Speaker 1: I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset. When
Speaker 1: I find my ball in the bunker, I'm really upset.
Speaker 1: And when I find my ball.
Speaker 2: In a brid egg Friday Egg, the dreaded Frida Egg
Speaker 2: Frida Egg, Frida Egg, Brian Egg, Frida Egg Bride egg Lie.
Speaker 1: I'm about ready to run off of the hump course game.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Frida Egg a Golf Podcast. I'm Garrett
Speaker 1: Morrison and the twenty twenty four US Open at Pinehurst
Speaker 1: number two is starting tomorrow, so I thought i'd bring
Speaker 1: on Joseph Lamonia, who was on site for Friday Egg Golf,
Speaker 1: and we will just talk about a few things. First,
Speaker 1: I think his initial thoughts on the course. Joseph was
Speaker 1: out there this morning walking around and seeing what there
Speaker 1: was to see. And second, the lessons that we both
Speaker 1: learned from rewatching the last US Open held at Pinehurst
Speaker 1: number two, which was in twenty fourteen and one in
Speaker 1: dominant fashion by Martin Kaimer. Both Joseph and I rewatched
Speaker 1: that final round telecast just to glean any insights we
Speaker 1: could from it. I think it's always informative to look
Speaker 1: at these past tournaments and try to get detailed about
Speaker 1: how the course actually played, because it's easy to forget
Speaker 1: a lot of the things that happened ten years ago.
Speaker 1: So our basic intention here is to give you the
Speaker 1: most specific and accurate impression possible about how we expect
Speaker 1: the number two course to play this week and which
Speaker 1: skill sets we believe will be rewarded with that. Let's
Speaker 1: bring on, Joseph. How you doing, my friend?
Speaker 2: I'm doing great, Garrett. You said that the goal is
Speaker 2: to give people the best, the most accurate possible impression,
Speaker 2: So what could possibly go wrong?
Speaker 1: Exactly? I'm setting high expectations and just hoping that we
Speaker 1: get most of the way there. That's the idea.
Speaker 2: Sounds great, Well, yeah, I'm super excited for this tournament.
Speaker 2: You know the golf course super well. I feel like
Speaker 2: I know the golf course very well, So excited to
Speaker 2: do this pod and kind of that back and forth
Speaker 2: what we think the tournament's going to play like, because
Speaker 2: at least heart in recent memory, it's hard to think
Speaker 2: of a tournament where I'm hearing such a divergence of
Speaker 2: opinions on how this golf course is going to play like.
Speaker 2: I've had people messaging me that they think it's just
Speaker 2: bombs away. Other people think short hitters are going to
Speaker 2: be completely fine. Some people think short game is going
Speaker 2: to be everything. Other people think since you can put
Speaker 2: from around the greens, short game means nothing. This week,
Speaker 2: it's kind of all over the board.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting. I want to actually let's get into
Speaker 1: that right off the bat. So what has been the
Speaker 1: general chatter about the course and what do you make
Speaker 1: of it? Having walked around the course, where do you
Speaker 1: come down in this debate about how the course is
Speaker 1: going to play in various ways?
Speaker 2: I don't know what all the chatter has been because
Speaker 2: I try to kind of not pay too much attention
Speaker 2: to that and just focus on how I think it's
Speaker 2: gonna play. Honestly, Garrett, what I saw in person was
Speaker 2: what I expected, and I think the main thing that
Speaker 2: I've been looking for, and I think this is something
Speaker 2: you're gonna hear from a lot of people, like how
Speaker 2: penal is some of this grass once you get off
Speaker 2: the fairway. One thing I've heard a bunch of caddies saying,
Speaker 2: and I think you're gonna hear people say, is if
Speaker 2: you just get like a foot or two off the fairway,
Speaker 2: it's gonna be much more penal than if you're like
Speaker 2: ten feet or you know, fifteen twenty five feet off
Speaker 2: the fairway, then there's more thin areas. I think that
Speaker 2: narrative is gonna is a little overblown. And when people
Speaker 2: taking it to the next step and saying, since it's
Speaker 2: true that being ten yards off is better than being
Speaker 2: one yard off, just bombs away, I don't see it
Speaker 2: that way. I don't think bombers and just getting reckless
Speaker 2: and bashing driver everywhere is a good strategy here. So
Speaker 2: not expecting that, yeah, well, I mean if you just
Speaker 2: bashed driver everywhere, there's a lot of bottlenecking around where
Speaker 2: your shots are going to land, first of all, and
Speaker 2: then there's just that randomness that happens. And if a
Speaker 2: player embraces that and says, whatever the outcome is, I'm
Speaker 2: fine with it as long as I stick to my
Speaker 2: strategy of hitting it as hard as I can, then
Speaker 2: I almost respect that because that is really a stand
Speaker 2: that that player is taking at this course as opposed
Speaker 2: to other courses where the outcomes are just a little
Speaker 2: more consistent, even if they're pretty penal. Agree, And I
Speaker 2: would take a little bit of that approach, Like I
Speaker 2: think there's some opportunities to get aggressive out there, but
Speaker 2: I think on TV you'll see some balls end up
Speaker 2: in the fix stuff. But with a totally fine lie,
Speaker 2: that's not an easy shot, like it's still coming into
Speaker 2: these greens and how demanding and die of ball they are.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't want like one hundred and sixty yard shot,
Speaker 2: even if the live feels pretty clean and it's on
Speaker 2: sands like the fairway is still providing you a big
Speaker 2: advantage there. So I just don't why I agree to
Speaker 2: an extent that this isn't going to be like a
Speaker 2: hardcore accuracy test and you don't need to be amazing
Speaker 2: off the t you to thrive here. I think you
Speaker 2: can just go ahead and spray. It is not necessarily
Speaker 2: an accurate narrative, okay.
Speaker 1: And then where do you come down on the debate
Speaker 1: over whether this is going to be a very difficult
Speaker 1: US Open more of a traditional US Open, even though
Speaker 1: this is a fairly non traditional US Open course, but
Speaker 1: traditional in the sense that around even par is going
Speaker 1: to be possibly a winning score and people will get
Speaker 1: to see some carnage, or will it be a little
Speaker 1: bit easier or lower scoring than people expect.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's super difficult to say score to par
Speaker 2: without seeing exactly how firm this place this is gonna
Speaker 2: because if they really if it gets super baked out,
Speaker 2: obviously extremely difficult. I don't know i'd be interested in
Speaker 2: what like the Vegas number is right now, but something
Speaker 2: around like six to eight under seems reasonable. But I
Speaker 2: think until we have a good grasp on firmness, it's
Speaker 2: gonna be hard to say anything definitively. Doesn't look like
Speaker 2: it's gonna rain anymore, and I don't think there's gonna
Speaker 2: be a lot of wind. So something in that the
Speaker 2: range of eight under feels reasonable, but even like pin
Speaker 2: locations have a huge impact on that, So I don't know.
Speaker 2: Something in that ballpark seems reasonable to me.
Speaker 1: What do you think? I think that you're right that
Speaker 1: it's gonna be It's gonna be one of those situations
Speaker 1: where some people are gonna be unhappy with how low
Speaker 1: the scoring is and other people are going to be
Speaker 1: legitimate in pointing out that it's actually really hard. I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody's going to be satisfied. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's possible to satisfy us open fans these days, partly
Speaker 1: because of how far players hit the ball and how
Speaker 1: straight they hit it, and the equipment and the technique
Speaker 1: that they now have at their disposal, these courses are
Speaker 1: just way too short. Pinehurst is going to be seventy
Speaker 1: five hundred yards this week, and that's kind of like
Speaker 1: too short for these guys. And so if it does
Speaker 1: get soft out there for whatever reason, because maybe you know,
Speaker 1: the course gets more rain than expected, then guys could
Speaker 1: go low. But my suspicion is that the USGA is
Speaker 1: going to be pretty restrained in the setup, but it's
Speaker 1: still going to be hard, but it's just not going
Speaker 1: to be winged Foot nineteen seventy four. We kind of
Speaker 1: have to put that idea of a US Open behind
Speaker 1: us because it's just not happening anymore. And by the way,
Speaker 1: there continue to be really puzzling in bad takes about
Speaker 1: the lacc Us Open circulated out there. I'm sure that
Speaker 1: there will be some kind of contrast set up between
Speaker 1: last year's US Open and this US Open. But the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is that that was a hard
Speaker 1: US Open pretty much after the first day, and that
Speaker 1: course defended itself fairly well after that first round when
Speaker 1: it was just a bit softer than I think the
Speaker 1: setup crew expected, and so I mean there's just that
Speaker 1: it's almost like it doesn't matter what happens on the course.
Speaker 1: What matters is the narrative that people spin out of it.
Speaker 2: I'm with you, Garrett, and I think we have to
Speaker 2: be careful what we want here, like careful what you
Speaker 2: asked for. There's always trade offs in what people want, right,
Speaker 2: Like the firmer they make the golf course, the shorter
Speaker 2: it's gonna play because the ball rolls forever, so you're
Speaker 2: gonna have fewer long irons in. And the main thing though,
Speaker 2: is if you make these greens too firm, there are
Speaker 2: certain holes where there is nowhere to land the ball,
Speaker 2: like the fifteenth hole right now, long part three, there's
Speaker 2: almost nowhere to hit that shot and keep it on
Speaker 2: the green. So you could get carnage quote unquote by
Speaker 2: really cranking it up it being extremely firm and fast,
Speaker 2: But at that point it almost turns into golf. It's
Speaker 2: a little bit gimmicky. I'm all for a hard test,
Speaker 2: but these are small ish greens. I know that they
Speaker 2: play much smaller than the square footage, So the square
Speaker 2: footage isn't that relevant. Here, they play really small if
Speaker 2: you crank it up. So I'm again I want to
Speaker 2: see demanding shots. I want to see some blow up numbers.
Speaker 2: But you're not going to get that much of that
Speaker 2: without making it kind of a ridiculous test.
Speaker 1: We have already heard from a couple of players so
Speaker 1: far this week, most notably Wyndom Clark about the early
Speaker 1: week firmness of the Greens. Wyndam Clark called them borderline
Speaker 1: on Monday and said said if they push them any
Speaker 1: firmer and faster than then it would be borderline. And
Speaker 1: then he followed that up with saying, actually they already
Speaker 1: are borderline. Now I had some issues with this comment.
Speaker 1: I think that talking that way on Monday of Championship
Speaker 1: week is kind of lame. It does seem like he
Speaker 1: was trying to work the refs a little bit and
Speaker 1: say you better not make it any faster out there,
Speaker 1: or I'm not going to be happy. But in any case,
Speaker 1: that's Wyndham Clark's Monday position. Maybe he'll be happier with
Speaker 1: it as the week goes on. But as you were
Speaker 1: walking around the course today, Joseph, what was your own
Speaker 1: sense of how firm and fast the greens were and
Speaker 1: the other elements of the course out there. What's the
Speaker 1: firmness level at this point.
Speaker 2: It's firm, Garrett, But it seems reasonable to me, and
Speaker 2: the golf course is supposed supposed to play firm. So yeah,
Speaker 2: it's a lot different than a week in and week
Speaker 2: out PGA Tour setup. But it didn't feel to me
Speaker 2: like it was on the edge from what I saw.
Speaker 2: I do think though, a big part to keep in mind,
Speaker 2: like I was watching on the sixth hole today, the
Speaker 2: part of three is just in general this you're gonna
Speaker 2: see this over and over again where the landing area
Speaker 2: is so small that what it encourages players to do.
Speaker 2: Like let's say the pin is back on six like
Speaker 2: it was today in the practice round, you're not really
Speaker 2: considering pushing that ball back there because it takes a
Speaker 2: big hop and goes over the back of the green.
Speaker 2: You have a serious problem. So I understand Wyndham's concern
Speaker 2: on it getting too firm, because then you're almost like
Speaker 2: playing short of a bunch of greens, which you are
Speaker 2: going to have to do at Pinehurst, and I think
Speaker 2: that's again a big part of the reason short game
Speaker 2: is going to be rewarded here, but the USGA has
Speaker 2: a difficult job here of getting the right firmness level.
Speaker 2: Didn't see anything today that concerned me.
Speaker 1: I thought Michael Kim made a really good point on
Speaker 1: Twitter the other day when he actually quote tweeted Friday
Speaker 1: Golf's tweet about Wyndham's comments and said, there's been a
Speaker 1: shift in the setup approach that most organizations are taking
Speaker 1: to big golf tournaments now, where they actually start off
Speaker 1: the week with firmer and faster greens than they intend
Speaker 1: to have later in the week, and they kind of
Speaker 1: rain them in as the week goes on instead of
Speaker 1: starting softer and firming them up as the week goes on. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure what the agonomic explanation for this
Speaker 1: approach would be, but that does seem right to me
Speaker 1: that that is the approach that's being taken at big
Speaker 1: tournaments now, not just at the US Open, but other
Speaker 1: tournaments where we hear comments early in the week from
Speaker 1: players saying it is insanely firm out here, and then
Speaker 1: as the week goes on, we hear more and more
Speaker 1: about the setup crew going out there and syringing the greens,
Speaker 1: laying a little bit of water down and kind of
Speaker 1: controlling speed by making them slower as opposed to controlling
Speaker 1: speed by allowing them to bake out.
Speaker 2: I agree, Yeah, it does seem like they're doing that again,
Speaker 2: Like today kind of looks like what I would expect
Speaker 2: it to look like, so especially with maybe if you
Speaker 2: have more than a seven iron coming in like one
Speaker 2: big hop, and if you land it too far like
Speaker 2: middle of the green or middle back of the green,
Speaker 2: like it's going over, it's bouncing over. I think the
Speaker 2: people who like firm and fast are going to be
Speaker 2: happy with his championship. But nothing about what I've seen
Speaker 2: suggests that they're pushing the line at all. So I'd
Speaker 2: be interested in if the USGA would corroborate Michael Kim's comments.
Speaker 2: But it seems sensible to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we might as well ask actually, come to think
Speaker 1: of it, I'll write that down and send that question.
Speaker 1: So in any case, the other big issue going into
Speaker 1: the week, it seems related to the setup in the
Speaker 1: golf course, is the short game technique that players might
Speaker 1: use around the greens. Famously, in twenty fourteen, Martin Kaimer
Speaker 1: did really well with a putter around the greens and
Speaker 1: he was visibly uncomfortable hitting wedges off of that short
Speaker 1: grass surface bermuda grass surface. Around the greens. He much
Speaker 1: preferred to take the putter and he did really, really
Speaker 1: well with it. So you know, as you're going around
Speaker 1: the course, are you keeping an eye on the techniques
Speaker 1: that players are using, the different approaches that they're using,
Speaker 1: and what did you see?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot of putting, and I think putting's
Speaker 2: a good strategy this week, Garrett, You're also going to
Speaker 2: see some people use woods around the greens. Saw some
Speaker 2: of that. I think a lot of it's going to
Speaker 2: come down to reading your lie and which direction the
Speaker 2: grain is going. But I would expect to see a
Speaker 2: lot of putter, and I think it's pretty smart. So
Speaker 2: I think like Victor Hovelin is a good example where
Speaker 2: he I think in his press conference he said something
Speaker 2: like it might be sixty forty for him, sixty putter
Speaker 2: and forty percent trying some kind of chip shot. He's
Speaker 2: a player that's historically struggled with the short game a
Speaker 2: little bit, maybe resembling Kimer in some way, like the
Speaker 2: elite ball striker. The short game has given him some issues.
Speaker 2: I think watching what he does around the greens is
Speaker 2: going to be really interesting. You'll probably see a good
Speaker 2: amount of putter from him.
Speaker 1: Okay, cool, so a lot of putter out there. I
Speaker 1: would be curious to specifically see what a player like
Speaker 1: Jordan Speith is going to do around the greens, because
Speaker 1: Speef is one a great chipper. He's very confident off
Speaker 1: of any surface with a lob wedge, and he sticks
Speaker 1: to that lob wedge right. He uses his sixty degree
Speaker 1: in pretty much every situation around the greens everywhere, and
Speaker 1: uses different shot types with it right. He's able to
Speaker 1: hit it low, he's able to hit it high and
Speaker 1: do a bunch of things with right exactly. And so
Speaker 1: I'm curious to see what he would do at Pinehurst.
Speaker 1: Somebody who is really good at chipping and also pretty
Speaker 1: consistent in the club that he uses around the greens.
Speaker 1: If he too is putting and hitting some of these
Speaker 1: like hybrid chips or fairway wood chips, then you really
Speaker 1: know that something is different here and that just about
Speaker 1: everybody is going to be keeping the ball low around
Speaker 1: the greens.
Speaker 2: It's a good point, and maybe the other player i'd
Speaker 2: call out somewhat similar similar there is Cam Smith, who yes,
Speaker 2: is elite with his wedges around a green, but he
Speaker 2: also I think the Australian angle, and this is something
Speaker 2: that I had in my notes to bring up. Cam's
Speaker 2: used to this type of golf. I don't know if Pinehurst.
Speaker 2: I've never been to Australia, but I do think there's
Speaker 2: some resemblance there and seeing some past Australian slash New
Speaker 2: Zealand's success here makes some sense to me. So I
Speaker 2: think Cam's going to have a good feel for what
Speaker 2: shots he should try, and he could be another player
Speaker 2: to look at where if he's going to the putter,
Speaker 2: it's not because he's incapable of hitting that short game
Speaker 2: shot maybe like Martin Kaimer was, but because Cam knows
Speaker 2: that more often than not, that's the right shot that
Speaker 2: you should try.
Speaker 1: Cool. What are some standout holes for you strategically on
Speaker 1: the course this week?
Speaker 2: One of my favorite holes out here, Garrett, and I
Speaker 2: feel like maybe you're not as high on this hole,
Speaker 2: so it is interested in your opinion. I think the
Speaker 2: seventh hole is awesome and the way that there's a
Speaker 2: bunker that kind of juts out down the right side,
Speaker 2: but overall the fairway dog legs gently to the right
Speaker 2: and angles to the right, so that the more you
Speaker 2: take the ball down the left side, the more you
Speaker 2: the higher the chance that you run out into the
Speaker 2: thick stuff. So picking a target off the tee is
Speaker 2: pretty interesting. And like we saw in the twenty fourteen
Speaker 2: final round rewatching that Martin Kaimer ended up down the left,
Speaker 2: like if you can pull some kind of iron or
Speaker 2: some kind of wood, but that's not the safest shot,
Speaker 2: Like if you pull it a little bit, you might
Speaker 2: end up in the thick stuff. So I really like
Speaker 2: that hole in the way that it kind of asks
Speaker 2: a unique question of players, at least off of the tee.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you're hitting a little flip wedge in.
Speaker 2: But I think seven's a pretty cool t shot to
Speaker 2: keep an eye on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I guess you're right that I'm not as enthusiastic
Speaker 1: about that hole as some others, and probably as I
Speaker 1: should be. I don't have any particular reason for not
Speaker 1: rating the seventh hole as highly as some other holes
Speaker 1: in that same stretch of the golf course. I just
Speaker 1: really love the eighth hole, And so you know, when
Speaker 1: I'm playing the seventh hole, what I'm thinking about is
Speaker 1: like I'm about to play the eighth hole, which might
Speaker 1: be my favorite or one of my two favorite holes
Speaker 1: on the golf course, where that the fairway matched with
Speaker 1: the land is so cool. The seventh hole, I guess
Speaker 1: the thing that I didn't love about it when I
Speaker 1: played it the most recent time was how that area
Speaker 1: right of the fairway, the native area and the set
Speaker 1: of bunkers that the fairway wraps around is presented now
Speaker 1: because it has become pretty penal and I only really
Speaker 1: took a quick look at it. I didn't like research
Speaker 1: this take thoroughly enough by walking out there and looking
Speaker 1: what exactly was done. But to me it just seemed
Speaker 1: like exhibit a of planting too much wiregrass, making it
Speaker 1: less random and a little bit less forgiving in the
Speaker 1: interest of making sure that players wouldn't try to cut
Speaker 1: off too much of it and make the hole too short.
Speaker 1: And so I wish they had backed off a bit
Speaker 1: on the wiregrass there. But that's really my only issue
Speaker 1: with the hole at this point. Otherwise it's just a
Speaker 1: matter of not loving it as much as some of
Speaker 1: the other holes on the course. No, that's fair.
Speaker 2: I think what I like about the seventh toal is
Speaker 2: something that I just love about Pinehurst in general, which
Speaker 2: is that at most courses we watch players week in
Speaker 2: and week out, they're kind of picking a target line
Speaker 2: and swinging hard on that line right like less center
Speaker 2: of the fairway because there's a water hazard down the
Speaker 2: right and ripdriver and just hopefully you're taking a swing
Speaker 2: that has a relatively tight dispersion. And that's it. On
Speaker 2: the seventh hole, the line, the distance control is part
Speaker 2: of that t shot, and that's something that you've talked
Speaker 2: about the way that other fairways angle as well. It's
Speaker 2: a cool part of this hole that sure, you can
Speaker 2: take a certain line, but it depends how far you
Speaker 2: hit it on that line and how much you're going
Speaker 2: to be reward and what your web shot is going
Speaker 2: to look like. In so I think that's what I
Speaker 2: like about the seventh hole. It's just something completely different
Speaker 2: than a lot of at least a lot of other
Speaker 2: courses on the PGA tour.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's true. And I think that the thing
Speaker 1: that makes the seventh hole different at Pinehurst is that
Speaker 1: the angle of the fairway is more acute than it
Speaker 1: is on other holes that have diagonal fairways, and that
Speaker 1: puts an extra emphasis on distance control off the tee
Speaker 1: because if you hit it on the right line, and
Speaker 1: you hit it a little bit too far, you're pretty
Speaker 1: likely on the seventh hole to go through the fairway
Speaker 1: on the other side, whereas on other holes the diagonal
Speaker 1: isn't quite as severe, so you have a bit more
Speaker 1: room for error. But the seventh hole, if you tug
Speaker 1: that a little bit left, which I think is a
Speaker 1: common thing to do on that hole because the right
Speaker 1: side of the hole is so intimidating, then you're probably
Speaker 1: going to find some kind of chancey lie in the
Speaker 1: native area on the other side of the fairway. So
Speaker 1: it is fun to watch. I will give the hole
Speaker 1: that any other holes that stood out to.
Speaker 2: You overall, Gary, and not to take this in the
Speaker 2: negative direction versus the positive. But like I'm I've always
Speaker 2: been a little underwhelmed with the stretch between eleven to fourteen,
Speaker 2: and I'm especially bringing that up because i know how
Speaker 2: high you are on that stretch of holes, so I'm
Speaker 2: like a little underwhelmed by that stretch. But I think
Speaker 2: the fifth hole in particular is like going to be
Speaker 2: one of the most fun holes to watch all week,
Speaker 2: So the positive there, The one that I think is
Speaker 2: going to be super fun would be five, and then
Speaker 2: maybe a little underwhelmed by the eleven to fourteen stretch.
Speaker 1: Okay, what underwhelms you about the eleven to fourteen stretch?
Speaker 1: And I also love five.
Speaker 2: By the way, I don't know that it's that I
Speaker 2: think think any of the holes aren't bad, but I
Speaker 2: just think so much of the they seem relatively tame. They're hard,
Speaker 2: they're long, but there's nothing super diabolical about them, and
Speaker 2: maybe it's just where they fall and the routing, but
Speaker 2: I just don't find those holes to stand out as
Speaker 2: much having played there, like trying to think back on
Speaker 2: the shots that I had to play like, they're pretty straightforward.
Speaker 2: I'd be interested in your counter argument to some of that.
Speaker 2: But the thirteenth hole in particular, I don't think that's
Speaker 2: that fun of a hole when they make it drivable,
Speaker 2: And maybe we'll get into that with three watching from
Speaker 2: twenty fourteen, but it's such a narrow layup, it's an
Speaker 2: obvious just hit driver up there, and being in some
Speaker 2: of those green side bunkers isn't that much of a problem.
Speaker 2: There's nothing extreme enough around that green to make you
Speaker 2: think twice about hitting a driver up there, or three
Speaker 2: would for a lot of these guys. So that might
Speaker 2: be a hole that there could be some eagles and
Speaker 2: definitely a lot of birdies, but it's a pretty benign
Speaker 2: drivable for when they set it up to be drivable,
Speaker 2: that laying up's just not really an attractive option given
Speaker 2: how narrow that layup would be.
Speaker 1: I agree with that about thirteen. I do not like
Speaker 1: it as a driveable par four, and that was one
Speaker 1: of my takeaways from watching the twenty fourteen telecast. I
Speaker 1: think that it's a really cool short part four that
Speaker 1: they've made worse by narrowing it on the left side.
Speaker 1: I think the big question on that hole is like
Speaker 1: what club you're taking off the tee and where you're
Speaker 1: laying up to give yourself the best chance of a
Speaker 1: non terrifying wedge approach into the green. I think that's
Speaker 1: the spirit of the hole, and for me it really works.
Speaker 1: Maybe it doesn't work as well for professionals because of
Speaker 1: how far they hit the driver now, but I think
Speaker 1: it's a wonderful short part four for amateurs at the
Speaker 1: very least, and that's usually the perspective I take when
Speaker 1: I'm judging a hole to be good or not. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm not thinking quite as much about how a US
Speaker 1: Open field would approach that because that's one time every
Speaker 1: few years as opposed to every single day, you know,
Speaker 1: like many many people playing this course. So it is
Speaker 1: a course for amateurs.
Speaker 2: Totally fair.
Speaker 1: All right. Before we get into our thoughts about the
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen US Open more in depth, I'd like to
Speaker 1: say a word about Echo Golf shoes. The latest shoe
Speaker 1: from Echo Golf is the LT one. This is a
Speaker 1: sneaker style modern design, and what I like about Echo
Speaker 1: is that they always have something new up their sleeves
Speaker 1: with the tech in their shoes. This year, the LT
Speaker 1: one features lighter foam lytr Foam, which is this advanced
Speaker 1: bounce and rebound material that you'll find embedded in the
Speaker 1: sole of the shoe. What you really need to know
Speaker 1: about this stuff is that it's very flexible, very comfortable,
Speaker 1: and makes walking eighteen holes much easier than it would
Speaker 1: be otherwise. You can also wear the LT one in
Speaker 1: some serious weather because the leather upper is waterproof, not
Speaker 1: to mention soft and durable. Finally, the Echo LT one
Speaker 1: is available in both laced and boa options. You know,
Speaker 1: when it comes to golf shoes, quality really matters. If
Speaker 1: you get a substandard or just average shoe, you're going
Speaker 1: to need to replace it pretty quickly because golf shoes
Speaker 1: take a beating. But with Echo you get real quality,
Speaker 1: real durability, and a shoe that's going to hold up
Speaker 1: against all the walking and the weather you can throw
Speaker 1: at it. And that's why players like Lydia Co, Eric
Speaker 1: Van Ruyan, and Hendrik Stenson wear this shoe. So shop
Speaker 1: the Echo LT one and other Echo products at Echo
Speaker 1: dot com. That's Echo Ecco dot com, All right, Joseph.
Speaker 1: We rewatched the twenty fourteen US soapen the final round,
Speaker 1: which is available on YouTube for anybody who's interested in
Speaker 1: watching five hours of Martin Kimer being the obvious winner
Speaker 1: all day long. Clearly not the most compelling final round
Speaker 1: competitively that has ever happened in major championship golf, but
Speaker 1: certainly gives a perspective on how this course might play
Speaker 1: this week, and that's why we watched it to try
Speaker 1: to pick up some insights about Pinehurst Number two and
Speaker 1: how pros might approach it now. Obviously, We're ten years
Speaker 1: on and pros will be playing this course differently even
Speaker 1: than they did ten years ago. But let's talk about
Speaker 1: basic overall impressions of the twenty fourteen US Open. What
Speaker 1: were some of your thoughts and notes about this round
Speaker 1: of golf?
Speaker 2: Probably my biggest takeaway and least instructive was that we
Speaker 2: missed Johnny Miller badly. And if anybody wants, let's start there.
Speaker 2: If anybody wants some incredible Johnny Miller lines and seeing him,
Speaker 2: I would highly recommend going and going back and watching
Speaker 2: the twenty fourteen final round. Garrett, I don't know what
Speaker 2: your favorite was. I saw that you tweeted out Keegan
Speaker 2: Bradley was wearing some pretty bright red shoes that Johnny
Speaker 2: Miller kept alluding to Dorothy from Wizard of Oz and
Speaker 2: like Keik and Bradley would take a swing and Johnny
Speaker 2: would be like, you know, click click, and the balls
Speaker 2: about to go near the hole, like he just over
Speaker 2: and over again, and.
Speaker 1: I was dying.
Speaker 2: Absolutely a highlight for me with some of the Johnny
Speaker 2: Miller quotes.
Speaker 1: He would not let it go about Keegan's red shoes,
Speaker 1: and then you know, among other Sartorial commentary Johnny Miller.
Speaker 1: When Ricky Fowler was kind of falling well behind Martin
Speaker 1: Kaimer and it was obvious that he wasn't going to
Speaker 1: win that day, Johnny said something to the effect of, well,
Speaker 1: I guess you got to try something other than that
Speaker 1: orange outfit, because it doesn't seem to be working.
Speaker 2: Yeah, on sun birdle specifically, Yeah, on Sundays, try try
Speaker 2: something else on Sundays, Ricky. Yeah, there was this. There
Speaker 2: was a part where Sergio hits a chip I think
Speaker 2: it was on six, and it hits a sprinkler head
Speaker 2: and flies like way back and off the green. It's
Speaker 2: a bad break, but the broadcast is emphasizing how bad
Speaker 2: of a break it was, and Johnny's like, well he
Speaker 2: did chili dip it, though it would have been way
Speaker 2: short anyway. He just gives it to you straight. I
Speaker 2: love it. And one comment I wanted that he made
Speaker 2: that I wanted to get your opinion on. He says
Speaker 2: near the end of the broadcast, to me, these greens
Speaker 2: are over the top. Literally, I just think they need
Speaker 2: to be redone back to where Ross had them. What
Speaker 2: was your reaction to hearing Johnny Miller say that on
Speaker 2: the telecast it just came out of nowhere.
Speaker 1: It did. It felt like Johnny just got into the
Speaker 1: to the mode of saying negative things, and that was
Speaker 1: just one more negative thing to say, because he wasn't
Speaker 1: like setting up that take. As the telecast went on,
Speaker 1: it just kind of flew in when Kimer and Fowler
Speaker 1: were playing the fifteenth hole, right, which is a very
Speaker 1: very severely domed green. The funny thing about it is
Speaker 1: that I sort of agree with him, but not for
Speaker 1: the reasons that maybe he had for saying that. I
Speaker 1: do think that the original ross greens at Pinehurst number
Speaker 1: two were lower to the ground, and that they made
Speaker 1: a conscious decision not to restore them because they needed
Speaker 1: the course to be as difficult as it was in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen and be as difficult as it will be
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty four And a big part of the
Speaker 1: difficulty of the course obviously these days, is that you know,
Speaker 1: approach shots repel off from the middle, and if the
Speaker 1: course didn't have that, then we would have much much
Speaker 1: lower scoring US opens at it. So I see why
Speaker 1: they didn't restore the ross greens, but I think that
Speaker 1: the course would probably be a bit better and more
Speaker 1: varied if they did. But Johnny's reasons for saying that,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think he just had the feeling
Speaker 1: at the moment that what happened to Kimer's ball was unfair,
Speaker 1: and so he just went ahead and made that comment.
Speaker 1: But it is glaring how much more willing Johnny Miller
Speaker 1: was to be negative and to say true but critical
Speaker 1: things about players and the shots that they were hitting
Speaker 1: than anybody who's on any network telecast today. And the
Speaker 1: element that Johnny brought to those telecasts was just fantastic.
Speaker 1: So anyway, I'd like to move on from that and
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about the play. But that
Speaker 1: is like a huge thing that is so obvious when
Speaker 1: you watch those older NBC telecasts that everybody misses Johnny Miller.
Speaker 1: So what were some of the things that you saw
Speaker 1: in terms of shots that players were hitting and the
Speaker 1: style of the course and the skill set that it
Speaker 1: was rewarding that day.
Speaker 2: I think the shot that might stand out to me
Speaker 2: most from the entire thing is pretty early in the telecast.
Speaker 2: Phil Mickelson has a bunker shot on the ninth green
Speaker 2: that is right on the edge of being a good
Speaker 2: shot but then falls off all the way down the
Speaker 2: front of that green and something that people just need
Speaker 2: to be prepared for this week. I'm sure it's already
Speaker 2: been hammered home a little bit. Johnson Wagner has been
Speaker 2: hitting some chip shots from around the green on Golf Channel.
Speaker 2: The ninth hole is terrifying, like, yeah, when the pin's back,
Speaker 2: you can go long and you have a problem front
Speaker 2: pins terrifying like that green is so severe that that
Speaker 2: was the shot that was most shocking to me and
Speaker 2: illuminated the importance of short games. So I've even seen
Speaker 2: a little bit as if we've already touched on of
Speaker 2: people saying that since you can putt from some around
Speaker 2: some of these greens, maybe short game won't be that
Speaker 2: big of a deal. I do not agree with that.
Speaker 2: I think short game is going to be extremely important
Speaker 2: in that feel. Nicholson's shot was illustrative of why.
Speaker 1: There was also a hole in one on nine during
Speaker 1: the final round from Your Guy the twenty fourteen US
Speaker 1: Open by Zach Johnson. Yeah. Absolutely. They replayed it about
Speaker 1: fifteen times, and it happened early in the day, so
Speaker 1: they had plenty of opportunities to revisit it. But so
Speaker 1: when it comes to Martin Kaymer big runaway here, like
Speaker 1: nobody had a chance. What do you think it was
Speaker 1: about Kimer's game that made him so solid at this
Speaker 1: US Open, And what can we learn from that and
Speaker 1: apply to our expectations for this week.
Speaker 2: It's a good question. I'm kind of expecting that this
Speaker 2: US Open will reward a very different type of player
Speaker 2: than we see week in and week out. It shouldn't
Speaker 2: be lost that Martin Kimer was an extremely good golfer
Speaker 2: at the time. His ball striking was incredible that week.
Speaker 2: But I think, for example, his ability to put from
Speaker 2: around the greens, I don't think that means that there's
Speaker 2: going to be an inclination to say that short game
Speaker 2: isn't as important because you can do that, But that's
Speaker 2: a different type of short game shot that certain players
Speaker 2: are more well equipped to handle than others. So I
Speaker 2: think what Martin Kimer illustrates is, Yeah, if you're a
Speaker 2: great ball striker and you're creative around the greens, it
Speaker 2: might not be the type of around the green shot
Speaker 2: we're accustomed to seeing, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
Speaker 2: take an enormous amount of skill. So I think we
Speaker 2: could see some different names in the mix. I like
Speaker 2: the Australian angle a little bit. As I've already mentioned.
Speaker 2: Could there be a runaway winner, Yeah, but I wouldn't
Speaker 2: expect that just from seeing one instance of that in
Speaker 2: twenty fourteen.
Speaker 1: Okay, So going into the final round in twenty fourteen,
Speaker 1: these were the players who were in the mix. Top
Speaker 1: of the leaderboard. You had Martin Kaimer. You had Eric Compton,
Speaker 1: one of the great kind of random high finishes, and
Speaker 1: then major that I can remember. Eric Compton made what
Speaker 1: was it six major starts and made two cuts, one
Speaker 1: of which was a T two at Pinehurst number two
Speaker 1: and twenty fourteen, and the other was like fifty first
Speaker 1: place or something at the next year's Masters. So this
Speaker 1: was like, obviously he was a great player, but this
Speaker 1: was a truly random type of contender Eric Compton, So
Speaker 1: I don't know much about what his game was. He
Speaker 1: certainly wasn't super long. You had Ricky Fowler basically at
Speaker 1: his peak, this was peak Ricky Fowler. You had Dustin Johnson,
Speaker 1: Hendrik Stenson, Brant Snedeker, Brooks Koepka, Matt Kocher, Kevin nah
Speaker 1: Those were the players going into the final round who
Speaker 1: were lingering around even par or under and in Kymer's case,
Speaker 1: obviously significantly under par. So what do you take away
Speaker 1: from that group of players? Is there anything to take
Speaker 1: away from that group of players?
Speaker 2: I think that you could see some randomness and some
Speaker 2: players that you normally wouldn't see contend. I think the
Speaker 2: key to this US Open, similar to twenty fourteen, is
Speaker 2: like controlling the ball and having good iron playing short game.
Speaker 2: A player that came to mind or comes to mind
Speaker 2: thinking about that statistical profile is Kevin Nah back in
Speaker 2: that in that era when Kevin Na was a much
Speaker 2: better golfer than he is now, Like not the longest
Speaker 2: off of the tee, but I wouldn't be looking at
Speaker 2: off the tee as a huge indicator of success this week.
Speaker 2: You can get away with a little bit of there's
Speaker 2: some whipp and even if you get a little off
Speaker 2: of that, you can get away with some fine lies
Speaker 2: as long as you have a good short game. So
Speaker 2: I think Kevin Nah's instructive of what we could see
Speaker 2: this week, and then just the general like you're mentioning
Speaker 2: with Eric Compton, I think you could see a long
Speaker 2: shot or two that hasn't necessarily contended in a major,
Speaker 2: get into contention this week at Piners, and we might
Speaker 2: see some really good players like Scotti Scheffler, Xander Schaffley
Speaker 2: get thrown off, especially on one of these long long
Speaker 2: par threes, run into a bogie, a double bogie and
Speaker 2: not be in the mix. And I don't think much
Speaker 2: is surprise us, at least in this tournament.
Speaker 1: So that element of randomness and the potential for a
Speaker 1: long shot winner or a group of long shot contenders
Speaker 1: is something that I think will be a big part
Speaker 1: of the discussion this week because we just came off
Speaker 1: a major at Valhalla where the number one defense of
Speaker 1: the course was that it generated a leaderboard full of
Speaker 1: players that are recognizable and that we all acknowledge as
Speaker 1: today's best players. And a lot of people were saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't really like this course either. This is not
Speaker 1: my preferred style of architecture or setup, but you can't
Speaker 1: deny what Valhalla does in producing this type of leaderboard. Now,
Speaker 1: what we're saying going into Pinehurst is that it's kind
Speaker 1: of the opposite where the course does seem to be
Speaker 1: capable of generating some more random outcomes. And so do
Speaker 1: you think that's going to be a problem for the
Speaker 1: USGA and Pinehurst number two this week. And are we
Speaker 1: you and I Joseph going to get some blowback from
Speaker 1: people who are saying, you guys were shitting on Valhalla
Speaker 1: all PGA Championship week and now we come into Pinehurst
Speaker 1: and you say it's a great course, but look at
Speaker 1: this leaderboard? Who are these random people?
Speaker 2: Garrett? I think the best case study or example of
Speaker 2: this will be the fifteenth hole here at Pinehurst, where
Speaker 2: there is almost nowhere to land that golf ball and
Speaker 2: it can roll into some really tricky spots. That is
Speaker 2: not necessarily the type of hole you would build if
Speaker 2: you wanted the number one ranked golfer to show up
Speaker 2: at the top of the leaderboard at the end of
Speaker 2: the week. Right if they played that whole seventy two times,
Speaker 2: like you could get some funky results. Now do people
Speaker 2: want to watch that hole and watch that style of hole? Like,
Speaker 2: I think that's a good golf hole and it's going
Speaker 2: to be entertaining. And sure it might not be the
Speaker 2: most again elevating talent to the top, Like there's going
Speaker 2: to be an element of randomness, but that doesn't make
Speaker 2: it a bad test that maybe would play a little
Speaker 2: better if the green were a little bit bigger. But
Speaker 2: in general, like I think that's the trade off that
Speaker 2: we're basically talking about here, Like you're seeing more interesting shots,
Speaker 2: a lot of variety, a lot of different players that
Speaker 2: can contend, but there is the increased chance then of
Speaker 2: some long shot winner. And then how that affects the
Speaker 2: legacy of the tournament, right because you're defending champion is
Speaker 2: potentially a long shot and not Xander Schoffley or Scotty
Speaker 2: Scheffler or Rory McElroy. All that said, like we might
Speaker 2: get Scotty scheffer this week. He's three to one to
Speaker 2: win the tournament. But what you're saying, I mean, I
Speaker 2: completely agree with So where do you land on all that?
Speaker 1: It's exactly what you're saying that you have to watch
Speaker 1: the golf shots. That's really where Pinehurst Number two and
Speaker 1: courses like it come alive during tournaments is if you
Speaker 1: actually see the golf shots that are being hit and
Speaker 1: see how interesting they are and how high stakes they are,
Speaker 1: and look at the things that happen to the ball
Speaker 1: once it hits the ground. That's the good stuff that
Speaker 1: Pinehurst number two offers, and as a result, of that,
Speaker 1: some sort of stuff we might see outcomes that we're
Speaker 1: not used to on the PGA Tour because this is
Speaker 1: a different type of course than the PGA Tour. And
Speaker 1: for me, that's the point to hammer home that players
Speaker 1: who thrive at Pinehurst number two, the players who will
Speaker 1: thrive this week, won't necessarily be bad players or not
Speaker 1: have deserved their success at the course. They're just there
Speaker 1: because they played this course well, and maybe other courses
Speaker 1: that they play regularly on the PGA Tour or the
Speaker 1: dp World Tour or live don't highlight their skill sets
Speaker 1: in the same way or give such an advantage to
Speaker 1: other players, to the players that we're all familiar with,
Speaker 1: that it's hard for these kind of more obscure players
Speaker 1: to succeed on a week to week basis on the
Speaker 1: PGA Tour because the the Xanders and the Cantles, et
Speaker 1: cetera are so geared to succeed at a PGA Tour
Speaker 1: style venue. They are dominant at those venues. But you
Speaker 1: put them at Pinehurst number two with a field full
Speaker 1: of accomplished golfers and they don't have the same kind
Speaker 1: of advantage. And I think that that's something to appreciate.
Speaker 2: And Garrett like, if it is a couple stars in
Speaker 2: the mix on Sunday, like, then you have dynamite because
Speaker 2: you have unbelievably compelling golf shots combined with some of
Speaker 2: those characteristics that you love of Vahalla where you have
Speaker 2: a bunch of stars at the top. The other point
Speaker 2: I would make that I don't love doing the like, well,
Speaker 2: these are the same people, and like assuming people are
Speaker 2: in the same groups, but I think sometimes it's the
Speaker 2: same type of crowd that wants carnage at the US Open.
Speaker 2: That also then maybe come I don't say why they
Speaker 2: want carnage at the US Open, but also maybe defend
Speaker 2: Valhalla to an extent because it produced a good leaderboard. Again,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's necessarily the same crowd, but if
Speaker 2: you turn up like these greens, like you make them crazy,
Speaker 2: and let's say there's a ton of winds, like you'd
Speaker 2: get carnage, but you'd get results that are even more random.
Speaker 2: So there's just there's always these trade offs and be
Speaker 2: careful what you ask for, because again the fifteenth hole
Speaker 2: is a great example, or if it were super windy
Speaker 2: and you really cranked it up like enjoy watching the
Speaker 2: triple Bogies, but you're also not necessarily going to get
Speaker 2: the talent at the top, Right, how about Nelly Corda
Speaker 2: at Lancaster. Like you can see carnage, but you also
Speaker 2: might take one of the best players in the world
Speaker 2: out of contention. My chances of beating Scotty Scheffler on
Speaker 2: a hole on the fifteenth hole at Pinehurst go way
Speaker 2: up when the greens are so ridiculously firm. That's scott
Speaker 2: Even Scotty has nowhere to go and his ball could
Speaker 2: end up in a bad spot. Right, So, like there's
Speaker 2: just that trade off there that I would be very
Speaker 2: cautious in advocating for carnage.
Speaker 1: I feel like we didn't talk quite enough about Kimer.
Speaker 1: So before we wrap up, what are some of the
Speaker 1: things that you liked about the way that Kimer played
Speaker 1: on Sunday, Because he wasn't fully on the whole day,
Speaker 1: and yet he shot sixty nine, which is better than
Speaker 1: anybody else who was kind of reasonably in contention and
Speaker 1: had a stranglehold on the tournament from hole one to
Speaker 1: hole eighteen. He did have a couple of loose shots,
Speaker 1: a couple of loose holes, but somehow or another. He
Speaker 1: was just super steady. So what was he doing well?
Speaker 1: What was his secret that week?
Speaker 2: I feel like there were some loose shots mixed in,
Speaker 2: but like the quality of a lot of his other
Speaker 2: shots was unbelievable, Like he drove the third green, and
Speaker 2: that's like a ridiculously hard green to drive to hit
Speaker 2: something far that high and online like to where he
Speaker 2: had a reasonable look at eagle, Like that's just a
Speaker 2: ridiculous golf shot. So I don't know, he never got
Speaker 2: himself into too much trouble. I really like the around
Speaker 2: the green the putting strategy, so I think that's something
Speaker 2: he did well, and he did it marvelously. It's not
Speaker 2: an easy shot, he was good at it. So I
Speaker 2: guess that combination of elite ball striking, keeping himself out
Speaker 2: of trouble and being smart around the greens pretty good recipe.
Speaker 1: So looking at that and then looking at the field
Speaker 1: this week, are there players who stand out for you
Speaker 1: aside from Scotti Scheffler.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think yes, But also considering like, don't get
Speaker 2: too confident on any one player, because I think there's
Speaker 2: gonna be a little bit higher of an element of randomness.
Speaker 2: Then we've seen it other major championship venues recently. I
Speaker 2: think the mart When I've been looking at courses, not
Speaker 2: too many line up with like it's a totally distinct test,
Speaker 2: but I think there's some similarities with Sawgrass and maybe
Speaker 2: with Colonial a little bit the emphasis on the short game.
Speaker 2: I mean Sawgress has water everywhere, in Pinehurst has water nowhere,
Speaker 2: So there's some clear differences, right, But we're also taking
Speaker 2: Martin Kimer and Ricky Fowler two players champions, and I
Speaker 2: think an example of a name that kind of fits
Speaker 2: the bill would be cam Smith, who his form is questionable.
Speaker 2: He shot eighty on Sunday and Live Houston, but he's
Speaker 2: actually been a good golfer over the last year. I
Speaker 2: know he's disappeared a little bit since he's been playing
Speaker 2: on a tour that's less visible, but camp Smith's been
Speaker 2: pretty good over the last year, and he's been good
Speaker 2: in majors for a lot of his career. I like
Speaker 2: the Australian angle a little bit and I think he'll
Speaker 2: know what to do around the greens and one of
Speaker 2: his biggest weaknesses is that he can get a little
Speaker 2: bit aaron off the tea, which I think you're going
Speaker 2: to be able to get away with, so maybe a
Speaker 2: volatile option. But I think camp Smith's kind of an
Speaker 2: interesting name to keep an eye on, who checks a
Speaker 2: lot of the boxes that I'd probably be looking for
Speaker 2: this week.
Speaker 1: I also think that, you know, just looking at good
Speaker 1: Iron players probably is a solid way to go about
Speaker 1: identifying some players who might do well this week. So
Speaker 1: Colin Morikawa, you know, I think is an obvious direction
Speaker 1: to go there, and he's been playing well recently. Victor Hovland,
Speaker 1: if he kind of dials in the technique with the
Speaker 1: putter from Off the Greens, he might be a really
Speaker 1: good direction to go to. Something that's kind of odd
Speaker 1: is that as I was watching the Memorial last week,
Speaker 1: I was thinking to myself, a lot of the players
Speaker 1: who are doing well here are ones that I would
Speaker 1: sort of expect to be all right at Pinehurst as well.
Speaker 1: Even though Mierfield Village and Pinehurst Number two are really
Speaker 1: really different courses, do you know what I mean?
Speaker 2: I do know what you mean. Yeah, there's some big differences,
Speaker 2: especially visually, but Mierfield Village is a pretty complete test,
Speaker 2: hardcore Iron tests, and it does test the short game
Speaker 2: a little bit, right, Big Tee to green separator, so
Speaker 2: I wouldn't use it as it wouldn't be the first
Speaker 2: course that I would call to mind, but I would
Speaker 2: agree like Colin morcab is a great name to shout out,
Speaker 2: especially because he's been way better at the short game
Speaker 2: this year. It's by far his best short game you're
Speaker 2: on tour, So I like that call.
Speaker 1: So other than that, it's just a really hard tournament
Speaker 1: to predict. It's a unique golf course and it really
Speaker 1: is one of my favorites. I'm going to write something
Speaker 1: for the newsletter for tomorrow, I think where I'll identify
Speaker 1: a few details like architectural details to look for on
Speaker 1: the telecast. When you know what to look for, I
Speaker 1: think this golf course becomes really exciting and just one
Speaker 1: of the most fascinating places to play golf in the world. So,
Speaker 1: you know, aside from watching it on TV this week,
Speaker 1: I would also encourage people to make it a priority
Speaker 1: to get to this course at some point in your
Speaker 1: life and play it for yourself, because it truly is
Speaker 1: a course that plays beautifully for amateurs as well as
Speaker 1: for pros, and that is just a massive rarity, and
Speaker 1: I think it's a big part of why I'm excited
Speaker 1: for this tournament because it is one of those courses
Speaker 1: that you can play too and you can get something
Speaker 1: out of it that is maybe even more exciting than
Speaker 1: what we'll see in the US Open, and you can't
Speaker 1: say that about many golf courses.
Speaker 2: Totally agree, Garrett. I agree with that it plays better
Speaker 2: parameters too, like that was one of the big takeaways
Speaker 2: from walking around. So you can play it right, and
Speaker 2: you can play it well, you can shoot a decent
Speaker 2: score out there.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, all right, Joseph, thanks for coming on the podcast
Speaker 1: during a very busy week for you at Pinehurst number two.
Speaker 1: I hope you have a great time this week and
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to seeing the things that you write
Speaker 1: in the Friday newsletter and elsewhere. So thanks for coming
Speaker 1: on the pod, and make sure to get a little
Speaker 1: bit of rest occasionally this week as well.
Speaker 2: Thanks Garrett.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Friday Golf Podcast was produced by
Speaker 1: Matt Rusius. Thank you, Matt. If you'd like to do
Speaker 1: something for us real quick that is very helpful, give
Speaker 1: us a rating and review wherever you happen to be
Speaker 1: listening to us, whether that's Spotify or Apple, just tell
Speaker 1: us how you think we're doing and help us find
Speaker 1: new listeners by doing that. Thank you for listening, and
Speaker 1: we'll be back again soon with another episode.