Opinion & Analysis
Scott has an opportunity to shed Norman comparisons

Now that Tiger Woods has officially withdrawn from the Masters, Adam Scott has an even better chance to reach the No. 1 spot in the Official World Golf Rankings, and quite soon.
After Scott’s Players Championship victory in 2004, it didn’t seem like it would take 10 more years for the young studly Aussie to make it to the No. 1 spot, even though his emergence did come at the heart of the Tiger Woods Era. The golfing world probably expected Scott to have the immense success that we are currently seeing from the 33 year old about five or so years earlier.
After his breakthrough victory at the 2013 Masters — the second major that Scott participated in after his debacle at the 2012 British Open Championship — Greg Norman, Australian golfing celebrity and former No. 1 player in the world, was a name that was mentioned often throughout Scott’s post-Green Jacket analysis. Scott, as well as many others in the game, referenced The Shark, patriarch to Australian golfing, as “a mentor” to Australia before winning Australia’s first green jacket.
But is that a good thing?
If I were given the option of writing this article (which I am sincerely having a lot of fun doing by the way) or pursuing a golfing career half as good as Norman’s, I would definitely love the opportunity to take the latter. However, when people think of Greg Norman, their first impressions are of a guy who didn’t leave it all out there. I know that criticizing the career of a former No. 1 player in the world, a man who won two majors and has 89 worldwide wins to his name is a little “nit-picky,” but that’s his legacy.
I draw parallels between Scott and Norman at this specific time for one particular reason, which has everything to do with Tiger’s hiatus from the game. But first, it’s also interesting to note how similar the careers and personalities of the mentor and protégé relationship of Norman and Scott are. Both are iconic national celebrities from their homeland of Australia. And if Scott finds success in his next few events, that is if Rory, Phil, or Jason Day don’t go on some sort of tear, Scott and Norman will have both reached the No. 1 spot in the OWGR. Both are tall, handsome, physically fit and extremely charismatic individuals who have built immense financial success off the golf course due to such characteristics.
The comparison between Scott, with regards to the above point, and Norman is that there wasn’t a polarizing and dominant figure like Tiger present in the game during Norman’s career. One could argue that Nick Faldo’s six major championships in the 80s and 90s was some stiff competition, but it’s not the same.
In a handful of majors, Norman was on the wrong end of some unfortunate scenarios, which, had they gone the other way, might have us talking about Norman in the same light as a Lee Trevino, or maybe even Tom Watson. In 1996, Norman shot a final-round 78 at the Masters where he began the day with a six-shot lead. Ten years earlier, he had the lead going into Sunday in all four Majors and only came out with one win. In 1983, after holing a putt to force an 18-hole Monday playoff at the U.S. Open, Norman shot a final-round 75 to lose to eventual champ Fuzzy Zoeller.
Most famously at the 1987 Masters, Norman’s playoff opponent, Larry Mize, pulled off one of the most famous shots in Masters history, holing his third shot on No. 11 from 45 yards to grab the green jacket.
While two major championship victories and becoming the first player in golf to earn $10 million is nothing to criticize, it is hard to look past what could have been for Australia’s most decorated golfer (at least for now). In an article in Golf World Magazine about how, outside of Woods, Norman is the golfer who has performed at the highest level during the past 34 years, Jamie Diaz discussed the very well document disappointments in Norman’s career.
“Between his failures down the stretch in majors and the backlash from his highly marketed Great White Shark image, it has been common in recent years to hear Norman characterized as overrated.” Diaz also went on to say that “The Shark’s cross to bear will always be his inefficiency at closing out majors.”
With the state of Tiger Woods 3.0 being up in the air, there is an opportunity here for Scott to fully break away from some demon’s in his career, ones that have haunted his fellow countryman and mentor.
It will be nearly two years this July when Adam Scott bogeyed his final four holes at the Open Championship at Royal Lytham and St. Annes. It was truly painful to watch par putt after par putt just miss the cup in what many anticipated to be Scott’s major breakthrough campaign. Although Scott did back that heartbreaking Open Championship loss with his best season yet as a pro in 2013, which was highlighted by two incredible putts to win the Green Jacket, we did see a glimpse of 2012 just a few weeks back at the Arnold Palmer Invitational at Bay Hill.
Scott entered the weekend at Arnie’s event with a seven-shot lead, where he ended up losing by two shots to Matt Every after firing a 76 on Sunday. Had a just a few more putts dropped for Scott, he would have reached the No. 1 spot in the OWGR with a win.
So, now that Tiger hasn’t won a major since the 2008 U.S. Open, and considering that he will be missing the Masters and quite possibly more majors in 2014, a door has been opened. Not to become the next Tiger Woods, because that realistically might never happen, but for a player to take his career to the next level in Woods’ absence. While Rory McIlroy has been labeled as the next big thing after two majors victories at an earlier age than Tiger did, the steps backward he took in 2013 have left his status up in the air.
At this point in time, the person who should break through is Adam Scott. While he has showed some signs of “choke” in him, he can easily separate himself from the pact of the McIlroys, Jason Days and Justin Roses of golf, while eliminating the “negative” comparison’s he shares with his mentor.
Opinion & Analysis
The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

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
Podcasts
Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

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!
Opinion & Analysis
On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

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
“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.
pk20152
Apr 9, 2014 at 7:18 am
shed comparison? Didn’t he crumble at the British Open 2 years ago ala’ Norman style? Oh, and the Arnold Palmer Invitational?
Add
Apr 8, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Scott has already passed Norman by winning Masters with a broomstick.
steve
Apr 7, 2014 at 3:01 pm
It seems that era, Norman being the oldest. There was a bunch of underachievers. Norman, Love, Couples all should of had better careers. They were in a nice time to win. Jack was ending and there was no Tiger. Is Norman known for winning or choking?
trapp120
Apr 7, 2014 at 2:22 pm
…a lot of people have been close to winning Majors timble. Let’s take Adam Scott for instance!
I think this article is funny.
1.) Australians are tall and handsome
2.) Australians can’t hold on to major leads
3.) Australians can only rise to the #1 spot when there is no perceived competition.
I’m not saying I disagree with the facts that were stated. Norman and Scott clearly blew their very comfortable leads, but I think to infer the “window is closing” for Scott to hit #1 isn’t right.
Let’s look at it this way. Scott has had his chance, an opportunity was right there to grab it. He didn’t. So what if he does in a week? Who cares? It’s clear he’d be barely holding on to it and if past is a good indication of the future, quickly lose it like the rest of the brief #1’s in the last decade.
timbleking
Apr 9, 2014 at 6:38 am
Sorry trapp, but Norman and Scott actually WON Major tournaments. They haven’t been only close to!
Then, when I read your sum up, perhaps there is a kind of “war” between Americans and Aussies into which I can’t put myself. At least we french guys can argue that we have never been in contention to win a Major (ok, Van De Velde and Levet have been once), so we cannot be considered as competitors to our fellow American colleagues, so we are somehow better accepted (as: “Ok, no danger, he’s French…”). :o)))
timbleking
Apr 7, 2014 at 10:26 am
Wow! That’s harsh…
True that Norman had issues to finish the job in Majors, but he has been a great champion for years and close to win back an Open Championship not that a long time ago. He deserves respect, imo.
Ponjo
Apr 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Was there a better sight in golf than when the Great White was attacking. The guy oozed confidence and class. Maybe he should have won more but hey, would rather watch him than the robots being rolled out today