Horses for courses, courses rated by winning horses, and the like, the PGA and

[George Pazin]

Flipped on the telly today at noon to check out the PGA. Got the Tiger update first, obviously, then the leaderboard.


I honestly don't know yet what to make of Brooks Koepka. Is he the next big thing, or is he simply capitalizing on the vogue trends in course selection and set up? ("Capitalizing" was the resume power word when I was applying for a job a lifetime ago, straight out of college.)


I'm likely well known as the biggest Tiger booster on gca. And he's around par, while Brooks is killing it. My brain says so what, it's another tourney, but my heart says, ANGC is a better overall test. I'm not sure which to trust.


What say you? The course? The set up? The golfer?


Or something else entirely?


g

[Terry Lavin]

Koepka has great capabilities, especially on a long, soft golf course with not-very-undulating greens. Scores will stay relatively low unless the wind picks up and the course gets firm. Lacking that weather break they’ll have to triple cut/roll the greens to 14 on the Stimp and find some inaccessible hole locations.


Having said that, I’m enjoying the telecast and the course is very fetching to the eye, albeit in a somewhat monomaniacal way.

[George Pazin]

Terry, I do not appreciate you posting a well thought, reasonable argument. If the site has taught us anything, it's that we must push forward with outlandish, argumentative posts.


Please reflect and react accordingly. At the bare minimum, please insult me, call me an idiot, and so on....


 

[Ben Hollerbach]

Koepka has great capabilities, especially on a long, soft golf course with not-very-undulating greens.

That was my take on Koepka after Erin Hills. I felt he won a Quad Cities that was accidentally called the US Open. But after his win at Shinny last year my mind was changed. That course was nowhere close to soft, nor were the greens flat.


Beyond his major wins; Koepka finished in the top 5 at Pinehurst in 2014, in the top 10 at the Open in 2010 (St. Andrews) and 2017 ( Birkdale), and was only a stroke shy of Tiger just a month ago at the Masters.


I don't believe his majors success has been a "horses for courses" type of phenomena, I believe he's just simply a really good player

[Tim Martin]

Koepka has great capabilities, especially on a long, soft golf course with not-very-undulating greens.

That was my take on Koepka after Erin Hills. I felt he won a Quad Cities that was accidentally called the US Open. But after his win at Shinny last year my mind was changed. That course was nowhere close to soft, nor were the greens flat.


Beyond his major wins; Koepka finished in the top 5 at Pinehurst in 2014, in the top 10 at the Open in 2010 (St. Andrews) and 2017 ( Birkdale), and was only a stroke shy of Tiger just a month ago at the Masters.


I don't believe his majors success has been a "horses for courses" type of phenomena, I believe he's just simply a really good player

+1

[Kalen Braley]

They need to donate his brain to science after he dies or something...


Cause I can't figure how he can be so great/amazing in Majors, and just Mediocre/OK/decent in everything else.

[Tim Martin]

I wonder how Brandel Chamblee will be able to explain away the 63? No thread jack intended.

[Tom_Doak]

I wonder how Brandel Chamblee will be able to explain away the 63? No thread jack intended.

I have not talked to Brooks since that pronouncement from Brandel, but I believe that (like Tiger) he gets extra motivation from any perceived slights about his ability - and his round today (playing alongside Tiger so Brandel can’t miss it) is his way of responding in style.

[Tom_Doak]

They need to donate his brain to science after he dies or something...


Cause I can't figure how he can be so great/amazing in Majors, and just Mediocre/OK/decent in everything else.

Didn’t he just say a day or two ago that he gets bored?  I think he appreciates playing a more challenging course where he really has to focus on the placement of every shot - which is not the run of the mill Tour event.


He played pretty well last week, too, though.

[Tim Martin]

I wonder how Brandel Chamblee will be able to explain away the 63? No thread jack intended.

I have not talked to Brooks since that pronouncement from Brandel, but I believe that (like Tiger) he gets extra motivation from any perceived slights about his ability - and his round today (playing alongside Tiger so Brandel can’t miss it) is his way of responding in style.

I picked them up 5 holes in on the PGA app with the intention of watching for a half an hour and then picking up some of the TV later on. Ended up watching the entire round and marveled at Koepka getting it around. He’s an easy guy to root for.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom, I'm not trying to throw shade on Brooks, not in the slightest.

But when you look at all the greats of the game, they kicked ass and took names in the majors, but even more so in lesser events.  Brooks is an outlier to the outlier, only seemingly bringing the A game when the ultimate prize is on the line.

P.S.  I know the Tour has a few so-so venues, but there are a lot of highly esteemed ones too like Pebble, Riv, Muirfield, HT, etc. Are you claiming he's bored with those too?

[Kalen Braley]

So I was thinking a bit more about this:

Brooks has 5 PGA Tour wins - 3 Majors, 1 Regular Tour win, and another one in Korea, which technically counts as 1. Combined with 9 top 10s in majors in the last 5 years, and that's a pretty damn unique data point.

Only one player is really in the same category here, John Daly - 5 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors.

Plus they both big guys who love to mash the ball and live life large, so they got some similarities...

Brooks is NextGen JD....aka John Daly 2.0 I guess 

[Tom_Doak]

Brooks is NextGen JD....aka John Daly 2.0 I guess 

If he reads that he might shoot 61 tomorrow.  Either that, or come knocking at your door!


I don't know if I agree with your point about great players in non-major events.  Nicklaus certainly won a lot of lesser events, but he's the one who made focusing for the majors a thing.  What was Hogan's record outside of the majors?  And if you go back further, Bobby Jones pretty much didn't play in anything except majors.

[Kalen Braley]

Says Hogan had 64 Tour wins, 9 majors, so same kind of deal.  Bobby Jones don't really count cause he only played the big ones....

P.S.  You can tell Brooks I said that next time you guys play in the dirt in Houston, I ain't scared of him! 

[Tom_Doak]

Says Hogan had 64 Tour wins, 9 majors, so same kind of deal.  Bobby Jones don't really count cause he only played the big ones....

P.S.  You can tell Brooks I said that next time you guys play in the dirt in Houston, I ain't scared of him! 

He's got a pretty full tournament calendar this summer, with the majors all bunched together now.  I doubt I'll see him again until opening day in Houston, unless he goes to play at the Scottish Open.

[Mike Sweeney]

What say you? The course? The set up? The golfer?

There are two things that I have learned on GCA.com over the years:

1) England may have the best courses in the world over Scotland, Ireland, Oz, and USA;

2) Sand based courses really are better. I played on Monday in the soupy clay based Bronx with my son, and I am amazed at what we are seeing 50 miles away. Sand works!

[Peter Pallotta]

George -
I'm a big Tiger fan too, and, while I appreciate Augusta much more than I do BB, I don't think it's so much a matter of horses for courses etc. I think it's simply a changing of the guard, and Brooks will keep winning now (with his current record of majors vs tour event wins just a short term anomaly).
TW can & will still win - but he is in his decline (or at least not his prime) while Brooks is at the beginning of his dominant years.
Watching a bit today I thought just that: what I saw, simply and with untutored eye, was a young 'Arnold Palmer' winning while an older 'Ben Hogan' hung around admirably; or a dominant 'Jack Nicklaus' and a fading 'Palmer', or a gap toothed & hungry 'Tom Watson' besting a still excellent but older 'Nicklaus'.
Which is to say: nothing too complicated here, methinks -- once again a new top golfer is emerging, just as sure as the turning of the earth.

[Niall C]

In a funny kind of way I think his lack of regular tour wins points to his quality in that it is the majors that he covets. And it's not just the 3 major wins but also his track record in the others over the last few years that is impressive. I read the other day that no one else has won more than one major in the same timescale he has collected his majors. Also I think Fowler is the only other player who has made every cut in that period.

I recall that Harrington had a similar spell and I suppose so did Speith but it seems to me that Koepka has a lot more going for him than Harrington, and Speith, while magnificent, seemed overly reliant on almost supernatural putting. Koepka seems to me to have much more depth and power in his game than either of those two guys.

Niall

[Tim Martin]

The lead story in Golf World this morning is “Chamblee heaps praise on Brooks Koepka”. Think he’s a lurker?

[Jonathan Mallard]

So I was thinking a bit more about this:

Brooks has 5 PGA Tour wins - 3 Majors, 1 Regular Tour win, and another one in Korea, which technically counts as 1. Combined with 9 top 10s in majors in the last 5 years, and that's a pretty damn unique data point.

Only one player is really in the same category here, John Daly - 5 PGA Tour wins, 2 majors.

Plus they both big guys who love to mash the ball and live life large, so they got some similarities...

Brooks is NextGen JD....aka John Daly 2.0 I guess 

Andy North won at Westchester in addition to his 2 US Opens. So that's 3 tour wins with 2 majors and a win on a fairly well regarded course.


If you want to also point out that one of Daly's other three wins was at Torrey Pines, that's fine too...

[George Pazin]

A long time ago on here, I speculated that some golfers might win more regular events if the regular events were set up like majors, instead of normal Tour birdie fests. Perhaps Koepka is like that.


At any rate, I pretty much agree with Terry, Tim, etc., that Koepka really is that good, on just about any course. I was saying to a friend this morning that, while the guys at -1 and even are pretty far back, there aren't that many guys ahead of them, so they may be ok. However, I added, that one guy out in front isn't the type to fade away.....

[JMEvensky]

A long time ago on here, I speculated that some golfers might win more regular events if the regular events were set up like majors, instead of normal Tour birdie fests. Perhaps Koepka is like that.

Impossible to prove, but it sure seems that way. Harder golf courses/setups tend to favor a certain subset of players--probably a combination of skill and attitude. Maybe Pat B will drop by and opine.