played that whole seventy two times,

0:37:58.120 --> 0:38:00.439
<v Speaker 2>like you could get some funky results. Now do people

0:38:00.480 --> 0:38:04.360
<v Speaker 2>want to watch that hole and watch that style of hole? Like,

0:38:04.440 --> 0:38:06.920
<v Speaker 2>I think that's a good golf hole and it's going

0:38:06.960 --> 0:38:09.040
<v Speaker 2>to be entertaining. And sure it might not be the

0:38:09.080 --> 0:38:13.200
<v Speaker 2>most again elevating talent to the top, Like there's going

0:38:13.280 --> 0:38:15.560
<v Speaker 2>to be an element of randomness, but that doesn't make

0:38:15.600 --> 0:38:20.479
<v Speaker 2>it a bad test that maybe would play a little

0:38:20.480 --> 0:38:22.319
<v Speaker 2>better if the green were a little bit bigger. But

0:38:23.520 --> 0:38:25.719
<v Speaker 2>in general, like I think that's the trade off that

0:38:25.760 --> 0:38:28.760
<v Speaker 2>we're basically talking about here, Like you're seeing more interesting shots,

0:38:28.800 --> 0:38:30.640
<v Speaker 2>a lot of variety, a lot of different players that

0:38:30.680 --> 0:38:34.520
<v Speaker 2>can contend, but there is the increased chance then of

0:38:34.560 --> 0:38:37.600
<v Speaker 2>some long shot winner. And then how that affects the

0:38:37.680 --> 0:38:40.440
<v Speaker 2>legacy of the tournament, right because you're defending champion is

0:38:40.719 --> 0:38:44.200
<v Speaker 2>potentially a long shot and not Xander Schoffley or Scotty

0:38:44.280 --> 0:38:46.960
<v Speaker 2>Scheffler or Rory McElroy. All that said, like we might

0:38:47.000 --> 0:38:49.000
<v Speaker 2>get Scotty scheffer this week. He's three to one to

0:38:49.000 --> 0:38:51.480
<v Speaker 2>win the tournament. But what you're saying, I mean, I

0:38:51.520 --> 0:38:53.879
<v Speaker 2>completely agree with So where do you land on all that?

0:38:54.920 --> 0:38:57.319
<v Speaker 1>It's exactly what you're saying that you have to watch

0:38:57.360 --> 0:39:02.040
<v Speaker 1>the golf shots. That's really where Pinehurst Number two and

0:39:02.120 --> 0:39:06.000
<v Speaker 1>courses like it come alive during tournaments is if you

0:39:06.200 --> 0:39:09.319
<v Speaker 1>actually see the golf shots that are being hit and

0:39:09.360 --> 0:39:12.520
<v Speaker 1>see how interesting they are and how high stakes they are,

0:39:13.280 --> 0:39:15.800
<v Speaker 1>and look at the things that happen to the ball

0:39:15.880 --> 0:39:19.000
<v Speaker 1>once it hits the ground. That's the good stuff that

0:39:19.040 --> 0:39:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Pinehurst number two offers, and as a result, of that,

0:39:23.719 --> 0:39:27.080
<v Speaker 1>some sort of stuff we might see outcomes that we're

0:39:27.080 --> 0:39:29.799
<v Speaker 1>not used to on the PGA Tour because this is

0:39:29.840 --> 0:39:32.759
<v Speaker 1>a different type of course than the PGA Tour. And

0:39:32.840 --> 0:39:36.000
<v Speaker 1>for me, that's the point to hammer home that players

0:39:36.080 --> 0:39:39.080
<v Speaker 1>who thrive at Pinehurst number two, the players who will

0:39:39.120 --> 0:39:43.279
<v Speaker 1>thrive this week, won't necessarily be bad players or not

0:39:43.440 --> 0:39:47.480
<v Speaker 1>have deserved their success at the course. They're just there

0:39:48.440 --> 0:39:53.040
<v Speaker 1>because they played this course well, and maybe other courses

0:39:53.080 --> 0:39:56.120
<v Speaker 1>that they play regularly on the PGA Tour or the

0:39:56.200 --> 0:40:00.480
<v Speaker 1>dp World Tour or live don't highlight their skill sets

0:40:00.920 --> 0:40:04.160
<v Speaker 1>in the same way or give such an advantage to

0:40:04.320 --> 0:40:07.279
<v Speaker 1>other players, to the players that we're all familiar with,

0:40:08.120 --> 0:40:12.120
<v Speaker 1>that it's hard for these kind of more obscure players

0:40:12.160 --> 0:40:14.400
<v Speaker 1>to succeed on a week to week basis on the

0:40:14.440 --> 0:40:17.880
<v Speaker 1>PGA Tour because the the Xanders and the Cantles, et

0:40:17.960 --> 0:40:21.200
<v Speaker 1>cetera are so geared to succeed at a PGA Tour

0:40:21.280 --> 0:40:25.839
<v Speaker 1>style venue. They are dominant at those venues. But you

0:40:25.840 --> 0:40:28.560
<v Speaker 1>put them at Pinehurst number two with a field full

0:40:28.600 --> 0:40:32.680
<v Speaker 1>of accomplished golfers and they don't have the same kind

0:40:32.680 --> 0:40:36.399
<v Speaker 1>of advantage. And I think that that's something to appreciate.

0:40:36.480 --> 0:40:39.440
<v Speaker 2>And Garrett like, if it is a couple stars in

0:40:39.480 --> 0:40:42.040
<v Speaker 2>the mix on Sunday, like, then you have dynamite because

0:40:42.040 --> 0:40:46.319
<v Speaker 2>you have unbelievably compelling golf shots combined with some of

0:40:46.320 --> 0:40:49.960
<v Speaker 2>those characteristics that you love of Vahalla where you have

0:40:50.160 --> 0:40:52.360
<v Speaker 2>a bunch of stars at the top. The other point

0:40:52.480 --> 0:40:55.200
<v Speaker 2>I would make that I don't love doing the like, well,

0:40:55.239 --> 0:40:57.520
<v Speaker 2>these are the same people, and like assuming people are

0:40:57.520 --> 0:41:00.600
<v Speaker 2>in the same groups, but I think sometimes it's the

0:41:00.600 --> 0:41:04.799
<v Speaker 2>same type of crowd that wants carnage at the US Open.

0:41:04.880 --> 0:41:10.640
<v Speaker 2>That also then maybe come I don't say why they

0:41:10.680 --> 0:41:13.200
<v Speaker 2>want carnage at the US Open, but also maybe defend

0:41:13.880 --> 0:41:16.839
<v Speaker 2>Valhalla to an extent because it produced a good leaderboard. Again,

0:41:16.840 --> 0:41:19.480
<v Speaker 2>I'm not saying it's necessarily the same crowd, but if

0:41:19.520 --> 0:41:23.080
<v Speaker 2>you turn up like these greens, like you make them crazy,

0:41:23.120 --> 0:41:25.120
<v Speaker 2>and let's say there's a ton of winds, like you'd

0:41:25.200 --> 0:41:28.560
<v Speaker 2>get carnage, but you'd get results that are even more random.

0:41:28.680 --> 0:41:31.680
<v Speaker 2>So there's just there's always these trade offs and be

0:41:31.760 --> 0:41:34.359
<v Speaker 2>careful what you ask for, because again the fifteenth hole

0:41:34.400 --> 0:41:36.240
<v Speaker 2>is a great example, or if it were super windy

0:41:36.280 --> 0:41:39.520
<v Speaker 2>and you really cranked it up like enjoy watching the

0:41:39.560 --> 0:41:42.120
<v Speaker 2>triple Bogies, but you're also not necessarily going to get

0:41:42.120 --> 0:41:44.280
<v Speaker 2>the talent at the top, Right, how about Nelly Corda

0:41:44.440 --> 0:41:47.439
<v Speaker 2>at Lancaster. Like you can see carnage, but you also

0:41:47.520 --> 0:41:48.960
<v Speaker 2>might take one of the best players in the world

0:41:49.000 --> 0:41:52.400
<v Speaker 2>out of contention. My chances of beating Scotty Scheffler on

0:41:52.440 --> 0:41:57.040
<v Speaker 2>a hole on the fifteenth hole at Pinehurst go way

0:41:57.120 --> 0:42:00.320
<v Speaker 2>up when the greens are so ridiculously firm. That's scott

0:42:00.400 --> 0:42:02.120
<v Speaker 2>Even Scotty has nowhere to go and his ball could

0:42:02.200 --> 0:42:03.799
<v Speaker 2>end up in a bad spot. Right, So, like there's

0:42:03.840 --> 0:42:06.759
<v Speaker 2>just that trade off there that I would be very

0:42:06.800 --> 0:42:08.719
<v Speaker 2>cautious in advocating for carnage.

0:42:09.400 --> 0:42:12.440
<v Speaker 1>I feel like we didn't talk quite enough about Kimer.

0:42:12.719 --> 0:42:15.040
<v Speaker 1>So before we wrap up, what are some of the

0:42:15.040 --> 0:42:17.080
<v Speaker 1>things that you liked about the way that Kimer played

0:42:17.560 --> 0:42:22.680
<v Speaker 1>on Sunday, Because he wasn't fully on the whole day,

0:42:23.160 --> 0:42:25.839
<v Speaker 1>and yet he shot sixty nine, which is better than

0:42:25.960 --> 0:42:29.760
<v Speaker 1>anybody else who was kind of reasonably in contention and

0:42:30.760 --> 0:42:33.680
<v Speaker 1>had a stranglehold on the tournament from hole one to

0:42:33.920 --> 0:42:37.320
<v Speaker 1>hole eighteen. He did have a couple of loose shots,

0:42:37.320 --> 0:42:40.319
<v Speaker 1>a couple of loose holes, but somehow or another. He

0:42:40.480 --> 0:42:43.799
<v Speaker 1>was just super steady. So what was he doing well?

0:42:43.840 --> 0:42:45.360
<v Speaker 1>What was his secret that week?

0:42:46.600 --> 0:42:51.080
<v Speaker 2>I feel like there were some loose shots mixed in,

0:42:51.160 --> 0:42:53.719
<v Speaker 2>but like the quality of a lot of his other

0:42:53.840 --> 0:42:57.839
<v Speaker 2>shots was unbelievable, Like he drove the third green, and

0:42:58.120 --> 0:43:01.319
<v Speaker 2>that's like a ridiculously hard green to drive to hit

0:43:01.400 --> 0:43:05.840
<v Speaker 2>something far that high and online like to where he

0:43:05.880 --> 0:43:08.319
<v Speaker 2>had a reasonable look at eagle, Like that's just a

0:43:08.440 --> 0:43:12.000
<v Speaker 2>ridiculous golf shot. So I don't know, he never got

0:43:12.080 --> 0:43:15.240
<v Speaker 2>himself into too much trouble. I really like the around

0:43:15.280 --> 0:43:17.799
<v Speaker 2>the green the putting strategy, so I think that's something

0:43:17.800 --> 0:43:20.319
<v Speaker 2>he did well, and he did it marvelously. It's not

0:43:20.360 --> 0:43:23.719
<v Speaker 2>an easy shot, he was good at it. So I

0:43:23.719 --> 0:43:27.480
<v Speaker 2>guess that combination of elite ball striking, keeping himself out

0:43:27.480 --> 0:43:30.560
<v Speaker 2>of trouble and being smart around the greens pretty good recipe.

0:43:31.360 --> 0:43:34.600
<v Speaker 1>So looking at that and then looking at the field

0:43:34.600 --> 0:43:37.120
<v Speaker 1>this week, are there players who stand out for you

0:43:37.520 --> 0:43:38.840
<v Speaker 1>aside from Scotti Scheffler.

0:43:39.560 --> 0:43:44.120
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think yes, But also considering like, don't get

0:43:44.120 --> 0:43:46.279
<v Speaker 2>too confident on any one player, because I think there's

0:43:46.320 --> 0:43:48.640
<v Speaker 2>gonna be a little bit higher of an element of randomness.

0:43:48.640 --> 0:43:54.880
<v Speaker 2>Then we've seen it other major championship venues recently. I

0:43:54.920 --> 0:43:58.279
<v Speaker 2>think the mart When I've been looking at courses, not

0:43:58.400 --> 0:44:02.480
<v Speaker 2>too many line up with like it's a totally distinct test,

0:44:02.560 --> 0:44:05.920
<v Speaker 2>but I think there's some similarities with Sawgrass and maybe

0:44:05.920 --> 0:44:09.040
<v Speaker 2>with Colonial a little bit the emphasis on the short game.

0:44:09.080 --> 0:44:12.320
<v Speaker 2>I mean Sawgress has water everywhere, in Pinehurst has water nowhere,

0:44:12.320 --> 0:44:14.959
<v Speaker 2>So there's some clear differences, right, But we're also taking

0:44:14.960 --> 0:44:17.960
<v Speaker 2>Martin Kimer and Ricky Fowler two players champions, and I

0:44:18.000 --> 0:44:22.160
<v Speaker 2>think an example of a name that kind of fits

0:44:22.200 --> 0:44:27.480
<v Speaker 2>the bill would be cam Smith, who his form is questionable.

0:44:27.520 --> 0:44:31.799
<v Speaker 2>He shot eighty on Sunday and Live Houston, but he's

0:44:31.840 --> 0:44:34.080
<v Speaker 2>actually been a good golfer over the last year. I

0:44:34.160 --> 0:44:36.279
<v Speaker 2>know he's disappeared a little bit since he's been playing

0:44:36.320 --> 0:44:38.680
<v Speaker 2>on a tour that's less visible, but camp Smith's been

0:44:38.719 --> 0:44:40.480
<v Speaker 2>pretty good over the last year, and he's been good

0:44:40.480 --> 0:44:42.719
<v Speaker 2>in majors for a lot of his career. I like

0:44:42.800 --> 0:44:44.919
<v Speaker 2>the Australian angle a little bit and I think he'll

0:44:44.920 --> 0:44:47.759
<v Speaker 2>know what to do around the greens and one of

0:44:47.760 --> 0:44:50.439
<v Speaker 2>his biggest weaknesses is that he can get a little

0:44:50.440 --> 0:44:51.759
<v Speaker 2>bit aaron off the tea, which I think you're going

0:44:51.800 --> 0:44:53.480
<v Speaker 2>to be able to get away with, so maybe a

0:44:53.520 --> 0:44:55.680
<v Speaker 2>volatile option. But I think camp Smith's kind of an

0:44:55.680 --> 0:44:57.440
<v Speaker 2>interesting name to keep an eye on, who checks a

0:44:57.480 --> 0:44:59.080
<v Speaker 2>lot of the boxes that I'd probably be looking for

0:44:59.120 --> 0:44:59.560
<v Speaker 2>this week.

0:45:00.080 --> 0:45:02.680
<v Speaker 1>I also think that, you know, just looking at good

0:45:02.760 --> 0:45:07.280
<v Speaker 1>Iron players probably is a solid way to go about

0:45:08.080 --> 0:45:11.239
<v Speaker 1>identifying some players who might do well this week. So

0:45:11.760 --> 0:45:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Colin Morikawa, you know, I think is an obvious direction

0:45:15.120 --> 0:45:18.520
<v Speaker 1>to go there, and he's been playing well recently. Victor Hovland,

0:45:18.640 --> 0:45:21.719
<v Speaker 1>if he kind of dials in the technique with the

0:45:21.760 --> 0:45:24.640
<v Speaker 1>putter from Off the Greens, he might be a really

0:45:24.640 --> 0:45:27.520
<v Speaker 1>good direction to go to. Something that's kind of odd

0:45:27.600 --> 0:45:30.440
<v Speaker 1>is that as I was watching the Memorial last week,

0:45:30.680 --> 0:45:34.040
<v Speaker 1>I was thinking to myself, a lot of the players

0:45:34.080 --> 0:45:36.840
<v Speaker 1>who are doing well here are ones that I would

0:45:36.880 --> 0:45:40.440
<v Speaker 1>sort of expect to be all right at Pinehurst as well.

0:45:41.040 --> 0:45:45.839
<v Speaker 1>Even though Mierfield Village and Pinehurst Number two are really

0:45:45.880 --> 0:45:47.560
<v Speaker 1>really different courses, do you know what I mean?

0:45:47.840 --> 0:45:52.160
<v Speaker 2>I do know what you mean. Yeah, there's some big differences,

0:45:52.239 --> 0:45:56.759
<v Speaker 2>especially visually, but Mierfield Village is a pretty complete test,

0:45:56.840 --> 0:46:00.959
<v Speaker 2>hardcore Iron tests, and it does test the short game

0:46:01.239 --> 0:46:03.520
<v Speaker 2>a little bit, right, Big Tee to green separator, so

0:46:04.200 --> 0:46:06.160
<v Speaker 2>I wouldn't use it as it wouldn't be the first

0:46:06.239 --> 0:46:08.640
<v Speaker 2>course that I would call to mind, but I would

0:46:08.640 --> 0:46:12.200
<v Speaker 2>agree like Colin morcab is a great name to shout out,

0:46:12.280 --> 0:46:14.439
<v Speaker 2>especially because he's been way better at the short game

0:46:14.440 --> 0:46:16.279
<v Speaker 2>this year. It's by far his best short game you're

0:46:16.320 --> 0:46:17.439
<v Speaker 2>on tour, So I like that call.

0:46:18.200 --> 0:46:21.360
<v Speaker 1>So other than that, it's just a really hard tournament

0:46:21.400 --> 0:46:24.360
<v Speaker 1>to predict. It's a unique golf course and it really

0:46:24.440 --> 0:46:26.479
<v Speaker 1>is one of my favorites. I'm going to write something

0:46:26.480 --> 0:46:30.719
<v Speaker 1>for the newsletter for tomorrow, I think where I'll identify

0:46:30.800 --> 0:46:34.520
<v Speaker 1>a few details like architectural details to look for on

0:46:34.560 --> 0:46:37.200
<v Speaker 1>the telecast. When you know what to look for, I

0:46:37.239 --> 0:46:40.560
<v Speaker 1>think this golf course becomes really exciting and just one

0:46:40.560 --> 0:46:43.719
<v Speaker 1>of the most fascinating places to play golf in the world. So,

0:46:44.200 --> 0:46:46.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, aside from watching it on TV this week,

0:46:46.760 --> 0:46:49.160
<v Speaker 1>I would also encourage people to make it a priority

0:46:49.440 --> 0:46:51.279
<v Speaker 1>to get to this course at some point in your

0:46:51.320 --> 0:46:54.960
<v Speaker 1>life and play it for yourself, because it truly is

0:46:55.000 --> 0:47:00.520
<v Speaker 1>a course that plays beautifully for amateurs as well as

0:47:00.520 --> 0:47:04.160
<v Speaker 1>for pros, and that is just a massive rarity, and

0:47:04.360 --> 0:47:06.200
<v Speaker 1>I think it's a big part of why I'm excited

0:47:06.239 --> 0:47:08.760
<v Speaker 1>for this tournament because it is one of those courses

0:47:08.800 --> 0:47:12.160
<v Speaker 1>that you can play too and you can get something

0:47:12.320 --> 0:47:15.640
<v Speaker 1>out of it that is maybe even more exciting than

0:47:15.680 --> 0:47:18.840
<v Speaker 1>what we'll see in the US Open, and you can't

0:47:18.840 --> 0:47:20.440
<v Speaker 1>say that about many golf courses.

0:47:20.800 --> 0:47:23.600
<v Speaker 2>Totally agree, Garrett. I agree with that it plays better

0:47:23.600 --> 0:47:25.640
<v Speaker 2>parameters too, like that was one of the big takeaways

0:47:25.640 --> 0:47:27.840
<v Speaker 2>from walking around. So you can play it right, and

0:47:27.880 --> 0:47:29.319
<v Speaker 2>you can play it well, you can shoot a decent

0:47:29.320 --> 0:47:29.960
<v Speaker 2>score out there.

0:47:30.600 --> 0:47:33.520
<v Speaker 1>Absolutely, all right, Joseph, thanks for coming on the podcast

0:47:33.680 --> 0:47:36.759
<v Speaker 1>during a very busy week for you at Pinehurst number two.

0:47:37.280 --> 0:47:39.000
<v Speaker 1>I hope you have a great time this week and

0:47:39.000 --> 0:47:41.080
<v Speaker 1>I'm looking forward to seeing the things that you write

0:47:41.480 --> 0:47:45.319
<v Speaker 1>in the Friday newsletter and elsewhere. So thanks for coming

0:47:45.360 --> 0:47:47.919
<v Speaker 1>on the pod, and make sure to get a little

0:47:47.920 --> 0:47:49.520
<v Speaker 1>bit of rest occasionally this week as well.

0:47:49.600 --> 0:47:50.280
<v Speaker 2>Thanks Garrett.

0:48:00.600 --> 0:48:04.480
<v Speaker 1>This episode of the Friday Golf Podcast was produced by

0:48:04.520 --> 0:48:08.279
<v Speaker 1>Matt Rusius. Thank you, Matt. If you'd like to do

0:48:08.360 --> 0:48:11.839
<v Speaker 1>something for us real quick that is very helpful, give

0:48:11.920 --> 0:48:15.080
<v Speaker 1>us a rating and review wherever you happen to be

0:48:15.120 --> 0:48:19.200
<v Speaker 1>listening to us, whether that's Spotify or Apple, just tell

0:48:19.280 --> 0:48:21.920
<v Speaker 1>us how you think we're doing and help us find

0:48:22.280 --> 0:48:25.440
<v Speaker 1>new listeners by doing that. Thank you for listening, and

0:48:25.480 --> 0:48:48.200
<v Speaker 1>we'll be back again soon with another episode.