Interesting discussion about whether a PGA professional can succeed with the math/science approach because it leads to disappointment with a good survival round. They are referencing how he was angry with his 65 because of its deviation from the stats.
He’s certainly a “one-off” regarding his approach to the game.
He’s actually referred to himself as a “casino” or the “house” in a recent interview. Citing his heavy play schedule, and factoring how many under-par rounds he squeezes in throughout mass play equating to house odds…blah, blah, blah.
Honestly, I think his short iron/wedge problems are more a product of lack of playing time with them after a drastic weight/strength gain-swing change.
Should be something he could get cleaned up within a month.
I didn’t get a chance to see the scores yesterday before I turned it on. When I did turn it on he was pulling a 300+ yard drive into the trees. He had to hit a run up shot from the rough that he left about 30-40 feet.
I said to myself, “see this is why this cannot work . . he could’ve just hit a shorter drive in the fairway and then stick a nine iron closer than that.”
As soon as I had that thought, they flashed the leader board. He was -21 and in the lead. LOL