Lynch: Tiger Woods has never been less competitive, but he’s also never been more relevant

In a bitterly divided sport, Woods will play the role of pied piper.

TROON, Scotland — A fine line separates optimism from delusion, a narrow DMZ where the belief that things will improve collides with immovable facts that simply won’t support buoyancy. That’s the space where Tiger Woods’ fans have been living for years, and his early but not unexpected departure from the 152nd Open can only render as hollow casuistry the arguments of the diehard faithful. It was a performance that leaves a lot of available real estate on the island of believers in Woods’ prospects as an elite force.

By the time he rolled out of this overcast village on Scotland’s western shore, he was at the arse end of the leaderboard atop which he once presided. Only five men in the field had a worse two-round total than his 156, a glum number he reached when a Friday 77 was added to his opening 79. He made just three birdies in 36 holes. His Strokes Gained Total statistic shows he lost almost eight strokes to the field, 3.68 with the putter and more than 4 with his approach play. Only around the greens did he creep (barely) into positive numbers.

“Well, it wasn’t very good. Just was fighting it pretty much all day,” Woods said, displaying an admirable gift for understatement.

In the two years since the 150th Open in St. Andrews, Woods has made seven competitive starts. The ledger shows two withdrawals, two missed cuts, a tie for 45th at the Genesis Invitational 17 months ago, and two dead-last finishes, one of which was in his own 18-man Hero World Challenge. His latest effort at Royal Troon continues a well-established chicken-egg conversation.

British OpenLeaderboard | Photos | How to watch

“I’d like to have played more but I just wanted to make sure I was able to play the major championships this year,” he said. “I’ve got a lot of time off to get better physically better. I’ve gotten better, even though my results haven’t really shown it. But physically I’ve gotten better, which is great. Just need to keep progressing like that and eventually start playing more, start getting into the competitive flow again.”

That narrative has been dispiritingly familiar to golf fans since Woods re-emerged from a 2021 car wreck. At every major he talks about the need for more reps, but the reps never come. He has reasons, of course, none of them unreasonable: young kids, global business, boardroom responsibilities, broken body. Mostly it’s the body. All but the most feverish understand that he’s at the stage of needing to catch two lightning bolts in a thimble in order to win.

After his second round, Woods admitted he doesn’t even plan to compete again for five months, not until December, when he appears at the Hero and the PNC Championship, his annual outing with his son, Charlie. “I’m not going to play again until then and keep working on it. And just come back for our fifth major, the father-son,” he said.

The chicken-egg cycle begins another lap.

Tiger Woods chips to the 12th green during the second round of the Open Championship golf tournament at Royal Troon. Mandatory Credit: Jack Gruber-USA TODAY Sports

Woods has been irrelevant as a competitor for years, certainly since the crash. So in that respect, Colin Montgomerie wasn’t off-base in expressing befuddlement that Woods stays out here, a pale shadow of his once resplendent self. But Monty was myopic in thinking that competitiveness is the measure of Woods’ relevance. What he does inside the ropes is no longer the metric by which his contribution to the product is assessed, and as we know, what matters most these days is “the product.”

In a bitterly divided sport, Woods will play the role of pied piper. He’s on the PGA Tour’s transaction subcommittee that negotiates directly with the Saudis. He’s on the Tour’s Policy Board, the only member with no expiration date on his term. He will help shape the future of the men’s professional game, and be instrumental in selling it to both fans and fellow players. That’s why he was added to both bodies. His public voice matters, perhaps because he hasn’t used it often.

Regardless of the numbers he posts, Woods’ presence is additive to the business, just as Arnold Palmer was even when telecasts stopped showing his scores. The Tour admitted as much last month when it voted him a lifetime exemption into signature events, for which he would not otherwise be eligible. Now, when the whim strikes him, the 874th-ranked player in the world has a guaranteed spot in elite limited fields. It was dressed up in the language of lifetime achievement for those who’ve won more than 80 times on Tour, but if the win total was 79 the line would simply have been moved. And that’s defensible.

Woods is a proud man and his scores must settle somewhere between embarrassing and irksome, but he seems to maintain a belief that there’s another run in him. It’s highly improbable, yet still possible. What isn’t speculative is his value in the here and now. When Woods shows up, he adds eyeballs and bolsters the Tour’s chief constituents — sponsors being asked to pay more, broadcasters airing a diluted product and fans expected to overlook the absence of a handful of engaging stars. Even if his appearances in actual Tour events are scarce.

His value isn’t diminished by the scores at Royal Troon. Not for Tour executives, not for its private equity investors at Strategic Sports Group, and not for the gaggle of pasty-faced kids chasing him around a wet, blustery Scottish links in hopes of a glimpse or an autograph. The kids didn’t seem to care about the number on his scorecard. And the others? They’re focused on the number he adds to a valuation. That’s the long-term outlook that still holds promise.

Lynch: Among Bryson DeChambeau’s many strengths, a glaring weakness remains — his intense need to be loved

DeChambeau is the most fascinating character in a game over-served with vanilla.

TROON, Scotland — There are umpteen ways in which Bryson DeChambeau has outmaneuvered his peers, not least in building the game’s most individualistic and powerful swing, and in tackling age-old equipment quandries with solutions that are as innovative as they are effective. He’s proven himself a thoroughly modern problem solver, but there’s one glaring Achilles that lurks near the surface, and which is also a decidedly modern trait.

DeChambeau desperately needs to be liked. Many people do, to be fair, moreso in a social media age when clicks on the ‘like’ button and reposts often impact self-worth. But it’s noteworthy to see a desire so obvious in a professional athlete, and potentially compromising in a man who is indisputably the most engaging figure in his sport.

On Tuesday at Royal Troon, DeChambeau was asked if the public perception of him has altered over the past year. “I think I’ve always been who I’ve been,” he said, before quickly contradicting himself. “I’ve definitely matured a lot. It’s been a growing process for me over the course of time. YouTube has massively helped, I can tell you that, being able to just release the emotions in the way that I know I can. When I was a kid, I was super emotional obviously, but I got frustrated on the golf course, I got really excited on the golf course.”

Open Championship: Thursday tee times | Odds, picks | Photos

DeChambeau says he was urged to suppress that emotion when he reached the PGA Tour, which has always prized conformity. “I don’t want to be someone that I’m not. Just really defining that and refining that to a place where I am today has been a lot of work in progress,” he explained. “It’s just taken time for me to have a better, bigger perspective on life and also having a platform where I can showcase that and refine it to a really cool, cool level and give people some great entertainment.”

Those words suggest that DeChambeau sees personality and platform as inseparable, that he found a safe space to be his authentic self via highly curated social media content. Yet the harsh reality of being in the public eye is that the message can’t always be controlled, a reminder delivered last week when Golfweek’s report on an acrimonious split with his former coach, Mike Schy, pierced the sterilized world he has constructed and stocked with paid staff and sycophants. “Look, it’s an unfortunate situation. I’ve loved that man for all of my life, and it’s a private matter that went public, unfortunately,” he said. “We tried to figure it out and make it make sense for everyone, and it just didn’t come out that way.”

DeChambeau’s play in the majors this year—a win at the U.S. Open, a near-win at the PGA Championship and a T-6 at the Masters—reminded fans of just why they were engaged by him before he went to LIV. Of course, engagement is a double-edged sword. There’s plenty of love—from fans, and often a fawning media corp—but also hate. The face-to-face world is mostly love, whereas hate dominates the social media sphere. The ability to tune out negativity is essential for public figures to retain some degree of sanity. DeChambeau clearly struggled with that, which is why going to LIV was probably good for him. He removed himself from the often toxic public square and found an audience, albeit minuscule, that was overwhelmingly welcoming of his presence.

DeChambeau admitted being criticized bothered him once, and in doing so inadvertently acknowledged it still matters. “You could say it’s bothered, but it was more of like, dang, I’m disappointed that people don’t see who I am,” he said. “It’s cool to get people to see who I am now. I’m just going to keep entertaining and showcasing to the fans what this great game is all about.”

DeChambeau gives the impression of a man who defines himself as a product—eager to change consumer sentiment and hopeful for kind reviews. It’s a smart way to sell, but less so a way to live. That perception of a manufactured man wasn’t helped when he offered this: “My social media team has been fantastic. They’re my best friends as well.”

For all his problem-solving skills, DeChambeau has yet to figure out the particular puzzle of links golf. If he does so this week and wins the 152nd Open, it would perhaps be the most impressive of his accomplishments. And yet he addressed that possibility in terms not of personal joy but of consumer reaction. “It would be awesome to let everybody touch the Claret Jug. That would be a dream come true,” he said.

DeChambeau is the most fascinating character in a game over-served with vanilla, and his re-emergence as a central character should be welcomed. There’s an obvious caveat though: he has performed well in the only three tournaments this year that exposed him to an audience of scale. That same audience he entertained at Augusta National, Valhalla and Pinehurst No. 2 will follow him to Royal Troon but hasn’t trailed him to LIV where viewing figures are so desultory they’re no longer made public. That helps explain the importance DeChambeau places on YouTube as a platform for keeping him relevant.

After this Open ends, a huge swathe of the fans who enthusiastically embraced him this spring and summer—many of them older and analog—will have to wait 260 days until the opening round of the Masters to get another fix. That’s a huge problem, both for the sport and for DeChambeau.

Lynch: Keegan Bradley is a good choice as Ryder Cup captain. His team will determine if he’s good for the U.S. — or for Europe

His appointment takes a sledgehammer to the task force buddy culture that has hogtied Team USA.

Leadership is a fraught topic these days, decades of partisan bullshitting masquerading as truth-telling having created a seemingly unbridgeable divide in which any prospective commander is either an inspirational visionary ready to save the nation or manifestly destitute of the qualities necessary for the role. The prevalence of instant, binary reviews might eventually make Keegan Bradley wish he’d opted for the simpler life of running for president instead of accepting a gig as America’s Ryder Cup captain.

Management is complicated, no matter how many uplifting Hallmark aphorisms are peddled by LinkedIn influencers. Studies suggest that only a third of workers feel engaged by their business leaders, less than 20 percent trust them, and more than half quit because of that relationship. Which means Bradley’s new job would be plenty challenging even if he didn’t have to ascertain whether his team is willing to be led at all, or if his appointment is seen as usurping their collective power.

Recent U.S. Ryder Cup skippers have been more transactional than transformational. The task force created after Tom Watson’s bruising tenure in 2014 accomplished two goals: it relieved PGA of America executives of responsibility for selecting a captain while still keeping checks coming to the right address, and it delegated control of the team to a core group of players who were then recycled biennially through the captaincy and vice-captaincies. Noble chaps all, but a perception took root that the room where it happens didn’t seat many folks.

The captains chosen since ’14 fit the mold that cast generations of their predecessors — men well stricken in years who are either on or nearing the Champions Tour glue factory in terms of their competitive relevance. More recently, captains have also been made men in the task-force mafia. Bradley is 38 years old, ranked in the world’s top 20, and assuredly not part of the coffee klatch that denied him a captain’s pick last year, despite a playing record better than any of the half-dozen who were chosen to suit up in Rome. Of the rationales that will be offered in support of Bradley — passion, college-era proximity to the venue at Bethpage Black, generational change — none is more welcome than this: his appointment takes a sledgehammer to the task force buddy culture that has hogtied Team USA for 10 years, during which captains began to sound like concierges and act like the job was to just keep players comfortable.

USA’s Keegan Bradley celebrates after winning their foursomes match on the 15th hole at the Ryder Cup on Friday, Sept. 28, 2012, at the Medinah Country Club in Medinah, Ill.

We can’t say if Bradley will be a good leader since he has no applicable résumé to judge. He hasn’t ever been a vice captain nor has he voiced a vision, mainly because he wasn’t asked to. The first conversation he had with the PGA of America about the captaincy was when he was called and told it was his — a fact that will be cited as a dereliction by PGA officials if his time in the role goes poorly. Nor can we assume he’ll struggle, but the trait most often cited in his defense — passionate patriotism — isn’t enough. Just ask Lanny Wadkins or Tom Lehman or Curtis Strange or Hal Sutton or Corey Pavin or Davis Love III or Jim Furyk or Zach Johnson.

Captains are ultimately judged on something they can’t entirely control: how their team performs. It’s an unforgiving metric for a man to live by when he doesn’t hit a shot. In Bradley’s case, the crucial unknown is how quickly players will buy in to his leadership. He’s been open about not enjoying close relationships with the core members of the U.S. team, which might explain why those on the ’23 Ryder Cup squad didn’t exactly stampede to social media with their congratulations when the selection was announced. If players embrace his captaincy, and they almost certainly will, then Bradley could be a great choice for the U.S. If they don’t, then he’s a great pick for Europe. And we might not have to wait until Sept. 28, 2025, to find out which is the case.

For too long, the U.S. Ryder Cup team room has functioned as an echo chamber of comforting blather, and not in the manner of locker rooms in real team sports, where whining, undermining conduct, petulance and apathy are mercilessly rooted out by coaches or managers. The Ryder Cup captaincy can’t be crowdsourced for the purposes of making every player feel heard, seen, included and comfortable, but that’s seemed to be the prized objective since the task force went to work. As Mark Twain said, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Whatever happens on Long Island 14 months hence, Bradley’s tenure will make the job easier for those who follow him. For that reason alone, he can already be chalked up as a winning skipper.

Lynch: Signature events could use changes, but if stars aren’t inconvenienced, the PGA Tour isn’t listening

Faced with LIV Golf’s irrational economics, the PGA Tour mimicked the madness.

For a sport that prides itself on enduring traditions, men’s professional golf has come to be defined by impermanence — of player loyalty, of executive postures, of fan interest, of fiscal prudence and, now, of leadership. The adroit Seth Waugh is departing as CEO of the PGA of America, an organization burdened with a governance model ill-suited to a modern sports organization, while his former Deutsche Bank colleague Martin Slumbers will soon follow at the R&A. The PGA Tour’s leadership team is unchanged, but the same can’t be said of its boardroom and business structure, the reshaping of which will be as radical as it is overdue. Per the cliché, change is inevitable but growth is optional, and the Tour has an early opportunity to demonstrate how quickly it can learn and adapt.

Faced with LIV’s irrational economics, the PGA Tour mimicked the madness, largely because players actually seem to believe themselves worth a multiple of what the market previously dictated. The Brinks trucks delivering on their demands are the signature events, eight limited-field tournaments with $20 million purses that — alongside majors, the Players and the FedEx Cup playoffs — account for almost all appearances top players will make each season.

The last signature event, the Travelers Championship, concluded last week. The concept should be considered a success in that it produced strong leaderboards and something approximating a guaranteed product for sponsors and broadcasters. Still, it’s a learning curve to get this stuff right and it’s not quite right yet.

When possible, signatures are scheduled for consecutive weeks, separated by windows in which those outside of the top 50 (who are automatically exempt) can play their way in. Good on paper, problematic in practice. At a point in the season when rank-and-file members are scrapping for status, too many were furloughed for three weeks because signature stops bookended the U.S. Open. Tournaments that shoulder signatures experience a paucity of star power. Even star players have gripes with the schedule: they gear their years around majors, each with his own preference on how to best prepare and recover. Every major this season was preceded or followed (or both!) by a signature. Add the subtext of Arnold Palmer’s family and Jack Nicklaus thinking they’re running retro U.S. Opens at Bay Hill and Muirfield Village, and players were bruised heading into, respectively, the Players and the actual U.S. Open.

For all that, scheduling is at least less contentious than the other three issues around signatures: field sizes, FedEx Cup points allocations and sponsor exemptions.

Most fields are 70-odd in number, with just three having nominal cuts that dispatch a couple dozen guys. Boosting the number of competitors — say, to 100 — would make for better events, more action for fans and broadcasters, more opportunity for David vs. Goliath storylines and simply more theater for on-site spectators. At the Arnold Palmer Invitational, the bleachers behind the range remained largely deserted because the smaller field teed off in twosomes all day, rather than in morning/afternoon waves that generate a lot more viewing activity.

The rationale for small fields is obvious: less guys to divide $20 million amongst. Instituting a meaningful cut would cap the number cashing checks, but, of course, the risk of being shown the exit after 36 holes doesn’t guarantee money to the very players who wanted these events for, um, guaranteed money. Field size is germane to the notion of the Tour as an entertainment product serving multiple constituents — fans, sponsors, broadcasters and members, though assuredly never in that order of importance. Tiger Woods being gifted a lifetime pass into signature events was dressed up as a reward for career excellence, but it was really about entertainment. If he wants to play, then fans, broadcasters and sponsors sure as hell want to see him. It was the right thing to do, but it speaks to the need for flexibility on fields for the good of the product.

Jordan Spieth looks on from the 14th green during the Pro-Am event prior to the Travelers Championship at TPC River Highlands on June 19, 2024, in Cromwell, Connecticut. (Photo by James Gilbert/Getty Images)

The other wrinkles in the signatures cause angst more in locker rooms than living rooms. FedEx Cup points are the Tour’s currency, and most players are okay with the winner of an opposite-field event receiving points equal to the runner-up in a regular Tour event with a stronger field. But a guy finishing 5th in a signature tournament earns the exact same number. The deeper you go, the more vexatious it becomes for journeymen. Twentieth place in a signature equates to 6th place most other weeks.

It’s defensible logic, the kind underpinning the revised Official World Golf Ranking: greater rewards for performing against stronger competition. But at a certain point, mediocre finishes shouldn’t be excessively rewarded. Whether action is needed will be determined in part by the churn, the percentage of top 50 players who lose their eligibility at season’s end. If too many are protected by easy access to FEC points, then a rethink is in order.

The easiest fix relates to sponsor invitations. Companies that post a princely sum for events ought to have latitude in how they use their four golden tickets, and rules obviously apply. But in 2024 Adam Scott and Webb Simpson — both members of the Tour’s Policy Board — each received five free passes into lucrative events they weren’t otherwise eligible for. Those players aren’t violating any rules in asking for or receiving invites, and sponsors are happy to welcome two major champions. Bu.t the optics are lousy, and the quid pro quo is non-existent. There needs to be a cap on the number of signature event sponsor invites a player can receive, and each one he accepts should carry a requirement to play a regular tournament they haven’t visited in recent years. If they’re good enough to add value to a signature, they’re good enough to do the same for a lesser event.

The only one of these quibbles apt to be addressed in time is the schedule, since it’s the only issue that could negatively impact top players, the group to whom the new product is being catered. Field sizes, points allocations and free passes don’t present a problem for stars, and thus are unlikely to do so for Tour management either.

Lynch: Brooks Koepka isn’t a PGA Tour player, but his flex on interviews points to a big problem for his former circuit

PGA Tour players think all they need to do in order to get paid is play golf, and that is about to change.

PINEHURST, N.C. — The difference between obligations and responsibilities isn’t mere semantics about what one must do versus what one should do, and even less so for the investors about to place a heavy hand on the PGA Tour’s tiller. Free marketeers often view obligations as being for employees while responsibilities are for the executive and shareholder classes.

Brooks Koepka is none of the above as it relates to the PGA Tour, since he’s employed by LIV Golf and wasn’t part of the equity grants that made players nominal owners in PGA Tour Enterprises. But Koepka’s actions at the U.S. Open do illustrate a perplexing question that looms over his former circuit, one of many that will need to be addressed in the coming realignment.

At Pinehurst, Koepka declined to do a pre-tournament press conference or a post-round gaggle on Thursday. Players regularly skip media, though not frequently, and for a variety of reasons (though Koepka is alone — but not inaccurate — in saying it’s because the questions posed lack creativity). Sometimes they want to practice before dinner, they’re steamed about their play, they’re avoiding addressing a particular topic, they’re pouting over prior coverage, or they’re rushing to catch a Biden crime family exposé on OAN.

Brooks Koepka hits on the 12th hole during the second round of the U.S. Open golf tournament at Pinehurst No. 2. Mandatory Credit: Katie Goodale-USA TODAY Sports

There’s a generational difference too. Guys who’ve grown up with a direct line to fans via social media are inclined to see traditional media engagement as less important. Veterans who relied on such coverage to boost their profiles, and those of the Tour and their sponsors, are generally more indulgent of the process.

The PGA Tour has no regulations governing how members handle media. Players are trusted to make reasonable accommodations and if an issue arises the Tour will work with all parties to sort it out. So, no obligation. But is there a responsibility? It’s an intriguing question as the Tour morphs from a de facto union into a for-profit business. Koepka’s standoffishness at Pinehurst is easily dismissed as being on-brand for a player who enjoys cultivating a slightly combative, maverick image, but it points to a broader dilemma: PGA Tour players are accustomed to thinking that all they need to do in order to get paid is play golf, and that is about to change.

U.S. OPEN: Leaderboard | Hole-by-hole | How to watch

The investors pumping money into the Tour — not just SSG, but likely the Saudi Public Investment Fund, too — are not doing so to preserve the status quo, in any respect. They will expect players to shoulder more responsibility for the product, to be givers and not just takers. Private equity took over F1 in 2017 and the asks made of drivers grew noticeably greater. Not just media interviews, but marketing content creation, fan interactions, walk-throughs with rooms full of corporate sponsors. Golfers sometimes do things like that, but not often, and usually more in service of their own commercial interests than the Tour’s. That practice is incompatible with the impending expectations of folks who will want a more engaging, fan- and sponsor-friendly product that shows significant growth.

We’re about to find out how much players really believe themselves to be equity stakeholders with a shared interest in growing the Tour’s business, or if they still consider themselves independent contractors beholden to no one but wives and swing svengalis.

Lynch: After Brooks Koepka declined interviews, I suggested one via text. He accepted, and explained why he’s not talking

The scope of player obligations is only one of a number of difficult reckonings that promise to make the next few years considerably more compelling than the rancor of the last few. How many players will be fully exempt? How many tournaments can they access? How many events will be on the schedule? Where will they take place? What becomes of the men and events deemed surplus to new requirements? If the stars only show for $25 million purses, can $8 million prize funds still be expected in weeks overstocked with journeymen? If the post-playoff months are a testing ground for globalizing the product and for team golf, what happens to the stops currently occupying that window?

And that’s before you even get to the thorny issues around how LIV players might be reintegrated into the PGA Tour.

If the Tour’s locker room is a tinder box — and you don’t have to search far for occupants who insist that it is — then the match lies somewhere in that list.

Regardless of whether the Tour’s future lies in a ménage à deux with SSG or a ménage à trois alongside the PIF, change is coming. Among all the things it has botched, LIV got one thing right — it contracted the talent to certain obligations. The PGA Tour will need to figure out how to do the same with guys who are grooved to setting their own schedules, being their own bosses and promoting their own brands, sometimes with only accidental benefit to the Tour. That gap will need to be closed, and the process of doing so could prove every bit as rancorous as the schism that brought things to this overdue juncture.

[lawrence-auto-related count=1 tag=451190070]

Lynch: After Brooks Koepka declined interviews, I suggested one via text. He accepted, and explained why he’s not talking

Brooks Koepka found himself near the top of the leaderboard. But he didn’t want to talk. Why?

PINEHURST, N.C. — At one stage during the first round of the U.S. Open, Brooks Koepka found himself in a familiar spot: at the top of the leaderboard. But three late bogeys left him with an even-par 70. Afterward, he declined requests for media interviews. He says it wasn’t because he was irritated by the round getting away from him — he’s just bored by routine questions. I suggested an interview via text. He accepted and was everything you’d expect — forthright, combative and unfiltered.

Eamon Lynch text: You opted not to do media interviews after the first round. Why?

Brooks Koepka text: I opted not to do ‘em just because I didn’t feel like it. Same questions every week. The lack of creativity with questions is kinda boring. I know I’m not a media favorite either so it’s not like anyone will notice. LOL.

How creative should questions be when asking someone about a round of golf? Is this just your bulletin board material for the week so you can fire yourself up?

No, definitely not. It’s a major. I have enough self-motivation. I could think of way more creative questions than ‘Do you think the course is borderline? What happened on those bogeys? What went well?’ Then some LIV versus PGA Tour questions.

How creative are the post-round questions on LIV?

Really haven’t done much media, to be fair. PGA [Championship] was the last time I had media. It’s not a punishment thing. I always answer and didn’t really feel like it this week. Just to be clear.

Then what’s the first creative question you would have asked yourself after today’s round?

Do you think Bermuda has made this course easier or tougher? [Note: greens on No. 2 changed from bent grass to Bermuda grass for this Open.]

That’s not very creative. But anyway, were you pissed at the round getting away from you or happy with the even-par score?

Wasn’t trying to be creative. If you want me to get creative I can. Not my job, but if I get 10 I can think of something since the media has all day.

I was fine with it. Obviously could have been better but even par in a U.S. Open will not hurt you.

Any particular part of your game feel strong today? Or for that matter weak.

Felt in control of iron play. Brain fart on 13 and 15. Just didn’t do much wrong. Missed it where I wanted. Sixteen was my bad drive of day and didn’t get lucky in the native area, which is what you get when you hit it in there. Just part of Pinehurst and what makes it good.

It’s more I just don’t care about doing it. Everyone else turns interviews down. I never do. Would rather come back, rest up and spend time chilling. Not angry at all. Hope that’s clear. I declined my press conference too this week.

We’re back on that? It’s clear. So what are you doing post-round other than answering texts?

Hanging with Crew. He just went down for a nap. Jena is working out and I’m doing my routine. Have a dip and get ready for the hockey game.

Any issues with the course set-up today or do you foresee any problems with the heat coming?

I thought it was good today. I don’t see any problems if greens stay same speed. They will get firmer. It’s a U.S. Open. Just means you gotta hit fairways.

So if we hear anyone say the course was borderline then they’re just whining?

No, I don’t think they’re whining. The U.S. Open always comes close to the line. It’s just a matter of does it get crossed. It’s playable if you’re in fairways. Just can’t get much faster greens if it’s gonna be firmer. Gotta kind of pick one. Not sure which one they will pick. I’m assuming firmness. Greens can’t get much faster because it limits pin locations.

Brooks Koepka putts on the first green during the first round of the U.S. Open golf tournament. Mandatory Credit: Katie Goodale-USA TODAY Sports

Do you have a score in mind you’d like to be at Sunday evening?

Yes, the best one. Tough to tell. Depends if wind picks up or it’s firmer. I’d say 4-under wins.

If you have the best score, will you be doing an interview?

Probably not. LOL. Who knows?

That might make the media root against you.

They already do.

Cry me a river.

I’m not asking for a pity party.

Sounds a little like it.

That’s a stretch. Rory didn’t talk to media at LACC [in the 2023 U.S. Open] and everyone was talking how it’s because he wants to focus. The second I do it, I’m mad at media, which isn’t true. I just didn’t want to do it. But my narrative will be I’m mad at media.

Maybe you need to smile more.

I’m working. When I’m finished I’ll smile.

Any LIV-PGA Tour questions you’d like me to ask before you go for a nap?

Not gonna nap, I’m not Crew. You’re the interviewer.

Do you think a PIF deal happens with the Tour?

I think it will but there is too much to figure out so it won’t happen for a while. Deal might be signed quick but it’s gonna take a while to iron out details. Just my opinion, I don’t know anything. You might know more than me.

By the way, Rory didn’t do a press conference at LACC or an interview after round one but he did do so the last three days. Will we hear from you tomorrow? Assuming you’re not in the air home.

If I feel like it, yeah. When you have five majors you can skip another day if ya want. LOL.

If you skip, we can do this again. I’m sure America needs to hear from you.

Nobody really cares what I have to say.

Pity party much?

No, I’m being honest. Most golf fans don’t live or die on my statements. I’m not Tiger Woods or Scottie Scheffler. And Rory. Everyone else is kind of an afterthought. I’m just not oblivious. Because that’s who I would wanna hear from. I wouldn’t be one I’d want to hear from. I’m good at removing myself from the situation and understanding as a fan.

We can test that theory tomorrow. Creatively, of course.

Your not creative.

You’re.

Thanks, Dad.

Lynch: Xander Schauffele won 2024 PGA Championship with skill, but deserved it on attitude

What brought Schauffele to his crowning moment was a hide thicker than he was ever given credit for.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Spend enough time around elite golfers and it becomes clear that the ingredients for success – and sanity, for that matter – are a short memory, a thick hide and a stout ego. All three are intimately connected, but ego is the most important component, with the others essential for keeping it intact.

Padraig Harrington isn’t known as boastful or brash, but in a long-ago conversation the amiable Dubliner stressed the importance of self-admiration in professional golf. “I have a huge ego. We all do,” he said. “Do you think we’d go out and risk having our heads chopped off every week if we didn’t want the glory that comes with winning?”

One hundred fifty-six egos came to Valhalla for the 106th PGA Championship. Most are like Harrington’s, strictly professional, largely understated and well-disguised. A few are more obvious and worn openly, like the personal logo emblazoned on the sleeve of Bryson DeChambeau, which resembles a paramilitary patch favored by mercenaries who serve unsavory causes. By Sunday afternoon, it was clear who among the egotists could call upon the benefit of having a short memory too.

Viktor Hovland could. A few days earlier, he was so mired in the quagmire of swing theories that he considered withdrawing from the tournament. An 11th-hour reunion with the instructor who helped him earn more than $35 million in 2023 provided clarity and erased confusion. Collin Morikawa’s story was similar. He left his longtime coach, Rick Sessinghaus, last year but recently returned to base camp and his old self. Shane Lowry forgot a season of iffy putting and moved into contention because of the short stick. Even Scottie Scheffler needed a touch of amnesia, moving beyond his detour to jail 48 hours earlier.

Most tour players will tell you that a bad shot has a longer life span than a good one, that misfires at a crucial moment linger longer in the memory than well-executed deliveries. The ability to forget those shots – or to at least rationalize them – is key. Jack Nicklaus won 18 majors in part by creating alibis for his 19 second-place finishes. Even today, the Bear struggles to recall the particulars of those times he came up short.

It’s a skill Xander Schauffele has had to call upon often in his still-young career. He has seven PGA Tour wins but twice as many runners-up. His 42 top-five finishes entering the 2024 PGA Championship are almost a quarter of his career starts. That’s an awful lot of time in the mix with not a lot to show for it. In majors, a similar trend. Through 27 starts before this week, a dozen top 10s, half of them top 5s, two of them seconds. Yet no trophy, jug or jacket.

That’s where the thick hide comes in.

If there was crushing disappointment along the way, and there must have been, Schauffele hid it gamely. Every near miss was chalked up as a lesson learned, as experience gained, as steps taken closer to the goal, his wan smile permafixed. Analysis by others wasn’t always so optimistic. He was accused of lacking fortitude, of tilting toward safe options on Sundays, of waiting for others to lose rather than grabbing victory by the throat.

Perhaps he was nicked by those razors so often that eventually they no longer drew blood. None of those traits were in evidence at Valhalla. Not when he opted for fairway metal from the bunker on No. 10, even when the aggressive play led to bogey. Not when he slashed 4-iron from a treacherous stance on No. 18, when faint hearts would have played it safer. Not when he nipped lob wedge from a tight lie to the final green. And certainly not when he rolled in the winning putt from 6 feet, 2 inches.

It’s facile to say that a golfer deserves a major championship victory. After all, the game’s toughest titles are hard earned, and many terrific talents never earned what seemed their due. But this one was deserved. Not merely on talent and application, but on attitude. We live in an era when athletes too often default to a ‘woe-is-me’ disposition, quick to reassign responsibility for shortcomings, eager to deflect fair criticism as unduly harsh. Schauffele never did.

Buried somewhere in there is an ego and a short memory. But what brought Schauffele to his crowning moment in Louisville was a hide thicker than he was ever given credit for.

Lynch: The PGA Tour’s new committee will be mocked, but it’s the last hope for grown-ups to take charge

The Transaction Subcommittee’s anodyne name belies its importance.

Committees often have about as much utility as ashtrays on motorcycles, and in golf usually serve only as a mechanism to butcher great courses and honor the milquetoast. On occasion, however, they can be impactful. The three-man panel that negotiated the PGA Tour’s Framework Agreement with the Saudis last summer certainly made an impression, not least because other Policy Board members didn’t know of its existence nor much care for its output.

The backlash to that secretive process sparked a time-consuming and overdue governance review that is essential as the Tour shapeshifts from an indolent non-profit with complacent members into a modern league with shareholders and investors. A handful of oversight committees have now been established at PGA Tour Enterprises, the for-profit entity that runs the business. Most are standard operating procedurals, but one panel in particular suggests the Tour is about to move beyond childish bickering and begin letting grown-ups shape its future.

The Transaction Subcommittee’s anodyne name belies its importance. It will handle talks with the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia on a potential deal and make a recommendation to the full Policy Board — one the politburo is unlikely to reject from its hand-picked negotiators. Committee members include Enterprises chairman Joe Gorder, commissioner Jay Monahan and John Henry, the principal of Strategic Sports Group, which just invested a billion-five into the product. There are also four players: Joe Ogilvie (retired, and now a humble money manager), Tiger Woods, Adam Scott and Rory McIlroy. In short, a lot of people unaccustomed to making business calls by committee.

No one is on the panel to present moral arguments about being in business with a despot. Those who harbor any such reservations will check them at the door and treat negotiations as a matter of commerce, not conscience. But it is at least a committee of adults, something sorely needed in this sorry mess.

The PGA Tour has been consumed with dual crises, one internal, one ex-. The latter is obvious — the LIV threat, caused by the depth of Saudi pockets and the shallowness of character among the Tour’s own membership. The internal dispute mostly remained behind boardroom doors until spilling into the open this week when a faction of player-directors (Woods, Patrick Cantlay and Jordan Spieth) blocked an effort to reappoint McIlroy to the Policy Board he left six months ago.

The rebuff wasn’t unjustified. There must be a legitimate and transparent process governing board appointments and having Webb Simpson nominate McIlroy as his successor ain’t either. Still, there was no hand-wringing when Woods was added to the board in the middle of the night, the only member without (still) an expiration date for his term. The Pope of Ponte Vedra serves at his own discretion, it seems. But the stiff-arming of McIlroy exposed how personal grievances have masqueraded as governance concerns.

There are ample misgivings about how the Tour is run and most are genuinely held and valid. But some guys just remain angry at being blindsided by the Framework Agreement, while others are pissed because they left LIV’s millions on the table and know their moment has passed. They want the heads of those who architected the June 6 deal — Monahan, Ed Herlihy and Jimmy Dunne — and the thirst for retribution has paralyzed the organization at a perilous time.

That faction sees McIlroy as too close to their nemeses, but in balking at his return to the board they might have overplayed their hand. A public perception now exists that the Cantlay camp wields power, which means that credit for progress — or, more likely, blame for a lack thereof — is destined for the same desks.

Thus McIlroy now finds himself used by both sides. Having long been a proxy for executives in fighting the public battle against LIV, he is now seconded to the Transactions Committee as a convenient means of providing cover for the players who didn’t want him to have a board vote, but who fear even more scrutiny for having rejected him. The Tour is fortunate that he’s sufficiently toughened (or soft) to endure its maladroit bungling in his effort to contribute to a solution. McIlroy’s relationships with stakeholders on both sides will be useful to the committee, but not enough to single-handedly forge a settlement in golf’s civil war. Even a good-faith effort might still mean the Tour moves forward without a toxic association with the PIF.

Whatever the outcome, the spectacle of backroom squabbling has focused a harsh light on the role of players in management. The to-ings and fro-ings of recent years prove that most players will make decisions based upon personal priorities, not the broader good of the sport or a tour. That tendency is incompatible with the executive functions they now feel entitled to exercise.

If nothing else, perhaps this committee will hasten a day when all of them can get back to adding value where they do it best — inside the ropes — and leave the actual business to those qualified for the challenges.

[lawrence-auto-related count=1 tag=451190070]

Bandon Dunes 25th anniversary: Our Eamon Lynch shares his love story (with a bit of hate)

Columnist Eamon Lynch dreams of Bandon Dunes, but there’s one hole that gives him nightmares.


(Editor’s note: Bandon Dunes Golf Resort is celebrating its 25th anniversary and Golfweek Travel Editor Jason Lusk put together a comprehensive package for the occasion, complete with Q&As of pivotal people in and around the operation. To see the entire package of stories, click here.)

The quality of sleep enjoyed by a tortured golfer is inversely proportional to the number of swing thoughts agitating the mind. Thus, on most nights my attempts at finding rest involve not counting sheep but playing golf in my mind’s eye. Almost always, those rounds are at Bandon Dunes.

It’s been over 20 years since I first visited Mike Keiser’s refuge on the Oregon coast, and the more than 100 rounds I’ve played there are among my fondest memories. Like the Solstice in 2012, four rounds in one day. The first ball was airborne (barely) at 5:35 a.m., the last putt dropped at 8:10 p.m., the first cocktail moments later. Or the time I watched with unsporting glee as a friend needed 51 putts on Old Macdonald (he was a perfect 33 through 11 until he unexpectedly two-putted the 12th). Or when I played a three-club tournament on the same course and chose my weapons badly: putter, hybrid, 7-iron. On the seventh hole, I tried the putter backward and left-handed to use the flange for a steep bunker shot. It worked, then I three-jacked on the green when using it conventionally.

But Bandon Dunes is also where apathy over swing dysfunction became apparent. Maybe a decade back, I was there with Brandel Chamblee, so already the trip was suboptimal. We were playing Bandon Trails, the Bill Coore-Ben Crenshaw design that features many holes I love and one I loathe. We reached the 14th, a 325-yarder where caddies will tell you they count many more 6s than 4s. 

I’ve railed against the hole since it opened in 2005. Once, I was headed to Trails with a course architecture writer when he handed me his phone, mid-call. “Eamon, this is Bill Coore,” came a gentle drawl. “I just want to remind you, again, that No. 14 was Ben’s idea.”

On the tee with Chamblee, I sniped one left into the woods, a trend established over the previous 13 holes. Dejected, I handed the driver back to my longtime, long-suffering caddie, Shanks. “That’s my last swing,” I said.

“No, it isn’t!” Chamblee said, laughing.

“Watch me,” I replied. 

I spent the remainder of the trip beating balls on the range and saw more of the milkshake lady at the Dairy Queen downtown than I did of Chamblee (so it wasn’t all bad).

It was an ominous sign of my eventual descent to total range rat, happy to hit balls all day as long as I didn’t have to go find them. Which explains why I haven’t been back to Bandon Dunes in eight years.

Bandon Dunes
No. 16 at Bandon Dunes, which Eamon Lynch considers among his favorite holes on the planet (Courtesy of Bandon Dunes Golf Resort)

Yet still I lie a couple thousand miles east with photographic recall of holes that gave me fits (the aforementioned 14th at Trails, the fifth at Bandon Dunes) and those I rank among my favorites on the planet (the fourth at Pacific Dunes, the fifth at Trails, the 16th at Bandon Dunes). I don’t dream of the Sheep Ranch though. I only saw that property when one group a day would be dropped off to devise their own layout from 13 green complexes scattered on a bluff north of the resort, years before it became the latest acclaimed course in the portfolio.

Each fitful night of near-sleep brings a reminder of what I’ve lost by not playing much golf anymore, hence a recent desire to get back into the swing, as it were. Every few months for almost eight years, I’ve gotten a text from my buddy Michael Chupka, who works at Bandon. “Ready to come back yet?” he asks, like a patient counselor.

One of these days I’m going to answer in the affirmative. If only to see if Bill and Ben have done anything yet to redeem that damned hole.

Lynch: Chris DiMarco picked a dumb time to make a dumb argument that even his senior buddies won’t like hearing

The flat-bellies might dismiss veterans with ‘get off my lawn’ memes, but theirs are important voices.

In the Oscar-winning Indian movie “RRR,” there’s a bleakly comedic scene in which a tyrannical politician berates an officer for training his gun on a woman from the lower orders, telling him that the cost of his ammunition exceeded the value of the life he intended to take with it. Adopting that ghoulish standard, one wonders why the overworked firing squads of social media even bothered taking aim at Chris DiMarco, who this week joined a lengthy list of professional golfers giving voice to unspeakably deluded notions.

“We’re kind of hoping that LIV buys the Champions Tour, to tell you the truth,” DiMarco said on a visit to the Subpar podcast, as he unfavorably compared prize money at the Players Championship with purses on the Toviaz tour. “Let’s play for a little real money out here. This is kind of a joke when we’re getting $2 million. There were like seven guys last week from TPC [Sawgrass] that made more money than our purses.”

He didn’t define the ‘we’ on whose behalf he claimed to speak, but DiMarco’s comments surely had his peers squirming in the Champions Tour locker room, itself a verdant pasture of conspiracy theories so kooky that even a Lyndon LaRouche-ite might think the crazy train had passed his stop.

It’s easy to cite DiMarco’s performances — a T-33 his best finish in 2024, and no better than a T-15 in 23 starts last season — and ask just how much value he thinks he adds to the Champions Tour, beyond being an amiable pro-am companion for a group of middle managers. Doing so would be a disservice to what was a respectable if fleeting career on the PGA Tour, and would overlook the actual point he was making. DiMarco didn’t say he personally deserves more from the cash spigot now watering every lawn in Jupiter, rather that the tour on which he competes does. But that’s an argument not even his most avaricious senior colleagues are making right now, with good reason.

Talk to most any player on the Champions Tour and you’ll find they are pissed at how the PGA Tour they helped build is being treated by the current generation as wholly their asset to remortgage, at how naked greed is trumping any sentiment about the greater good of the game. The flat-bellies might dismiss veterans with ‘get off my lawn’ memes and eye rolls, but theirs are important voices in any conversation about the Tour’s future. Which is why some experienced hands will find it frustrating that one of their own mounted a dumb argument—that senior purses aren’t adequately financed—and chose a dumb time to do it.

The new for-profit entity, PGA Tour Enterprises, is going to reshape men’s professional golf. Along the way, every budget line in the Global Home will be subjected to close scrutiny and value assessments not rooted in sentimentality. That will include all the tours operating under the mothership’s umbrella. The degree to which the Champions Tour is subsidized by headquarters is often exaggerated. According to one source familiar with internal accounting, it’s no more than a few million dollars annually. That’s pennies for an organization now valued at $12 billion, but pennies are snatched back first in pursuit of dollars, and this is not the time to suggest that even bigger handouts might be in order.

There’s an understandable disconnect between what the Champions Tour is commercially and what many of its members imagine it to be competitively. Players see a cutthroat circuit where every buck is hard-earned, which is fair enough. But the business of the Champions Tour is essentially that of an elevated pro-am circuit, with 200-odd amateurs paying to play both Wednesdays and Thursdays, with another 100-ish on Mondays, if there’s demand. Television viewership is meager, worryingly so since a decent percentage of those watching could be in danger of expiring during the broadcast window. The value of the Champions Tour lies in being an on-site entertainment platform that can support itself (albeit in orthopedic shoes), not as a product with a monetizable audience of scale and global growth potential.

That might change after December 30, 2025, when Tiger Woods turns 50 years old and becomes eligible to join the circuit. If he can’t or won’t play, then the Champions Tour will never have been less relevant. If he does compete, even sparingly, Woods could boost the Tour’s value well beyond pro-am receipts. But until such times manifest, those who play out there are paid sufficiently within the parameters of what their tour is.

The ‘git me some’ attitude in DiMarco’s comments — which goes in tandem with dismissing fans as an afterthought — is easily derided, but a 55-year-old struggling pro with loose lips, 20-plus years removed from his last win, is a conveniently soft target. If folks want to take aim at professional golfers who express entitlement to greater rewards while adding little to the product or fan experience, there are plenty of Chris DiMarcos on the PGA Tour doing just that.

[lawrence-auto-related count=1 tag=451190070]