Golf Twitter has been ablaze on this Tuesday morning with shock and awe and the reactions have been flying fast and furious.
Since the inception of the PGA Tour vs. LIV debate, there have been a few prominent, outspoken critics of the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund-backed breakaway tour, most notably Golfweek’s Eamon Lynch and Golf Channel’s Brandel Chamblee.
[pickup_prop id=”33882″]
A tweet he posted on May 31, essentially sums up his long-held view of LIV golf:
“I’d like to think that they trust whatever opinion I have, whether it agrees with theirs or not.”
Brandel Chamblee took to social media to respond to criticism that he’s “a paid actor” for Golf Channel and NBC and is simply towing the company line.
Those comments were made by golf instructor and podcast host Claude Harmon III in a wide-ranging discussion on LIV and the PGA Tour and media coverage of the ongoing civil war in golf. Harmon is the instructor for Dustin Johnson and Brooks Koepka, who both reportedly accepted more than $100 million to defect to LIV Golf, the upstart golf entity backed by the Public Investment Fund which operates on behalf of the government of Saudi Arabia.
“The accusation that I am just a proxy for the opinion of my employer is a curious one to me, and while the natural back and forth with colleagues certainly informs my opinion, no one for whom I work with or for has ever tried to influence what I am going to say,” Chamblee wrote in a tweet he posted on Tuesday night. “I’d like to think that they trust whatever opinion I have, whether it agrees with theirs or not, I’ve done the research to back it up. Which is more than I can say for those who suggest that because there is evil everywhere, all evil is relativized and unless all of it can be addressed at the same time and in the same way, it should all be ignored.
“Especially, as in the case of the person who called me a paid actor, if they can somehow profit from the evil. This is where the debate crashes headfirst into the nexus of politics, sports and narcissistic greed. Where those who want to escape it most often cloy at whataboutisms, to stop the discussion with a pejorative accusation because they don’t want their motives to be discovered.”
Chamblee, who has been one of the most outspoken critics of LIV, volleyed back, emphasizing that LIV supporters have missed the larger point of sportswashing.
“To raise the question whether LIV has been good for the PGA Tour is to miss the very human and most important point of the whole issue of sportswashing. It is bad for the people who continue to be oppressed by the man who funds LIV Golf.”
CH3 (Claude Harmon lll) is awesome. His dad is too and should be in the Hall of Fame already. Great read. He holds nothing back, just like his father. https://t.co/aKtY3ixan8
Chamblee concluded his 538-word rebuttal/takedown of Harmon III by noting that there’s no window for the Michael Block’s of the world in the closed shop that is LIV and for a fairytale story like golf fans enjoyed last week. (He also noted it is about to become harder for the underdog story to emerge on the PGA Tour.)
“Dignity that was most profound in watching the play of Michael Block, the club professional who stole the show at the PGA Championship with his gratitude and joy and of course with his incredibly sharp game,” Chamblee wrote. “He was a stark reminder of what is missing in LIV Golf and even what will be missing in the PGA Tour’s no-cut, small-field, designated events next year.
“Because golf has always been and hopefully will always be, more about hope than heroes.”
The farrago of whataboutisms that inevitably accompanies any discussion on sportswashing, attempts, in answering a condemnation with an accusation, to impugn the credibility of the accuser and to distract from having to deal with the complexities of the question. Much like…
— Brandel Chamblee (@chambleebrandel) May 24, 2023
Forget what will Phil do next? The more intriguing question is: What’s the next trick up Tiger’s sleeves?
Forget what will Phil do next? The more intriguing question is: What’s the next trick up Tiger’s sleeves?
Tiger’s opening-round 70 a year ago at Augusta National en route to making the cut was one of the most impressive rounds of 2022 when you consider that it was just some 13 months earlier that he was involved in a near-fatal car accident and could have lost his right leg.
Tiger’s game looked sharp in the first round of the Genesis Invitational at Riviera in February, his lone start in an official PGA Tour event since missing the cut at the British Open in July. It reinvigorated talk about the possibility of a 16th major title for Woods, who has slipped into the winner’s Green Jacket on five occasions, most recently in 2019 at age 43.
Tiger’s quest to get closer to Jack Nicklaus’s record of 18 majors (and six Green Jackets) already has the TV talking heads buzzing. Here’s a snippet of what the CBS, ESPN and Golf Channel analysts had to say:
Brandel Chamblee, Golf Channel
How Tiger plays, I think, will captivate us beyond belief.
Notah Begay, Golf Channel
The fact that he was able to play (at the Genesis Invitational in February) at the level after basically being on the bench for six months, to come out and make a cut, I just can’t even get my mind around that.
Andy North, ESPN
To be able to get around there is so difficult. It’s just — for him it’s such an uphill battle. But in the back of your mind, you still believe that you get something rolling, you just never know.
Curtis Strange, ESPN
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he got us on the edge of our seat for the first couple of days, but can he sustain it? I think that L.A. kind of just made me look forward more to the Masters because he’s still got something in that body.
Trevor Immelman, CBS
If he somehow finds a way to get his name in and around that leaderboard come the second nine on Sunday afternoon it will be all systems go out there.
Scroll below for their takes on Tiger at the Masters.
Reed hit a wayward drive on par-4 17th hole, and he said he was “100 percent certain” his ball had landed in a tree and got stuck. From there, he took a drop, scrambled for bogey, then made birdie on the par-5 18th to sign for a 3-under 69 to conclude his third round Sunday.
A golf coach shared video of the drive on Twitter, which called into question whether Reed identified the proper ball. If he wasn’t able to identify his ball in the tree and prove it was stuck, Reed would have been forced to walk back and play his third shot form the tee after taking a stroke-and-distance penalty.
Brandel Chamblee, who Reed is currently suing, also posted a video on Twitter describing the event.
Reed explained Sunday after the round that he would’ve gone back to the tee if he wasn’t 100 percent his ball was in the tree. Chamblee’s video made waves when it was posted Monday, prompting more discussion on whether Reed took an illegal drop.
Reed responded to the allegations on Tuesday, posting a statement on Twitter, saying the drop is a “non-issue.”
This is my statement regarding Dubai Desert Classic! Maybe it’s time we get back to playing some golf! Best wishes. pic.twitter.com/sTUHOHzkPF
Almost two years ago to the day, Reed was the center of attention for a rules incident at the Farmers Insurance Open, which followed a two-stroke penalty at the 2019 Hero World Challenge.
Reed will be in action again this week at the PIF Saudi International in Saudi Arabia.
On hole Nos. 2-9, every score the Golf Channel commentator posted featured a shape.
After posting rounds of 75-72 during the first two days at PGA Tour Champions Final Qualifying Tournament-Final Stage this week at TPC Scottsdale in Arizona, Brandel Chamblee had an interesting third 18.
His round began with four straight birdies on Nos. 10-14 before trading a birdie for a bogey on 15 and 16. He made the turn with a 4-under 32.
This is where the adventure begins.
The Golf Channel personality made par at the par-4 first before posting a bogey-birdie-birdie-bogey-bogey-birdie-bogey-birdie stretch from Nos. 2-9 to sign for a Thursday 4-under 67.
Chamblee struggled to a 2-over 73 on Friday and is currently tied for 60th.
After the round, he sent out a tweet saying he’s “got a ways to go.”
Golfweek confirmed with the Middle District Court of Florida’s Jacksonville Division that the suit was filed this week.
Just over a month after Patrick Reed’s attorneys refiled a $750 million defamation lawsuit — adding Golf Channel’s Damon Hack, Shane Bacon, as well as Golfweek, columnist Eamon Lynch and its parent company, Gannett — a new $250 million suit has been filed against a number of other prominent golf media members and organizations.
According to a release from Reed’s attorney, Larry Klayman, the new suit includes author Shane Ryan, Hachette, the New York Post and Fox Sports, as well as Associated Press golf writer Doug Ferguson and the organization for whom he works. Golfweek confirmed with the Middle District Court of Florida’s Jacksonville Division that the suit was filed this week.
One of the earliest and perhaps the most hateful and unhinged of the defendants to defame, falsely injure and tortiously interfere with Mr. Reed, his family, and his colleagues is Shane Ryan, who wrote a book, “Slaying the Tiger: A Year Inside the Ropes on the New PGA Tour,” and in his newly released book, “The Cup They Couldn’t Lose: America, The Ryder Cup, and The Long Road to Whistling Straits,” compounds and republishes the alleged false and very damaging attacks.
In the Complaint, Shane Ryan is alleged to be pathologically obsessed with harming Mr. Reed and his family and colleagues, and given his well-known incestuous relationship with those on the PGA Tour, his latest book is part and parcel to the deluge of defamatory statements that have been published not just by the Defendants in this case, but also regurgitated with actual malice by Brandel Chamblee, Damon Hack, Shane Bacon and Eamon Lynch, commentators on NBC’s Golf Channel, which according to PGA Commissioner Jay Monahan is the PGA Tour’s partner. Chamblee, and the others are Defendants in a related suit styled Reed v. Chamblee, also filed in federal court in Jacksonville, Florida. See Reed vs. Chamblee, et. al, Civil Action No. – 3:22-cv-01059 (M.D. Fl.).
The original suit was seeking in excess of $750 million in damages. In civil cases, plaintiffs have to prove whether a defendant is liable, not whether a defendant is guilty. The suit was filed by Klayman, a Florida-based attorney who has been on the losing end of a number of defamation lawsuits, including one in which Arizona politician “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio sued several national media outlets, alleging they defamed him and impacted his attempt to win a U.S. Senate seat.
“My client, his family and colleagues have been made the whipping boy of cheap and dishonest journalists in the golf media, like Shane Ryan, who feed at the trough of the PGA Tour, a tour that historically mistreated Mr. Reed. Indeed, my client’s move to LIV Golf was primarily due to this mistreatment, where adequate security was not even provided at PGA Tour events, where hostile fans vilified and threatened Mr. Reed, his wife, caddie, and coach, thanks to the rank defamation and other alleged illegal acts of Defendants in these two recently filed lawsuits,” Klayman said in the release.
“Mr. Reed, on behalf of himself, his family, and colleagues, simply will not take it anymore and he is fighting back in the courts to not just redeem his rightful reputation for honesty and superior golf achievements and successes, but also to protect his loved ones from the likes of Shane Ryan, Doug Ferguson and the rest of the jackals who make their sorry and pathetic living spreading lies and false information about him. These types of journalists, publishers and networks give the good ones a bad name, by publishing and broadcasting false information to the masses for their own financial gain to generate readers, viewership, clicks, and for no other reason than to use Mr. Reed callously and cruelly as a tool to make money, no matter how harmful it has been or will be to his career, his family, colleagues and his life.
“Let it be known that anyone who emulates Shane Ryan and the other defendants in these two lawsuits, in order to make a cheap profit and harm Mr. Reed, his family, and colleagues, will be held accountable under the letter of the law.”
The original suit, which named Brandel Chamblee and Golf Channel, said the group had “conspired as joint tortfeasors for and with the PGA Tour, it’s (sic) executives and it’s Commissioner Jay Monahan, to engage in a pattern and practice of defaming Mr. Reed, misreporting information with falsity and/or reckless disregard for the truth … purposely omitting pertinent key material facts to mislead the public, and actively targeting Mr. Reed since he was 23 years old to destroy his reputation, create hate, and a hostile work environment for him … ”
He’s seeking $750 million in damages. Yes, $750 million.
According to the documents — which were released via a reporter for Courthouse News Service — Reed claims Chamblee has a history of calling him a cheater and has criticized Reed and other golfers for leaving the PGA Tour for the Greg Norman-led, Saudi-backed LIV Golf Series.
Well, once the news broke, Golf Twitter went into an all-out frenzy.
Shortly after Brandel Chamblee noted on Golf Channel’s “Live From the U.S. Open” show that Phil Mickelson had taken “a flamethrower to the very PGA Tour that provided a great stage for you to amass unimaginable wealth,” it became abundantly clear Chamblee had his very own flamethrower in the form of his carefully crafted words. He aimed it at Mickelson and other supporters of the Saudi-backed LIV Golf league.
Chamblee has never been shy to share his opinion, but he arguably has been at his most outspoken in addressing the raging war between the PGA Tour and LIV Golf.
Just last week, Chamblee said the debut of LIV Golf near London made him “want to puke.”
“When it comes to the richest sports stars in the world, Phil Mickelson is 11th. He’s ahead of Kobe Bryant, he’s ahead of David Beckham, he’s ahead of Kevin Durant, he’s ahead of Lewis Hamilton,” Chamblee said. “You’re talking about him being ahead of icons in sports that are far more popular worldwide than the game of golf. And yet why is it that golf has four of the highest paid athletes of all time? Why is it that Phil Mickelson is 11th, in terms of the stratosphere he does occupy, as an athlete … that athletes who have made less money than him but play a sport that is widely more popular? Why is that? It’s because of the image of the golfer.
“Because of their independent-contract nature. Because they show up and, generally speaking, play a game that is self-governed and self-policing. It is a game of integrity. It’s because corporations want to align themselves with these players. It’s because of the philanthropic aspect of the game of golf.
“So when I hear these players say that they are ‘growing the game’ … it makes me want to puke. They’re destroying the game. And they are destroying their reputations.”
He concluded: “This is one of the saddest days in the history of golf. Watching these players come together for money and show to the world … they are showing us that they are the greediest, most self-serving, self-interested, willfully blind players in the world of golf today.”
In short, Brandel gonna Brandel and he isn’t pulling any punches. Chamblee picked up where he left off Monday during Golf Channel’s “Live From the U.S. Open.” He directed much of his vitriol at Mickelson, who reportedly jumped to the Saudi-league for a reported $200 million.
Of Mickelson’s performance in his pre-tournament press conference, Chamblee said: “He’s suffering the consequences of a decision he made that some believe he was taking a flamethrower to the PGA Tour. By my count there were 22 questions and not a single question about being the oldest major champion of all time, not a single question about trying to complete the career Grand Slam. It was all about his decision to join a league that I think many view as an attempt at a hostile takeover.”
Phil Mickelson speaks in a press conference at the U.S. Open at The Country Club. (Photo: Peter Casey-USA TODAY Sports)
Chamblee noted that the Mickelson who broke on the scene with his “pop collar, saccharine smile and playing with so much joy for the game of golf” had changed. Chamblee highlighted an incident dating to the 2014 Ryder Cup that gave golf fans an early peek at the character of a man who would be willing to get into bed with people who that man described as “scary mother——.”
“He’s been pretty darn successful in the media center at manipulating to whatever extent he can, but there have been moments over the years where he’s been atrocious in the media center. Most notably in 2014 at the Ryder Cup, where we got I think a real glimpse into who Phil Mickelson is. Machiavellian? Sure,” Chamblee said. “Blaming Tom Watson for his failures in the Ryder Cup, and then when asked after literally denigrating one of the greats in the game in front of the whole world by a media member, why would you do such a thing? He almost acted incredulous and said, ‘How could you take what I just did as denigrating Tom Watson?’ Everyone in that room knew what they were seeing. It was disingenuous at best, but duplicitous more accurately describes it.”
“Nothing I’ve seen from Phil Mickelson from that moment to this moment has changed,” Chamblee later added. “It turns out when you’re trying to sell a lie, it’s hard to talk with a great deal of comfort and ease.”
Chamblee didn’t spare other defectors to LIV, including Bryson DeChambeau, calling out his inconsistent comments and giving the 2020 U.S. Open champion a tongue-lashing for the ages.
Bryson DeChambeau plays a shot during a practice round before the U.S. Open at The Country Club on June 14, 2022 in Brookline, Massachusetts. (Andrew Redington/Getty Images)
“More recently, he’s been talking about how he’s found God and become a Christian and I just wonder how he squares accepting money from a regime that is anti-Christian,” Chamblee said. “You can’t pull a Bible out in Riyadh without going to jail. They are misogynistic, they are anti-Semitic, there’s no freedom of speech. He talks about his charities, about going home to do things, but meanwhile he’s taking money from people who oppress the things he purports to stand for, which is philanthropic enterprises. That’s where the money is coming from. He says he’ll have a new legacy. He absolutely will have a new legacy, and it will be tarnished as a 100-year-old silver trophy that has been untouched up in a closet.”
That is the type of commentary from golf media directed at a player that is sorely missing. Later, when Jim Gallagher Jr. observed that everyone has a price, Chamblee circled back to that comment and said, “I’d like to think not. I’d like to think there are plenty of people with enough money to say no. There are loads of people who have said no. … Rory (McIlroy) has said no. Justin Thomas has said no. I don’t believe $200 million, I don’t think $500 million, I don’t believe a billion dollars would get Rory to say yes. I don’t think he will.
“Have they exposed a weakness? Yeah, OK. A lot of people can be paid enough money to not care about how their wives would be treated in Saudi Arabia, to not care how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, to not care about how gays are treated, to not care about people with no freedom of expression and no real freedom at all. There are people that will take enough money to turn a blind eye to that. But there are plenty of people I believe who say hold on a second, if you want to run this tour let’s see real reform, let’s see real measured reform, let’s hear from the women of Saudi Arabia, let’s see pictures of them actually out in Riyadh without a burkha on, let me see them driving, let’s see them going out on a date, let’s see them out playing golf. Let me see real measured reform. Let me see freedom of expression.
“It’s never going to happen there. Not certainly under the rule of MBS, Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud. He couldn’t be more oppressive. He couldn’t be more in favor of centralizing power within himself to an extent that has never happened in Saudi Arabia. There’s no evidence of reform in that country. Zero, other than his words, which were about as empty as Phil’s were in his press conference.”
That is as good as it gets from a golf analyst giving a group of pampered, well-compensated golfers some grief for selling out and supporting sportswashing.
Chamblee also gave equal praise to the high drama and sporting battle that was the final round of the RBC Canadian Open between eventual champion Rory McIlroy, Justin Thomas and Tony Finau.
“It’s one of the most significant wins in the history of the game,” Chamblee argued. “It was almost as if they took it upon themselves to say this is what the highest pursuit of this sport looks like, this is what great competition looks like. It was almost like they said to themselves not on our watch, we’re going to put on one heckuva show to remind you of just how competitive the PGA Tour is and has been for all these years.”
“Live from the U.S. Open” is just getting started this week, but Chamblee already has shown he’s prepared to dish on the hard topics that are rocking the golf world and he’s not afraid to call it like he sees it.
Chamblee dishes on the distance debate and being on the other end of criticism, and why he’s not afraid to take the contrarian view.
Whether you love him or hate him, Golf Channel’s Brandel Chamblee makes good TV with his sharp opinions and willingness to criticize the best players in golf. In Part I of our latest Q&A, Chamblee discussed the struggles of Rickie Fowler and the winless drought of Tony Finau and we did a deep dive into the U.S. Ryder Cup and future options for the captaincy. You can read it here.
In Part II, Chamblee explains how he’d change course setups, dishes on the distance debate and being on the other end of criticism, and why he’s not afraid to take the contrarian view.
Golfweek: If you were Commissioner of the PGA Tour for the day, what would you change?
Brandel Chamblee: The first thing I’d do is get rid of the top-50 exemption and then I’d get rid of the top-25 exemption. There’s no place for safety nets in sports. Those take up spots. However many it is, it’s too many. It should be a merit-based sport.
Every time someone new pops up on our radar, like Will Zalatoris, everyone says it is great to see a new young player come along that seems to be fearless and, yes, I agree. But every time that happens, I think someone just lost their job. If Will Zalatoris comes along and you can’t compete with him, you should lose your job. There should be no guarantees. Why does golf provide safety nets? No other sport does. You can go down to the minor leagues like the rest of the world does and fight your way back.
Will Zalatoris holds the trophy after winning the TPC Colorado Championship at Heron Lakes on Saturday, July 4, 2020. (Kevin Lytle/The Coloradoan)
GWK: That’s your thing? You wouldn’t change course setup or pick different courses?
BC: That would be the day after I take away those exemptions. Actually, it’d be the same day because it would take me two minutes to say, I’m sorry, those exemptions are over. That would be more difficult to do because you’d have to go to a board and that board would have to present these and if I had autonomy, and I don’t think the commissioner position works that way, but I might take a detour down to the course setup guys and say, the fairways have to be wider, the rough has to be thicker, but only in a certain number of events.
There are events where long tee balls and recovery shots from the rough is exciting. I get it. If I were running a Tour event 20 years ago, I would’ve cut the rough too. I would want Tiger and Phil to be in contention on Sunday and the best way to ensure that is to cut the rough because they drove it all over the place. I understand why they did it. But to identify the best player and for the best future of the game is to restore the value of finding fairways.
To do that you can’t do what the USGA did at the U.S. Open. You can’t do that with 1980s-width fairways and 1980s-height rough. That’s stuck in thinking from 40 years ago. You have to extrapolate to dispersion cones with 310 yard drives, which means the fairways need to be 5-6-7-8 yards wider but the rough has to also be 2-3-4 inches taller. You can’t have the same width and height rough as you did in 1984 because guys didn’t swing as hard and didn’t come in as steep. The rough has to have a penalty to have a penalty of .5 as opposed to .2 or .3. You have to get the rough up to 4-5 inches and it needs to be thick and if it is 5-6 inches all the better.
But the fairways need to be wide enough to where the straightest drivers of the ball can find them so they can offset their disadvantage. That seems pretty straightforward to me. What else are you going to do?
GWK: Do you believe everything you say on air?
BC: (Laughs) Yeah. There are times when I change my mind, when I will think about it or come across information, but I’ve sat in meetings before where someone has said if someone is going to say this can we get someone to speak to the other side of it, and on issues where I’m sort of ambivalent I’ll say, yeah, I’ll take the other side. Happy to do it.
More often than not it, it doesn’t work out that way. You want to speak to an issue 360 degrees. By the time I say something on the air, I’ve thought about it, I’ve researched it and thought of counters to it, but yeah, I’ve certainly changed my opinion. I’ve done it on the distance debate. I think you should constantly take your opinions out, kick ’em around, beat ’em with a broom, and see if they stand up to scrutiny. I’ve tried to do that as often as I can. I’ve done that with teaching, the golf swing, the putting stroke. I’ve changed my view on a lot of things where I’ve come across information that proved me to be wrong, informed me in a better way. Yeah, I’ve said things on the air that I wouldn’t say now, that I disagree with now, that I wish I’d never said, but for the most part I try to be very, very careful about the words I use and the opinions I have.
GWK: What does your mailbox of feedback look like from viewers? What do you learn from it and what’s the general pros and cons?
BC: We live in a very critical world now. I’m not oblivious to criticism. I’ve always said you should be able to be criticized and complimented and never feel any way about either of them. When criticism comes from the right people and the right sources, when it’s valid or there is a grain of truth to it and you can learn from it and I take it to heart. I certainly pay attention to critics whose opinions I value and don’t have an ax to grind with my position on things. It’s amazing, I’ve gotten along with so many people in this game forever but the fact that I differ with them on the distance report, it’s almost like within the golf world you’re voting for Trump or Biden.
People feel that passionately about the distance issue with the USGA and R&A. I’m not sure I feel as adamantly against the rollback as people think I do. I just think that it seems that all the people that are in the architecture industry are for a rollback and I think the more difficult argument is why the game is better left alone.
I enjoy the more difficult argument. I enjoy trying to get to the bottom and to the truth of things but I tend to think that the most popular view doesn’t have a great record on a lot of things. It’s quite often wrong. So, I think, how is it wrong? I go and do research to discover if it is right or wrong, and try to figure a way to counter. That’s fun. I’ve always said we make progress by disputation and argument. That’s why the First Amendment is so important and the cancel culture is so bad. When you make arguments, they are never perfectly formed. Ever. They are imperfectly formed. You state an opinion and inevitably someone will know something that you don’t or think about it in a way that you don’t and will point out the errors in your opinion and so you reconvene and you try to make a better opinion, a more informed opinion and you stumble towards your better self and your better ideas.
The Cancel Culture is so ready to hold people accountable for arguments that are not perfectly formed and not perfectly stated. Listen, there’s no place in the world for racism and bigotry but in a world where people are preaching tolerance they should have some tolerance for people who make a mistake here or there for their phrasing of an argument. That’s why the First Amendment is so important. We should all take a deep breath.
There’s the idea of the straw man. The opposite should be the case. You should make a steel man out of your opponents’ arguments and ideas. You should try to formulate the most perfect idea of what someone is saying in the most perfectly stated verbiage to hold up their idea in its best essence and say I get what you’re trying to say and how is it assailable, how is it wrong? That’s how you get better at everything.
GWK: If you could require every player on Tour to read one book, what would it be?
BC: I think the most important book I’ve read in informing me is Guns, Germs and Steel written by Jared Diamond. If school kids were made to read it in school, ignorance, bigotry and prejudice would be gone. I can hardly think of a more important book to read. The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, every American should read that book. Those books right there just inform you about why man is the way he is, keep you on guard for the malevolence in men and gives you a great philosophical foundation to go learn, study or think about or talk about whatever you want to talk about.
I’ve never come across anyone smarter than Friedrich Nietzsche. If I can get on a soap box for a minute, I think this generation feels entitled to be happy. I think that’s a very dangerous thought. Friedrich Nietzsche has a great line that he who has a why to live can bear almost any how. If you have meaning in your life then you can deal with adversity and stumble towards your better self. It’s a marvelous philosophical precept. No one deserves to be happy. If you’re lucky, you can find something that gives meaning to your life, which will then allow you to be happy. It’s not happiness. It’s meaning, which allows you to deal with adversity. Adversity is everywhere. You deal with it every day in large and small capacities. Those are books that mean a lot to me.
Brandel Chamblee dishes on why Rickie Fowler, Tony Finau aren’t winning and fixing Team USA’s Ryder Cup captaincy flaws.
In an era of vanilla analysts towing the company line, Brandel Chamblee is the Neapolitan ice cream, with an opinion and yellow legal pad full of research to defend his arguments.
On the morning of the first round of the Waste Management Phoenix Open, Chamblee sat down with Golfweek to discuss the game he loves and some of the intriguing players who have been struggling to find the winner’s circle (we previously published his thoughts on Jordan Spieth, Justin Rose and Jason Day). Chamblee also launched his Ryder Cup campaign for Larry Nelson in 2023.
Check back for Part II on Tuesday, Feb. 16, where Chamblee discusses such topics including if he believes everything he says. Spoiler alert: his response begins with a chuckle.
Golfweek: What’s holding back Tony Finau from winning?
Brandel Chamblee: I get your question. I’m not sure I’ve ever encountered a player quite like Tony Finau. How can a player be world class if he doesn’t have victories on his resume? But everything on his resume is world class. It makes no sense. To see a guy play that well and that often and not come away with victories, you keep thinking it’s going to be like David Duval and at some point the windfall is going to happen.
Unlike David Duval, Tony’s not a great putter and unlike Duval he doesn’t drive it really straight. He’s long and a bit crooked. If you think about the greatest closers of all time, they all have great transitions to their golf swing bridging the backswing to the downswing. Tony’s quick. Pressure makes you quick, especially if you’re inclined to be quick anyway. Tom Watson famously said he never got over trouble on Sundays until he learned to slow things down. Finau has a short, quick golf swing. The most successful short, quick swing I can think of is Doug Sanders, who won a lot but never a major. It didn’t endure into his 50s. Finau is still young. It wouldn’t surprise me if he won three times this year. It wouldn’t surprise me if he won 5-6 times in his career. Again, he needs to find some way to be a better putter and a better player on Sunday. You look at his scoring average on Sundays and he’s a different guy.
GWK:Has Rickie Fowler missed his window to win a major?
BC: I don’t think so. He’s got a good coach (John Tillery) but I disagree with the philosophy that he’s coaching, which is more flex in his right knee. Kevin Kisner (another Tillery pupil) doesn’t hit the ball far, nor does Rickie. I cannot believe Rickie left Butch. Get on a plane and go to Vegas. He had a wonderful relationship with Butch. It’s a risk working with anybody. It could work out or it might not.
GWK:DJ or Rory in full flight…who ya got and why?
BC: If they both play their best golf, I think Rory beats him. Rory won majors by 8. DJ at this point in his career is winning tournaments by wide margins. I think it is very close. I’d love to see Rory play his best golf.
How many times have they gone head to head? WGC Mexico, DJ got the better of him. I remember seeing Rory shortly after that and he said when you run into someone playing that type of golf and you’re not playing as well you just can’t beat him. Think about Rory at the 2011 U.S. Open or 2012 PGA, that guy versus Dustin Johnson right now, I’d like to see that, I think Rory would win, personally, but it would be a hell of a battle.
GWK: Who will be the next player to reach World No. 1?
BC: Let me look at the World Rankings. I think Dustin has a pretty darn good hold on No.1 right now. The next will probably be Rory. He’d have to go on a tear this year, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. I think Jon Rahm has the potential to be dominant at No. 1 and drop anchor there. You can just see it in his eyes. He doesn’t have kids yet. He’s about to but they’re not at that age where he’s coaching them in soccer and they’re looking at him with those eyes like where are you going daddy? That breaks your heart. I think the more intriguing question is who’s going to be No. 1 that has never been No. 1 before. Where is that guy?
[vertical-gallery id=778053321]
GWK: Do you think Team USA has figured anything out about its captaincy and grooming future leaders or just grasping at straws?
BC: I think they are still grasping at straws. I can appreciate that they tried to empower the players more, to give them more ownership of it. That was a well thought out transition to give the players more of a voice in but it doesn’t mean they should have autonomy to do whatever they want to do. For example, picking six players misses the point. It’s meant to be the best 12 players according to our system, not according to some click. It’s very clubby, very clickish and I don’t think it’s a good look for the team, for the PGA Tour. It should be based on merit not popularity, and the captaincy should be an obvious honor to some longtime player irrespective of their popularity. How was David Toms missed? How has David Duval been overlooked?
GWK: What do you make of Davis Love III being named 2021 Presidents Cup captain?
BC: Everyone loves Davis Love. There’s nothing not to love about Davis Love. But you shouldn’t be able to drop anchor in the position. There have been a lot of oversights in that position, Gene Sarazen, Larry Nelson. The nature of the Ryder Cup is the Europeans have better team chemistry. It’s as simple as that. I don’t know why Americans recoil at that idea. You show me the corresponding video of the American golfers putting together the angry golf video. It’s not a knock at the Americans as it is applauding the Europeans. It’s so good that they dominate the USA. On paper, the U.S. is better and so it infuriates the U.S. team and makes the Ryder Cup so interesting to watch.
GWK: Who would you like to see as Team USA’s captain someday?
BC: David Duval.
I’ve said this before, Larry Nelson should be the captain. If people want to say that he’s not relevant anymore, if you don’t know who he is, you should know who he is. The idea of respecting your elders is important and they should respect that he served his country, and respect the dignity that he brought to the professional game and his Ryder Cup record and how good he was at it and how happy he was to not only have fought for his country but then played for his country with distinction. That is worth correcting a mistake. He is still alive. Do you believe in karma? If you do it’s not hard to get to this is what the USA team deserves having so egregiously overlooked such a distinguished player and great man.
I’ve told the story before but the first day I ever spent on a golf course watching a PGA Tour event was the Byron Nelson in 1966 or ’67, somewhere in there, and I was sitting behind the first green at Preston Trail and this guy putted out and walked off and sat down next to me in the stands. He asked me if I was enjoying the golf. I told him I just started to play golf and that my dad had dropped me off and I was spending the whole day out here. He asked me if I wanted to play golf when I grew up and I said I want to play the Tour when I grew up. He said, maybe someday I’ll see you out here. That player was Larry Nelson.
Ten or 12 years later, whatever it was, I got paired with him at the Players Championship. He probably did that to countless kids, but that’s who he is. He didn’t do it gratuitously, he did it sincerely. He won three majors for crying out loud and was 9-0 in his first nine matches. Making him Ryder Cup captain would be the best feel-good, best thing that the Ryder Cup could ever do. From a karma standpoint it would be incredible and would properly tell his story and might be just the thing to turn around…you could say that the Hal Sutton-Jackie Burke old-school thing didn’t work. We too often give pass-fail grades to ideas based upon the results of competition when it shouldn’t play out like that. What’s the right thing to do? Who’s the most deserving captain? Who’s the most deserving player to give tribute to?
If you can find another player on the planet more deserving of the tribute of captaincy of the Ryder Cup than Larry Nelson, point him out. Where is he? He doesn’t exist. If he were 85 years old, he’d still deserve it and we deserve to know who he is and it rights a wrong. Beyond that, David Duval and beyond that David Toms.
It’s become so predictable. Phil Mickelson is going to get it, Tiger Woods whenever he wants it. Zach Johnson will get it. But who else? Who’s the Paul McGinley of the U.S.? He’s such a unique fellow in that he was good enough to qualify for teams but he was so sharp and so well respected. I’d be looking for the Paul McGinley on the U.S. side. This is why it can’t just be an autonomous, player run event, There needs to be someone in the room to say we need to find a Paul McGinley type player.
GWK: Justin Leonard would be in that same category.
BC: There it is. That’s your Paul McGinley.
GWK: Why are he and Duval no longer thought of for the role? Is it because they are doing TV?
BC: Justin is still part of the club. I don’t know why he wouldn’t be being groomed. He made the putt that everyone remembers in 1999. He’s kind of a Paul McGinley. He’s a very thoughtful, quiet guy. A lot of the best coaches were not necessarily the best players but they had to think the hardest about it to get the most out of their talent. That’s who Paul McGinley was. It doesn’t really describe Justin because he was an extraordinary golfer. Besides Larry Nelson, besides David Duval and Justin Leonard, I’d be looking for the Paul McGinley to lead the U.S. team.
