WEBVTT - Golf’s Scientific Revolution

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.520
<v Speaker 1>I miss a green, for example, I'm already upset.

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

0:00:05.000 --> 0:00:06.960
<v Speaker 2>And when I find my ball in a bride egg

0:00:07.200 --> 0:00:10.559
<v Speaker 2>Friday Egg, the dreaded Frida Egg, Frida Egg, Frida Egg Egg,

0:00:10.640 --> 0:00:12.959
<v Speaker 2>fride Egg, Bride Egg Lie, I'm about ready to run

0:00:13.000 --> 0:00:13.680
<v Speaker 2>off of the hump.

0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:38.240
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Frida Egg Podcast. My name is Garrett Morrison,

0:00:38.360 --> 0:00:42.800
<v Speaker 1>and today we're talking about the ongoing scientific revolution in golf.

0:00:43.440 --> 0:00:46.040
<v Speaker 1>My guest is Will Haskett, a broadcaster you might have

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>heard on PGA Tour Radio and formally on his podcast

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:53.360
<v Speaker 1>The Perfect Number. Will is also a writer. His book

0:00:53.400 --> 0:00:56.320
<v Speaker 1>is called The Science of Golf and it covers topics

0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:00.720
<v Speaker 1>like launch, monitor technology, strokes, gained analytics, advance an agronomy,

0:01:00.840 --> 0:01:04.160
<v Speaker 1>et cetera. And it discusses how these innovations have made

0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:06.960
<v Speaker 1>the modern game what it is, for better or for worse.

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:10.280
<v Speaker 1>It's a really, really good read, even for an admitted

0:01:10.360 --> 0:01:13.960
<v Speaker 1>science idiot like me. Now, in addition to getting Will's book,

0:01:14.200 --> 0:01:16.360
<v Speaker 1>make sure to check out the Frida Egg Pro shop.

0:01:16.400 --> 0:01:19.760
<v Speaker 1>It's at proshop dotthfrid Egg dot com. Right now, we

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:22.640
<v Speaker 1>have new stuff in our print shop specifically some cool

0:01:22.680 --> 0:01:25.959
<v Speaker 1>shots of Mierfield in Scotland and sand Hills Golf Club

0:01:25.959 --> 0:01:29.440
<v Speaker 1>in Nebraska. You can get prints on metal, on canvas

0:01:29.680 --> 0:01:32.520
<v Speaker 1>or just on plain old photo paper, all that and

0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>more at pro Shop dotthfried egg dot com. All right,

0:01:40.240 --> 0:01:44.000
<v Speaker 1>Will Haskett, you are a man of many talents. Today

0:01:44.000 --> 0:01:45.959
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about your book, The Science of Golf, and

0:01:45.959 --> 0:01:48.920
<v Speaker 1>we'll get to that, but you have just wrapped up

0:01:49.120 --> 0:01:50.160
<v Speaker 1>doing a broadcast.

0:01:51.000 --> 0:01:55.080
<v Speaker 2>Uh yeah, I'm a sports broadcaster first, second, and third,

0:01:55.360 --> 0:01:58.360
<v Speaker 2>so let's not throw the author category into it. We'll

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 2>get into maybe how the bok came to be. But yeah,

0:02:01.360 --> 0:02:04.680
<v Speaker 2>first and foremost I'm a sports broadcaster and predominantly now

0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 2>in golf. So yeah, I'm approaching ten years now on

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:10.760
<v Speaker 2>PG to a radio A little PG twour Live helped

0:02:10.880 --> 0:02:13.760
<v Speaker 2>the LPGA launch feature groups for the first time this year,

0:02:13.800 --> 0:02:16.320
<v Speaker 2>which is kind of exciting, so hoping that that grows

0:02:16.320 --> 0:02:17.840
<v Speaker 2>a little bit more for the lady's side of it.

0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:20.079
<v Speaker 2>But yes, I am predominantly a play by play guy

0:02:20.680 --> 0:02:24.440
<v Speaker 2>in trade and heart in every single way, shape and form.

0:02:24.880 --> 0:02:29.160
<v Speaker 1>You have that broadcaster's voice and polish and so that's

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:31.799
<v Speaker 1>much appreciated. And you have a nice little home setup

0:02:32.240 --> 0:02:36.240
<v Speaker 1>from which you broadcast. So are you primarily doing your

0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:39.360
<v Speaker 1>work from home these days? Has that been something that

0:02:39.400 --> 0:02:41.320
<v Speaker 1>you've done since the pandemic or before.

0:02:41.560 --> 0:02:43.400
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I don't know how much I'm allowed to pull

0:02:43.440 --> 0:02:46.360
<v Speaker 2>back the curtain without violating contracts and everything like this,

0:02:46.440 --> 0:02:48.040
<v Speaker 2>but I think at this point in time it's pretty

0:02:48.040 --> 0:02:51.000
<v Speaker 2>safe to say that. So our crew on pg to

0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:52.600
<v Speaker 2>a radio, it's a host and an analyst, and there

0:02:52.600 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 2>are three guys that are calling golf shots. And several

0:02:55.000 --> 0:02:56.720
<v Speaker 2>years ago all three of those guys were on the

0:02:56.720 --> 0:02:58.880
<v Speaker 2>golf course, and then for budgetary reasons and a number

0:02:58.880 --> 0:03:00.600
<v Speaker 2>of different reasons, it went to a more sort of

0:03:01.040 --> 0:03:03.840
<v Speaker 2>not fully remote model. But two guys are still walking

0:03:03.880 --> 0:03:06.200
<v Speaker 2>in the fairways every week on the PGA to or

0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:08.560
<v Speaker 2>another guy is sort of your tower announcer, right, somebody

0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:10.720
<v Speaker 2>who's able to kind of bop around and see different shots.

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:12.560
<v Speaker 2>And that could be done from anywhere, whether it's in

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 2>studio or whatever it might be. And then the pandemic

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:19.120
<v Speaker 2>forced pretty much the entire industry into this remote setup.

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:21.880
<v Speaker 2>And so I have colleagues in the industry for two

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:24.600
<v Speaker 2>years that we're calling all their basketball games on ESPN

0:03:24.639 --> 0:03:26.480
<v Speaker 2>from their basements, you know, and they were having the

0:03:26.520 --> 0:03:29.360
<v Speaker 2>remote kit, so we're still in sort of that same mode. So, yes,

0:03:29.639 --> 0:03:31.919
<v Speaker 2>there is a component where a third of the guys

0:03:31.960 --> 0:03:36.320
<v Speaker 2>that are calling golf shots are at home. So it

0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:38.000
<v Speaker 2>works out to be about a third of my work

0:03:38.160 --> 0:03:40.200
<v Speaker 2>during the year on PGA Tour Radio is from my

0:03:40.280 --> 0:03:44.840
<v Speaker 2>home studio. And as you will obviously recognize as a

0:03:44.880 --> 0:03:48.880
<v Speaker 2>father of young children, it has super perks, so I'm

0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:50.840
<v Speaker 2>very much appreciative of it. I'm forty one and I'm

0:03:50.880 --> 0:03:53.720
<v Speaker 2>still the youngest member of the broadcast team on PGA

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:55.720
<v Speaker 2>to a radio in the sport that scus a little

0:03:55.720 --> 0:03:59.000
<v Speaker 2>bit older. So I do not mind being home a

0:03:59.000 --> 0:04:00.960
<v Speaker 2>few extra times a year where I can get off

0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:02.640
<v Speaker 2>the air and go upstairs and have dinner with the kids.

0:04:03.400 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 1>Listen. To be clear, it has its perks, but it

0:04:05.800 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 1>also has its drawbacks.

0:04:07.200 --> 0:04:09.960
<v Speaker 2>Yes, if I was only here, I wouldn't. It would

0:04:10.040 --> 0:04:11.680
<v Speaker 2>drive me crazy, Like you have to be able to

0:04:11.720 --> 0:04:13.720
<v Speaker 2>go out and have the relationships and see the shots

0:04:13.760 --> 0:04:17.159
<v Speaker 2>and feel the air and all those things that come

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:20.240
<v Speaker 2>with it, and without that context, it makes it really

0:04:20.279 --> 0:04:22.039
<v Speaker 2>hard to do this job. If you just threw somebody

0:04:22.080 --> 0:04:23.920
<v Speaker 2>into doing it from home and they're calling it off

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 2>of a little monitor, you lose so much of the

0:04:27.040 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 2>stories of the players and what they're working on. And

0:04:29.800 --> 0:04:31.719
<v Speaker 2>a perfect example, I was in Bermuda last year. I

0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:35.120
<v Speaker 2>got wind and rain blasted on the weekend by what

0:04:35.160 --> 0:04:37.600
<v Speaker 2>felt like a tropical storm. And so I know the

0:04:37.600 --> 0:04:39.840
<v Speaker 2>contours of the greens. I know where the guys are

0:04:39.839 --> 0:04:41.360
<v Speaker 2>trying to aim it and hit it off the tee.

0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:43.680
<v Speaker 2>So having that built in makes it way easier. If

0:04:43.680 --> 0:04:45.719
<v Speaker 2>I'd never seen the footprint or never been to the

0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:47.719
<v Speaker 2>golf course and I'm calling it from home, it's really

0:04:47.760 --> 0:04:50.120
<v Speaker 2>really difficult. And so then you keep it so simple

0:04:50.120 --> 0:04:51.840
<v Speaker 2>that I feel like it's a disservice to the audience.

0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:53.600
<v Speaker 2>So I think we have a really good crew with

0:04:53.640 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 2>a lot of experienced guys to where those people who

0:04:55.800 --> 0:04:57.520
<v Speaker 2>are at home in this sort of new world that

0:04:57.560 --> 0:04:59.839
<v Speaker 2>we live in in this remote model, can still provide

0:04:59.839 --> 0:05:02.640
<v Speaker 2>all all the same context. And to be honest, sometimes

0:05:02.640 --> 0:05:04.840
<v Speaker 2>I'm driving around listening to my own peers and I

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:07.120
<v Speaker 2>know the schedule Garrett, and I'll be listening. I'm like,

0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:10.120
<v Speaker 2>wait a second, who's not the I can't tell. And

0:05:10.160 --> 0:05:12.320
<v Speaker 2>if I can't tell, then I know the audience can't tell,

0:05:12.400 --> 0:05:14.279
<v Speaker 2>so I think we're doing a pretty good job of it.

0:05:14.640 --> 0:05:19.359
<v Speaker 1>Yeah. Absolutely. I really enjoy the calls on PGA Tour Radio,

0:05:19.440 --> 0:05:22.120
<v Speaker 1>which is where you do quite a bit of work, right, Yeah,

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:26.000
<v Speaker 1>most of it, in addition to some work on camera

0:05:26.080 --> 0:05:29.880
<v Speaker 1>as well. But the you know, the narration that you

0:05:29.960 --> 0:05:32.839
<v Speaker 1>get on PGA Tour Radio is often something that I

0:05:32.920 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 1>prefer to listen to. You know, the broadcast obviously is

0:05:37.000 --> 0:05:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the number one thing. The television broadcast is sure is

0:05:40.040 --> 0:05:42.239
<v Speaker 1>what you want to see since golf is a visual sport.

0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:45.039
<v Speaker 1>But I often feel like with PGA Tour Radio that

0:05:45.400 --> 0:05:48.160
<v Speaker 1>the commentary really does bring it a live in a

0:05:48.240 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 1>nice way, and so it's a it's a good thing

0:05:50.240 --> 0:05:53.080
<v Speaker 1>to do to kind of mix up your golf consumption.

0:05:53.320 --> 0:05:55.919
<v Speaker 1>You know, if people have never listened to a PGA

0:05:56.000 --> 0:05:59.240
<v Speaker 1>Tour radio broadcast and you like following PGA Tour events,

0:05:59.279 --> 0:06:00.680
<v Speaker 1>it's it's kind of a way to do it.

0:06:00.920 --> 0:06:03.479
<v Speaker 2>If you love golf, it's a great product. If you

0:06:03.520 --> 0:06:06.560
<v Speaker 2>don't like golf, it probably will help you sleep a

0:06:06.560 --> 0:06:08.600
<v Speaker 2>little bit. So I always say there's two benefits to

0:06:08.600 --> 0:06:10.719
<v Speaker 2>everybody that's out there. We do call a lot of

0:06:10.720 --> 0:06:12.680
<v Speaker 2>golf shots, so I think that's one of our number

0:06:12.720 --> 0:06:14.000
<v Speaker 2>one things we hear from a lot of people is

0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:16.359
<v Speaker 2>we get up. We squeeze a lot of golf shots

0:06:16.400 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 2>into our broadcast. It's pretty fast paced, but every single

0:06:19.560 --> 0:06:23.119
<v Speaker 2>shot then requires discussion and conversation. We're in a visual medium,

0:06:23.160 --> 0:06:25.120
<v Speaker 2>you don't have to necessarily do that, and so you

0:06:25.160 --> 0:06:27.800
<v Speaker 2>can sort of lose some of the storytelling and contextual

0:06:27.880 --> 0:06:31.120
<v Speaker 2>elements of broadcasting it, and you can then squeeze in

0:06:31.200 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 2>more sponsored elements or whatever it might sort of be.

0:06:34.240 --> 0:06:37.039
<v Speaker 2>But we're always sort of breaking down lie angle what

0:06:37.080 --> 0:06:39.200
<v Speaker 2>it's going to take, then reacting to what that is.

0:06:39.720 --> 0:06:42.720
<v Speaker 2>And I think that we've also embraced advanced statistics a

0:06:42.760 --> 0:06:45.120
<v Speaker 2>little bit more in our medium than in other places.

0:06:45.520 --> 0:06:47.960
<v Speaker 2>So you can say, hey, this guy's ranked wherever this

0:06:48.080 --> 0:06:50.599
<v Speaker 2>might be, or here's the shot probability of this, depending

0:06:50.600 --> 0:06:52.120
<v Speaker 2>on who the analyst is that week. Some of our

0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:54.159
<v Speaker 2>analysts have embraced that. Some of our analysts are little

0:06:54.200 --> 0:06:56.480
<v Speaker 2>more old school, but some of our younger analysts, you know,

0:06:56.560 --> 0:06:58.560
<v Speaker 2>guys that are waiting to turn fifty, I think have

0:06:58.600 --> 0:07:00.520
<v Speaker 2>embraced a lot of those numbers and then allows us

0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:02.480
<v Speaker 2>to tell those stories a little bit more. And this

0:07:02.520 --> 0:07:05.320
<v Speaker 2>is probably a good segue point, But that certainly lights

0:07:05.360 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 2>me up a little bit because I'm definitely the stat

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.200
<v Speaker 2>geek of all the play by play guys that we

0:07:09.240 --> 0:07:11.080
<v Speaker 2>have calling golf shots on PG two Radio.

0:07:11.480 --> 0:07:13.800
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, I think stat geek would be sort of under

0:07:13.880 --> 0:07:16.200
<v Speaker 1>selling it at this point. Oh really, you are now

0:07:16.240 --> 0:07:20.160
<v Speaker 1>the author of the Science of Golf, So, uh, you

0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 1>have ascended to the status I think of geek lord

0:07:23.240 --> 0:07:26.920
<v Speaker 1>at this point. Is geek Is that like an official title?

0:07:27.120 --> 0:07:30.800
<v Speaker 1>I don't sure I'll wear you know, I feel like

0:07:30.840 --> 0:07:34.840
<v Speaker 1>i'm a I'm I'm trending towards geek lord dumb in

0:07:35.120 --> 0:07:37.120
<v Speaker 1>certain areas of my life, and I hope eventually to

0:07:37.160 --> 0:07:39.520
<v Speaker 1>get there. But I think that writing a book is

0:07:40.000 --> 0:07:43.640
<v Speaker 1>really the big accomplishment in that vein. It is a

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.520
<v Speaker 1>fascinating book to read, and we're going to kind of

0:07:46.520 --> 0:07:49.240
<v Speaker 1>dive deep into it in this podcast. So, you know,

0:07:49.480 --> 0:07:53.800
<v Speaker 1>first off, the science in golf is a big, big subject,

0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:57.680
<v Speaker 1>as I'm sure you discovered when you started to conceptualize

0:07:57.720 --> 0:08:02.960
<v Speaker 1>this book. So how did you eventually settle on a

0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:05.640
<v Speaker 1>focus for this book? You know, what, how did you

0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:07.560
<v Speaker 1>decide what to cover and what not to cover?

0:08:07.760 --> 0:08:10.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and in the interest of full disclosure here, I

0:08:10.360 --> 0:08:14.120
<v Speaker 2>was contracted and hired by the publisher to write this book.

0:08:14.200 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 2>Like it was titled for me, there's a Science of series. Yes,

0:08:18.200 --> 0:08:21.560
<v Speaker 2>so there's a science of football, basketball, Hockey is coming

0:08:21.560 --> 0:08:23.360
<v Speaker 2>out next year. I helped network and find a person

0:08:23.400 --> 0:08:25.400
<v Speaker 2>who there's a science of Harry Potter. I mean, if

0:08:25.440 --> 0:08:27.000
<v Speaker 2>we want to go full geeked them, I mean they've

0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:29.560
<v Speaker 2>had science of books on things that have nothing to

0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:32.440
<v Speaker 2>do with actual sport, and I love the idea of

0:08:32.440 --> 0:08:35.160
<v Speaker 2>a science of series in sport, and then especially when

0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 2>it gets to golf. And I even mentioned it in

0:08:37.200 --> 0:08:39.400
<v Speaker 2>the book. John McPhee, who's one of the key guys

0:08:39.440 --> 0:08:41.760
<v Speaker 2>I interviewed he as a professor up in Canada, and

0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:43.640
<v Speaker 2>he had the nugget that I'd never heard before that,

0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:47.320
<v Speaker 2>you know, in golf, there are twice as many patents

0:08:47.320 --> 0:08:50.040
<v Speaker 2>in the world of golf as all other sports combined,

0:08:50.200 --> 0:08:52.880
<v Speaker 2>not any other sport, like twice as many patents just

0:08:52.960 --> 0:08:55.079
<v Speaker 2>in golf as in all other sports. And that makes

0:08:55.080 --> 0:08:57.640
<v Speaker 2>sense me think about all the equipment and different golf

0:08:57.640 --> 0:08:59.480
<v Speaker 2>balls and things that you would actually have patents on.

0:08:59.880 --> 0:09:04.559
<v Speaker 2>It's about as scientific as sport as possible. So to

0:09:05.040 --> 0:09:07.040
<v Speaker 2>not bore the listeners too much on this one. And

0:09:07.080 --> 0:09:09.720
<v Speaker 2>you were a guest on my previous podcast, The Perfect Number,

0:09:09.760 --> 0:09:12.120
<v Speaker 2>which is not dead but hasn't been active for a

0:09:12.160 --> 0:09:14.240
<v Speaker 2>couple of years, and I literally decided to stop doing

0:09:14.320 --> 0:09:17.800
<v Speaker 2>that podcast, and the day after I decided independently to

0:09:17.840 --> 0:09:20.600
<v Speaker 2>shut it down, I was approached to write this book,

0:09:20.600 --> 0:09:22.360
<v Speaker 2>and I just sort of felt like, Okay, this is

0:09:22.400 --> 0:09:24.839
<v Speaker 2>a sign, like this is definitely the project I need

0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:27.200
<v Speaker 2>to take on now. And a lot of people you

0:09:27.320 --> 0:09:29.839
<v Speaker 2>included were subjects of the podcast that then made their

0:09:29.840 --> 0:09:33.320
<v Speaker 2>way into this book because I had this four year

0:09:33.559 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 2>run of interviewing people and not just the data community,

0:09:36.960 --> 0:09:39.280
<v Speaker 2>but across the entire spectrum of a lot of things

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:40.719
<v Speaker 2>that we covered. So, to answer your question in a

0:09:40.760 --> 0:09:43.560
<v Speaker 2>long winded way, when they approached me to write this book,

0:09:44.280 --> 0:09:46.520
<v Speaker 2>I knew I had this stuff. It was really a

0:09:46.600 --> 0:09:48.680
<v Speaker 2>question of how broad do I want this book to

0:09:48.720 --> 0:09:50.640
<v Speaker 2>be and how specific do I want this book to be?

0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 2>And you and I were talking before we hit record

0:09:53.040 --> 0:09:54.480
<v Speaker 2>as I really thought that I was going to be

0:09:54.480 --> 0:09:57.200
<v Speaker 2>able to do something and put my stamp on the game, right, like,

0:09:57.280 --> 0:10:01.520
<v Speaker 2>oh my gosh, like will Haskt discovered this something scientific

0:10:01.520 --> 0:10:03.360
<v Speaker 2>And then the more I started finding the people I

0:10:03.440 --> 0:10:07.400
<v Speaker 2>needed to fill all the gaps, I realized how dumb

0:10:07.400 --> 0:10:11.240
<v Speaker 2>I truly am at understanding the main like all of

0:10:11.280 --> 0:10:14.200
<v Speaker 2>the little details, Like I understand the main concepts, but

0:10:14.280 --> 0:10:17.240
<v Speaker 2>the little details I had no clue about. And so

0:10:17.360 --> 0:10:19.640
<v Speaker 2>then it really turned into a book of, Okay, what

0:10:19.840 --> 0:10:23.600
<v Speaker 2>is every single aspect of golf that I think has

0:10:23.720 --> 0:10:26.840
<v Speaker 2>science in it? And then let's touch them all. And

0:10:26.880 --> 0:10:29.920
<v Speaker 2>that's really what the book became. And so it's ten chapters,

0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:33.200
<v Speaker 2>the tenth chapter being really looking forward into the future,

0:10:33.240 --> 0:10:35.120
<v Speaker 2>and the other nine really cover it all. And then

0:10:35.120 --> 0:10:37.520
<v Speaker 2>it was really kind of a I always want to

0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:39.360
<v Speaker 2>write a narrative type of book, and this is very

0:10:39.440 --> 0:10:41.720
<v Speaker 2>much a more technical book than I thought the initial

0:10:41.720 --> 0:10:43.880
<v Speaker 2>book that I would ever write. And so then it

0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:47.079
<v Speaker 2>was how can I tie all these chapters together? How

0:10:47.080 --> 0:10:49.640
<v Speaker 2>do I prioritize them? What I think is actually the

0:10:49.720 --> 0:10:52.559
<v Speaker 2>proper order, Like what do I lead with? And then

0:10:52.640 --> 0:10:54.920
<v Speaker 2>anecdotally is really where I went to, is like how

0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:57.040
<v Speaker 2>can I then use my experience of a decade on

0:10:57.080 --> 0:11:00.960
<v Speaker 2>the PGA tour and taking a lot of those stories

0:11:01.000 --> 0:11:03.560
<v Speaker 2>and tying them into the scientific revolution that we've seen

0:11:03.600 --> 0:11:05.319
<v Speaker 2>over the last quarter century, and.

0:11:05.320 --> 0:11:08.280
<v Speaker 1>You really do focus on the scientific revolution of the

0:11:08.320 --> 0:11:11.319
<v Speaker 1>past quarter century, because there has been science in golf

0:11:11.400 --> 0:11:15.600
<v Speaker 1>going back to sure basically golf's beginnings, right, the feathery

0:11:15.720 --> 0:11:19.120
<v Speaker 1>ball was a scientific advance from the wooden balls that

0:11:19.600 --> 0:11:23.080
<v Speaker 1>preceded it. Are the rocks right, Yes, But certainly over

0:11:23.120 --> 0:11:25.880
<v Speaker 1>the past couple of decades there has been an acceleration

0:11:26.800 --> 0:11:30.480
<v Speaker 1>in the different areas of the game in which science

0:11:30.520 --> 0:11:33.680
<v Speaker 1>has made its way, and your book really does dig

0:11:33.720 --> 0:11:36.000
<v Speaker 1>into those. And so just to give people an idea,

0:11:36.040 --> 0:11:38.480
<v Speaker 1>you said ten chapters. The last one is on the future.

0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:41.280
<v Speaker 1>I want to give people a quick overview of what

0:11:41.400 --> 0:11:45.120
<v Speaker 1>those chapters are about. So Chapter one is about you know,

0:11:45.240 --> 0:11:48.240
<v Speaker 1>launch monitors. Essentially it's about contact with the golf ball.

0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:51.120
<v Speaker 1>Chapter two is body in Motion. It's about kind of

0:11:51.160 --> 0:11:55.520
<v Speaker 1>physiology of the game. Chapter three Powertrain, that's about distance

0:11:55.600 --> 0:11:58.640
<v Speaker 1>in the game. Six inches is Chapter four that's about

0:11:58.679 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>the neuroscience of golf. Chapter five is Data and Decisions,

0:12:03.679 --> 0:12:08.280
<v Speaker 1>which is essentially about strokes gained statistics. Chapter six, Technology

0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:12.280
<v Speaker 1>of the Ball, Chapter seven, Technology of clubs, Chapter eight

0:12:12.400 --> 0:12:16.600
<v Speaker 1>Technology of putting, and chapter nine The Playing Field, which

0:12:16.640 --> 0:12:19.760
<v Speaker 1>is about the science of agronomy, and I actually didn't

0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:22.880
<v Speaker 1>expect to happen upon a chapter about the science of agronomy,

0:12:22.880 --> 0:12:26.000
<v Speaker 1>but I was delighted to because that is obviously a

0:12:26.040 --> 0:12:28.920
<v Speaker 1>major area that has affected the game, where there have

0:12:29.080 --> 0:12:34.080
<v Speaker 1>been significant scientific innovations in recent years that have really

0:12:34.200 --> 0:12:37.440
<v Speaker 1>changed the way we play golf at all levels in

0:12:37.520 --> 0:12:40.720
<v Speaker 1>ways that are pretty profound and that are hard sometimes

0:12:40.760 --> 0:12:43.640
<v Speaker 1>for people to notice. So really cool to see that

0:12:43.679 --> 0:12:46.480
<v Speaker 1>subject come up. But I wanted to start with the

0:12:47.040 --> 0:12:49.560
<v Speaker 1>with chapter one with contact, I want to dig into

0:12:49.600 --> 0:12:52.040
<v Speaker 1>like a couple of particular topics here. We're we're not

0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:55.000
<v Speaker 1>going to cover the full range of topics. Please buy

0:12:55.040 --> 0:12:57.840
<v Speaker 1>the book, please, Yeah, exactly, So we're going to We're

0:12:57.840 --> 0:12:59.360
<v Speaker 1>not going to give away the whole book here. We

0:12:59.400 --> 0:13:01.600
<v Speaker 1>want to leave some surprises for people. But there were

0:13:02.080 --> 0:13:06.360
<v Speaker 1>a couple of subjects that I thought were particularly fascinating

0:13:06.400 --> 0:13:09.800
<v Speaker 1>to me personally, and the first one would be the

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:13.080
<v Speaker 1>advent of the launch monitor. And I think that this

0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:16.920
<v Speaker 1>is one of the most important stories in golf in

0:13:17.360 --> 0:13:20.760
<v Speaker 1>this century at least, and one that you know, in

0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:23.760
<v Speaker 1>order to understand where the modern game is, you really

0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 1>have to understand the launch monitor. So maybe we could

0:13:26.679 --> 0:13:29.040
<v Speaker 1>start by just you telling me the story of how

0:13:29.080 --> 0:13:33.319
<v Speaker 1>the launch monitor was invented, and you know what it

0:13:33.480 --> 0:13:35.120
<v Speaker 1>did that was different.

0:13:35.600 --> 0:13:38.080
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, And this is where again I got to a

0:13:38.080 --> 0:13:40.880
<v Speaker 2>book where I didn't want to. I hope that there

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:43.400
<v Speaker 2>was no opinion that came out of this book, you know.

0:13:43.640 --> 0:13:46.080
<v Speaker 2>I wanted it to be straightforward, like this is what

0:13:46.120 --> 0:13:48.440
<v Speaker 2>the science is now. My personal opinion. This is why

0:13:48.440 --> 0:13:50.400
<v Speaker 2>the chapters are ordered their way is that if I

0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:54.720
<v Speaker 2>if I were to say there's one single most significant

0:13:54.760 --> 0:13:58.040
<v Speaker 2>scientific advancement in the entire history of the game of golf,

0:13:58.080 --> 0:13:59.959
<v Speaker 2>I think it is the launch monitor. I think how

0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:02.280
<v Speaker 2>it is changed, and maybe that's maybe that's more for

0:14:02.320 --> 0:14:04.679
<v Speaker 2>the professional game, which is probably where I find myself

0:14:04.720 --> 0:14:07.319
<v Speaker 2>more often, but even I mean, I just think about

0:14:07.320 --> 0:14:09.000
<v Speaker 2>how the little ways that it's come into my game,

0:14:09.040 --> 0:14:11.080
<v Speaker 2>where it's meant from a club fitting standpoint, in my

0:14:11.120 --> 0:14:13.240
<v Speaker 2>own personal game or other people's sort of games. So

0:14:13.600 --> 0:14:15.480
<v Speaker 2>to answer your question, and that's why I led with it,

0:14:15.520 --> 0:14:17.199
<v Speaker 2>because I think the launch minor has changed how the

0:14:17.240 --> 0:14:19.520
<v Speaker 2>game is taught. It's changed how the game is played,

0:14:19.600 --> 0:14:21.760
<v Speaker 2>especially at the highest level, and I think it's had

0:14:21.760 --> 0:14:26.440
<v Speaker 2>this profound impact the idea of ballistic technology and anything

0:14:26.480 --> 0:14:30.480
<v Speaker 2>that tracks motion in a ballistic way has existed for

0:14:30.880 --> 0:14:33.960
<v Speaker 2>much longer than TrackMan and flight scope have had the technology.

0:14:34.000 --> 0:14:37.760
<v Speaker 2>It goes back to really the nineteen eighties, so you're

0:14:37.760 --> 0:14:40.840
<v Speaker 2>talking about the height of the Cold War. Everybody is

0:14:40.920 --> 0:14:43.000
<v Speaker 2>stocking up missiles. We got to figure out how we're

0:14:43.000 --> 0:14:45.000
<v Speaker 2>going to be tracking those missiles, and so there's a

0:14:45.080 --> 0:14:47.560
<v Speaker 2>huge technological advancement and all of that stuff, so that

0:14:48.600 --> 0:14:52.240
<v Speaker 2>effectively the military is contracting with military contractors to build

0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:55.440
<v Speaker 2>ways to track a missile in flight. And so you're

0:14:55.440 --> 0:15:00.040
<v Speaker 2>talking about high speed projectile objects and being able to

0:15:00.080 --> 0:15:04.520
<v Speaker 2>determined to an nth degree how fast they're traveling, where

0:15:04.560 --> 0:15:07.120
<v Speaker 2>they're going to go, what that trajectory everything sort of means.

0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:09.480
<v Speaker 2>So we already had the technology built in to follow

0:15:09.560 --> 0:15:12.240
<v Speaker 2>these objects as they're taking off or being shot off

0:15:12.280 --> 0:15:13.960
<v Speaker 2>wherever they were. All we had to do is just

0:15:14.080 --> 0:15:17.680
<v Speaker 2>configure that into a sports space. I think baseball got

0:15:17.680 --> 0:15:20.320
<v Speaker 2>to it a little bit earlier than golf did. Most

0:15:20.360 --> 0:15:23.000
<v Speaker 2>of the sport ones. You know, they found guys because

0:15:23.160 --> 0:15:25.640
<v Speaker 2>of pitchers, Right, So how's that ball coming out? They're

0:15:25.680 --> 0:15:28.680
<v Speaker 2>measuring spin rate, they're measuring how that ball tracks. So

0:15:28.720 --> 0:15:31.200
<v Speaker 2>the reason why you probably saw the advent of kzone

0:15:31.240 --> 0:15:33.640
<v Speaker 2>and everything that you track and see on TV, even

0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:36.400
<v Speaker 2>before you really saw track Man and tracer and golf

0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:39.640
<v Speaker 2>world just happens to be that baseball embrace that technology first,

0:15:39.680 --> 0:15:41.240
<v Speaker 2>and I'll shout out my guy Will Carroll, who has

0:15:41.240 --> 0:15:43.480
<v Speaker 2>the Science of Baseball out and you can read about it,

0:15:43.520 --> 0:15:45.440
<v Speaker 2>and I'm sure that you know there's a lot of

0:15:45.440 --> 0:15:48.800
<v Speaker 2>the same stuff that's in there, and so yeah, eventually

0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:51.320
<v Speaker 2>it's like, okay, we can monetize this in the athletic space,

0:15:51.880 --> 0:15:55.760
<v Speaker 2>and maybe it's teachers first, but then it becomes consumers second.

0:15:56.280 --> 0:16:00.480
<v Speaker 2>And now you have every single high level, per professional

0:16:00.520 --> 0:16:04.320
<v Speaker 2>golfer walking around with ten to twenty five thousand dollars

0:16:04.360 --> 0:16:06.680
<v Speaker 2>worth of equipment and they're lugging them through airports and

0:16:06.680 --> 0:16:08.840
<v Speaker 2>you'll see him. It's like the mini briefcase, right, I mean,

0:16:08.880 --> 0:16:11.280
<v Speaker 2>the golfers now on the PGA too, have a briefcase

0:16:11.520 --> 0:16:14.680
<v Speaker 2>and it's carrying their launch monitor. And it's completely changed

0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:17.080
<v Speaker 2>everything because now instead of looking up and trying to

0:16:17.120 --> 0:16:19.400
<v Speaker 2>figure out what the ball is doing, you can look

0:16:19.480 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 2>down and it'll tell you exactly what the ball is doing,

0:16:22.200 --> 0:16:25.560
<v Speaker 2>and you can tailor everything backwards. So it effectively, and

0:16:25.560 --> 0:16:27.840
<v Speaker 2>this is what chapter one is about. It reverse engineered

0:16:27.840 --> 0:16:31.040
<v Speaker 2>the entire process of how we look at causation in

0:16:31.120 --> 0:16:32.680
<v Speaker 2>the world of golf, and that's why I think it's

0:16:32.720 --> 0:16:36.760
<v Speaker 2>the most significant because it's provided absolute data. While in

0:16:36.840 --> 0:16:43.000
<v Speaker 2>my opinion also Garrett exploding the artistry of golf, I

0:16:43.160 --> 0:16:46.840
<v Speaker 2>contend that golf can be as artistic as it ever

0:16:47.080 --> 0:16:50.520
<v Speaker 2>was because we can just prove that what you're doing

0:16:50.640 --> 0:16:53.000
<v Speaker 2>works with a launch monitor, as opposed to in the

0:16:53.000 --> 0:16:54.880
<v Speaker 2>past saying you have to build a swing a certain

0:16:54.920 --> 0:16:57.520
<v Speaker 2>way to make it work this way. And that's kind

0:16:57.520 --> 0:16:58.680
<v Speaker 2>of where chapter one went with.

0:16:58.680 --> 0:17:01.880
<v Speaker 1>All claim that you're making at the end, I want

0:17:01.920 --> 0:17:03.440
<v Speaker 1>to get back to that, but just to just to

0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:07.840
<v Speaker 1>clarify what you're saying is that launch monitors allowed people

0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:11.080
<v Speaker 1>essentially to swing their swings. Golfers to swing their swings

0:17:11.160 --> 0:17:15.000
<v Speaker 1>as long as the ball was doing yeah what what

0:17:15.040 --> 0:17:17.119
<v Speaker 1>they wanted to do. You can you can swing like

0:17:17.200 --> 0:17:20.080
<v Speaker 1>Matthew Wolf or you can swing like Ernie El's as

0:17:20.160 --> 0:17:23.240
<v Speaker 1>long as the numbers that the ball is producing on

0:17:23.600 --> 0:17:27.760
<v Speaker 1>that launch monitor are are good. Right, yep, Okay, So

0:17:28.520 --> 0:17:31.920
<v Speaker 1>why don't we get to first some kind of nuts

0:17:31.960 --> 0:17:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and bolts of what launch monitors revealed about what the

0:17:35.520 --> 0:17:37.440
<v Speaker 1>golf ball was doing. What were some of the key

0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:42.320
<v Speaker 1>insights that launch monitors provided that you know, people weren't

0:17:42.359 --> 0:17:45.960
<v Speaker 1>aware of before that even experts or instructors weren't aware

0:17:45.960 --> 0:17:46.320
<v Speaker 1>of before.

0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:48.439
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I mean obviously we didn't know how fast the

0:17:48.480 --> 0:17:51.960
<v Speaker 2>ball was spinning. You just looked up and it was windows. Right,

0:17:52.080 --> 0:17:53.919
<v Speaker 2>So this ball was a little bit too spinny, and

0:17:53.960 --> 0:17:55.800
<v Speaker 2>then just anecdotally it went up a little bit too

0:17:55.880 --> 0:17:57.440
<v Speaker 2>high in the air. Well, now we can look at

0:17:57.840 --> 0:18:00.280
<v Speaker 2>apexes and we can look at you know, that is

0:18:00.320 --> 0:18:03.800
<v Speaker 2>the optimized sort of shot flight for these particular shots.

0:18:03.840 --> 0:18:05.879
<v Speaker 2>We can look at what we want spin rates to be.

0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:07.440
<v Speaker 2>And so while a lot of this stuff has sort

0:18:07.480 --> 0:18:11.240
<v Speaker 2>of been boiled down into we know that now off

0:18:11.280 --> 0:18:13.680
<v Speaker 2>the driver, we want to have as little spin as possible.

0:18:13.720 --> 0:18:16.160
<v Speaker 2>We want to have a dialed in amount of spin

0:18:16.240 --> 0:18:18.360
<v Speaker 2>for our middle irons all the way through the wedges.

0:18:18.760 --> 0:18:21.080
<v Speaker 2>It allowed those guys to actually take the windows that

0:18:21.080 --> 0:18:23.200
<v Speaker 2>they were trying to visualize and really dial it into

0:18:23.240 --> 0:18:26.280
<v Speaker 2>where maybe some guys were thinking, Okay, if my spin

0:18:26.359 --> 0:18:28.359
<v Speaker 2>rate can still spin in at this but at a

0:18:28.400 --> 0:18:30.360
<v Speaker 2>little bit lower trajectory, I can still get the same

0:18:30.400 --> 0:18:32.320
<v Speaker 2>distance and I can still get the same result, and

0:18:32.400 --> 0:18:34.680
<v Speaker 2>so it was sort of I guess it was maybe

0:18:34.800 --> 0:18:37.520
<v Speaker 2>validating some of those windows. So spin rate was a

0:18:37.520 --> 0:18:39.439
<v Speaker 2>big part of it, and then also kind of the

0:18:39.480 --> 0:18:42.159
<v Speaker 2>path relationship. Right, So the book we go into a

0:18:42.200 --> 0:18:44.840
<v Speaker 2>lot about how there was old laws in terms of

0:18:44.840 --> 0:18:47.720
<v Speaker 2>how the ball flew based off of the what the

0:18:47.920 --> 0:18:49.760
<v Speaker 2>we thought was contact or what we thought was the

0:18:49.800 --> 0:18:52.640
<v Speaker 2>path of the club, and the launch monitors pretty much

0:18:52.680 --> 0:18:55.720
<v Speaker 2>defined exactly what causes a ball to hook or slice,

0:18:56.160 --> 0:18:58.359
<v Speaker 2>and so it all has to do with the relationship

0:18:58.400 --> 0:19:00.879
<v Speaker 2>between the face angle at impact and the path of

0:19:00.880 --> 0:19:03.800
<v Speaker 2>that club in relation to the straight target line. And

0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:08.800
<v Speaker 2>it's universal, so you could technically cast the club way outside.

0:19:08.840 --> 0:19:11.600
<v Speaker 2>And this is where Garrett someone who's a teacher. I'm

0:19:11.600 --> 0:19:14.359
<v Speaker 2>not a good swing instructor, so I sometimes get a

0:19:14.400 --> 0:19:17.480
<v Speaker 2>little bit confused trying to discuss this myself. But effective,

0:19:17.480 --> 0:19:19.320
<v Speaker 2>what it means is if the ball, the ball will

0:19:19.359 --> 0:19:22.879
<v Speaker 2>always hook as long as for a right handed golfer,

0:19:22.960 --> 0:19:26.679
<v Speaker 2>the face is closed in an angle to its path,

0:19:26.960 --> 0:19:30.560
<v Speaker 2>if that makes sense. So you could technically have a

0:19:30.680 --> 0:19:34.560
<v Speaker 2>path that is so far out and cutting across the ball.

0:19:35.119 --> 0:19:37.720
<v Speaker 2>But if that face is still closed to that path

0:19:37.760 --> 0:19:40.840
<v Speaker 2>that ball is going to hook. It'll go, it'll go

0:19:40.920 --> 0:19:44.320
<v Speaker 2>even farther left. You're you're absolutely right, and so and

0:19:44.400 --> 0:19:46.280
<v Speaker 2>so that was I think a huge part of it

0:19:46.320 --> 0:19:49.960
<v Speaker 2>is that now a lot of modern instructors are able

0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:52.439
<v Speaker 2>to look at that data and they and so instead

0:19:52.480 --> 0:19:54.840
<v Speaker 2>of saying, oh, this guy has a swing that's going

0:19:54.880 --> 0:19:58.080
<v Speaker 2>to always hit a slice, Well, I mean, what's his

0:19:58.119 --> 0:20:00.639
<v Speaker 2>hand doing an impact? Like, what is kind? Where are

0:20:00.720 --> 0:20:03.920
<v Speaker 2>his contact conditions like with how he strikes the ball,

0:20:04.000 --> 0:20:05.760
<v Speaker 2>how the hands go through. So those are the two

0:20:05.760 --> 0:20:07.840
<v Speaker 2>big ones. Is that we really started to optimize what

0:20:08.000 --> 0:20:10.280
<v Speaker 2>spin looked like on the golf ball because spin is

0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:12.960
<v Speaker 2>widely important to the game. It's what makes the ball

0:20:13.000 --> 0:20:16.159
<v Speaker 2>fly in the first place. And so it really locked

0:20:16.200 --> 0:20:19.800
<v Speaker 2>in what optimization is of spin. And then it really

0:20:19.840 --> 0:20:24.159
<v Speaker 2>defined that one hundred percent guarantee of that face to

0:20:24.240 --> 0:20:27.600
<v Speaker 2>path relationship defining how the ball is going to travel

0:20:27.600 --> 0:20:28.000
<v Speaker 2>in the air.

0:20:28.480 --> 0:20:30.760
<v Speaker 1>Now, tell me if I'm right or wrong about this,

0:20:30.880 --> 0:20:34.760
<v Speaker 1>but I feel like the launch monitor also crystallized what

0:20:34.800 --> 0:20:38.200
<v Speaker 1>the formula for distance off the tee is, which is

0:20:38.320 --> 0:20:42.959
<v Speaker 1>high launch and low spin. And maybe people were aware

0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:45.159
<v Speaker 1>of this before because it's just sort of a simple

0:20:45.280 --> 0:20:49.240
<v Speaker 1>scientific fact about the golf ball. But it just seems

0:20:49.320 --> 0:20:54.080
<v Speaker 1>like since the introduction of the launch monitor that we

0:20:54.240 --> 0:20:58.400
<v Speaker 1>have been even more confident as golfers, as golf instructors

0:20:58.880 --> 0:21:01.520
<v Speaker 1>that high launch spend is the way to go.

0:21:02.000 --> 0:21:04.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, this one's really hard for me to answer, Garrett,

0:21:04.760 --> 0:21:09.840
<v Speaker 2>because the advent of launch monitor usage by teachers almost

0:21:09.920 --> 0:21:15.080
<v Speaker 2>exactly coincides with the advent of modern driver and ball technology, right,

0:21:15.240 --> 0:21:21.840
<v Speaker 2>and so yes is the answer. But I haven't read

0:21:22.080 --> 0:21:24.520
<v Speaker 2>a perfect study to say if we went back and

0:21:24.560 --> 0:21:27.919
<v Speaker 2>you built a blot of ball with a persimon, would

0:21:28.480 --> 0:21:32.359
<v Speaker 2>if that necessarily is the right contact condition. What I

0:21:32.359 --> 0:21:34.840
<v Speaker 2>will contend is if you put a guy in a

0:21:34.960 --> 0:21:37.639
<v Speaker 2>range with a bag full of one hundred ballotas in

0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:40.200
<v Speaker 2>his persimmon, and a whole bunch of other persimmons, it's

0:21:40.240 --> 0:21:42.280
<v Speaker 2>going to be way easier for us to figure out

0:21:42.320 --> 0:21:45.639
<v Speaker 2>the right combination of ball and driver to maximize what

0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:47.600
<v Speaker 2>that looks like. But I don't know if it's an

0:21:47.600 --> 0:21:51.280
<v Speaker 2>absolute truth, because again, the technology was creating a completely

0:21:51.320 --> 0:21:53.760
<v Speaker 2>different relationship. I think we could tune I think we

0:21:53.800 --> 0:21:56.400
<v Speaker 2>could definitely dial in a little bit better. I think

0:21:56.440 --> 0:21:59.280
<v Speaker 2>if you just took only launch monitors. In there words,

0:21:59.359 --> 0:22:03.040
<v Speaker 2>no equipment and changes whatsoever over the last thirty five years,

0:22:03.080 --> 0:22:04.680
<v Speaker 2>forty years. I know many in your audience the ears

0:22:04.680 --> 0:22:06.600
<v Speaker 2>perk up, Like if we if we rolled the ball

0:22:06.640 --> 0:22:08.360
<v Speaker 2>back and we rolled the clubs all the way back,

0:22:08.400 --> 0:22:10.760
<v Speaker 2>but we still had launch monitors, the ball is going

0:22:10.840 --> 0:22:14.439
<v Speaker 2>to go significantly farther for the guys on tour and

0:22:14.480 --> 0:22:17.520
<v Speaker 2>even for the average player because we now have this

0:22:17.640 --> 0:22:20.440
<v Speaker 2>ability to really dial it in with the launch monitors.

0:22:21.280 --> 0:22:23.200
<v Speaker 2>But I don't know if we get that one hundred

0:22:23.240 --> 0:22:26.680
<v Speaker 2>percent assuredness, but the combination of it with modern equipment

0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:29.800
<v Speaker 2>has made that absolutely clear. And then couple it with

0:22:29.840 --> 0:22:34.240
<v Speaker 2>advanced statistics telling us that longer is better, like laying

0:22:34.320 --> 0:22:38.399
<v Speaker 2>up is never, well not never, but laying up is

0:22:38.440 --> 0:22:41.040
<v Speaker 2>not the right play most of the time, especially for

0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:44.560
<v Speaker 2>higher handicapped type of players. We live in the send

0:22:44.600 --> 0:22:48.200
<v Speaker 2>it you know world right now, so I think all

0:22:48.240 --> 0:22:51.359
<v Speaker 2>of that kind of couples into some of the things

0:22:51.400 --> 0:22:53.919
<v Speaker 2>when it comes to distance. So I'm not gonna say

0:22:53.920 --> 0:22:56.280
<v Speaker 2>it's one hundred percent that that's it with old equipment,

0:22:56.320 --> 0:22:58.360
<v Speaker 2>but I think that where we are with modern equipment,

0:22:58.400 --> 0:23:02.320
<v Speaker 2>it has made that Yeah, crystallized from what launch monitors

0:23:02.320 --> 0:23:02.719
<v Speaker 2>teach us.

0:23:03.200 --> 0:23:06.080
<v Speaker 1>It is interesting that the launch monitor came about right

0:23:06.200 --> 0:23:10.240
<v Speaker 1>when essentially when the pro v one and the modern

0:23:10.280 --> 0:23:13.320
<v Speaker 1>driver came out right, these were these were a concurrent

0:23:13.560 --> 0:23:17.040
<v Speaker 1>you know, uh happenings and in the world of golf,

0:23:17.080 --> 0:23:20.439
<v Speaker 1>and they all added up to a big change, a

0:23:20.440 --> 0:23:21.920
<v Speaker 1>sea change, and how.

0:23:21.760 --> 0:23:24.159
<v Speaker 2>The game was playing at least, and money in the

0:23:24.200 --> 0:23:25.879
<v Speaker 2>sport and all this other I mean again, like this

0:23:26.040 --> 0:23:28.080
<v Speaker 2>it's a perfect storm, like when I say the last

0:23:28.119 --> 0:23:31.320
<v Speaker 2>twenty five years, Like it's truly a perfect storm of

0:23:31.400 --> 0:23:33.280
<v Speaker 2>all of these things at the same time. And that's

0:23:33.280 --> 0:23:36.600
<v Speaker 2>why it's we're in this fascinating era where it's it's

0:23:36.680 --> 0:23:38.320
<v Speaker 2>hard for us to put the toothpaste back in the

0:23:38.359 --> 0:23:41.400
<v Speaker 2>tube because it came out flying there for the last

0:23:41.480 --> 0:23:42.280
<v Speaker 2>quarter century.

0:23:42.560 --> 0:23:45.200
<v Speaker 1>Well, there was no way that any governing body could

0:23:45.200 --> 0:23:47.200
<v Speaker 1>have possibly kept.

0:23:47.040 --> 0:23:49.480
<v Speaker 2>Up everything every angle And what are you supposed to do?

0:23:49.920 --> 0:23:52.000
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's incredible. Yeah, And you and I have

0:23:52.000 --> 0:23:53.399
<v Speaker 2>had this conversation too, and we're not going to get

0:23:53.440 --> 0:23:54.880
<v Speaker 2>in every chapter, so I don't know if we'll spend

0:23:54.960 --> 0:23:56.760
<v Speaker 2>much time in chapter three, which is pretty much all

0:23:56.760 --> 0:24:01.120
<v Speaker 2>about physical fitness and nutrition. But like that's an extra three, four, five, six,

0:24:01.440 --> 0:24:04.240
<v Speaker 2>ten percent depending on the type of golfer of stuff

0:24:04.240 --> 0:24:05.840
<v Speaker 2>that we're still learning. I mean, we're still kind of

0:24:05.880 --> 0:24:10.439
<v Speaker 2>behind in even having scientific studies proving that what the

0:24:10.480 --> 0:24:13.639
<v Speaker 2>modern trainers are doing right now this very day, but

0:24:13.680 --> 0:24:15.760
<v Speaker 2>we know it's better than it was fifteen twenty years ago.

0:24:15.880 --> 0:24:18.840
<v Speaker 2>And so that's a huge, another huge difference where I mean,

0:24:18.840 --> 0:24:22.000
<v Speaker 2>who knows if we had obsolete equipment, but these guys

0:24:22.080 --> 0:24:24.320
<v Speaker 2>were training with the speed that they are and how

0:24:24.320 --> 0:24:26.520
<v Speaker 2>they're using their bodies, how different it would be. So again,

0:24:26.600 --> 0:24:28.800
<v Speaker 2>all of this stuff and Tiger influenced that, Like Tiger

0:24:28.840 --> 0:24:32.360
<v Speaker 2>made working out cool in golf and necessary, and it's

0:24:32.520 --> 0:24:35.480
<v Speaker 2>it's wild. It all happened at the same time and boom,

0:24:35.480 --> 0:24:35.920
<v Speaker 2>here we are.

0:24:36.920 --> 0:24:40.360
<v Speaker 1>So let me throw something at you that is sort

0:24:40.400 --> 0:24:43.480
<v Speaker 1>of a counter argument against this idea that the launch

0:24:43.520 --> 0:24:47.360
<v Speaker 1>monitor enhanced the artistry of the golf swing. I mean,

0:24:47.400 --> 0:24:51.680
<v Speaker 1>I hear that argument like that any number of golf

0:24:51.720 --> 0:24:56.560
<v Speaker 1>swings can end up producing these ideal numbers, and that's

0:24:56.840 --> 0:25:01.280
<v Speaker 1>that's a truth, right, That's something that instructors are emphasizing

0:25:01.359 --> 0:25:03.600
<v Speaker 1>less now is kind of the aesthetics of the golf

0:25:03.600 --> 0:25:07.080
<v Speaker 1>swing and having things proper, right, they're just looking at

0:25:07.080 --> 0:25:10.480
<v Speaker 1>what the ball is doing, and that frees certain players

0:25:10.600 --> 0:25:13.639
<v Speaker 1>up to be eccentric in a way, and that is

0:25:14.000 --> 0:25:17.359
<v Speaker 1>I find that really welcome. But I wonder if you

0:25:17.520 --> 0:25:22.680
<v Speaker 1>have ever felt nostalgic like I do for a time

0:25:22.880 --> 0:25:27.040
<v Speaker 1>when players had to battle more with doubt when it

0:25:27.080 --> 0:25:31.480
<v Speaker 1>came to their swings, right, Because back in the seventies, eighties,

0:25:31.520 --> 0:25:37.720
<v Speaker 1>and nineties, one huge fact of a professional golfer's life

0:25:38.040 --> 0:25:40.520
<v Speaker 1>was just trying to dig it out of the dirt,

0:25:40.920 --> 0:25:43.960
<v Speaker 1>was trying to find some kind of magical solution to

0:25:44.080 --> 0:25:47.440
<v Speaker 1>what was ailing them in their golf swing. And there

0:25:47.640 --> 0:25:52.200
<v Speaker 1>was a lot of kind of you know, psychological struggle,

0:25:52.840 --> 0:25:56.320
<v Speaker 1>and there were even like these mystical elements to how

0:25:56.400 --> 0:26:00.760
<v Speaker 1>players would try to find what would cure them. Right,

0:26:01.160 --> 0:26:03.840
<v Speaker 1>there's this, I think of Ben Hogan's secret, Right, It

0:26:03.920 --> 0:26:08.440
<v Speaker 1>almost took on this kind of mythical status over time.

0:26:08.480 --> 0:26:10.560
<v Speaker 1>He found the secret to his golf swing. Turns out

0:26:10.600 --> 0:26:13.800
<v Speaker 1>it was something pretty technical about his grip and his

0:26:14.040 --> 0:26:15.960
<v Speaker 1>you know, club path and stuff like that. And I'm

0:26:15.960 --> 0:26:18.480
<v Speaker 1>sure you could boil it down to science now, but

0:26:18.600 --> 0:26:22.040
<v Speaker 1>for a long time golfers had to deal in that

0:26:22.160 --> 0:26:26.320
<v Speaker 1>kind of ambiguous realm of doubt about their golf swings.

0:26:26.760 --> 0:26:31.560
<v Speaker 1>And that was something that I found interesting about the game,

0:26:31.640 --> 0:26:34.679
<v Speaker 1>found fun to think about, found fun to write about.

0:26:35.200 --> 0:26:38.600
<v Speaker 1>It attracted kind of these neurotic characters to the game

0:26:39.040 --> 0:26:42.879
<v Speaker 1>who were who were fun to follow. Now, it seems

0:26:42.880 --> 0:26:45.960
<v Speaker 1>like with the launch monitor that young players have a

0:26:45.960 --> 0:26:48.760
<v Speaker 1>lot more confidence in what they're doing and have this

0:26:48.840 --> 0:26:53.040
<v Speaker 1>kind of serene sense of comfort that you know, what

0:26:53.119 --> 0:26:55.520
<v Speaker 1>they're doing is the right thing, and if they get

0:26:55.520 --> 0:26:57.520
<v Speaker 1>off track, then they kind of know how to solve it.

0:26:58.920 --> 0:26:59.959
<v Speaker 1>How would you respond to that?

0:27:00.440 --> 0:27:03.280
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think it's a great point. I love the

0:27:03.400 --> 0:27:09.600
<v Speaker 2>romanticizing of that. I guess that fear right, the misering, Yes,

0:27:09.640 --> 0:27:10.440
<v Speaker 2>the tastory of it.

0:27:10.880 --> 0:27:13.359
<v Speaker 1>Maybe I shouldn't be romanticizing it, but it's you know,

0:27:13.520 --> 0:27:14.600
<v Speaker 1>I mean, it is what it is.

0:27:14.760 --> 0:27:16.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. My counter to it is, I mean I was

0:27:16.240 --> 0:27:18.320
<v Speaker 2>a junior player that didn't have access to this because

0:27:18.359 --> 0:27:21.439
<v Speaker 2>I came up almost a couple of years younger than Tiger,

0:27:21.680 --> 0:27:24.720
<v Speaker 2>So it wasn't as if I was playing in my

0:27:24.800 --> 0:27:27.520
<v Speaker 2>formative years and all of this stuff was already available, right, So,

0:27:28.359 --> 0:27:29.919
<v Speaker 2>you know, in my first years and I was a

0:27:29.920 --> 0:27:32.080
<v Speaker 2>club pro, a couple of years out of college, and

0:27:32.119 --> 0:27:34.560
<v Speaker 2>that was when the pro V one had just come out.

0:27:34.680 --> 0:27:36.560
<v Speaker 2>So again, like all of this stuff was kind of

0:27:36.640 --> 0:27:39.560
<v Speaker 2>right before it for me, and I was experiencing this,

0:27:40.320 --> 0:27:42.200
<v Speaker 2>you know, as it came to be, and I wish

0:27:42.280 --> 0:27:44.280
<v Speaker 2>I was ten years younger and seeing what my game

0:27:44.320 --> 0:27:45.959
<v Speaker 2>would have been like if this was just sort of

0:27:46.000 --> 0:27:48.360
<v Speaker 2>the commonplace of it all. But what I will say

0:27:48.359 --> 0:27:50.320
<v Speaker 2>about what I've seen from modern players and a lot

0:27:50.320 --> 0:27:52.320
<v Speaker 2>of the college golf that I've covered, and then seeing

0:27:52.320 --> 0:27:54.840
<v Speaker 2>these young guys have such success at the professional ranks

0:27:55.400 --> 0:27:58.240
<v Speaker 2>and where I still think I have what you're looking for,

0:27:58.960 --> 0:28:02.159
<v Speaker 2>is that they get it's so good so quickly because

0:28:02.160 --> 0:28:05.000
<v Speaker 2>of all of this that then when the first little

0:28:05.040 --> 0:28:09.000
<v Speaker 2>thing goes wrong, that to me becomes the fascinating part.

0:28:09.359 --> 0:28:12.520
<v Speaker 2>So to where it's like guys were grinding and struggling

0:28:12.600 --> 0:28:15.040
<v Speaker 2>and going through the agony and the misery of finding

0:28:15.080 --> 0:28:18.000
<v Speaker 2>that swing, finding the swing that when they eventually get

0:28:18.040 --> 0:28:20.320
<v Speaker 2>it and they're in their thirties and they finally can

0:28:20.359 --> 0:28:23.680
<v Speaker 2>put together what they think is perfect golf. Instead it's

0:28:24.200 --> 0:28:27.040
<v Speaker 2>guys who actually haven't found all of the secrets yet

0:28:27.119 --> 0:28:29.320
<v Speaker 2>but are good enough because of all of this stuff

0:28:29.640 --> 0:28:32.119
<v Speaker 2>who then have to go through that lean discovery the

0:28:32.160 --> 0:28:35.520
<v Speaker 2>put stop going in. You know, you're Colin Morikawa and

0:28:35.560 --> 0:28:36.960
<v Speaker 2>you have two months where all of a sudden, the

0:28:36.960 --> 0:28:39.800
<v Speaker 2>ball just doesn't fade, Like why is it not fading?

0:28:40.520 --> 0:28:42.800
<v Speaker 1>That's an example that just came to mind when you

0:28:42.840 --> 0:28:46.000
<v Speaker 1>were talking about this. Yeah, he all of a sudden

0:28:46.000 --> 0:28:49.479
<v Speaker 1>like he came out of college a perfect ball perfect

0:28:49.960 --> 0:28:54.520
<v Speaker 1>but recently he has had some kind of mysterious struggles,

0:28:54.960 --> 0:28:56.000
<v Speaker 1>uh with his ball flight.

0:28:56.360 --> 0:28:59.040
<v Speaker 2>And I find that just as fascinating. So I think

0:28:59.080 --> 0:29:01.560
<v Speaker 2>it still exists. That would be my counter argument. It's

0:29:01.720 --> 0:29:06.120
<v Speaker 2>just we've we've turned the timetable of it a little

0:29:06.160 --> 0:29:08.040
<v Speaker 2>bit more around. And I'll also add this to it.

0:29:08.680 --> 0:29:11.479
<v Speaker 2>You know, Ben Hogan had the perfect swing, right, I mean,

0:29:11.480 --> 0:29:13.440
<v Speaker 2>we've got a million videos of it. Everybody wants the

0:29:13.440 --> 0:29:15.880
<v Speaker 2>Hogan swing, and so we had a generation of teachers

0:29:15.880 --> 0:29:17.640
<v Speaker 2>who are teaching a certain type of swing. And when

0:29:17.640 --> 0:29:20.240
<v Speaker 2>I say I think that there, the launch monitor allows

0:29:20.240 --> 0:29:22.400
<v Speaker 2>more artistry to be the game what I mean, But

0:29:22.440 --> 0:29:25.480
<v Speaker 2>I think we're still forcing it back in. I think

0:29:25.800 --> 0:29:28.719
<v Speaker 2>the Matthew Wolf's of the world, like that's the up

0:29:28.760 --> 0:29:31.160
<v Speaker 2>and coming because we now have a younger generation of

0:29:31.160 --> 0:29:35.840
<v Speaker 2>instructors who have only instructed with all of this technology

0:29:36.240 --> 0:29:40.040
<v Speaker 2>that has flipped and reverse engineered the teaching process to

0:29:40.080 --> 0:29:43.000
<v Speaker 2>where a lot of that old school I'm going to

0:29:43.040 --> 0:29:45.000
<v Speaker 2>teach a guy to grip it one way, to swing

0:29:45.040 --> 0:29:46.800
<v Speaker 2>it one way, to get it to a certain sort

0:29:46.840 --> 0:29:48.960
<v Speaker 2>of place. We now have a lot of younger teachers,

0:29:48.960 --> 0:29:50.480
<v Speaker 2>so I think it's actually going to take time. But

0:29:50.600 --> 0:29:52.400
<v Speaker 2>you know, I'm in Vegas a couple of weeks ago,

0:29:52.560 --> 0:29:54.680
<v Speaker 2>and I forget the kid's name from Oklahoma who plays

0:29:54.720 --> 0:29:57.400
<v Speaker 2>with the reverse grip, like the left hand low, right

0:29:57.400 --> 0:29:59.840
<v Speaker 2>handed golfer, And it's like, could you imagine that being

0:30:00.280 --> 0:30:02.280
<v Speaker 2>a thing? Like, there's no way there was an instructor

0:30:02.280 --> 0:30:04.480
<v Speaker 2>thirty years ago. It's gonna let that kid get to

0:30:04.680 --> 0:30:07.600
<v Speaker 2>the highest levels of college golf playing with left hand,

0:30:07.640 --> 0:30:11.800
<v Speaker 2>low full swinging shots. But if it's working and that

0:30:11.880 --> 0:30:15.200
<v Speaker 2>ball's coming off with optimized numbers, they're gonna let it

0:30:15.200 --> 0:30:17.960
<v Speaker 2>sort of go. And so, you know, I think we

0:30:17.960 --> 0:30:19.960
<v Speaker 2>could go back and nitpick Garrett and say that you

0:30:19.960 --> 0:30:24.400
<v Speaker 2>know what, artists were always the outliers, right, Like for

0:30:24.440 --> 0:30:27.120
<v Speaker 2>every Lee Trevino, there was five other guys that were

0:30:27.160 --> 0:30:29.640
<v Speaker 2>on tour that were swinging it beautifully and in tempo

0:30:29.720 --> 0:30:32.920
<v Speaker 2>and upright, because let's be honest, like, there's probably one

0:30:32.920 --> 0:30:36.200
<v Speaker 2>way that's the best for getting those optimized numbers. I

0:30:36.400 --> 0:30:39.120
<v Speaker 2>just like the fact or I believe that we have

0:30:39.200 --> 0:30:43.360
<v Speaker 2>the technology now that keeps a young Lee Trevino, a

0:30:43.400 --> 0:30:47.160
<v Speaker 2>young Matthew Wolf, a young Babba Watson even more engaged

0:30:47.200 --> 0:30:49.520
<v Speaker 2>with what he is doing and feeling comfortable than maybe

0:30:49.520 --> 0:30:51.720
<v Speaker 2>we did twenty thirty years ago. But that's that's my

0:30:51.800 --> 0:30:53.560
<v Speaker 2>opinion out of it, and I tried not to write

0:30:53.600 --> 0:30:56.400
<v Speaker 2>that into the book as much as it was just, Hey,

0:30:56.480 --> 0:30:59.000
<v Speaker 2>a lot of instructors are recognizing we can now teach

0:30:59.600 --> 0:31:03.960
<v Speaker 2>from contact backwards instead of swing forwards, which is where

0:31:04.000 --> 0:31:05.920
<v Speaker 2>the which is where instruction has gone.

0:31:06.520 --> 0:31:09.480
<v Speaker 1>All right, well, why don't we talk about another topic here,

0:31:09.520 --> 0:31:13.160
<v Speaker 1>which you cover in chapter five of the book, And

0:31:13.200 --> 0:31:17.600
<v Speaker 1>this is the advent of strokes Gained analytics. And this

0:31:17.640 --> 0:31:23.080
<v Speaker 1>is another kind of huge shift in how people think

0:31:23.120 --> 0:31:26.640
<v Speaker 1>about the game and how the different skill areas of

0:31:26.680 --> 0:31:30.800
<v Speaker 1>the game relate to success on the golf course. So

0:31:30.920 --> 0:31:35.040
<v Speaker 1>how and why did strokes Gained get created? What's the

0:31:35.040 --> 0:31:35.720
<v Speaker 1>story behind that?

0:31:35.880 --> 0:31:38.320
<v Speaker 2>Yeah? So, I mean Mark Brody is the founder of

0:31:38.360 --> 0:31:42.640
<v Speaker 2>the strokes gained system. The idea of shots gained has

0:31:42.720 --> 0:31:45.840
<v Speaker 2>been around golf for forty to fifty years, but then

0:31:45.840 --> 0:31:49.880
<v Speaker 2>in terms of actually getting baseline measurements and numbers and

0:31:50.000 --> 0:31:53.080
<v Speaker 2>data and then looking at it across the board, it

0:31:53.160 --> 0:31:55.640
<v Speaker 2>was Mark partnering with the PGA Tour and then sort

0:31:55.640 --> 0:31:58.360
<v Speaker 2>of building out this sort of project that then creates

0:31:58.400 --> 0:32:00.480
<v Speaker 2>what a strokes gain system looks like. And that's why

0:32:00.520 --> 0:32:04.080
<v Speaker 2>now today you have baselines for every handicap and data

0:32:04.120 --> 0:32:07.360
<v Speaker 2>tracking places like RCOs or any other the number ones

0:32:07.360 --> 0:32:09.640
<v Speaker 2>can actually do have millions of data points now to

0:32:09.720 --> 0:32:12.040
<v Speaker 2>where you can have strokes gained data for yourself or

0:32:12.080 --> 0:32:15.600
<v Speaker 2>you can compare yourself to other five, ten, fifteen, twenty handicappers.

0:32:16.080 --> 0:32:19.400
<v Speaker 2>But the idea of strokes gained is really just where

0:32:19.440 --> 0:32:24.200
<v Speaker 2>in your game are you average, above average, below average

0:32:24.200 --> 0:32:28.400
<v Speaker 2>in comparison to what your score is. And so golf

0:32:28.880 --> 0:32:32.760
<v Speaker 2>is this tapestry of a million things that happen that

0:32:32.880 --> 0:32:36.600
<v Speaker 2>lead to a score. And yet somehow if you and

0:32:36.640 --> 0:32:40.240
<v Speaker 2>I are playing a match and we're going head to

0:32:40.280 --> 0:32:42.920
<v Speaker 2>head in strokes and you and I both shoot seventy seven,

0:32:43.160 --> 0:32:45.080
<v Speaker 2>and we're like, oh, well, we have the exact same

0:32:45.160 --> 0:32:48.440
<v Speaker 2>day to day. Well, we know that's not true. You know,

0:32:49.240 --> 0:32:50.800
<v Speaker 2>I don't know if there's any other sport where you

0:32:50.800 --> 0:32:54.640
<v Speaker 2>can have as different of a path to the final

0:32:54.680 --> 0:32:56.920
<v Speaker 2>outcome of two competitors than anything. I mean, I guess

0:32:56.960 --> 0:33:00.360
<v Speaker 2>a basketball game or one team the Warriors reign twenty

0:33:00.400 --> 0:33:02.880
<v Speaker 2>five threes against a team that posts up and shoots

0:33:02.920 --> 0:33:04.680
<v Speaker 2>fifty free throws and doesn't hit a three. I mean,

0:33:04.720 --> 0:33:07.440
<v Speaker 2>I guess there's multiple ways to a score in basketball

0:33:07.520 --> 0:33:09.120
<v Speaker 2>or in football or any other sort of sport. But

0:33:09.200 --> 0:33:12.480
<v Speaker 2>in golf, like I could miss every fairway and scramble

0:33:12.520 --> 0:33:14.920
<v Speaker 2>my butt off, and you could just be an absolute

0:33:15.040 --> 0:33:18.240
<v Speaker 2>Fred Funk driving machine and two put every green or

0:33:18.280 --> 0:33:20.040
<v Speaker 2>something like that, and we arrive at the same sort

0:33:20.040 --> 0:33:22.280
<v Speaker 2>of place. And so what strokes gain has done is

0:33:22.280 --> 0:33:26.040
<v Speaker 2>it obviously boils it down to where are you efficient

0:33:26.160 --> 0:33:29.520
<v Speaker 2>or deficient in all of those areas tee to green.

0:33:29.640 --> 0:33:32.080
<v Speaker 2>And it really started with measuring from a baseline of

0:33:32.160 --> 0:33:35.320
<v Speaker 2>putting and kind of working backwards and then using those

0:33:35.320 --> 0:33:37.479
<v Speaker 2>base that's well, actually it starts, excuse me, from average

0:33:37.480 --> 0:33:40.040
<v Speaker 2>score in a hole. So if you play the first

0:33:40.040 --> 0:33:42.440
<v Speaker 2>hole at your club ten times, your average score is

0:33:42.480 --> 0:33:44.239
<v Speaker 2>never going to be a round number mostly you know

0:33:44.280 --> 0:33:46.040
<v Speaker 2>it's gonna be if it's a par four, maybe your

0:33:46.080 --> 0:33:49.040
<v Speaker 2>average score there is four point three over that. Well,

0:33:49.040 --> 0:33:51.480
<v Speaker 2>if that's your baseline and you make four, that's a

0:33:51.480 --> 0:33:54.840
<v Speaker 2>good hole right over the course of ten rounds. So

0:33:55.200 --> 0:33:58.080
<v Speaker 2>then putting that into perspective and then diving into that

0:33:58.200 --> 0:34:00.520
<v Speaker 2>number even deeper and understanding how did you arrive at

0:34:00.520 --> 0:34:03.000
<v Speaker 2>those four shots where you more efficient off the tee

0:34:03.040 --> 0:34:05.680
<v Speaker 2>or not, And then looking for trends, and then obviously

0:34:05.760 --> 0:34:07.880
<v Speaker 2>what I do on a more weekly basis is then

0:34:08.000 --> 0:34:11.520
<v Speaker 2>using those incredible data trends for PGA Tour players and

0:34:11.600 --> 0:34:14.720
<v Speaker 2>comparison and comparing their strengths and weaknesses across the field

0:34:15.080 --> 0:34:19.680
<v Speaker 2>to where you can talk about, you know, Rory McElroy's

0:34:20.480 --> 0:34:23.080
<v Speaker 2>rise again to the top player in the game, and

0:34:23.120 --> 0:34:24.520
<v Speaker 2>he was a top twenty putter last year on the

0:34:24.560 --> 0:34:26.480
<v Speaker 2>PGA Tour, a top twenty five putter on the PGA Tour.

0:34:26.560 --> 0:34:28.640
<v Speaker 2>Like no one talk We always talk about driving, but

0:34:28.719 --> 0:34:31.759
<v Speaker 2>the dude gained five tenths of a shot on the

0:34:31.800 --> 0:34:34.120
<v Speaker 2>field every round with his putter. I mean, if Rory

0:34:34.280 --> 0:34:37.880
<v Speaker 2>is a half shot around guy on the greens, it's ballgame.

0:34:38.080 --> 0:34:40.239
<v Speaker 2>I mean, I mean, it's oh, I mean, that's an

0:34:40.239 --> 0:34:43.319
<v Speaker 2>incredible number for him, and we now understand why that's

0:34:43.360 --> 0:34:47.120
<v Speaker 2>important for somebody who's always going to gain a shot

0:34:47.160 --> 0:34:49.239
<v Speaker 2>per round off the tee because of how good he

0:34:49.320 --> 0:34:50.960
<v Speaker 2>is with the driver in his bag. And so those

0:34:50.960 --> 0:34:53.400
<v Speaker 2>a little ways that I think it's revolutionized. And I'm

0:34:53.400 --> 0:34:56.200
<v Speaker 2>sorry that was a really long winded answer to that question.

0:34:56.239 --> 0:34:58.760
<v Speaker 1>I don't think there's any short way to describe stretch.

0:34:58.960 --> 0:34:59.759
<v Speaker 2>It's hard, but you did.

0:35:00.080 --> 0:35:02.319
<v Speaker 1>He did a very nice job there, And just to

0:35:02.440 --> 0:35:06.279
<v Speaker 1>underline its importance to how we understand what's happening on

0:35:06.360 --> 0:35:10.600
<v Speaker 1>the golf course. In a previous era, we would have

0:35:10.640 --> 0:35:14.160
<v Speaker 1>looked at Rory McElroy's season and just kind of tried

0:35:14.200 --> 0:35:19.520
<v Speaker 1>to come up with some explanation using our eyes about

0:35:19.560 --> 0:35:22.080
<v Speaker 1>what happened the season and why he was so good.

0:35:22.840 --> 0:35:25.560
<v Speaker 1>But now that strokes gained exists, we can kind of

0:35:25.600 --> 0:35:29.439
<v Speaker 1>look at these different scale areas and help ourselves tell

0:35:29.480 --> 0:35:33.720
<v Speaker 1>a story about inaccurate story about what happened the season,

0:35:33.760 --> 0:35:36.920
<v Speaker 1>and sometimes we find out, you know, surprising things like

0:35:36.960 --> 0:35:40.000
<v Speaker 1>he had a great putting season. We don't necessarily think

0:35:40.040 --> 0:35:42.480
<v Speaker 1>of Roy McElroy as an elite putter, but if he's

0:35:42.920 --> 0:35:45.840
<v Speaker 1>top twenty Strokes gained putting, then we know that he

0:35:45.960 --> 0:35:48.360
<v Speaker 1>was operating at a very very high level on the

0:35:48.400 --> 0:35:51.880
<v Speaker 1>greens this season, and so you know that is what

0:35:51.920 --> 0:35:54.560
<v Speaker 1>Strokes Gained has essentially done for us, and it's been

0:35:54.600 --> 0:35:58.880
<v Speaker 1>a big deal. Now, in your chapter Data and Decisions

0:35:58.880 --> 0:36:05.160
<v Speaker 1>on Strokes Gained, you identified three big learnings from this

0:36:05.280 --> 0:36:08.520
<v Speaker 1>new area of analytics, and I'd like to kind of

0:36:08.560 --> 0:36:11.520
<v Speaker 1>go over those because I find each of them pretty interesting.

0:36:11.560 --> 0:36:15.720
<v Speaker 1>So the first is that distance off the tee matters

0:36:15.760 --> 0:36:19.480
<v Speaker 1>more than we previously thought, right, yes, And so how

0:36:19.480 --> 0:36:21.160
<v Speaker 1>did Strokes Gained reveal that?

0:36:21.520 --> 0:36:25.799
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So again everything with data is in context, right,

0:36:26.160 --> 0:36:29.560
<v Speaker 2>So people, anybody listening to this podcast, I don't care

0:36:29.600 --> 0:36:32.879
<v Speaker 2>if you're a scratch golfer or a twenty handicapper. If

0:36:32.920 --> 0:36:35.400
<v Speaker 2>you can get the ball closer to the green with

0:36:35.560 --> 0:36:38.239
<v Speaker 2>every single shot that you hit, it's going to make

0:36:38.280 --> 0:36:40.520
<v Speaker 2>it easier to score. And we now have the data

0:36:40.640 --> 0:36:42.719
<v Speaker 2>to sort of prove that the idea of laying up

0:36:42.719 --> 0:36:44.960
<v Speaker 2>to your perfect wedge number of one hundred yards, if

0:36:45.000 --> 0:36:47.800
<v Speaker 2>you can get down there to forty, it just doesn't

0:36:47.840 --> 0:36:49.880
<v Speaker 2>play out over the course of time. Now it depends

0:36:49.880 --> 0:36:51.960
<v Speaker 2>what the shot is. Is that forty yard shot off

0:36:52.000 --> 0:36:55.279
<v Speaker 2>a downslope over water to a front hole location, then

0:36:55.320 --> 0:36:59.160
<v Speaker 2>maybe that changes the strategy. Again, every single decision needs

0:36:59.160 --> 0:37:01.279
<v Speaker 2>to be viewed within the context of it, but in

0:37:01.320 --> 0:37:03.480
<v Speaker 2>the broader sort of scheme of things. This idea that

0:37:03.520 --> 0:37:08.280
<v Speaker 2>distance was the supreme thing is is has been proven

0:37:08.320 --> 0:37:11.319
<v Speaker 2>out in all levels of golf, and it really just

0:37:11.320 --> 0:37:13.880
<v Speaker 2>boils down to if you're fifteen yards longer than the

0:37:13.880 --> 0:37:15.880
<v Speaker 2>guy next to you over the course of a round,

0:37:16.320 --> 0:37:18.840
<v Speaker 2>and that means that if every hole is the exact

0:37:18.840 --> 0:37:20.920
<v Speaker 2>same length, that means that I'm hitting eight iron in

0:37:20.960 --> 0:37:23.600
<v Speaker 2>and you're hitting, you know, a hard seven or maybe

0:37:23.640 --> 0:37:27.440
<v Speaker 2>even having abut of six every single approach shot, like

0:37:27.600 --> 0:37:30.440
<v Speaker 2>I would like my chances against you hitting eight iron

0:37:30.560 --> 0:37:34.040
<v Speaker 2>over six iron fourteen times around or whatever many times

0:37:34.120 --> 0:37:36.799
<v Speaker 2>ends up being that way. Now, the counter to that is, okay, well,

0:37:36.800 --> 0:37:38.720
<v Speaker 2>what if you're laying back because you want to value

0:37:38.719 --> 0:37:42.400
<v Speaker 2>fairways And that's where it gets a little bit murkier

0:37:43.360 --> 0:37:46.200
<v Speaker 2>in in I guess proving it, but for the most part,

0:37:46.239 --> 0:37:50.479
<v Speaker 2>you aren't significantly more accurate with whoever that layup club

0:37:50.560 --> 0:37:53.000
<v Speaker 2>is compared to the driver. And so what the math

0:37:53.040 --> 0:37:55.520
<v Speaker 2>showed is from a strokes gained off the t standpoint.

0:37:55.600 --> 0:37:57.680
<v Speaker 2>So let's say for every time I hit driver to

0:37:57.760 --> 0:38:02.640
<v Speaker 2>your three wood, I'm gaining a tenth of a shot

0:38:03.320 --> 0:38:06.080
<v Speaker 2>strokes gained off the tee right for the fairway, Say

0:38:06.120 --> 0:38:08.920
<v Speaker 2>I miss one more fairway than you do by playing that,

0:38:08.960 --> 0:38:11.040
<v Speaker 2>because that's typically what you'll see on the PGA Tour.

0:38:11.080 --> 0:38:13.160
<v Speaker 2>The difference between the most accurate guy in the PGA

0:38:13.200 --> 0:38:17.040
<v Speaker 2>Tour and number one hundred is effectively one fairway around,

0:38:17.640 --> 0:38:20.280
<v Speaker 2>and it kind of works that way through all of golf.

0:38:20.480 --> 0:38:22.520
<v Speaker 2>So if you're two twenty handicappers and you both only

0:38:22.600 --> 0:38:25.880
<v Speaker 2>hit four or five fairways around, why are you laying up? Like,

0:38:25.960 --> 0:38:27.560
<v Speaker 2>let's try and get those four or five that you

0:38:27.560 --> 0:38:29.920
<v Speaker 2>are going to hit in the fairway hit with a driver.

0:38:30.400 --> 0:38:33.080
<v Speaker 2>So back to my analogy there, If I'm gaining a

0:38:33.120 --> 0:38:35.120
<v Speaker 2>tenth of a shot on you every single time because

0:38:35.120 --> 0:38:38.160
<v Speaker 2>I'm playing from closer in, then my penalty when I

0:38:38.239 --> 0:38:40.600
<v Speaker 2>missed that one fairway to yours is maybe three tenths

0:38:40.600 --> 0:38:42.160
<v Speaker 2>of a shot. Over the course of that round, I'm

0:38:42.200 --> 0:38:44.680
<v Speaker 2>still gaining on you. And so that's what the data

0:38:44.840 --> 0:38:47.759
<v Speaker 2>has played out in all of this, is that the

0:38:48.160 --> 0:38:49.880
<v Speaker 2>farther you get it, the short of the club. In

0:38:50.120 --> 0:38:51.919
<v Speaker 2>the short of the club, you have the better chance

0:38:51.960 --> 0:38:55.359
<v Speaker 2>of success. You're maximizing the opportunity to get it close. Now,

0:38:55.400 --> 0:38:58.080
<v Speaker 2>if you hit your three wood straight every time and

0:38:58.120 --> 0:39:00.640
<v Speaker 2>you spray your driver forty yards and every direction and

0:39:00.640 --> 0:39:03.560
<v Speaker 2>you're counting a million penalty strokes, then this doesn't apply

0:39:03.719 --> 0:39:05.480
<v Speaker 2>to you, and you need to go get fit for

0:39:05.520 --> 0:39:09.160
<v Speaker 2>a better driver, Like I'm dead serious, Like there's no

0:39:09.239 --> 0:39:11.200
<v Speaker 2>reason why that driver should be getting sprayed and the

0:39:11.239 --> 0:39:13.719
<v Speaker 2>three wood is dead straight. Figure out why that three

0:39:13.719 --> 0:39:16.800
<v Speaker 2>wood is optimized for your swing and why the driver isn't,

0:39:17.040 --> 0:39:19.080
<v Speaker 2>and let's figure out how to get that driver pounding

0:39:19.120 --> 0:39:21.160
<v Speaker 2>down there. But that's where the data has sort of

0:39:21.200 --> 0:39:23.560
<v Speaker 2>showed it is that you're just putting yourself in an

0:39:23.600 --> 0:39:27.000
<v Speaker 2>advantageous position. Now, I'll tell you anecdotally from my own game.

0:39:27.200 --> 0:39:29.440
<v Speaker 2>I'm forty one. I've lost some speed on my fastball.

0:39:29.600 --> 0:39:31.360
<v Speaker 2>I really grind it on my game this summer, and

0:39:31.400 --> 0:39:34.040
<v Speaker 2>I did start valuing accuracy. I'm not swinging out of

0:39:34.040 --> 0:39:36.560
<v Speaker 2>my shoes except on holes where I know I've got

0:39:36.560 --> 0:39:39.400
<v Speaker 2>a little bit more wiggle room, Like fairways are still important,

0:39:39.960 --> 0:39:42.920
<v Speaker 2>but I'm also hitting driver as often as I possibly

0:39:42.960 --> 0:39:46.120
<v Speaker 2>can because I know I can miss I can miss

0:39:46.160 --> 0:39:47.640
<v Speaker 2>fairways with my three wood, I can miss fair with

0:39:47.680 --> 0:39:49.959
<v Speaker 2>my four iron. I just did it yesterday. I missed

0:39:50.000 --> 0:39:51.799
<v Speaker 2>a fairway with my four iron trying to lay up.

0:39:51.840 --> 0:39:56.120
<v Speaker 2>So I think that's I don't like it when people

0:39:56.160 --> 0:39:58.640
<v Speaker 2>think that the data has said grip it and rip

0:39:58.680 --> 0:40:02.359
<v Speaker 2>it everywhere. No, what we're just saying is, if there's

0:40:02.440 --> 0:40:04.719
<v Speaker 2>room out there, hit the driver instead of the three

0:40:04.760 --> 0:40:06.800
<v Speaker 2>would even if it's a little bit more narrow because

0:40:06.800 --> 0:40:09.520
<v Speaker 2>that length over time, if you play the long game

0:40:09.560 --> 0:40:11.400
<v Speaker 2>with the data, is going to pay out for you.

0:40:12.120 --> 0:40:15.680
<v Speaker 1>All Right. So second big takeaway from the Strokes Gained

0:40:15.960 --> 0:40:20.439
<v Speaker 1>revolution that you identified is a shift in mindset about

0:40:20.520 --> 0:40:22.840
<v Speaker 1>course management. And we've already sort of talked about this.

0:40:23.360 --> 0:40:26.560
<v Speaker 1>One of the insights that Strokes Gained has provided is

0:40:26.600 --> 0:40:28.239
<v Speaker 1>that a lot of the time you're going to want

0:40:28.239 --> 0:40:30.919
<v Speaker 1>to be aggressive off the tee. What are some other

0:40:31.080 --> 0:40:33.920
<v Speaker 1>things or you know what is just the kind of

0:40:34.000 --> 0:40:39.520
<v Speaker 1>even the general philosophy now that Strokes Gained has allowed

0:40:39.600 --> 0:40:43.960
<v Speaker 1>people to adopt when it comes to deciding on a

0:40:44.000 --> 0:40:45.399
<v Speaker 1>strategy on a particular hole.

0:40:45.640 --> 0:40:47.920
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, I think at the highest level, because we

0:40:47.960 --> 0:40:50.279
<v Speaker 2>can see where shots have gone and where guys have

0:40:50.360 --> 0:40:54.399
<v Speaker 2>scored from you know, in previous years, why have data

0:40:54.400 --> 0:40:56.680
<v Speaker 2>analysts and stat analysts on their teams now on the

0:40:56.680 --> 0:40:58.799
<v Speaker 2>PGA to where it's changed a lot of that. I

0:40:58.800 --> 0:41:01.239
<v Speaker 2>think what strokes Gained is done, is it again, it's

0:41:01.400 --> 0:41:04.520
<v Speaker 2>it's putting yourself in a position to succeed or effectively

0:41:04.560 --> 0:41:08.800
<v Speaker 2>minimize your misses. The most for the high handicapped players,

0:41:09.000 --> 0:41:11.239
<v Speaker 2>the reason why your scores are so high is because

0:41:11.239 --> 0:41:14.000
<v Speaker 2>of penalty shots. You know, I mean obviously the occasional

0:41:14.040 --> 0:41:15.799
<v Speaker 2>duff or top or something like that, but if you

0:41:15.800 --> 0:41:17.920
<v Speaker 2>can avoid penalty strokes at all costs, and so a

0:41:17.920 --> 0:41:19.960
<v Speaker 2>lot of that has to do with aiming. And I

0:41:20.000 --> 0:41:22.799
<v Speaker 2>know that sounds really simple, but Garrett, how many times

0:41:22.800 --> 0:41:24.239
<v Speaker 2>do you play around a golf and you just have

0:41:24.280 --> 0:41:26.080
<v Speaker 2>a boneheaded I just aimed at the flag and I

0:41:26.120 --> 0:41:28.359
<v Speaker 2>wasn't even thinking. It happens every single time. And that's

0:41:28.400 --> 0:41:30.439
<v Speaker 2>what really blows my mind about how good these guys

0:41:30.480 --> 0:41:32.800
<v Speaker 2>are at the highest level, is that they're so focused

0:41:32.800 --> 0:41:35.040
<v Speaker 2>on the process every time, about what their target is.

0:41:35.480 --> 0:41:38.399
<v Speaker 2>And so I think what strokes Gain has really done

0:41:38.440 --> 0:41:41.080
<v Speaker 2>is it's validated a lot of one of the lot

0:41:41.080 --> 0:41:43.239
<v Speaker 2>of the smart course management already existed, you know, the

0:41:43.320 --> 0:41:45.120
<v Speaker 2>Jack Nicholas's of the world who would say, like, I'd

0:41:45.160 --> 0:41:46.239
<v Speaker 2>aim at the middle of the green and if it

0:41:46.280 --> 0:41:48.160
<v Speaker 2>was a right hole, I'd you know, I'd try and

0:41:48.239 --> 0:41:49.759
<v Speaker 2>cut it in there. If it was a left hole,

0:41:49.840 --> 0:41:51.719
<v Speaker 2>if it turned over fine, even though I like to play.

0:41:51.760 --> 0:41:53.920
<v Speaker 2>You know, a lot of these guys kind of had that.

0:41:54.320 --> 0:41:58.280
<v Speaker 2>But what Strokes Gains has done in making the careers

0:41:58.280 --> 0:42:00.280
<v Speaker 2>out of a lot of course managers, and like Scott

0:42:00.280 --> 0:42:04.120
<v Speaker 2>Fawcett features predominantly in this book too because of his system,

0:42:04.160 --> 0:42:08.920
<v Speaker 2>which is heavily marketed, but it's not that complex, I

0:42:08.960 --> 0:42:12.040
<v Speaker 2>think in a lot of respects, because it's just drilled

0:42:12.080 --> 0:42:15.080
<v Speaker 2>down to that data of finding that correct line to

0:42:15.120 --> 0:42:20.160
<v Speaker 2>where you're maximizing or i should say, minimizing your failures

0:42:20.520 --> 0:42:23.319
<v Speaker 2>right and he calls it a shotgun pattern or your

0:42:23.320 --> 0:42:26.520
<v Speaker 2>cone or whatever it might sort of be. And that

0:42:26.840 --> 0:42:29.959
<v Speaker 2>number or working backwards of where you're going to make

0:42:30.560 --> 0:42:32.600
<v Speaker 2>the least amount of mistakes has really driven a lot

0:42:32.640 --> 0:42:35.080
<v Speaker 2>of those decisions in terms of course management. But off

0:42:35.120 --> 0:42:38.400
<v Speaker 2>the t it's definitely said, look, if there's not if

0:42:38.440 --> 0:42:41.359
<v Speaker 2>there's if you can't lose a penalty stroke in both

0:42:41.400 --> 0:42:44.279
<v Speaker 2>directions right, if there's not if it's out of bounds

0:42:44.360 --> 0:42:45.920
<v Speaker 2>left and out of bounds right, okay, this is a

0:42:45.920 --> 0:42:47.960
<v Speaker 2>hard hole. Let's figure out how to keep it in

0:42:48.000 --> 0:42:51.080
<v Speaker 2>between the goalposts. But if it's just a lateral hazard

0:42:51.200 --> 0:42:53.839
<v Speaker 2>left and there's no trouble, right, we're going to aim

0:42:53.880 --> 0:42:55.920
<v Speaker 2>that sucker a little bit right of center of the

0:42:55.960 --> 0:42:57.840
<v Speaker 2>fairway and we're going to swing hard and try and

0:42:57.840 --> 0:42:59.640
<v Speaker 2>get it close to the green. That's where I think

0:42:59.640 --> 0:43:01.880
<v Speaker 2>it's changed a lot of the course management stuff.

0:43:02.920 --> 0:43:07.160
<v Speaker 1>Now, even among experts in this area, there is some

0:43:07.320 --> 0:43:12.200
<v Speaker 1>disagreement about how players should approach a golf course. I

0:43:12.239 --> 0:43:15.200
<v Speaker 1>don't want to portray this like there's you know, one

0:43:15.239 --> 0:43:18.239
<v Speaker 1>single system that has come out of this. And one

0:43:18.280 --> 0:43:23.960
<v Speaker 1>particular area of disagreement that you identified was how aggressive

0:43:24.000 --> 0:43:28.160
<v Speaker 1>players should be in an elite competitive setting where they

0:43:28.280 --> 0:43:31.280
<v Speaker 1>need to make birdies in order to win, right, Because

0:43:31.280 --> 0:43:34.400
<v Speaker 1>the question of how can you minimize your risks the

0:43:34.440 --> 0:43:38.200
<v Speaker 1>most and score the lowest over many, many rounds is

0:43:38.239 --> 0:43:41.680
<v Speaker 1>a slightly different question from how can you try to

0:43:41.680 --> 0:43:42.440
<v Speaker 1>win this tournament?

0:43:42.680 --> 0:43:42.839
<v Speaker 2>Right?

0:43:43.480 --> 0:43:45.239
<v Speaker 1>And so could you talk about that a little bit,

0:43:45.280 --> 0:43:47.600
<v Speaker 1>because I found that really interesting. It's something that I

0:43:47.640 --> 0:43:50.719
<v Speaker 1>often think about when tournaments are coming down to the

0:43:50.760 --> 0:43:55.080
<v Speaker 1>wire and players need to make decisions about you know,

0:43:55.719 --> 0:43:57.799
<v Speaker 1>is it worth it for me to go for this

0:43:57.960 --> 0:44:00.320
<v Speaker 1>pin in order to give myself a chance at a

0:44:00.320 --> 0:44:03.120
<v Speaker 1>birdie and win this tournament? Or should I play a

0:44:03.120 --> 0:44:05.719
<v Speaker 1>little bit smarter, play how I played the first three

0:44:05.800 --> 0:44:07.880
<v Speaker 1>days and play to the middle of the green?

0:44:08.040 --> 0:44:11.279
<v Speaker 2>Right? Two different worlds of golf. Right. So I'm a

0:44:11.400 --> 0:44:14.680
<v Speaker 2>low single digit handicapper, and from my skill level all

0:44:14.719 --> 0:44:16.880
<v Speaker 2>the way to the top, all of us, if we

0:44:16.960 --> 0:44:18.439
<v Speaker 2>just hit it at the middle of the green every time,

0:44:18.480 --> 0:44:20.160
<v Speaker 2>give me a middle number, aim at the middle of

0:44:20.160 --> 0:44:22.399
<v Speaker 2>the green every time, We're all probably going to score

0:44:22.440 --> 0:44:24.680
<v Speaker 2>better over the course of time. I mean, that's just

0:44:24.880 --> 0:44:28.319
<v Speaker 2>fundamentally probably true, right, I Mean it's should we aim

0:44:28.360 --> 0:44:30.799
<v Speaker 2>in a couple of pints, maybe, but the reality is

0:44:30.800 --> 0:44:32.840
<v Speaker 2>if we can just maximize getting in on greens and

0:44:32.880 --> 0:44:35.200
<v Speaker 2>two putting and avoiding three putts, we're always going to

0:44:35.239 --> 0:44:37.120
<v Speaker 2>score better. Now we go to the other end of

0:44:37.120 --> 0:44:38.920
<v Speaker 2>the spectrum where I'm covering it, and I get in

0:44:38.920 --> 0:44:40.719
<v Speaker 2>this debate all the time with a lot of guys

0:44:40.719 --> 0:44:43.000
<v Speaker 2>that feature in this book too, because I've had too

0:44:43.040 --> 0:44:46.360
<v Speaker 2>many conversations most of which off the record, sadly that

0:44:46.360 --> 0:44:48.239
<v Speaker 2>I couldn't put in this book of talking to the

0:44:48.280 --> 0:44:49.759
<v Speaker 2>best players in the world who are like, yeah, if

0:44:49.760 --> 0:44:52.640
<v Speaker 2>I get in a playoff with somebody, I throw all

0:44:52.640 --> 0:44:54.719
<v Speaker 2>of that strategy out the window. Or I'm a top

0:44:54.719 --> 0:44:56.600
<v Speaker 2>twenty player in the world and I'm not worried about

0:44:56.640 --> 0:44:58.600
<v Speaker 2>losing my card. I go out and I play a

0:44:58.600 --> 0:45:02.439
<v Speaker 2>little bit different than the guy who's already knows showing

0:45:02.520 --> 0:45:04.000
<v Speaker 2>up to the golf course in the PGA Tour, or

0:45:04.000 --> 0:45:06.520
<v Speaker 2>these maybe two shots worse than Rory McElroy when they

0:45:06.560 --> 0:45:08.640
<v Speaker 2>tee off, like could he win that week? Yeah? Maybe,

0:45:08.680 --> 0:45:12.560
<v Speaker 2>But if his primary objective is feeding his family and

0:45:12.640 --> 0:45:16.320
<v Speaker 2>maximizing his earnings and his FedEx Cup points every single week,

0:45:16.640 --> 0:45:19.600
<v Speaker 2>then he's playing a much more strategic game than the

0:45:19.600 --> 0:45:21.640
<v Speaker 2>guys who were like I'm out here for blood, Like

0:45:21.680 --> 0:45:27.080
<v Speaker 2>I'm out here to win, and to that point, that's why,

0:45:27.120 --> 0:45:28.799
<v Speaker 2>and you and I have had this conversation offline. The

0:45:28.800 --> 0:45:31.720
<v Speaker 2>most fascinating thing to me right now is psychology, Like, honestly,

0:45:31.760 --> 0:45:34.120
<v Speaker 2>because this stuff, to me, it's not black and white.

0:45:34.480 --> 0:45:38.279
<v Speaker 2>We're humans, Like, we're humans playing a sport. And so

0:45:38.360 --> 0:45:40.160
<v Speaker 2>while you're right over the long term, some of this

0:45:40.160 --> 0:45:43.160
<v Speaker 2>stuff can happen and be really good, and there's great

0:45:43.160 --> 0:45:46.319
<v Speaker 2>examples of it. I think Keith Mitchell this past year

0:45:46.760 --> 0:45:51.400
<v Speaker 2>really started taking his course management into into his repertoire

0:45:51.440 --> 0:45:54.120
<v Speaker 2>and he had his probably best season from a consistency standpoint.

0:45:54.120 --> 0:45:56.719
<v Speaker 2>He's really focused on the process, but he was just

0:45:56.760 --> 0:45:58.680
<v Speaker 2>like a happy, go lucky guy that was out there

0:45:58.760 --> 0:46:01.279
<v Speaker 2>swinging shots with natural god given talent. And now he's

0:46:01.280 --> 0:46:04.239
<v Speaker 2>honed it a little bit and he's found areas of consistency.

0:46:04.760 --> 0:46:07.239
<v Speaker 2>Will he win multiple times? I don't know, Like when

0:46:07.239 --> 0:46:10.720
<v Speaker 2>he gets to the final nine holes, what's gonna happen?

0:46:10.800 --> 0:46:12.799
<v Speaker 2>I always joke on the PGA Tour there's sixty three

0:46:12.800 --> 0:46:14.879
<v Speaker 2>holes and then there's nine holes. We play sixty three

0:46:14.880 --> 0:46:17.520
<v Speaker 2>holes of all right, figure it out, and then nine

0:46:17.560 --> 0:46:19.000
<v Speaker 2>holes of all right, you want to win this thing,

0:46:19.080 --> 0:46:21.239
<v Speaker 2>let's go, let's go, let's go. Time right now, and

0:46:21.280 --> 0:46:24.200
<v Speaker 2>crazy things happen on those final nine holes, and that's

0:46:24.200 --> 0:46:27.920
<v Speaker 2>where I think there's no data for that. That's just

0:46:28.000 --> 0:46:31.920
<v Speaker 2>dudes hitting shots. And that's where I think the sport

0:46:31.960 --> 0:46:34.080
<v Speaker 2>gets really fun. And I'm not saying you throw it

0:46:34.080 --> 0:46:37.880
<v Speaker 2>out the window. They're still aiming in certain places. But no,

0:46:38.040 --> 0:46:40.600
<v Speaker 2>some of those guys they've got the cajons. They just say,

0:46:42.120 --> 0:46:44.680
<v Speaker 2>damn these numbers, like I'm going at that flog, give

0:46:44.680 --> 0:46:46.640
<v Speaker 2>me the number to that flagstick. I'm going at it.

0:46:46.760 --> 0:46:47.120
<v Speaker 2>Let's go.

0:46:47.760 --> 0:46:50.960
<v Speaker 1>Do you think this is an area of golf performance

0:46:51.040 --> 0:46:53.480
<v Speaker 1>that science just isn't going to be able to touch

0:46:53.920 --> 0:46:56.880
<v Speaker 1>or do you see there being some efforts on the

0:46:56.920 --> 0:47:01.560
<v Speaker 1>part of scientists to figure to figure out essentially what

0:47:02.440 --> 0:47:04.759
<v Speaker 1>the formula to winning is, right, because that's what we're

0:47:04.760 --> 0:47:08.320
<v Speaker 1>talking about. We're talking about the instinct that certain players

0:47:08.360 --> 0:47:12.880
<v Speaker 1>seem to have to win tournaments. To the killer instinct

0:47:12.960 --> 0:47:16.800
<v Speaker 1>that you know that we sometimes perceive in certain golfers.

0:47:17.640 --> 0:47:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Is that Do you think that's something that just is

0:47:19.440 --> 0:47:24.200
<v Speaker 1>always going to remain a mysterious, intangible sort of quality.

0:47:24.960 --> 0:47:27.799
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, it would always be intangible. The alpha gene to

0:47:27.840 --> 0:47:30.040
<v Speaker 2>me is intangible. I mean, we talked earlier about all

0:47:30.040 --> 0:47:32.279
<v Speaker 2>of Rory McElroy's stats, but you know, one of the

0:47:32.320 --> 0:47:35.399
<v Speaker 2>stats that we can't measure this year is his fu

0:47:35.719 --> 0:47:38.440
<v Speaker 2>mentality with the live stuff, Like how much did that

0:47:38.520 --> 0:47:40.480
<v Speaker 2>motivate him to play better? Now? He said he's been

0:47:40.520 --> 0:47:43.319
<v Speaker 2>working on things and seeing progress and all the things

0:47:43.360 --> 0:47:45.560
<v Speaker 2>that he's supposed to say. I believe him to a point,

0:47:46.000 --> 0:47:50.640
<v Speaker 2>but was twenty twenty two the first real nudge that

0:47:51.320 --> 0:47:55.359
<v Speaker 2>mature Rory McElroy has had that brought out or has

0:47:55.400 --> 0:47:58.640
<v Speaker 2>inspired some of his best golf. Can't measure that, and

0:47:58.680 --> 0:48:00.440
<v Speaker 2>that's what makes sports so much fun watch.

0:48:01.120 --> 0:48:03.680
<v Speaker 1>And I also wonder if you could ever measure what

0:48:03.880 --> 0:48:07.600
<v Speaker 1>happened on the last day at the old course to Rory,

0:48:08.040 --> 0:48:11.640
<v Speaker 1>because you know, it was almost like the perfect round

0:48:11.840 --> 0:48:14.799
<v Speaker 1>to look at from a strokes gained perspective because he

0:48:14.840 --> 0:48:16.719
<v Speaker 1>did a lot of things right. You know, he was

0:48:16.760 --> 0:48:20.680
<v Speaker 1>playing pretty conservative, but he just wasn't really making puts

0:48:20.719 --> 0:48:24.520
<v Speaker 1>above ten feet right. He didn't make many big, big putts.

0:48:25.680 --> 0:48:29.520
<v Speaker 1>But then you could ask should he have been more aggressive? Right?

0:48:29.640 --> 0:48:32.239
<v Speaker 1>Should he have been more like Cameron Smith who came

0:48:32.280 --> 0:48:35.560
<v Speaker 1>out firing? Right? He was firing at pins and also

0:48:35.640 --> 0:48:38.719
<v Speaker 1>Cameron Smith was making big long putts. I don't know.

0:48:38.760 --> 0:48:41.279
<v Speaker 1>There were a lot of things going on on that

0:48:41.400 --> 0:48:45.400
<v Speaker 1>day at St. Andrews that seemed to be psychological or

0:48:45.440 --> 0:48:49.880
<v Speaker 1>spiritual rather than things that data could necessarily touch. I

0:48:49.960 --> 0:48:50.880
<v Speaker 1>wonder if you agree with that.

0:48:51.120 --> 0:48:54.640
<v Speaker 2>I totally agree with that, And again, statistics will tell you,

0:48:54.640 --> 0:48:56.600
<v Speaker 2>if you'd it outside of ten feet, you're not going

0:48:56.680 --> 0:48:58.600
<v Speaker 2>to make it more than half the time. I mean,

0:48:58.680 --> 0:49:00.879
<v Speaker 2>the fifty to fifty make rate, and it's in the book,

0:49:01.000 --> 0:49:03.560
<v Speaker 2>is eight feet on the PGA Tour. I mean that's

0:49:03.560 --> 0:49:05.120
<v Speaker 2>for the best players in the world. The fifty to

0:49:05.160 --> 0:49:08.640
<v Speaker 2>fifty make rate is from eight feet on putting. So

0:49:08.800 --> 0:49:10.640
<v Speaker 2>you have to be spectacular just to give yourself a

0:49:10.640 --> 0:49:12.560
<v Speaker 2>better than average chance of making the put in the

0:49:12.560 --> 0:49:16.160
<v Speaker 2>first place, and forget the consequence or forget the yeah,

0:49:16.200 --> 0:49:20.160
<v Speaker 2>the consequences of having ten thousand people pulling along and

0:49:20.200 --> 0:49:22.000
<v Speaker 2>all that stuff. Was there more pressure on Roy to

0:49:22.040 --> 0:49:24.320
<v Speaker 2>win that tournament than Cameron Smith? Absolutely there was more pressure.

0:49:24.360 --> 0:49:27.000
<v Speaker 2>So from a psychological standpoint, how does that weigh on him?

0:49:27.400 --> 0:49:29.120
<v Speaker 2>I thought he played a really good round of golf

0:49:29.200 --> 0:49:31.239
<v Speaker 2>and he got beat by a spectacular around a golf

0:49:31.239 --> 0:49:33.400
<v Speaker 2>And I think I wish I had my log book back,

0:49:33.400 --> 0:49:35.239
<v Speaker 2>because I did. I watched the final round again, and

0:49:35.239 --> 0:49:37.759
<v Speaker 2>I think there were only two shots total in the

0:49:37.960 --> 0:49:41.319
<v Speaker 2>entire day, Garrett where I was really like ooh, like

0:49:41.360 --> 0:49:45.440
<v Speaker 2>that was one where it was a substandard shot or

0:49:45.440 --> 0:49:49.080
<v Speaker 2>he played too conservatively, like two that I really fully questioned,

0:49:49.600 --> 0:49:53.040
<v Speaker 2>like everything else was pretty technical and pretty If you

0:49:53.080 --> 0:49:55.160
<v Speaker 2>make one or two putts, then we're talking about this

0:49:55.200 --> 0:49:57.080
<v Speaker 2>a little bit differently. But when it was sort of

0:49:57.120 --> 0:49:59.800
<v Speaker 2>anybody's game, but you just got to mean Cam Smith

0:49:59.800 --> 0:50:01.719
<v Speaker 2>man up and I mean come on the up and

0:50:01.760 --> 0:50:03.719
<v Speaker 2>down on seventeen. Like these are the little things where

0:50:03.719 --> 0:50:07.080
<v Speaker 2>it's like cam Smith won that tournament, Roy didn't lose it,

0:50:07.520 --> 0:50:10.759
<v Speaker 2>And to go back and litigate, Okay, did Rory do

0:50:10.840 --> 0:50:13.960
<v Speaker 2>something that he shouldn't have done, I think is a

0:50:13.960 --> 0:50:16.360
<v Speaker 2>bit unfair. There's plenty of rounds where that has happened,

0:50:17.120 --> 0:50:19.000
<v Speaker 2>but maybe one or two things changes it a little bit.

0:50:19.040 --> 0:50:20.839
<v Speaker 2>But Cam Smith is manned up, and he's always been

0:50:20.880 --> 0:50:22.120
<v Speaker 2>the more aggressive of the two of them. As a

0:50:22.120 --> 0:50:26.520
<v Speaker 2>player like Cam Smith, he's almost recklessly aggressive. And his

0:50:26.600 --> 0:50:29.520
<v Speaker 2>iron game went to another level this year strokes game

0:50:29.600 --> 0:50:31.960
<v Speaker 2>data again to where now he had this full complete

0:50:31.960 --> 0:50:33.879
<v Speaker 2>package to kind of recover from the fact that he's

0:50:33.920 --> 0:50:36.279
<v Speaker 2>not that great of a driver of the golf ball.

0:50:36.560 --> 0:50:39.320
<v Speaker 2>And he had an amazing season and I wish we

0:50:39.360 --> 0:50:41.799
<v Speaker 2>could see him more head to head. We'll see what

0:50:41.800 --> 0:50:45.560
<v Speaker 2>twenty twenty three has. It's kind of crazy, but I

0:50:45.600 --> 0:50:48.520
<v Speaker 2>wonder if that was our ceiling and did we see

0:50:48.719 --> 0:50:50.640
<v Speaker 2>the you know, that may have been peek Cameron Smith.

0:50:50.680 --> 0:50:52.360
<v Speaker 2>I don't even know. It's a different podcast for a

0:50:52.360 --> 0:50:55.160
<v Speaker 2>different time. But no, I don't reflect on that and

0:50:55.200 --> 0:51:00.399
<v Speaker 2>say that modern analytics cost Rory that open. I think

0:51:00.400 --> 0:51:02.440
<v Speaker 2>that a better player just beat him on that particular

0:51:02.600 --> 0:51:05.080
<v Speaker 2>day and there's a lot of intangibles that went into that,

0:51:05.400 --> 0:51:07.680
<v Speaker 2>and that's the stuff that's the most fascinating to me,

0:51:08.040 --> 0:51:12.080
<v Speaker 2>and I admire I like covering sports because I still

0:51:12.120 --> 0:51:14.520
<v Speaker 2>like the stuff that we can't answer with the formula.

0:51:15.360 --> 0:51:18.040
<v Speaker 1>Okay, I want to touch on the last takeaway from

0:51:18.120 --> 0:51:22.120
<v Speaker 1>Strokes Gained data, and that is a new understanding of

0:51:22.320 --> 0:51:26.440
<v Speaker 1>the role that putting plays in low scoring in golf.

0:51:26.480 --> 0:51:29.560
<v Speaker 1>And this is one of my you know, one of

0:51:29.600 --> 0:51:33.600
<v Speaker 1>the main things that I learned specifically from Strokes Gained. Right.

0:51:33.640 --> 0:51:38.480
<v Speaker 1>The belief before Strokes Gained or the common kind of

0:51:38.560 --> 0:51:41.879
<v Speaker 1>bromide that people would cite would be you know, dry

0:51:41.960 --> 0:51:44.680
<v Speaker 1>for show, put for dough. Putting is the most important

0:51:44.680 --> 0:51:47.279
<v Speaker 1>thing to work on, you know, and it does have

0:51:47.360 --> 0:51:51.399
<v Speaker 1>a huge impact on scores. But Strokes Gain tells us

0:51:51.440 --> 0:51:56.120
<v Speaker 1>something different about the role that putting actually plays across

0:51:56.120 --> 0:51:59.560
<v Speaker 1>the course of a player's career, I suppose, and what.

0:51:59.560 --> 0:52:03.120
<v Speaker 2>Is that it's the most volatile. So even the best

0:52:03.160 --> 0:52:06.799
<v Speaker 2>putters have really bad days on the greens. Some of

0:52:06.840 --> 0:52:10.560
<v Speaker 2>the best ball strikers and drivers tea green guys in

0:52:10.640 --> 0:52:13.319
<v Speaker 2>golf have bad days, but they have far more good

0:52:13.400 --> 0:52:15.880
<v Speaker 2>days than they do bad days in terms of ball striking.

0:52:15.920 --> 0:52:17.960
<v Speaker 2>And so, yes, there are some incredible putters, and some

0:52:18.000 --> 0:52:20.320
<v Speaker 2>of them are even in the book sort of talking

0:52:20.360 --> 0:52:23.520
<v Speaker 2>about their craft. But it sort of showed that there

0:52:23.600 --> 0:52:25.480
<v Speaker 2>was so much volatility in it, and it was so

0:52:25.600 --> 0:52:28.480
<v Speaker 2>much more attainable to have good putting rounds or good

0:52:28.520 --> 0:52:31.520
<v Speaker 2>putting tournaments that it really sort of showed us that

0:52:31.640 --> 0:52:34.799
<v Speaker 2>it's it's drive for do It's not drive for dough.

0:52:35.200 --> 0:52:37.279
<v Speaker 2>It's ball strike. I'm trying to I used to. I

0:52:37.320 --> 0:52:39.080
<v Speaker 2>coined my own expression once. I'm trying to remember what

0:52:39.080 --> 0:52:40.160
<v Speaker 2>I called it.

0:52:39.760 --> 0:52:42.360
<v Speaker 1>But I've thought about this too. It's hard to find

0:52:42.400 --> 0:52:44.560
<v Speaker 1>one that's as cat and memorable.

0:52:44.680 --> 0:52:47.680
<v Speaker 2>It's like drive yourself into the bank and then put

0:52:47.680 --> 0:52:49.920
<v Speaker 2>your way to the dough. It's kind of what it

0:52:49.960 --> 0:52:53.360
<v Speaker 2>is like. You have to you can't survive long term

0:52:53.440 --> 0:52:56.800
<v Speaker 2>being a bad ball striker and just rely on putting alone.

0:52:57.600 --> 0:53:00.440
<v Speaker 2>You have to get yourself there. And it's far easier

0:53:00.440 --> 0:53:02.520
<v Speaker 2>to be consistent with the ball striking and have one

0:53:02.600 --> 0:53:05.520
<v Speaker 2>or two good putting weeks than it is to have

0:53:05.600 --> 0:53:08.160
<v Speaker 2>great putting weeks and hope that your ball striking gets

0:53:08.200 --> 0:53:10.759
<v Speaker 2>you across the finish line when that happens, So there's

0:53:10.800 --> 0:53:13.920
<v Speaker 2>far more. I mean, Colin Morikawa has won two majors

0:53:13.960 --> 0:53:16.960
<v Speaker 2>and five times in a young career and up into

0:53:17.200 --> 0:53:19.680
<v Speaker 2>I think when he won that second major, it was

0:53:19.680 --> 0:53:23.319
<v Speaker 2>something ridiculous, like he had gained strokes, gained putting in

0:53:23.520 --> 0:53:27.160
<v Speaker 2>six or seven professional starts, and five of them were wins.

0:53:27.680 --> 0:53:30.680
<v Speaker 2>So I mean just, I mean, it just it blows

0:53:30.680 --> 0:53:32.440
<v Speaker 2>my mind, like he's not a good putter, but he

0:53:32.520 --> 0:53:37.279
<v Speaker 2>figures it out when it matters the most. And then conversely,

0:53:37.480 --> 0:53:40.040
<v Speaker 2>you look at the top putters in the game, and

0:53:40.239 --> 0:53:43.400
<v Speaker 2>granted there's some great examples of world class Hall of

0:53:43.480 --> 0:53:45.960
<v Speaker 2>Fame players who were probably top ten, top twenty putters.

0:53:46.280 --> 0:53:47.759
<v Speaker 2>You know, Jason Day begin number one in the world

0:53:47.800 --> 0:53:50.160
<v Speaker 2>by being the best putter in the world for one year,

0:53:50.200 --> 0:53:53.319
<v Speaker 2>But that's a fleeting stat it's going to eventually go away.

0:53:53.360 --> 0:53:54.960
<v Speaker 2>You're going to have to have something else to sort

0:53:54.960 --> 0:53:57.040
<v Speaker 2>of lean on. And that's what we've kind of discovered

0:53:57.080 --> 0:53:59.279
<v Speaker 2>through the years, is that there's just way more volatility

0:53:59.320 --> 0:54:01.400
<v Speaker 2>and putting and you can't rely on that to be

0:54:01.480 --> 0:54:04.400
<v Speaker 2>your number one stroke gainer each round, each week, and

0:54:04.440 --> 0:54:05.800
<v Speaker 2>then over the course of a season.

0:54:06.400 --> 0:54:09.799
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, So take Denny McCarthy for instance. Putting is not

0:54:09.920 --> 0:54:12.600
<v Speaker 1>super volatile for Denny McCarthy. He's just he just absolutely

0:54:12.640 --> 0:54:15.520
<v Speaker 1>holds everything he looks at. If he were as great

0:54:15.640 --> 0:54:19.080
<v Speaker 1>a ball striker as he is a putter, then he

0:54:19.120 --> 0:54:21.480
<v Speaker 1>would be probably a top ten player in the world, right.

0:54:21.680 --> 0:54:24.160
<v Speaker 2>Oh easily. I mean you're talking he's close to a

0:54:24.160 --> 0:54:27.279
<v Speaker 2>plus one strokes gain putting guy. There's been very few

0:54:27.280 --> 0:54:30.320
<v Speaker 2>of those. So we're talking about every time he plays

0:54:30.320 --> 0:54:32.000
<v Speaker 2>a round of golf, he's a shot better on the

0:54:32.040 --> 0:54:35.439
<v Speaker 2>greens than the field average is effectively what his best

0:54:35.440 --> 0:54:38.279
<v Speaker 2>seasons have been, and there are very few plus one

0:54:38.480 --> 0:54:44.960
<v Speaker 2>strokes gain approach seasons. Colin JT, you guys of that

0:54:45.080 --> 0:54:47.920
<v Speaker 2>ILK who are great iron players are typically there. You

0:54:47.960 --> 0:54:50.240
<v Speaker 2>put those two together, just from irons and putting alone,

0:54:50.920 --> 0:54:53.560
<v Speaker 2>and you're gonna get that. Now, there's a little bit

0:54:53.560 --> 0:54:55.800
<v Speaker 2>of a statistical side to it too. Like Denny McCarthy's

0:54:55.840 --> 0:54:58.319
<v Speaker 2>also gaining a lot on strokes gain putty because he

0:54:58.400 --> 0:55:00.600
<v Speaker 2>lags a lot of forty and fifty foot He hasn't

0:55:00.640 --> 0:55:03.319
<v Speaker 2>hit it close very often either, and so there's opportunities

0:55:03.320 --> 0:55:05.920
<v Speaker 2>to gain. He's not missing a lot of putts inside

0:55:05.920 --> 0:55:09.319
<v Speaker 2>of ten feet, and so he's got to scramble a lot.

0:55:09.320 --> 0:55:15.000
<v Speaker 2>He probably gives himself more opportunities to have put gaining opportunities,

0:55:15.600 --> 0:55:18.960
<v Speaker 2>But I don't really buy into some of that aspect

0:55:19.040 --> 0:55:21.080
<v Speaker 2>of it. He's that's his one skill, and that skill

0:55:21.120 --> 0:55:23.000
<v Speaker 2>has carried him to the highest level of golf, and

0:55:23.040 --> 0:55:24.880
<v Speaker 2>he knows that he has to work on the other areas.

0:55:24.920 --> 0:55:28.040
<v Speaker 2>He knows that he's got to maximize opportunities, that he's

0:55:28.080 --> 0:55:29.839
<v Speaker 2>got to get a little bit tidier and turn some

0:55:29.880 --> 0:55:32.279
<v Speaker 2>of his thirty five footers into twenty footers, you know,

0:55:32.360 --> 0:55:34.520
<v Speaker 2>per round to do that. He's talked openly about that

0:55:34.600 --> 0:55:37.239
<v Speaker 2>process of trying to get just incrementally better in those

0:55:37.280 --> 0:55:40.839
<v Speaker 2>other areas. It's nice having a superpower. I'll say that

0:55:40.960 --> 0:55:43.120
<v Speaker 2>on the PJ Tour. If you can have one superpower,

0:55:43.160 --> 0:55:45.360
<v Speaker 2>you'll stay out there for a while. And his superpower

0:55:45.400 --> 0:55:48.920
<v Speaker 2>is still really damn good. But he hasn't won yet,

0:55:49.560 --> 0:55:51.960
<v Speaker 2>and I mean you should point that out, like, he

0:55:52.040 --> 0:55:55.279
<v Speaker 2>hasn't won and he's still the best, And he's been

0:55:55.320 --> 0:55:56.840
<v Speaker 2>the best plutter on the PJA Tour for four or

0:55:56.880 --> 0:56:00.640
<v Speaker 2>five years running literally twice, was the numberumber one putter

0:56:00.840 --> 0:56:03.080
<v Speaker 2>and has been a top ten guy and hasn't won.

0:56:03.560 --> 0:56:05.400
<v Speaker 2>If you're the number one iron player on tour for

0:56:05.440 --> 0:56:08.040
<v Speaker 2>five years running, you're gonna win. Yes, You're gonna win.

0:56:08.520 --> 0:56:10.600
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, And that was I wasn't clear on the scenario

0:56:10.680 --> 0:56:13.120
<v Speaker 1>as setting up if he were as good a ball

0:56:13.120 --> 0:56:16.480
<v Speaker 1>striker as he is a putter, and he were as

0:56:16.520 --> 0:56:18.959
<v Speaker 1>good a putter as he is a ball striker, which

0:56:19.000 --> 0:56:21.879
<v Speaker 1>is you know, last season he was one and forty

0:56:21.880 --> 0:56:24.480
<v Speaker 1>eighth off the tee and one hundred and thirty first

0:56:25.000 --> 0:56:28.480
<v Speaker 1>approaching the green. If that were his putting rank and

0:56:28.600 --> 0:56:32.319
<v Speaker 1>he were instead, you know, second tee to green, then

0:56:32.360 --> 0:56:35.480
<v Speaker 1>he would be Corey con a better known Yeah, exactly right,

0:56:36.000 --> 0:56:38.240
<v Speaker 1>So that just I think that's a yeah. Corey Connors

0:56:38.280 --> 0:56:41.600
<v Speaker 1>is a great example, not not necessarily a top ten player,

0:56:41.600 --> 0:56:44.439
<v Speaker 1>but a guy who certainly, if he has a few

0:56:44.440 --> 0:56:47.440
<v Speaker 1>good weeks, could suddenly be a top ten player. And

0:56:48.480 --> 0:56:50.880
<v Speaker 1>Denny McCarthy just has a longer way to go than

0:56:50.920 --> 0:56:52.560
<v Speaker 1>Corey Connors.

0:56:51.880 --> 0:56:54.239
<v Speaker 2>Correct, Like the mountain is a little bit taller for

0:56:54.320 --> 0:56:55.680
<v Speaker 2>him to get to the top where I shouldn't even

0:56:55.680 --> 0:56:59.920
<v Speaker 2>say that the mountain. The data golf guys I follow

0:57:00.080 --> 0:57:01.920
<v Speaker 2>great website. You can go and tink around with it.

0:57:01.960 --> 0:57:04.719
<v Speaker 2>They have expected wins for guys during the course of

0:57:04.719 --> 0:57:08.600
<v Speaker 2>the year. Like Danny McCarthy's expected wins can be a

0:57:08.680 --> 0:57:10.759
<v Speaker 2>lot lower during the course of the than some of

0:57:10.760 --> 0:57:12.640
<v Speaker 2>those other guys because they're going to put themselves in

0:57:12.640 --> 0:57:15.160
<v Speaker 2>more positions because that skill is going to give them

0:57:15.160 --> 0:57:17.720
<v Speaker 2>more opportunities to the course of the season. So he's

0:57:17.760 --> 0:57:22.520
<v Speaker 2>going to have fewer opportunities you would think statistically probability

0:57:22.520 --> 0:57:24.600
<v Speaker 2>over time to be able to win because of that.

0:57:24.880 --> 0:57:27.400
<v Speaker 2>But again, like that's what he's done, That's that's who

0:57:27.480 --> 0:57:29.920
<v Speaker 2>he is. He has to embrace that. Also, that's not

0:57:30.480 --> 0:57:32.640
<v Speaker 2>that's not a scarlet letter on his chest by in

0:57:32.680 --> 0:57:34.680
<v Speaker 2>search of imagination. It should be a badge of honor

0:57:34.800 --> 0:57:37.280
<v Speaker 2>for him, and he does wear it that way. But

0:57:37.720 --> 0:57:41.160
<v Speaker 2>it's I think even he knows it's difficult.

0:57:42.320 --> 0:57:44.600
<v Speaker 1>All right, Why don't we find a way to wrap

0:57:44.720 --> 0:57:48.000
<v Speaker 1>up here? There's we've covered a lot of really interesting ground.

0:57:49.000 --> 0:57:51.720
<v Speaker 1>I guess what I want to hear you speak to

0:57:51.800 --> 0:57:55.280
<v Speaker 1>at the end here is just the kind of skeptical

0:57:55.840 --> 0:58:00.800
<v Speaker 1>voice that somebody might bring to your book, and that's

0:58:00.880 --> 0:58:06.640
<v Speaker 1>that science has had a tendency in golf potentially to

0:58:06.800 --> 0:58:13.960
<v Speaker 1>make things more numbers driven and less artistically driven. And

0:58:14.040 --> 0:58:17.120
<v Speaker 1>to some people that might mean that science has made

0:58:17.200 --> 0:58:22.040
<v Speaker 1>golf less interesting, that it has deadened certain aspects of

0:58:22.080 --> 0:58:24.560
<v Speaker 1>the game. Now, I kind of go back and forth

0:58:24.600 --> 0:58:28.280
<v Speaker 1>and how I think about this myself, But I wonder

0:58:28.320 --> 0:58:33.120
<v Speaker 1>how you address that kind of skeptical argument about the

0:58:33.200 --> 0:58:34.560
<v Speaker 1>impact of science on golf.

0:58:36.440 --> 0:58:39.160
<v Speaker 2>I addressed it in and I actually led in the

0:58:39.200 --> 0:58:41.680
<v Speaker 2>forward the introduction of my book about this is that

0:58:41.880 --> 0:58:45.560
<v Speaker 2>the beauty of golf is that all of us that

0:58:45.720 --> 0:58:48.320
<v Speaker 2>view it differently, of different ages, of different skills, can

0:58:48.400 --> 0:58:50.600
<v Speaker 2>all come together and play and enjoy it together. It's

0:58:50.600 --> 0:58:52.240
<v Speaker 2>one of the few sports where an eighty year old

0:58:52.240 --> 0:58:54.800
<v Speaker 2>can compete with an eighteen year old. We have handicaps,

0:58:54.800 --> 0:58:56.880
<v Speaker 2>we have different teas, we have different ways of being

0:58:56.960 --> 0:59:01.480
<v Speaker 2>out there together and playing the game together, and that

0:59:01.680 --> 0:59:04.680
<v Speaker 2>in and of itself is beautiful and yet also creates

0:59:04.760 --> 0:59:07.240
<v Speaker 2>as much friction sometimes in the game as anything because

0:59:07.280 --> 0:59:10.040
<v Speaker 2>there's so many different philosophies and how to view the game.

0:59:10.520 --> 0:59:14.080
<v Speaker 2>I wrote a book on the science of golf. I

0:59:14.240 --> 0:59:17.600
<v Speaker 2>use science in talking about and covering the sport on

0:59:17.640 --> 0:59:21.280
<v Speaker 2>the professional level. I rarely use it in my own game.

0:59:22.120 --> 0:59:24.480
<v Speaker 2>Like I've been fit, I get on a launch monitor

0:59:24.480 --> 0:59:27.000
<v Speaker 2>from time to time. I don't track my own stats.

0:59:27.760 --> 0:59:30.840
<v Speaker 2>I like to dig it out of the dirt. I

0:59:30.960 --> 0:59:34.320
<v Speaker 2>like my shirt untucked. I like music on the golf course.

0:59:34.720 --> 0:59:36.560
<v Speaker 1>Does say that you should tuck your shirt.

0:59:36.640 --> 0:59:40.760
<v Speaker 2>I like seltzer flowing through my veins when I play,

0:59:40.880 --> 0:59:44.960
<v Speaker 2>which is probably in defiance of chapter three about nutrition

0:59:45.120 --> 0:59:48.800
<v Speaker 2>and hydration. There's a number of ways that I just

0:59:48.920 --> 0:59:51.000
<v Speaker 2>engage in the golf the way that I want to

0:59:51.000 --> 0:59:55.920
<v Speaker 2>play it, and so I think, to the recreational standpoint,

0:59:56.000 --> 0:59:59.680
<v Speaker 2>there's a million ways that we can all experience golf together.

0:59:59.720 --> 1:00:03.120
<v Speaker 2>Where I don't feel I hope that there isn't that

1:00:03.200 --> 1:00:06.360
<v Speaker 2>golf is less interesting now at the highest levels of

1:00:06.400 --> 1:00:10.080
<v Speaker 2>professional golf, where there are multi millions of dollars on

1:00:10.120 --> 1:00:13.120
<v Speaker 2>the table this year, multi billions of dollars on the table.

1:00:13.160 --> 1:00:20.800
<v Speaker 2>Thank you out there, players, managers, agents are going to

1:00:20.920 --> 1:00:24.360
<v Speaker 2>unearth every single advantage they possibly can for another one

1:00:24.440 --> 1:00:26.520
<v Speaker 2>percent more here or one percent more there to get

1:00:26.560 --> 1:00:29.120
<v Speaker 2>to the best. I don't think we can get the

1:00:29.240 --> 1:00:31.080
<v Speaker 2>cat back in the box or the toothpaste back in

1:00:31.120 --> 1:00:33.400
<v Speaker 2>the tube when it comes to the highest levels. But

1:00:33.440 --> 1:00:37.000
<v Speaker 2>I think at the lower levels, the recreational levels, we

1:00:37.000 --> 1:00:40.480
<v Speaker 2>can enjoy golf however we want to enjoy golf, And

1:00:40.560 --> 1:00:43.080
<v Speaker 2>I don't really know if it's changed that much, Garrett.

1:00:43.080 --> 1:00:44.760
<v Speaker 2>I think you always had your pack of guys in

1:00:44.760 --> 1:00:47.000
<v Speaker 2>the locker room that you liked playing with, and the

1:00:47.000 --> 1:00:48.760
<v Speaker 2>guys in the locker room you didn't like playing with,

1:00:48.880 --> 1:00:52.000
<v Speaker 2>And even before the revolution that we're in right now

1:00:52.080 --> 1:00:55.439
<v Speaker 2>in terms of science, you probably were still aligned with

1:00:56.000 --> 1:00:57.600
<v Speaker 2>how it sort of viewed. So I guess that would

1:00:57.640 --> 1:01:01.200
<v Speaker 2>be how I would view it, and that I kind

1:01:01.240 --> 1:01:03.360
<v Speaker 2>of am living a hypocritical life, and that I know

1:01:03.480 --> 1:01:05.400
<v Speaker 2>all of this stuff when I use it as a broadcaster,

1:01:05.560 --> 1:01:08.960
<v Speaker 2>but I don't really I'm not all in on it

1:01:09.080 --> 1:01:13.960
<v Speaker 2>myself as an actual player, And I think that is

1:01:14.000 --> 1:01:16.440
<v Speaker 2>maybe the answer right there, Like I'm a perfect example

1:01:16.480 --> 1:01:19.080
<v Speaker 2>of it, Like I use this to help broaden my

1:01:19.200 --> 1:01:23.120
<v Speaker 2>understanding of the professional game, but when it comes to

1:01:23.160 --> 1:01:24.960
<v Speaker 2>me teeing it up and trying to get the best

1:01:25.160 --> 1:01:26.920
<v Speaker 2>out of my game and having fun with my friends.

1:01:27.800 --> 1:01:29.880
<v Speaker 2>I have my own sort of comfort level, and I

1:01:29.880 --> 1:01:32.760
<v Speaker 2>think that golf still has plenty of space out there

1:01:32.760 --> 1:01:33.360
<v Speaker 2>for everybody.

1:01:33.760 --> 1:01:35.440
<v Speaker 1>All Right, Well, thank you so much for coming on

1:01:35.480 --> 1:01:38.120
<v Speaker 1>the podcast. The book is called The Science of Golf.

1:01:38.240 --> 1:01:42.080
<v Speaker 1>You can get it wherever you get books. Congratulations, Thanks Garrett.

1:01:52.880 --> 1:01:55.600
<v Speaker 1>This episode of The Frida Egg podcast was edited by

1:01:55.640 --> 1:01:58.440
<v Speaker 1>Meg Atkins. The best way to stay up to date

1:01:58.480 --> 1:02:00.560
<v Speaker 1>on what we're doing at the Frida Egg is to

1:02:00.560 --> 1:02:03.320
<v Speaker 1>subscribe to our newsletter. It comes out three days a

1:02:03.320 --> 1:02:05.960
<v Speaker 1>week and has writing from our full staff on a

1:02:06.040 --> 1:02:09.720
<v Speaker 1>variety of golf topics. We've refreshed the format recently, and

1:02:09.920 --> 1:02:13.000
<v Speaker 1>in my biased opinion, it's going really well. So go

1:02:13.040 --> 1:02:16.800
<v Speaker 1>to the Friday dot com and click subscribe. Thanks for listening.