Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Gleneagles Scouting Report: Who does the course favor?

Published

on

It’s that time of year (or two) again where national (or continental) pride is on the line, and the Americans desperately search for a method to trounce their European overlords.

For the 2014 affair in Scotland, the site is the Gleneagles PGA Centenary Course. The 21-year-old layout has hosted plenty on the European Tour—including the Johnnie Walker Championship since 1999.

Gleneagles remains a bit of a mystery though, especially to American fans. Which players does the course favor? And, more importantly, which team is advantaged most by the layout?

We’ll answer below, but first we must outline the course itself.

Gleneagles: A Parkland Ball-Striker’s Paradise

This Perthshire layout was first designed by Jack Nicklaus in 1993 and much maligned by critics—particularly Lee Westwood—in the years thereafter.

Nicklaus was asked to redesign the layout in 2010 and that project commenced in October the next year, with the course re-opening under its makeover in April 2012. It will play as a par-72, measuring 7,262 yards for the event, making it the shortest layout to host the Ryder Cup in a decade.

Gleneagles may be in Scotland but is NOT a links course, as Golf Digest’s John Huggan surmised in his course preview.

This is a parkland track through and through. The course is green, lush and soft. The fairways are in immaculate, spongy form and the bunkers—both fairway and greenside—are of the American-dominated shallower variety.

And despite being a European Tour mainstay, the course hasn’t been traversed too much in competition by the home team. Golfweek’s Allistar Tait posits that only a quarter of the European squad can be considered Gleneagles experts.

As for the event’s dramatics, a few signature holes stick out at Gleneagles. The first is No. 5, a daunting 461-yard par-four players rave about for its beauty and unbelievably intimidating tee shot. This brute could sway matches early. The back-nine equivalent is No. 15, a 463-yard par four that is probably the toughest hole over the final nine, as it challenges a player at every juncture. The late matches could hinge on who is gobbled up by this monster.

The 18th hole though offers the most theatrics. The closing hole is an eminently reachable 513-yard par-five plastered into an amphitheater setting. The dramatization of this ending number was a large duty of Nicklaus’ re-design, and he seems to have succeeded here.

Now onto the most important inquiry: What kind of golfer succeeds most at Gleneagles?

Segmenting into the specific parts of the game, driving is important at Gleneagles, but not overly so. European Captain Paul McGinley has set up the rough to be a little thicker than usual, but we’re not talking U.S. Open style stuff here. The fairways at Gleneagles are generally pretty wide, and there are four par-fives (and maybe a driveable par-four). You want some modicum of accuracy at Gleneagles, but the long-hitters will be able wail it into some part of these generous fairways on most occasions. Bombers with some directional control off the tee profile well here.

Really though, Gleneagles is an approach-shot golf course. Nicklaus has stated so, and a flyover corroborates his verdict. The greens aren’t necessarily small, but many qualify as shallow, narrow, multi-tiered or some combination of the trio. Such characteristics require players to be quite on point with their approaches unless they want to find themselves on the wrong part of the surface or miss the green all together.

One aspect of the redesign was the implementation of numerous greenside run-offs and swales. This addition, along with the thickened greenside rough, should allow the short game to be more of a factor than usual, but nothing on the level of approach play’s paramount position.

The only part of the game that will be largely unimportant is putting. Some surfaces are decently undulated, yet these greens mostly offer slow, straightforward putts. This serves to minimize the difference between good and bad putters.

The Players who Benefit from Gleneagles

If we’re going to construct the perfect golfer for Gleneagles, a player whose strengths are exaggerated and weaknesses hidden by the layout’s design, we come to these four points:

  • The golfer must be an excellent approach player; this is by far the most salient trait.
  • He must possess impressive length off the tee and not completely disregard accuracy.
  • His short game must be in good shape.
  • And his flatstick must be mediocre or an outright nuisance, as this course does its best to protect poor putters.

Perusing through the 24 competitors at Gleneagles, only two names nail all four criteria: Justin Rose and Stephen Gallacher.

There may not be a better course in the world for Rose’s skill set. The Englishman has been one of the game’s premier iron players the last few years and was touted the top competitor in that category in 2013.  The course is massively adept toward approach shots from 175-225 yards, a range Rose just happens to absolutely obliterate. His approach play has regressed in 2014, but he’s still top five in the game in that aspect.

Rose also possesses a deceptive amount of power off the tee (top-30 to top-50 stuff) and combines it with enviable accuracy (28th and 52nd on Tour in 2012 and 2013) for an excellent driving performance. He’s a sneaky good short game player—two top-five finishes in the PGA Tour’s Proximity to Hole (Around the Green) stat in the last three years. The man’s only flaw is his flatstick, with three finishes outside the top 100 in Strokes Gained: Putting from 2012-2014. But again, Gleneagles helps cover that up.

As for Gallacher, his resume isn’t as down-the-board perfect for Gleneagles as Rose’s, but it does fit all four criteria. The Scot is one of the European Tour’s signature approach players, and while his driving accuracy is actually below average, the fact that he has some at all is what’s important when combined with his great length. We know Gallacher is a dreadful putter because it’s been widely believed that’s what has held him back. As for the short game, the 38-year-old finished 66th and 65th on the European Tour in scrambling in 2013 and 2014–above average marks produced despite the significant negative skewing in the statistic courtesy of Gallacher’s awful flatstick.

But that’s just the tip of things. A player can still be viewed as a good fit for a course even if it doesn’t service every part of his game.

Under this less stringent view, plenty more names qualify for a successful marriage with Gleneagles.

There’s Sergio Garcia, who has been the best approach player on the PGA Tour in 2014 according to Mark Broadie’s calculations. Not only does that scream “I’m great for Gleneagles,” but Garcia retains a significant amount of tee power with some accuracy sprayed in and remains a good (and severely underrated) short game player. The fact that his improvement in putting is still apparent (61st in strokes gained this year) is the only part that keeps him from going 4-for-4.

Much the same goes for Rory McIlroy, except his driving is the game’s best and his approach play is only merely quite good. Henrik Stenson’s good, if overrated, approach play, lengthy and accurate driving, and poor putting all yearn to Gleneagles.

Three on the American side also stick out. Keegan Bradley is long and somewhat accurate, and a good approach and short game player. Bubba Watson shares those first two characteristics with Bradley but his below average flatstick being hidden is the third culprit here.

The final member is Jim Furyk. The 44-year-old ranked second in Strokes Gained: Approach in 2014, which is right in line with his normal legendary iron play, and is still a short game artist for the ages as well. Furyk only qualifies for two categories here (his slightly-above average putting just misses out), but he’s an absolute monster in both.

Overall, eight players, or a third of the field, have highly attractive games for the Gleneagles layout.

Does Gleneagles Favor the U.S. or Europe?

If we’re looking at just the guys posted above, the answer is definitely Europe. Of these select eight, five are Europeans and the only two who qualify as perfect matches for Gleneagles also represent the home squad.

Of course the European team on average has better players, so you would expect them to possess more and higher quality fits for Gleneagles. Yet even adjusting for this, Gleneagles seems to bring out the best in the games of the Europeans more than the Americans—regardless of talent.

But this isn’t a complete picture. There are 16 golfers that matter here not yet mentioned in the equation. Maybe Gleneagles offers the Europeans more and better fits for the layout, but what if their poor course matches are more pervasive and damaging? You can’t just evaluate the good in such enterprises, every part of the spectrum must be examined.

In that regard, I put the players into five “course fit” categories. The first two, “Perfect Fit” and “Solid Fit,” are expounded upon above. The remaining three are “Borderline Fit” (possess some good qualities for Gleneagles but not enough to really be enthralled by the course), “Not a Fit” (bad qualities, aka diluting of strengths or exposing of weaknesses, just as prevalent as good ones) and “Poor Fit” (bad qualities for Gleneagles more detrimental than good ones).

Here’s where I put the remaining 16.

Borderline Fit: Martin Kaymer, Phil Mickelson, Webb Simpson, Rickie Fowler, Jamie Donaldson, Victor Dubuisson, Hunter Mahan, Matt Kuchar

Not a Fit: Thomas Bjorn, Graeme McDowell, Zach Johnson

Poor Fit: Patrick Reed, Ian Poulter, Jimmy Walker, Lee Westwood, Jordan Spieth

Five Americans and three Europeans are borderline fits, one American and two Europeans are not fits and three Americans and two Euros are poor fits.

All in all, the totals for Europe are: 2 perfect fits, 3 sold fits, 3 borderline fits, 2 not a fit and 2 poor fits. The United States comes in at 0 perfect fits, 3 solid fits, 5 borderline fits, 1 not a fit and 3 poor fits.

What can we conclude?

Gleneagles still plays to the Europeans’ advantage. As mentioned above, even factoring in the sizable (if overblown) talent disparity, Europe is solidly better in the top two categories.

The U.S. needed to stem the tides by a significant amount on the other three to claim victory here, and that didn’t happen. They gained a little ground overall, but having three poor fits to Europe’s two dissolved any chance that Gleneagles would profile better for the Americans.

So if it wasn’t tough enough for the underdog Americans, less talented and on the road, they also have to compete on a course that caters more to the Europeans.

Good luck, fellas. You’re going to need it.

TV Times for the Ryder Cup

Thursday, Sept. 25

9 a.m. – 1 p.m. (Golf Channel)

Friday, Sept. 26

Session 1 (Four-ball): 2:35 a.m. (Golf Channel)
Session 2 (Foursomes): 8:15 a.m. (Golf Channel)

Saturday, Sept. 27

Session 1 (Four-ball): 3 a.m. (NBC)
Session 2 (Foursomes): 8:15 a.m. (NBC)

Sunday, Sept. 28

Singles: 6:36 a.m. (NBC)

Kevin's fascination with the game goes back as long as he can remember. He has written about the sport on the junior, college and professional levels and hopes to cover its proceedings in some capacity for as long as possible. His main area of expertise is the PGA Tour, which is his primary focus for GolfWRX. Kevin is currently a student at Northwestern University, but he will be out into the workforce soon enough. You can find his golf tidbits and other sports-related babble on Twitter @KevinCasey19. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: September 2014

10 Comments

10 Comments

  1. JK

    Sep 24, 2014 at 3:43 pm

    USA! USA! USA!
    \
    \
    \

    hahaha j/k

  2. AJ

    Sep 24, 2014 at 9:32 am

    Decent enough article but the headline is very misleading. Clearly a ‘scouting report’ suggests the author has actually visited the site.

    I like that you include linked references to your articles, albeit having as many as ten at a time is a bit tiresome. You feel as a reader you are not getting the ‘full story’ if you don’t click through to every external link.

    Just my opinion!

  3. Rich

    Sep 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm

    I don’t care what anyone says, a good putter is always better than a bad putter, even on a course that apparently protects bad putters. This analysis makes no sense at all.

  4. Rep

    Sep 23, 2014 at 12:35 pm

    I think it’s even. You can scramble fairly comfortably on this course, and you don’t necessarily have to be good at pitching or chipping, you can roll it and get away with it, the greens are so huge, there’s room to get away with some bad shots. Distance control on the putts is the biggest factor.

  5. dot dot

    Sep 23, 2014 at 11:31 am

    As every tournament course does each time it will favor the golfer who is playing the best that week.

  6. Jafar

    Sep 23, 2014 at 10:22 am

    Nice, I like the final analysis. It will be interesting to see how it plays out this weekend.

    I wonder if Jim Furyk or Chris Kirk would have fit better.

  7. imakaveli

    Sep 23, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Thomas Bjorn won at Gleneagles in 2011 🙂

    • Rep

      Sep 23, 2014 at 12:38 pm

      Exactly. What an idiotic analysis

      • Kevin Casey

        Sep 23, 2014 at 1:11 pm

        Yep, he did win at Gleneagles in 2011. Winning at a certain course does not imply that said layout is conducive to a player’s game. A player could simply happen to be in massively good form that week, in such great shape with his game that he can overcome a course that is a poor suit for his talents.

        If Bjorn had won at Gleneagles two or three times in recent years, or had a couple of very high finishes, it would be tough to put him as a non-fit. After all, it’s pretty unlikely that Bjorn would just happen to enter the same tournament in some of the best form of his life (which he would have to be in order to win at an event where the course is a poor fit) in short succession.

        But that’s not the case. In his past five starts at Gleneagles, Bjorn has the win, a T10 and three missed cuts. Besides the victory, that’s a very shoddy record. Speaks to the fact that more than likely that Gleneagles victory was the product of fluky incredible form, not a course fit.

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