Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Is the Open Championship really the truest test?

Published

on

What a tournament that was. Last weekend, golf fans were treated to the best of what professional golf has to offer. There was a guy named Beef in all his bearded glory, Phil the Thrill going for another major and Stenson closing it out with a tie for lowest final round in major history. The final two rounds saw two of the best players in the world go toe to toe with shot making, skill and sportsmanship.

I feel confident saying the Open is the most entertaining golf tournament of the year, with only the Masters offering much of a challenge. The U.S. Open is great, but you can only watch players hacking it out of six inches of rough for so long — and let’s not even get started on the rulings. The PGA Championship is fine, but with it coming two weeks after the Open this year, it seems a little anticlimactic.

And who doesn’t love watching players negotiate howling winds, freezing rain and weather more suited for November than summer. It’s television and entertainment at its best.

There is a larger question to ask about the Open, though; does it really do the best job of identifying the top-performing golfers in the field? Because we heard over and over this week how the Open was the “truest test” in major championship golf. Nick Faldo led off Sunday’s coverage on Golf Channel saying it was. The Open even calls the winner the Champion Golfer of the Year.

But we heard another subject from the players discussed more often before, during and after the tournament even started.

The dreaded draw.

If you weren’t on the right side of the draw at Royal Troon this year, you weren’t in contention. The top 10 heading into Saturday all played on Thursday afternoon and Friday morning. For those counting at home, there was a seven-shot difference between Kevin Na’s two-round total of 139 in 11th place and Mickelson’s 132 at the top. Who is to say Na’s two-day total wasn’t as good as the leaders? Yet he was nearly out of it, 7 strokes back. Stuck on the wrong side of the draw, Jason Day talked about “luck” and Justin Rose called it “frustrating.”

Rory McIlroy, after already making some incendiary comments early in the week, took the high road saying“I’m not going to let being on the wrong side ruin my mood or ruin my week.”

The next day he did this.

Now none of this is to say Mickelson or Stenson shouldn’t have been in the final pairing on Sunday. It’s hard to argue when two golfers close out the Sunday of a major a combined 14-under par. But it doesn’t mean others couldn’t have been in contention on Saturday if they had the opposite side of the draw. So let’s stamp down the high praise and boasting of how well the Open does finding the true champion and golfer of the year.

You can call it the most fun major to watch, you can call it the most entertaining found of golf you’ve ever seen, you can even call it the best final round in major history… just don’t call it the truest test in golf. Because if a tournament is so reliant on when you tee off, how true a test is it really?

Seth is an avid golfer playing year round in Florida.

15 Comments

15 Comments

  1. Jim

    Jul 24, 2016 at 5:11 am

    Playing against the brunt of the nature is definitely a better test than going against USGA’s sadistic 6-inch rough made on purpose to make life difficult for no absolute reason.

  2. TGS

    Jul 21, 2016 at 2:06 am

    Calloway makes equipment that just goes straight and keeps you in play. I find that to be the case with their woods this year. Very straight

  3. Nev

    Jul 20, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    I find it hard to fathom comments about the luck of the draw, when Thursday was a perfect day, yet none of the best golfers in the world failed to take advantage of it. Maybe it is more that some players find it hard to play links courses. I would rather watch golf played on this style of course, rather than watch players trying to hack their way out of 6 inch rough.

  4. Scott

    Jul 20, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Seth, you whine worse that Sergio Garcia. Correct me if I am wrong, but 1/2 of the field played in identical conditions, yet the best anyone else could muster is 11 strokes behind 2nd place?

    i guess the reason is that the golf gods wanted Phil and Henrik to be in one of the best mach play duels in recent history. The golf gods hated everyone else.

  5. matto

    Jul 20, 2016 at 5:31 am

    Phil was absolutely soaked to the bone on Friday. Didn’t look easy to me. A lot of this “bad side of the draw” talk seems to be because the OGWR top 4 didn’t fair well.

  6. Rich

    Jul 20, 2016 at 4:54 am

    Sorry Seth, you’re an idiot. You can’t conclude that The Open is not the truest test of golf if you are not going to define what the truest test is. How can you argue that something does or doesn’t fit the brief, if there is no brief. I’m not saying it is or isn’t, I’m just saying your article gives nothing except your opinion.

    Seems like Golfwrx are just getting articles from more and more sources that are either cheap or rubbish just to fill their quota of new articles. Is golf really that uninteresting these days that we are subjected to rubbish articles like this? God I hope not.

  7. Uno

    Jul 20, 2016 at 3:00 am

    Truest test would be to put these Pros on some Muni track with crappy greens, un-raked bunkers and fairways that don’t run out at all

  8. Jack

    Jul 20, 2016 at 2:45 am

    Yup let’s just have the next Open played on a golf simulator so nobody needs to ever play from another player’s divot, and wind conditions can all be simulated to be exactly the same and fair for everyone. That’ll be a true test of skill. /sarcasm

  9. Pete

    Jul 20, 2016 at 1:03 am

    so 14 shot difference between winner and 3rd bc luck of draw???

    that effect is practically standard in any 4 day stroke play event.

    +1 on the sour grapes, next time cool off for a few days before writing an article!

  10. Rancho

    Jul 20, 2016 at 12:36 am

    Ok, having subjected us to this rubbish OpEd, what is the truest test? Send them all to Topgolf?

  11. RedX

    Jul 19, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    +1 to SV, Philip & Ian’s comments.

    Too much has been made of the disparity in the draw in this Open. Any tee time Thursday was ideal as the course was defenceless all day (bunkers excepted) but highly ranked guys like JDay, Rors & Speith wasted their opportunities to go low. Friday was definitely more lopsided but not easy in the morning either.

    Weather played a significant part in this years US Open through to the cut as it has in other PGA tour events during the year.

    I do think the US players “feel” this a little more generally as they are often not called upon to play in wind and rain as regularly. Lighting is often a factor in the US under these conditions and (sensibly) play is suspended. It is rare in the Open and as such maybe they feel it more keenly when asked to play on and get on with it.

    “Hats off” to Phil as a positive example, shunning the umbrella, donning the wet weather gear and the two gloves in the thick of it Friday and just getting stuck in.

  12. SV

    Jul 19, 2016 at 2:48 pm

    It may be more prevalent in The Open, but weather-wise the luck of the draw can/will have an affect at any tournament. It just happened that this time the current “names” got caught, so some think it is a big deal. Life is not fair. Golf is not fair. Deal with it.
    Yes, The Open is the truest test of golf. It examines each player and asks them to answer the problems put before them. The questions change, but those that are able to answer them get a good grade. Henrik got an A+. Phil got an A. Others, those that missed the cut, got Fs.

  13. Philip

    Jul 19, 2016 at 2:36 pm

    And what tournament doesn’t have this aspect? Based on your argument not one tournament can really claim to offer the truest test of golf because seldom all of the golfers play in the same conditions – especially Thursday and Friday.

  14. Ian

    Jul 19, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Grumble grumble grumble. Sounds like the sour grapes of realizing that a non-American Major stole the spotlight. Credit where credits due.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending