What began as Sunday clash between Xander Schauffele and Jordan Spieth ended in an all-out sweepstakes for the entire leaderboard at the Waste Management Phoenix Open. Thanks to athrilling chip-in on the 17th, Brooks Koepka was the last man standing.
Perhaps it has something to do with the setup of the golf course, and the fact that both Spieth and Schauffele struggled to get going, but at 2:56 local time and the leaders thru 14, nine players were within one shot of the lead. Nine! The suspended belief remained all the way until Koepka’s ridiculous chip-in. At that moment, this thing was basically over.
Not really... It wasn't over until Xander rinsed his tee ball on No. 17, and K.H. Lee missed his birdie putt on No. 18, but it was a lightning bolt:
Koepka’s chip-in came from a tricky angle short and right of the hole, with a ridge he was forced to carry. He nipped it perfectly and it ran straight into the flag for a two-shot lead at 19 under par.“I worked hard with Pete Cowen over the last few years being able to chip like that,” Koepka said afterward.
The 5,000 or so fans who were allowed to attend the event roared. Koepka follow it with a 359-yard drive into the 18th fairway, a casual approach and a two-putt for par. His best remaining competition was Schauffele, one hole behind, flying his tee shot on the 17th hooking hard into the water.
Again with the diss of Mr. Lee... Koepka is no one's favorite guy, but he shared a bit of the depths of his concerns:
While the golf world didn’t give up on Koepka entirely, his odds to win this week’s event haddropped down into the 40-1 or 50-1 range. Even months ago, Koepka admitted he had given up on himself a bit.
“There was a period maybe for about two months where I just questioned whether I was ever going to be the same,” Koepka said after his win. “Whether I was even going to be somewhat remotely the same golfer that I ever was.”
And to be fair, he was definitely in a rut. Koepka netted just one top 5 finish in the 2020 calendar year, and had recently missed three straight cuts on the PGA Tour. He had dropped to No. 13 in the world golf ranking for the first time since he won his first major championship at Erin Hills in 2017.
If the golf world didn't give up on him, it was only because there was obviously an injury affecting his play. Though 50-1 is pretty dismissive of a guy who won four biggies in three years, the last less than two years ago.
A while ago I noted that the Tour Confidential panel had ceased numbering their questions, presumably tired of bloggers such as my ownself critiquing their myopic Tiger-centric focus. This was their second topic in this week's installment, and I'll circle back (isn't that how we do it these days) to their lede below:
Brooks! With a dramatic chip-in for eagle on the 17th hole, Koepka locked up his eighth PGA Tour title but first since July 2019. Koepka fought hip and knee injuries in 2020, but earlier this week said he has a clean bill of health. What does this early-season win portend for his 2021?
Zak: That when he’s healthy, he’s damn good. Still damn good. And clutch! How many players wilted on Sunday? James Hahn looked like the champ! Xander Schauffele looked like the champ! Everyone but Brooks gave shots back down the stretch. That’s the BK we know.
Berhow: One of the three most confident players in the game is now that much more confident, which is not good for the rest of the PGA Tour. I loved how he did it, too. No one seemed to want to win this thing, so that killer instinct took over. If he’s actually healthy he could go on a run. Nice timing too!
Sens: Confidence. You said it, Josh. But also hungry to start racking up wins again. And not just majors.
Bamberger: Well, broadly speaking, Koepka is like Woods: when he’s healthy, or close to healthy, is so good he’s going to be around the lead, and of those times he’s going to win some of them.
That's the Bk we know from majors.... And, Mike, Brooks isn't much like Tiger, not even in 2017-19. Tiger won everything, Brooks was just a big-game hunter.
But isn't it interesting how much like a major Phoenix looked on Sunday. I don't know if it was just a few tucked pins, but that was more choking than one expects this time of year.
I am glad that there was at least one James Hahn mention. Why? because you'll likely never see a purer moment of, "Holy crap, I could win this thing". And we all know, from personal experience, how that ends...
So, what was the first TC topic? That would be the artist formerly known as... Jordan:
Jordan Spieth, winless since 2017, showed signs of his old world-beating self at the Waste Management Phoenix Open, firing a third-round 61 that propelled him into a tie for the 54-hole lead and jolted his sizable fanbase. But Sunday was a decidedly different story. On amuch tougher setup, Spieth made just two birdies, rinsed two tee shots in the last four holes and shot a one-over 72 that left him in a tie for 4th, two shots behind winner Brooks Koepka. What’s the primary takeaway from Spieth’s roller-coaster weekend?
Sean Zak: That the Saturday Scaries could be over. That was his weird bugaboo in 2020: performing on Saturdays. That 10-birdie show this week was one helluva Saturday. Now come the Sunday Scaries. They’re even more treacherous.
Michael Bamberger: That he’s a work-in-progress, that he’s getting better, and that his game, in good times in bad, always had a smoke-and-mirrors quality to it.
Josh Berhow: That the battle rages on. This inconsistent play might be our norm going forward. The bad days could be bad. The good days (Saturday) could be really good. But I still wasn’t sold on Saturday as a turning point. He struggled off the tee and made some monster putts late. The biggest takeaway though is that the golf world wants him back and in the mix more than ever. Reminds me of Tiger a few years ago. It didn’t work out on Sunday but it’s fun to see Jordan Spieth contend like that again. He makes pro golf significantly better.
Josh Sens: A big step in the right direction, for sure. It wasn’t surprising to see him falter today. As hard as it is to back up a super-low round, it’s even tougher to do it when you haven’t in the heat for a while. This counts as big progress. That’s the takeaway.
If I bristled at Brooksie being compared to Tiger, any guesses as to my reaction to a comparison to Jordan? It is possible, at least theoretically, to discuss golf without a reflexive reference to Tiger, though you wouldn't know that if you only read Golf.com.
I have mixed thoughts. I don't think Sunday should be viewed as that big a letdown, as conditions were obviously tough and he wasn't the only one who struggled. It was a good week and he was still in the hunt until the 17th tee, not bad for a guy in the wilderness since c2017.
That said, I think Mike Bamberger is spot on. That Saturday 61 might be looked back upon as peak Jordan... Spotty (or worse) ball-striking salvaged by making more than a few bombs, but it fails the sustainability test, no?
The best part of Jordan might be the reactions he elicits from others. Shack has some good fun with Brandel Chamblee's comments on the man, beginning with this from Wednesday:
Q: You just said Jordan is “on his way to oblivion.” I take that to mean you see him getting worse rather than better.
BC: If you go back and look at Ian Baker-Finch and David Duval’s ascent and descent in the game of golf, they track a similar path to Jordan Spieth. When they get to a point where they are really searching and they get desperate there’s not only the insecurity of whether or not you’re ever going to find it again, there’s also that psychological scar tissue. It’s like a physical wound and some of them will heal up and some of them will kill you.
Ian Baker-Finch or David Duval, no disrespect to them, but the only reason I picked them out is they made the game look so easy for a period of time as did Jordan Spieth. Their descent is a reminder to all of us that it is ephemeral. You can lose it in the blink of an eye. He seems to be searching every single week, spending lots of practice swings, over the ball a long time.
One can only tip one's cap to the man. In opining on Spieth he obviously takes the risk of offending the man, but to add gratuitous collateral damage by naming two broadcast colleagues, that's just epic. I don't image he and Finchie see much of each other, but that has to be one awkward green room in Stamford...
But the best part is the Saturday night follow up:
GW: Do you want to walk back any of your comments about Jordan since we talked the other day?
BC: What did I say? I can’t even remember. I wasn’t probably sanguine about his comeback.
He did something today I don’t think I’ve seen. I’ll go look it up. I can’t remember a person being in the lead position in a golf tournament being dead last in fairways hit and next-to-last in distance from the edge of the fairway. That’s unprecedented. I don’t know how you do that. I guess you can in a place like the desert where there is a lot of luck involved in the lies you get and then you hit your irons like a God. He still has the ability to stun us with his short game and putter.
As I chewed on it today, there are a handful of people who lost their edge. Sam Snead in 1947-48 he won only one time because he had the putting yips and then he won 17 times when he sorted that out the next two years in 1949-50.
What did I say? We should take his opinions seriously? Because he certainly doesn't...
But can someone explain the Snead analogy? Is he now on the Spieth bandwagon and predicting future success, or is he just flailing?
If you're in the mood for a deeper dive, I recommend this Mike Bamberger offering:
Swept up in Spiethmania this weekend? Let us count the reasons why
Mike's Sunday morning decision to frame his piece around a Tom Brady reference worked out better than Jordan's Sunday, but I do agree with most of his thoughts. Golf is more interesting with Jordan in the mix, and Mike does a good job in assessing the man. Though perhaps he underestimates the importance of this one point:
VIII. He’s wild.
It seems like half his shots were played with a swimming pool in his backswing and a cart-path curb in his follow-through. And that was on Saturday, when he shot that 61.
The wildness is, well, wild, and therefore awfully entertaining. But Jordan has a throwback kind of golf game, which is awfully refreshing in comparison to today's bomb-and-gauge world, and I think that's an under-appreciated part of his appeal. And yes, he does seem to be a good guy, which very much helps.
One last mini-point. If we're focused on the potential after-effects of a Sunday collapse, I'm thinking Xander's was the more devastating.... Of course, I've long thought that Jordan was headed to oblivion, though Brandel's concurrence has me reassessing....
Golf In The Kingdom - I saw nothing except the final tap-in, but this guy seems to be good at the golf thing:
1) The Dustin Johnson heater continues
We’ve been going at this for long enough to admit the obvious: Dustin Johnson is the best player
in the world right now, and it isn’t particularly close.
DJ won for the fifth time in the last eight months Sunday in Saudi Arabia — a two-stroke victory that was only briefly in doubt. The 2020 Masters Champion led heading into Sunday, and cruised to a three-under 67 that featured four birdies to only a single bogey.
Not even sure who No. 2 would be at this juncture. It doesn't seem as though he played all that well, though we probably shouldn't over-interpret this:
PGA Tour pros, they’re just like us! Well, at least in one sense. During the third round of the Saudi International on Saturday, Dustin Johnson hit a shot that most of us are all too familiar with: the dreaded duff. But it’s how he followed the mishit that illustrates what truly sets elite players like him apart from the rest of us: he got his next shot up-and-down — for birdie!
Here's how it looked at impact:
Yup, that was a birdie all the way.
Obviously, former BFFs DJ and Brooksie winning the same week sets up the potential for some genuine, on-course drama later this season. Here's the TC panel's take:
Meanwhile, in Saudi Arabia, world No. 1 Dustin Johnson won on Sunday for the fifth time in the last eight months. In terms of form and confidence, is any player even close to DJ right now?
Zak: Nope! DJ won with his B-game. And by two. That should scare the hell outta Rory McIlroy, Jon Rahm, Justin Thomas and the other Favorites Wherever They Play. DJ returns to Augusta in just seven weeks.
Berhow: Form? No chance. Confidence? Maybe Brooks, like I said above. But Dustin is just cruising right now.
Sens: Looking forward to seeing DJ and Brooks in the same field again, both in good form. It’s been a while.
Bamberger: I don’t think there’s even a close second. A distant second might be Collin Morikawa and, in certain conditions, Bryson.
Morikawa? I think not. This is virtually a silly season event, so I'm reluctant to credit it too much. That said, winning can become a habit. We have seen DJ on this kind of roll previously, we can only hope his Augusta rental house is a ranch. Yanno, without stairs...
Shane Ryan wrote this piece setting up Tony Finau's Sunday:
The strange, repeating case of Tony Finau
If it's repetitive, can it also be strange? Tony shot 67 on Sunday, so it's not as if he collapsed....
All In - Mike Purkey does something you couldn't pay me to do:
The PGA Tour has enthusiastically embraced gambling, which on its surface appears to be a long shot to accomplish the Tour’s objective: attract more spectators to consume more of the online content generated by the Tour and its partners.
Hence, NBC’s SportsEdge BetCast, with odds provided by PointsBet, which made its debut on Thursday on Peacock, the network’s streaming service. A Peacock Premium subscription is $4.99 a month, although golf bettors can dip their toes with a seven-day free trial. SportsEdge BetCast will appear on Peacock through the final three days of the Waste Management Phoenix Open.
If the golf-gambling marriage appears to be a complicated relationship, it’s understandable, because betting on golf with as many ways as PointsBet provides, well, is complicated. In traditional sports gambling, you bet on a winner or the over/under on the total points and wait until the end of the game to reveal the outcome.
If you caught the Thursday-Friday Golf Channel telecast, they cut to this programming for a few minutes, and it was as painful and awkward as one can imagine. Does this sound entertaining?
The host touts on SportsEdge BetCast are Golf Channel veterans Steve Burkowski and George Savaricas, along with Golf Channel alumnus Matt Ginella (who insists on being called “Matty G”). Each was given 500 “points” to bet before play started and another 1,000 “points” to wager for the four days of the tournament.
The TV guys did their best to explain how it all works and attempted to share their thinking on the faux bets on Thursday. They even asked Croucher and Teddy Greenstein, former longtime sports columnist at the Chicago Tribune, for advice on betting strategy.
To say the PointsBet pair hedged would be understating the point. They absolutely refused to give betting advice, and with good reason. The purpose of a sportsbook is for as many people as possible to lose. That’s why they call it gambling.
Yes, and that's the rub, no? Jay Monahan's strategic initiative is to have the Tour partner with organizations whose business model is to lighten the wallets of Jay's customers. How does this work over the long-term?
It just sounds so exciting:
As an illustration, the TV announcers lost way more bets than they won, by a long shot. But trying to keep up with all the prop bets was a little dizzying, even though viewers almost exclusively saw golf from just one group: Louis Oosthuizen, Harold Varner III and Scottie Scheffler.
Didn't they know when to lay-up? I am admittedly not the target demo, but can someone explain to me why this is interesting?
A Cri de Coeur - The Fried Egg's Will Knights channels his inner Tom Cruise with this:
We Can Handle the Truth
Shall we let him rant?
The PGA Tour, a nonprofit organization that just built a $65-million headquarters, avoids two things at all costs: confrontation and controversy. This is why they scrub video evidence from social media when players act out on the golf course. It’s why they rarely publicize consequences for behavior ranging from cheating to uttering a homophobic slur into a hot mic. It’s why they pound the drum of charitable giving (which—don’t get us wrong—is great!) to justify the existence of certain very sleepy events.But here’s the thing: golf fans aren’t stupid.We know PGA Tour players don’t always get along and aren’t always models of gentlemanliness. We know the Barbasol Championship has barely any business being played. Those aren’t secrets to anyone who is paying attention. So when tour officials announce that players have taken mysterious “leaves of absence,” when they refer to an obviously shady drop by Patrick Reed at the Farmers Insurance Open as “perfect,” they’re insulting our intelligence. Like we can’t see through even the most feeble of PR smoke screens.
Which reminds your humble blogger that he never blogged the opening of that new Tour HQ, which juxtaposes nicely with the Tour's recent layoffs....
When a guy's on a roll, I don't think he should be interrupted:
This rule has come into play recently, in fact. After Patrick Reed Reed blatantly improved his lie in a waste area at the 2019 Hero World Challenge, Australian Cameron Smith called him out, even using the word “cheating.” It wasn’t long before he got a call from the PGA Tour. According to Australian Golf Digest, “an official from the PGA Tour spoke to Smith about the remarks, essentially issuing a warning that he would be fined in the future if he made similar statements.” Of course, Smith was reasonable in his assessment of Reed’s actions, but that didn’t matter. He was still threatened with a fine.The PGA Tour is uniquely sensitive about these kinds of things. Most other professional sports leagues embrace conflict. They’re fine with reporters telling stories fueled by rivalries, even animosity, between teams and players. Not the PGA Tour. It’s all sunshine, rainbows, and perfect gentlemen—and if you’re a media member who consistently questions that narrative, you might find it a lot harder to be called on at press conferences.
Hey, I've been reliably informed that Patrick is a gentleman... Also, that he's textbook, though I suspect it's a psychology textbook...
This MO dates back to the Nurse Ratched era, and we are supposed to believe them, as opposed to our lyin' eyes. I actually think most of the players are good guys, but I'm less inclined to believe that when the Tour buries anything that casts a bad light on a player... I think that's a self-defeating strategy, and Patrick certainly has put it under even more pressure than DJ (whose failings, it should noted, were of the personal kind and didn't impact the competition).
I simply don't see how this policy of Omertà can be sustained for much longer. But, not to be all self-centered or anything, it makes for some fun, easy blogging.
I'll see you nice folks later in the week.
No comments:
Post a Comment