No Laying Up - Golf Podcast - NLU Podcast, Episode 182: Brandel Chamblee (Part II)

Episode Date: December 12, 2018

In Part II of our conversation with Brandel Chamblee, we discuss what needs to be done with technology, what kind of golf is rewarded on the PGA Tour, the correlation to driving distance and success... The post NLU Podcast, Episode 182: Brandel Chamblee (Part II) appeared first on No Laying Up. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Better than most. Better than most! Expect anything different! Alright guys, welcome back to part two of our conversation with Brandyl Shambly. I do again apologize for the sharp cut at the end of part one. I did not want to leave it all in one episode and things really ramp up here in our discussion on technology and a lot of the a lot of the other issues in golf. Part of the reason we're having this debate around technology is related to what I'm about to tell you

about Calloway's new driver teaser video that came out this week for their new driver. Still not a lot of say the name of it, although I'm sure you can find that online if you want to. We were lucky enough to get a look at it when we were out there in Carlsbad last week. Got to see some pros try it for the first time and it is gonna be a game changer.

It is gonna shock people and you heard what we had on the last episode and what Ollie said, Ollie Schneiderjans said on the last podcast that he picked up about five miles an hour alone with the new driver head which is a pretty quantum leap in driver performance. So be sure to check out all the videos on CaloA's social channels or at caloagolf.com slash AI, and stay tuned for details on January 4th.

Without further delay, let's get into the wrap-up of our conversation with Brandyl Shambly. What do you think needs to be, but your response or what needs to be done is to change all of the golf courses. I know. I don't mean all, but like, no, not, not, not, not, not, not hardly any of them. In the same way that it is ridiculous for any club to make changes for professional golfers,

their guests, they come in and out, they should never acquiesce to professional golfers. There should be golf courses for professional golfers that should never acquiesce to the average golfer who's going to pay for those. Well, the PGA tour paid for the the TPC sawgrass, they've paid for most of the TPCs that exist. They make 500 bucks a round and they sell that to people all year round. Right. I'm not saying this for everybody. I'm not saying this for everybody. I mean, you don't drive a Formula One racetrack. I mean, you know, I'm saying these are professional golfers.

These are for the most elite. So in the same way that, look, architecture, the golden age of architecture was designed in an era when the game was very hard and they were trying to get as many people to play the game as they could. And I understand these precepts and I understand why they did it and they're marvelous. The golf courses are great. I love reading about them. I love studying them. them, I love studying them. But nobody has yet figured out that or came at golf course architecture with just the idea, other than P die, with just the idea of trying to build a golf course and just to challenge the very best player without a mind. Now, you say who's going to pay for it? I, I, I, has your guess that the

world beats a path to the TPC sawgrass. They want to play it. They want to play a golf course that was designed for the very best golfers. Who's going to take the angle on 18 to get the angle into that green of the tea? Who's going to do that? No amateur golfer can do that. They cannot do that. Very few professional golfers have the talent and the skill and the verb to draw it off 18 and get in the left side of the fairway on 18 and TPC saw grass to get that angle. Very few, they go right, they hit it down the right side and then they come in over that slope and the green angles towards the water. That hole was designed for the very best golfers in the world. It's a preposterous hole for anybody else.

Absolutely, the preposterous and TPC sawgrass is 17 good holes and then a terrible hole in the 17. But by any definition, it's a terrible hole, but I guess by any except one definition, is it entertaining? And that's what that is all about. That's where I go back to like, what is professional golf? You know, I mean, you just said it, like it's entertainment.

I mean, the match couple weeks ago was, that wasn't anything spectacular, but was it entertaining? Yeah, I was kind of glued to the TV for several hours. Yeah. But along those same lines, and I've heard you say that fans love watching the ball go far, love watching guys hit the ball far.

My question related to that is is does that translate to TV? For me, it doesn't, I don't think it's exciting to watch guys just wail on driver on TV. I can't see where it's going and I don't think it adds a lot to the overall experience. I'll tell you an experience. The best viewing experience of golf I had this year was watching a replay of the 99 rider cup at Medina.

And what, or I'm sorry at Brookline and watching Paul Laurie like neck a forward and hit it low and into the crowd to the left and you could see where the ball was going that to me and watching guys hit six irons in par four par fours again maybe that was just so different than what we see that to me was really really entertaining is that entertaining to the masses? I don't know. But do you not like home runs and baseball? Do you not like to watch? I think the steroid era has looked at very differently

than the rest of baseball history. I mean, it was fun, but then it was like, wait a second, everyone's doing this. Why is that special? You know what I mean? Well, long before the steroids, there was a period of baseball known as the dead ball era and it ended in 1920 and by 1921, Babe Ruth was hitting, you know, 50 home runs and it changed baseball.

And people came out to watch it. People love home runs. They love slam dunks. They love the fastest swimmers and the fastest. They don't think it's more fun to watch guys shoot layups. And I think, yeah, when I watch Dustin Johnson drive the, what is it, the twelfth hole at Coppaluha, I personally, I found that to be very entertaining. Jack Nicholas driving it past everybody in 1962 or 65 masters, 66 masters, people found that to be entertaining. I mean, the most entertaining golfers are not short hitters. They're long hitters.

People enjoy watching the ball go a long way. But I think that now the thrill of watching a ball go past someone isn't the same as what it was then because the risk is just so much less. The sweet spots on these drivers are so, you refer to Justin Thomas, he grew up learning how to hit a golf ball in a different era than even what I grew up in.

I grew up, I started playing golf competitively in the late 90s. I remember the feeling of those duck hooks and the slices at the loon ball. Right, you see him every day. And to this day, my swing is probably a bit defensive because of that. I didn't learn to just whale on the ball. And I think we're already the Cameron champ is kind of very representative of what is coming and watching some of these college guys hit golf ball. It's, it's a, I'm not going to say it's the only way to the tour, but like there is a path and a precedent set for what is going to make a successful golfer at the highest level, and it's not hitting it where Johnson Wagner hits it.

No, I agree. Something needs to be done just to hold right now the correlation between driving distance and scoring average is sneaking up on 50%. And it was... What does that mean? I saw you tweet that stat the other day, but what is it? Well, it's just, when you look at the number of players, you know, it's using regression analysis, and when you look at a bell curve, in the middle of that bell curve, on either side of it, the further you get away is one standard deviation, two standard deviations,

three standard deviations. Everybody's going to fall pretty much within those parameters. And then it's very complicated math that I didn't do. Saber Metrix Bill Felbert did it, and he did it with golf the same way he had done it with baseball. And it's very complicated. You do it between dependent stats and independent stats, and then you, there's a lot of division and you get to what's known as a Z score.

And you come up with a correlation between driving accuracy and driving distance, whatever stats you want to use, but you're trying to find a stat that most closely represents scoring average. If you know that, then you know what to look at to analyze the game. And even with all of these metrics, still the biggest determining factor in what you shoot is not driving distance. It is greens in regulation, then scrambling, and then driving distance. So even now, even though driving distance is more important than it's ever been, it is still who hits the most greens, who scrambles the best, and then driving distance.

But driving distance has become much higher correlated to scoring average and driving accuracy, much lower correlation to scoring average. Which, look, I think these problems are solved with math. I think you set down and you philosophically come up with what type of gain you want to see play at the highest level, okay? If I'm, if it falls upon me to design a golf course, first of all, and then set that golf course up, I think you, you, you philosophically have to say, who, what type of player am I going to reward now they do this at Augusta National they do it very well. I want to see this degree of accuracy I want to see this kind of the link that want to see this kind of

imagination and then you design a golf course accordingly and then you also set up a golf course accordingly right now if you miss a fairway on the PGA tour, it costs you 0.1 or 0.2 strokes. I'm sorry, 10 to 20% of a stroke, if you think about that. And that is a very meager penalty for missing. And look, should that be the penalty for Amateur Golf? I don't know, but a golf course that a professional plays shouldn't be set up the same way as an amateur, in my opinion. So look, right now, with driving distance becoming much higher correlated scoring average, I think redesign of some central golf courses. Everybody talks about how great the architecture is in Ireland and Scotland and England and it is.

It's fabulous, but we do not have golf courses like that here in the United States. No wear near. I struggle with that too because I keep wanting to go back to the hole that sticks out to me is the most entertaining t-shirt I watched this year was the sixth hole at Cardinistee. You have the OB-Lafte, you have the centerline bunkers that if you want to go left down Hogan's alley, that you have to fit up between that bunker and OB. And if you want to bail right, like there's other bunkers waiting for you there. And that element, but it all came back to the soil type there and the way the ball runs when it hits the ground. And but it's all this whole

big circular thing of the ball goes so freaking far now that you got to water the fairways a little bit, or else the ball's rolling out for absolute ever. And the golf is, and I sound like Andy Johnson from Friday, I would say, and this, but golf is way more fun when the ball is on the ground and rolling. And everything that is curving in a way in technology is to get the ball up in the air. Carry that bunker, fly it. Who cares, just go right by it. Well, it's more fun, but he's limiting himself

to coastal courses. If you're looking for that kind of turf, you're extremely limited in what kind of golf course you can play. He's looking at the ideal, and coastal courses give you this running turf. And that's great if you can get it. But the fact is 99% of golf is not coastal golf courses.

It's Parkland golf courses, where it rains. So you still have to come up with, you can't just ignore the, you cannot try to take, I mean, yeah, people do, you take the same sort of precepts, the architectural precepts and apply them to Parkland golf courses. It's a little more difficult. And look, golf course architecture is not my bailiwick. Although I do study it, I read about it. I look at it, I spend a lot of time drawing holes,

messing around with it, but there are people that certainly are more knowledgeable about it than me. But if they were setting right here, I would say why here in the United States are there not bunkers in the middle of the fairways? Why are there not bunkers that are 70 yard short of greens that look like they're there for no reason?

But the minute you drive it and they're rough, you start having to deal with these bunkers. Now you're speaking my language. So why doesn't that exist? I promise you, if I design a golf course, you will, and everybody thinks I'm for narrow fairways, I'm not, that's wrong, I'm for wider fairways. Again, math works here.

You look at the dispersion rate off of the T, and the dispersion rate of a drive that goes to 75, is nowhere near the dispersion rate of a drive that goes to 340, so fairways need to be wider to accommodate the dispersion rate. And then, in my mind, for a professional golf course, not for an amateur golf course, but for one of the test professionals, there's a higher penalty for missing the fairway, wiry, random, capricious rough, not all the same length at all.

You drive it over there, you may get a lot, you may not. So, it puts the... The hinders. Sure, hinders. That's the one I think of when you say that. Sure. You know, sure. Sure. Pyners. That's the one I think of when you say that. Sure. You know, that works.

But in the fairway, there's consequences for hitting the ball 340 yards that you have to deal with. The same ones, the players that drive it to 7280 have to deal with. But you should hold everybody accountable. And they do in Scotland. They do. You know, you get up on, you they do in Scotland, they do. You get up on the second hole at St. Andrews and there's a bunker out there on the left

that you can't see, that's 310 yards, I think, something like that and it's in the back of your mind. Now, when it's downwind, I can get there, but when it's into the wind, the longer hitters have to do it, but there's the 12th hole. You get that hole into the wind. You know, it's downwind, tiger drove over thatters have to deal with, but there's the twelfth hole. You get that hole into the wind. You know, it's downwind, tiger drove it over that green,

but you get to the, there's four bunkers in the middle of the fairway. Yeah, four. Now, it pushes you into the rough, or you're gonna lay up short, or you're gonna try to carry it, but tell me that design, and the problem with architecture in the United States,

and this is a big problem. Again, if I were an architect, I would work very hard so that no touring pro could denigrate my work without consequences. So when a touring pro, first of all, hardly any of them are educated to the extent that they've got any opinion about architecture that should ever be listened to. To the opposite, Almost when they say something, when they're uncomfortable, that's what you should be doing. That's right.

That's right. Like I'll give you an example, Gil Hans-Ree did Drow. And again, Gil Hans is trying to solve the problem of how do you build a golf course that tests the best players in the world? So the very first hole at Drow, he can'ts that green left to right, and he

puts a ridge sort of just left center of the green, where if your angle is from the left, you got issues. You're all going to have to run it up or you're going to have to have a hard draw and the water's right to the right. And J.B. Holmes drove it down there and had six iron into the green, but he's on the left side of the fairway. And his six iron hit in the green, but it came in from the left side of the fairway,

so it was canting towards the water and it rolled in the water. And then he went into the media center and dogged that design and dog to kill hands. And that affects kill hands is livelihood. Because if people listen to tour pros, criticizing golf course architecture, that when they really don't know what they're talking about,

then they cannot appreciate, you know, they're generally just embarrassed so they want to blame the mistake on the architect. And the fact is, somebody should have said, JB, if you had driven it down the right side of that fairway and taken on more risk, then you would have had a better angle and your six iron would not have gone in the water. I feel like Gill is one of the few, I don't want to say one of the few, but Gill is not afraid to ruffle some feathers.

No, he's not, but look, Core Crenshaw built Coppola. The second hole there is a reverse redan. Left of that green used to be an almost impossible pitch to get it close. But tour players complained about the severity of that pitch, so they marginalized it a little bit. They raised it up. And it's not as good a hole. It was a better hole. And there was an art to play in that hole. You know, you had to hit it sort of front left and be shaping it, it's dependent upon the wind because usually the wind's coming hard left to right. So you had to work on the shape.

But almost to the man, I've always said this, if you're setting up, first of all, if you're designing a golf course, you need to know how far tour players hit it and their dispersion rates. Beyond that, you need to have just a great understanding of the game of golf and be smart and artistically inclined, but you do not need the opinion of tour players. Quite the opposite. You do not want the opinion of tour players. You need to have your own philosophy. And then when you're setting a golf course up, you should never listen to tour players.

You should, again, have in your mind a very clear idea of what type of golf you want to reward and then stick to it. And then if a doorbellier comes up, you're like, listen, here's what we're doing here. This is why there is rough out there. This is why that puck buckers in the middle of the green are in the middle of fairway. This is why it's there. And philosophically, you just have an argument that they can't, they cannot debate.

I'm with you 100% in that this, but this goes back to golf as entertainment and as business. It's like, there's a reason why all the courses kind of look the same on the PGA tour for the most part, generally speaking. It's because that's the kind of, like if you are the outlier in this regard and you make players uncomfortable, guys won't come to your event. Well, I'll play it. You said I did it. You know, yeah, but now the way, just, again, the way the

business of golf is now. Well, that's true. There's just so many big events that, you know, hey, I don't like that golf course. It's pretty easy for a player to say, I'm not going to go play there then. Well, you're right about that. But I mean, they do go play the players.

But the players are unicorn, I think. You're right about that. You're right about that. But I will say that if players of URI, a unicorn, I think. You're right about that. You're right about that. But I will say that if players of Europe, like I think you've got a great responsibility, and that is to, and even like, exact player, they're educating tour pros about proper architecture. They're trying to, even with the golf course, and was a Trinity forest, and they're trying to educate tour players about proper golf course architecture so that they're not taken aback by bizarreness, randomness, blind shots. Tell me where there's a blind shot in the United States, but yet you go over to Scotland or Ireland and they're wonderful blind shots, pot bunkers, bizarre green complexes, you know,

punch bowls. These things are fabulous. They invite a randomness and a variety to the game golf that peaks the interest of players. My only contention is that they, at least in a professional sense, they need to be beefed up a little bit to some extent where they scare the hell out of tour players, as well as peak their interest. The same way, I think Pete died, he had the right idea and from a strategic standpoint, you can go through every hole at TPC sawgrass and there's solid shot values there. There really is.

As a tour player, I didn't like it because it made me very uncomfortable and I didn't find it particularly pretty. But if you take that philosophy and you do it in a different way, a more artistic way, on a better piece of property, then you got something. Something that really made the light bulb go off for me was reading about Bobby Jones and his relationship with the old course. I mean, he famously walked off the 12th hole or 11th hole back in the early 20s, I think, because he just thought it was unfair and he just didn't... 11th hole, yeah. Yeah, 11th hole. And he thought it was unfair and just couldn't figure out

like why he was getting all these bad bounces. And it came to be his favorite course and his course that he designed August gust of national after. And I kind of went through a much, much smaller scale was the first time I played the old course, I didn't love it and I just didn't understand why I could have in these awkward 60 yard shots. And I wasn't thinking like, hey, I've got to figure out my way around this, like from the green backwards. And that's just what is not prevalent, I think, in professional golf.

You don't, I stay on the tee in the UK. I agree. And I let my instincts take over as to what I should do. I mean, I hit irons off parfises. As criminals, that sounds on this podcast. I mean, it was so baked out this summer that you could still get there, and your instinct shouldn't be just a grab driver and not think about anything.

It's got to think about how far the ball's gonna run out. And again, it goes back to soil type and you can't just in Detroit, you can't make a links course in the middle of where they end up hosting a lot of these PJ Tor events. But again, it's also very cyclical and with how far the ball goes now, we're so limited as to what courses can host a PJ Tor event

and have hospitality and all the things that go along with the business of golf that it's almost, I kind of liken it to, not to get too political with it, but like the climate report is like, maybe it's already too late, like, the technology's already gone so far. And with the way we're trending on the environment, like it might already be too late, then I don't know why we're handling it. Don't give up on it. Climate change or golf course design. One of the problems with golf course design is to your point, to get people to come out,

the idea of having celebrity architects, the idea of having tour players. And I'm not dismissing. Look, I'm of the opinion that there really is no bad golf. Even the worst golf is fun to me. You'll play a terrible golf course. I still get to hit shots, I'm outdoors, I'm with buddies, whatever.

But some of the best golf courses were first tries by very smart people, not tour players. Walton Heath was designed by Herbert Fowler. It was his first design, Crump. It was his first and only design. It was Pine Valley Jack Neville Doug Grant. That was their first and only design. It was Pebble Beach, Henry Fondes.

It was his first and only design, Oakmont. So when you start to look at, you know, the ideas are not that difficult. If the first time somebody could do it, it's brilliant. It's not that difficult. It's just that if you come to it with biases that tour players inevitably do, and then you proliferate it to the extent of hundreds and hundreds of golf courses with your bias in there, then you're putting golf courses out there that are not intriguing. They don't bring players back. And I just think it's a challenge for architects to come up with a few golf courses that

could do it all. Have it all, right? Have in randomness, have in variety, have the precepts that are existing at St. Andrews. You know, I think St. Andrews, St. Andrews, I mean, is there a better golf course in the existing at St. Andrews. I think St. Andrews, I mean, is there a better golf course in the world than St. Andrews? I don't think so. I don't think so.

But it's unique, every holds unique, it's random. I think for somebody like me, yes, but I don't think for professional golf. And any more, I don't think the old course is the best challenge for professionals. Man, I do. I mean, it's just where they've got to put the T-boxes now. It's not the same golf course, right?

I mean, your angle to come in those fairways is not how those hills were designed to be played. And I mean, the second T is over on the ladies' putting course. The 17th T is out of bounds. I think the 14th T is on the Eden course. And again, the guys hit it so damn far that their angles just don't matter that much because they can stop wedges over some of those hills and whatnot, even when it's

firm out there. To the point that the brilliance of the old course gets neutralized a little bit, I still think it's, I love to watch you guys watching, playing the Open Champion, Senior Open Championship there this year. Like I love watching that. But the equivalent exists in every sport, you know, every single sport is different. You know, if there were a way to talk about how sprinting had changed because it's so fast, you know, you could turn sprinting back. You could just make a softer running condition. They used to run on coal for crying out like, could make it different. You could you could you could raise the rims and basketball. They don't do it.

Why don't they do I think I think making different other sports comparisons is risky, but also there's there's good points as well. Like basketball, I imagine like some basketball purists hate seeing what's become of the three point line in basketball. I mean, it is even in the last five years has just spiraled out of control to the point where analytics have led to understanding that, you know, making shooting a ton of three-pointers, even if you miss a lot, can be good. It's better than taking mid-range jump shots. Again, that's not my bailiwipe, but I think Steph Curry's changed basketball because

he's out of doubt. And even basketball players are thinning down to get faster to try to play that kind of game. But, you know, there's lots of ways. Like, I just don't think that architecture has fully explored how to defend against today's best players. And it can be with the speed of greens. It can be with the farmers' greens.

It can be with, who knows, there's some really clever architects out there. And I love the work they're doing. I really do. I love core cringeshells work. I love a wise cop's work. I love gill hands his work. I love dokes work. There's fabulous out there. But if they really, if the tour got with one of these architects or several of them, the same way they did Pine Valley, that was a collaborative effort. George Crump got everybody in, and what did you get? The best golf course, arguably in the world.

And if you got them all together and said, look, here's what we wanna do. We want to provide the ultimate challenge for players who are 60 yards longer than they used to be. And how do we do that? What do we do? They're gonna come up with ideas and things, just like Pine Valley.

It was a complete original because they set there and they thought about it. And I'd like to see that golf course. And I'd like to see Dustin Johnson, a Cameron champ, and Justin Thomas have to play that golf course. Because it eeks me when I watch them miss half of the fairways and shoot 64. That's not what I envision the highest pursuit of this sport to be.

I think the main questions around that are just realistic nature of where you build these courses, how you go about building them in the sustainability of it and it's like, like always built courses. I know, but we're talking about more land. You're talking about, you know, rounds taking even longer pace of play is an issue. Well, only for tour players. Only for tour players.

I mean, it's just for tour players. And I'm not talking about, but I'm not saying they have to be longer. Right. I'm not saying they have to be longer at all. I mean, first of all, distance isn't everything, but all. It's as you guys

always argue, it's angles. And so make them accountable with angles. Make them accountable with, hold them accountable for accuracy off of the tee. But I think I'm in agreement with you in that regard, but in a realistic world, what we just were talking about, putting bunkers in the middle of fairway in Gail Hance. He did that at TBC Boston, and the players hated it, and the tour took it out. Like, it was amazing to me that they were willing to do this. Like, here is an example of a whole.

And yet they go to St. Andrews, and nobody complains about the 12th hole. No, and, but the, it was the 14th hole, with hellbunker right where you want to go. I forget, we're, who Paul Easinger told this to. I'm sorry, I don't give credit to it, but he was talking about somebody at some modern course and it was talking about a blind shot. And and he's like, well, what would you think of this?

He was like, ah, if you, if you made this a blind shot, you're an asshole. He was like, why? And like, there's golf course in Scotland that have blind shots. He's like, yeah, they did that. You know, they didn't have bulldozers back then. If you give me a blind shot, you're just an asshole. You don't have to do that. But I found that interesting.

It's like, it has to be super historic for people to understand blind or to appreciate blind shots or tolerate them, I guess you could say. You go play Fisher's Island and what is it? The third or fourth hole, you've got a completely blind, the rare over here. But, and I get, if you're playing golf for a living and you can't see where you want to go, I can understand the debate there.

So at least from a professional standpoint, we don't have enough of those golf courses in the United States in general, but as a professional, to have to hit a blind shot, obviously, for obvious reasons, it's not ideal. So I understand the beef of a professional standpoint. I don't think necessarily the answer to any of this is necessarily blind shots. It's just more like a blinds of, I get what you're talking, making guys uncomfortable

and not being afraid. So part of the issue around centering around this debate too is not just where the game currently stands, but like, where does this stop? Where do we get to with technology? I mean, I, we just talked with Ollie Schneider-Jans last week on the podcast and he said that with the new driver he's putting in play for next year, he gained five knots an hour of ball speed. Yeah, but that's debatable. I'm sure it is. I believe it when I see it. Okay. I believe it when I see it. Okay, I believe it when I see it.

I was on the range of colonial. Okay, stand right behind Kevin Noh. And his caddy, arms. Anyway, his caddy came over and said, this new driver is, it makes him 20 yards longer. And, and, you know, Noh was striping it. He was absolutely ripping it. And he saved his 20 yards longer.

And, and I said, really? I said, you know, I'm going to look that up. And he was like, no, I'm not kidding. It made him 20 years longer. Where you go look at Kevin, I was driving an average last year versus the year before. And it's a couple yards difference. And when I look, I've done those tests. I've been, I've been, I've set there and tested the equipment. And, you know, they'll say, you know, this one's six miles now or faster, or this one's, and maybe it is, maybe it isn't. You know, maybe they're just picking the best drive you hit and saying it was six miles.

And maybe they're picking the worst one you hit with your old driver because look, they're trying to switch you out of a driver and into a new one. And I promise you, especially with Ollie Schneider-Jans, you could change one or two things and he'd hit the ball 30 yards further. Ollie Schneider-Jance. You could change one or two things and he'd hit the ball 30 yards further. Ollie Schneider-Jance has one of the lowest launches, highest spins on the PGA tour. He can swing 120 miles an hour and he's nowhere near hits the ball far enough,

or as far as he could. All you'd have to do is hit a little higher on the face, put the ball up, hit it higher, and he'd be 20 yards, 30 yards longer, just like that. So who knows what they were doing. Right. But I'll believe it. If his ball speed goes up six miles an hour, I'm not, that was an example. I'm saying in just in general, and that what, what, what happens next? Where do we keep going with this? Because we can't, you know, as early as the 20s, 30s, 40s, you know, architects are

writing, it's like, we can't keep going backwards. Like, and you look at a golf course now and weigh the, some of the walks from what, at a random, like this year, the walk from the eighth tee to the ninth tee was across two other holes and it's peck and sp, it's like, what are we, what are we really doing here? Well, it's about to get worse and it's, you know, maybe a little bit of a, be some innovative work and equipment, but the most part, I mean, what's about to happen is a flux, an absolute tsunami of athletes. I mean, I'm talking about six to six four flexible and strong, perfectly trained, with a great understanding of where distance

comes from. And you ain't seen nothing yet. And so, yeah, I'm with you guys. I believe something needs to be done. And I believe that when the tsunami hits, because I think Cameron Champ is, you know, that is, that's the water we see exactly, you know, because that's exactly what that is. And it's like the fish are flopping on the beach. And everybody's running out there to go, you know, grab some dinner, but they're about to get, you know, bold over because it's coming. There were 95 guys last year that averaged

over something like that. 95 guys, almost 100 guys averaged over something like that 95 guys almost a hundred guys average over 300 yards 60 60 guys exactly averaged on the web.com. Oh, I'm sorry on the web.com Yeah, on the web.com tour so I look at the web.com tour as what's coming and it's you know, it's almost twice the number so It was 60 in 2018 on the PGA tour 40 in 2017 27 in 2016 so it's more than doubled in the last two years Yeah, there's a number of factors that go into that it droughts and everything that can affect And there was one in 2002 but but For all practical purposes the line and the sand was drawn in 2003 for co r for m. O. I for

Ball speed for dimples, you know, for length of club, all that. So in particular, the last four or five years, we have seen some... I mean, just mind-blowing numbers on the PGA tour. And it's again, I maintain that it's bigger, stronger, faster athletes coming out here. And yes, I agree. Something needs to be done about it. But I think the first thing would be architecture because look, if you challenge these guys, if you challenge these guys out there, and you hold them accountable, and you have pick your hazard out there that holds them accountable, whether it's diagonal bunkers or pot bunkers

or any number of other ways you can do this, thick gruff, whatever you want to do. They're going to want to spin your golf ball. They're going to want to drive it with less MOI. In other words, a smaller head with ability to maneuver the ball more. They're going to slow the ball down. They're going to be able to curve it more.

And there's going to be a, look, imagine if tour players had to play LaGolf National or it's equivalent, okay? They would get a spinnier ball and they would have less M-O-I and they would hit it shorter. What did you think of that golf course in particular? Sure, it's your take. Well, you know, I wasn't there. I didn't see it up close and personal. In general, I thought it was brilliant.

What Thomas Bjorn did, that's what you're meant to do if the coach of the other side is find the weaknesses of the other side and exploit it. So in general, I didn't find the golf course particularly memorable, but would you like to see those kind of setups on the PGA tour though? Well, not necessarily that particular setup, but it's equivalent could be, I think, achieved through creative architecture. And that particular setup wouldn't be terrible to three, four times a year.

That used to be the US Open. That used to be, it used to be, you have to hit the fairway, or you're going to pay a very stiff penalty. And I, you know, I read Yoll's work. I read all these architect lovers. I read their work. And I'm, I agree with a lot of it, but the hardest thing to do golf

is hit it long and straight. That is the hardest thing to do. That is the shortest list in the history of golf. The number of players who hit very long and very straight. And that's what the US Open used to be about, intimidating you from a task standpoint. Augusta was about strategy and creativity and risk and reward,

but the US open had its own identity. And now then they're all kind of muddled up. So I would like to see two, three, four golf courses a year like Look Off National. I don't necessarily think that PGA towards needs to like widen fairways or golf would be better with wider fairways because I just don't think the back to the point I don't think the angles matter that much.

So to a certain extent and watching some golf in Abu Dhabi this year, I was also kind of like you know what? Like narrow with rough is not a bad thing for professional golf necessarily. What I think needs to be eliminated the most is I followed Dustin Johnson. I think I got this right. DJ, Rory, and Matthew Fitzpatrick were all in a group. And DJ and Rory, where were you at? It was in Abu Dhabi. Okay. And DJ and Rory just blew it past a series of bunkers. And it was just like driver wedge course. And and Matthew Fitzpatrick had to think about those bunkers. And he had three wood six iron on one of the holes where they hit driver wedge. And

about those bunkers and he had three wood six iron on one of the holes where they hit driver wedge. And the trouble only existing for the next tier of distance, I think is horrible for golf. I think when you can eliminate trouble by hitting driver is a terrible, terrible thing. You should be hesitant to want to hit it. I think we're saying the same thing in that regard, but it's so important. And a ronomic was very bad for that as well. Walking with Kevin Kismher during the pro-AM, he's just like, these bunkers are death for me, and Roy doesn't even have to think about these. Which, again, distance is a skill, and to your point,

the hardest thing to do is hit it long and straight. I think today, it's never been easier to do that with the modern equipment. The ball that doesn't spin, the drivers that launch it at the way that it does. And as much as driving accuracy is not a premium, we had Mark Brody on the podcast in the spring. He said the biggest misconception about golf

is that the top players in the game are long and crooked. They're actually very long and straight when you think about the degree at which they're putting the drives at the distance that they're hitting them. And so I agree it's hard to do that, but it's also never been easier, and that is at such a premium. Now, we've covered that at this point, but it is just like, all right, it's almost like

a prerequisite. You have to be a certain length player to really compute the highest level. Well, you don't have to be. There are players out there that make a living that don't hit a very strong level. Make a living, yes. But to Matt Kutcher, who's made a hell of a living. The only person that's broken 60 twice is Jim Furek.

He's made $80 million. And I promise you, you can hit it further than Jim Furek. And everybody in this restaurant that can hit it further than Jim Furek. That's exceptions to the rule. There are always exceptions to the rule. Well, there's probably in the top 50,

I would say there are probably six players that we would call short. And when people say, well, they're not short anymore. I'm like, no, no, no, they're short relative to our players. And then there's probably another 10 that you could say or average, average hitters, maybe just a little above average like a Jordan's speed. And then the rest of them are on the short side of long or really, really long.

But the rub of the game used to be that if you hit it long, you had a wider dispersion rate. And there was a penalty for that. When you do away with the penalty for a wider dispersion rate, you have destroyed the integrity of the game. The integrity of the game is very important for there to be a proper penalty

for a wider dispersion rate. Otherwise, it's all about distance. And that's just not right. That's just not what this game is meant to be. It's meant to be far more interesting in that. And it's meant to be far more challenging than that. So, and that's why guys are going to the gym right now. You know, I recently played with Jimmy Walker. He's a friend of mine and we were playing in San Antonio. And I was giving him a little grief about how crooked he was driving it. And and San Antonio and I was giving him a little grief about how crooked he was driving it. And we were in a fossa and all really good players.

Everybody in the group, you know, student 66 or whatever, I mean, it really good players. And he finally got fed up and he was like, look, hitting fairways does not matter. He goes, I am the crookedest player in this group, and I'm the only one that's won a major. And we had John Rom, last year, we did an interview about the modern golfer,

and he said exactly that. He said it does not matter if you miss fairways. Brooks Kepka said the exact same thing. He said it does not matter if you miss fairways, it does not matter if you miss fairways. So it should matter if you miss fairways. And the only reason it doesn't is because the tour is listening to tour players. And look, the precepts of Alistair McKinsey's design

are wide and playable, which is great for the masses. But if you want to challenge the very best players, as far as they're hitting it now, I promise you, if Alistair McKenzie were alive today, he would rethink that thought as it relates to professional golfers. He would not just say what was true 100 years ago is still true today.

He would kick that opinion around. I'm certain of it, and he would change his mind, and he would change the way he designs golf courses. So to copy all of his precepts, for an architect to come out and just say, I am going to live my life according to Dr. McKinsey's philosophy. So 100 years ago, I think is an error because I promise you, McKinsey were alive today because he's an original thinker. He would look at the game and change his philosophy and figure out a way to hold tour players

accountable. I don't disagree with that. I think it's, he would look at the technology in one of these I want him to do something about this. He wouldn't design the golf courses he has today for the amount of technology. That to me is a big shame because there's so many great pieces of work, classic pieces of work that are now, you know, don't get seen very often. And we played at World Melbourne last, around this time last year, second holds, par five. And I hit it decently far.

I hit it, I had to swing it about 113 miles an hour, which is about average on tour. I'm like, I hit nine iron into that green, it's got like, something's wrong. You hit it probably almost 300 yards in. Yeah, sometimes, yeah. Not nearly with the same consistency, obviously, but a few more, and we'll let you get out here.

This is, I think we've turned this into a two-parter now. But what are some of your favorite major championship setups in recent history past history? Let's stick to recent actually with the technology era. What are some of your favorites and what are some of your least favorites and why? Well, let me think about that. My favorite, well, my least favorite was Chambers Bay, wasn't a fan. Neither was Gary Player, by the way.

Well, I believe you called it a tragedy on the golf channel. Yeah, that's like one of my favorite videos. Yeah, I remember that. You know, I mean more than anything the condition of it was just astonishingly bad. I get the idea of it, but again, it wasn't executed. Well, not only was it not executed, you cannot test golfers today with that philosophy. You can't. You can make it fun for the masses, and that golf course was designed for the masses, but I love the idea of trying to do something different and try to let the ball get away from players

and punish them with the angles. It's a great idea. It just so happened, it was an incredibly boring event because Martin Kimer looked like Zeus out there. That's where I get into, not to interrupt you, but I get into, again, what is professional golf? Because I think Belrieve was a very uninspiring design. Everything goes to the left.

And that produced probably the most exciting major of the year. Tiger had a lot to do with that, but setting a course up for excitement. So I did Chambers Bay by the way. Yeah. I mean, it was vindicated by the outcome and the players that were playing. So again, that's my point about even bad golf courses can give you great golf and can give you a wonderful time.

Bell Rive, it's just unfortunate that it was so soft. People are making a big deal out of Tiger finishing secondhand. There was probably no other golf course in the world where you could have finished second driving and it was poor as he did. It was just a perfect scenario. I was not fond of Belarive at all. It's just unfortunate that they have to play that good and that's why they're moving the PGA to another time.

It's like the PGA is just played in dreadful conditions. Very hot, very wet, very soft. Very soft, yeah. Let me think, I always enjoy, I enjoyed Pebble Beach in 2010. You know, I thought it was, I've played a couple of U.S. opens there when the greens were so bad. They were so bumpy. The Poa.

The Poa. They were so bad in 1992. So what would that be like this year? I don't know. It's not an ex-bord at all. I don't know where it's going to be. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all.

I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all.

I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be at all. I don't know where it's going to be. I don't know where it's going to be. So was Chambers Bay a polar problem or was it the fact that the the Fescue just didn't grow and the traffic was such that it's such small penable spots given the enormity of those greens that the traffic was so bad it killed the yeah my understanding was the Fescue laid down so you got mad at down so severely and the the Poa that was popping up just caused balls to plink go back.

Yeah. Yeah. You know, who knows? Yeah. You know, you always know when you go to Pebble Beach, the ball is going to bounce around, but they were really bad in 92. They weren't, they weren't, as I can recall, they weren't bad at all in 2000. You know, look, I listen to everybody say, Marion was a terrible setup.

Well, everybody, it's mostly people trying to say that it was contrived. I don't buy into that at all. I thought Marion was a fabulous venue. I enjoyed it. Murafield, the bunker in Murafield is, you know, I spent the summer in Scotland in 1982 and played them all, played them all a lot, spent a lot of time looking at them, playing them. And I thought, I didn't know anything about architecture then, but I thought, if there's

better bunkering than Mirfield anywhere in the world, I don't know where it's at. And I'm staying near 40 years down the road and I still don't know where it's at. So I always enjoy Mirfield just just because I love the bunkering. I love to look at it. And then I always have the same thought, why is that bunkering not done in the United States? Why does nobody bunker a golf course? Like that. I'm trying to think of other courses that I just loved.

You know what? I like Dokman. I was just. You know what, I liked Oakmont. I was just gonna say that. I liked Oakmont. I thought Oakmont was one of the most the best US open setups. Yeah. So much has to go right for them, but again, this all goes back to technology

and they have to do so much to a golf course to prevent scores from going super low. I actually thought they did a great job here in Hills. They let the score, they didn't a grant the rain kind of dictated that, but that golf course was meant to be played in the wind and firm. they didn't grant the rain kind of dictated that, but that golf course was meant to be played in the wind and firm.

They didn't get that and scores went low. I think that's way better than tricking it up at the last second or kind of panicking and being afraid of scores going low. And I get some people are in the scores need to be high at the US open, but I don't care what the scores are. And each time you put four par-fives and make it a par-72 to professional golfers, I don't care what you do, the course the scores are gonna be low right you know Aaron Hills was I thought the fairways were too wide

For those conditions without a doubt, but again, it's supposed to be firm and crosswinds when those start going like CJ Cup last year. I was out there in Korea first round no wind and you get around I tried a little bit. Sheesh. And there was no wind and no, there was soft. And it was just like, what is this golf course? And then the fall conditions hit and there were cross winds and it firmed up. And I was like, okay, that's why.

And that's what missed out at Aaron Hill. So I thought Shinnecock was good. Yeah. Exception of 13 and 15 hole locations on Saturday. You know, I think last minute they pushed those hole locations and I'm sure they'd like a do-over. And then they reacted with hole locations right in the middle of the greens on Sunday.

So they had two and a half days of perfect setup at Chinatown. I thought it was, they were so close to getting it right. I agree. half days of perfect setup at Shinnokok. I thought it was, they were so close to getting it right. I agree. I agree. I agree. All right, we'll let you out of here on that, Brainal, thank you for the time.

This was a lot of fun. I think this goes to my theory that, even when I'm reading you on Twitter, I'm not like, just want to debate them on this, but if you had your own podcast, all of your takes would make so much more sense. I will have my own podcast next year. Oh yeah, I figured that was only a matter of time.

Jaime and I are gonna have our own podcast. Just do it once a month. And Jaime's a smart guy. I don't know if you know Jaime. He's been on the podcast before. Yeah, he's a very thoughtful man. So I've wanted to work with him for a long time. Cool. But I always enjoy, you know, I don't do many of these, but I enjoy, you know, most people doing podcasts in the golf that I've talked to are very knowledgeable about the game and I always

learn. I read you guys. I follow you guys as I learn. Appreciate it. We're trying to learn as well. That's why it's much similar to what we were talking about with what you do with your hosts on air. It's good to have a debate and see things from both sides and think about things from different schools of thought. Brainal, thanks for having me down and I appreciate it and let's do it again sometime. You got it. Cheers. Get a right club.

Beat a right club today. Yes! That is better than most. How about him? That is better than most. Better than most. Expect anything different. Expect anything different?