Opinion & Analysis
Gleneagles Scouting Report: Who does the course favor?
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)
Opinion & Analysis
Brandel Chamblee PGA Championship Q&A: Rose’s huge McLaren risk, distracted LIV pros and why Aronimink suits the bombers
PGA Championship week is here, and Brandel Chamblee did not hold back in our latest discussion ahead of the season’s second major.
In our 2026 PGA Championship Q&A, golf’s leading analyst made the case that PIF pulling LIV’s funding has left its players competing in a state of confusion, called Justin Rose’s mid-season equipment switch a huge risk at 45, and explained why Aronimink will be a bombers’ delight this week.
Check out the full Q&A below.
Gianni: With the PIF confirming that they’re pulling funding from LIV at the end of the season, what impact do you expect that to have on the LIV players competing at the PGA Championship?
Brandel: I would imagine that they have all been thrown into a state of confusion, and will be distracted, not knowing where they are going to play next year and not knowing exactly their road back to either the DP World Tour or the PGA Tour. Or in Rahm’s case, being tied to a sinking ship for the next few years, likely playing for pennies on the dollar in events that no one cares about or watches.
I doubt this would put him in the best frame of mind to compete at his highest level. Keeping in mind, however, that majors are the only time that LIV disciples get to play in events that matter, so never disregard the motivation they have to prove to the world they are still relevant.
Gianni: Justin Rose switched to McLaren Golf equipment mid-season while playing some of the best golf of his career. What do you make of the change?
Brandel: I don’t really know what to make of Rose switching equipment. It seems a huge risk on his part, even though it is likely, in my opinion, that the clubs he’s playing are similar, if not the exact grinds, to what he was playing previously, with a McLaren stamp on them.
Having said that, at best, it is a distraction when he seemed to be as dialed in with his game as any 45-year-old could be and trending in the majors to perhaps do something that would definitely put him in the Hall of Fame. At worst, given the possibility that these clubs aren’t just duplicates of his old set stamped with McLaren on them, he’s made an equipment change that would take time, and 45-year-old athletes don’t have the time to do such things.
Gianni: Aronimink has only hosted a handful of professional events since it hosted the 1962 PGA Championship. What kind of test does it present, and does a course with less recent major championship history tend to level the playing field?
Brandel: Even though Aronimink has only hosted a handful of meaningful professional events, it has been fairly discerning in who can win there. When Keegan Bradley won the BMW Championship on the Donald Ross masterpiece in 2018, he was the 2nd best iron player on tour coming into that week. When Nick Watney won the AT&T at Aronimink in 2011, he was 2nd in strokes gained total coming into the week.
In 2020, Aronimink hosted the KPMG Championship, and Sei Young Kim won. On the LPGA that year, she was first in greens in regulation, putts per green in regulation, and scoring average on the way to being the LPGA player of the year. And then there is the 1962 PGA Championship won by Gary Player, who eventually became just one of a few players to win the career grand slam on the way to winning 9 majors. It is a formidable test, and if it’s not softened by rain, it will bring out the best in the upper echelons of the game.
Gianni: Is there a specific hole at Aronimink that you think will do the most to decide the winner?
Brandel: The hardest hole at Aronimink in each of the three tour events that have been played there since 2010 has been the long par-3 8th hole, with the par-4 10th being the second hardest, so most of the carnage will happen around the turn, but with the par-5 16th offering opportunities for bold plays and the tough closing holes at 17 and 18, the finish is likely to be frenetic.
Gianni: The PGA Championship has always sat in the shadow of the other majors. What does the ideal PGA Championship look like in your eyes, and what would it take for it to carve out its own identity?
Brandel: The PGA Championship, to whatever degree it suffers from the comparison to the other three majors, is still counted just as much when adding them up at the end of one’s career. Almost 1/3 of Nicklaus’ major wins were the five PGA Championships he won. Walter Hagen won 11 majors, five of which were PGA Championships.
Tiger Woods twice in his career won back-to-back PGA Championships, and those four majors count just as much as the other 11 he won. The PGA may not have the prestige of the other three, but it carries the same weight. Having said that, I preferred the identity that it had as the last major of the year.
Gianni: You nailed your Masters picks. Rory won, Scottie finished solo second, and Morikawa surged to a tie for seventh. Who are your top 3 picks for the PGA Championship and why?
Brandel: I am not a huge fan of majors played on golf courses that have been shorn of most of the trees, although I understand some of the agronomic reasons for doing so and of course the ease with which it allows members to play after errant drives. However, at the highest level, it all but eliminates any strategy off the tee and turns professional golf into an even bigger slugfest. That means that it will likely be a bomber’s delight this week, but fortunately, Scottie Scheffler is long enough to play that game and straight enough to play it better than anyone else.
The major championships give us very few surprises anymore, going back to the beginning of 2012, so the last 57 majors played, the average world rank of the winners has been better than 15th in the world. So look at the highest ranked and longest drivers who are on form coming into the PGA Championship who also have great short games as the surrounds at Aronimink are very challenging. That’s Scottie Scheffler by a mile and then McIlroy and Cameron Young with a far bigger nod towards DeChambeau than I gave him at the Masters.
Club Junkie
A putter that I love and hate – Club Junkie Podcast
In this episode of the Club Junkie Podcast, we dive into one of the most interesting flatstick releases of the year with a full review of the new TaylorMade SYSTM 2 putters. After spending time on the greens, I break down what makes this design stand out, where it performs, and why it has me completely torn between loving it and fighting it. If you are into feel, alignment, and consistency, this is one you will want to hear about.
We also take a look at some of the putters in play on the PGA Tour last week. From familiar favorites to a few surprising setups, there is always something to learn from what the best players in the world are rolling with under pressure.
To wrap things up, I walk through the process of building a set of JP Golf Prime irons paired with Baddazz Gold Series shafts. From component selection to performance goals, this is a deep dive into what goes into creating a unique custom set and why this combo has been so intriguing.
Opinion & Analysis
From 14 handicap to pro: 4 things I’d tell golfers at 50
This year my 50th birthday. Gosh, where has the time gone?
As a teenager in rural Missouri, some of my junior high and high school years felt interminable. Graduation seemed light years away. But the older I get, the faster life seems to fly by.
I’m also increasingly aware of my mortality. My dad died recently. Earlier this year, a friend and fellow PGA of America professional and I were texting about our next catch-up. The next message I received was news of his unexpected passing at 48. Shortly after, a woman I dated in college succumbed to cancer at 51.
Certainly, one can share perspective at any age. Seniors help freshmen, veterans guide rookies. But reaching this milestone feels like as good a time as any to do one of those “what would I tell my younger self?” articles.
I’ve had a uniquely varied career in golf. I started as a 27-year-old, average-length-hitting, 14-handicap computer engineer and somehow managed to turn pro before running out of money, constantly bootstrapping my way forward. I’ve won qualifiers and set venue records in the World Long Drive Championships, finished fifth at the Speedgolf World Championships, coached all skill levels as a PGA of America professional, built industry-leading swing speed training programs for Swing Man Golf, helped advance the single-length iron market with Sterling Irons®, caddied on the PGA TOUR and PGA TOUR Champions, and played about 300 courses across 32 countries.
It’s been a ride, and I’ve gone both deep and wide.
So while I can consult and advise from a lot of angles, let me keep it to a few things I’d tell the average golfer who wants to improve.
1. Think About What You Want
Everyone has their own reason for picking up a golf club.
Oddly, as a professional athlete, I’m not internally driven by competition. That can be challenging, as the industry currently prioritizes and incentivizes competition over the love of the game.
For me, I love walking and being outdoors. Nature helps balance my energy. I prefer courses that are integrated into the natural beauty of their surroundings. I’m comfortable practicing alone. I’m a deep thinker, and I genuinely enjoy investigating the game, using data and intuition to unearth unique, often innovative insights. I’m fortunate to be strong and athletic, so I appreciate the chance to engage with my abilities. Traveling feels adventurous. I could go on.
You don’t have to overthink it like I do. For you, it might be as simple as hitting balls to escape work, hanging out with friends, and playing loosely with the rules and the score.
The point is to give yourself permission to play for your own reasons, and let that be enough.
But if improvement is your goal, thinking about your destination—and when you want to get there—is important, because it dictates the steps you need to take. When I set out to go from a 14-handicap to the PGA TOUR as quickly as possible, the steps I needed were very different from those of a working golfer trying to break 90 in six months. That’s also different from someone who just wants a few peaceful hours outside each week, away from work or family.
None of these goals are better than the others, but each requires a different plan that you can work backward from.
2. There Are Lots of Things That Can Work
One of the challenges of golf is that, although there are rules for playing, there aren’t clear, industry-wide standards for how to best play the game. There’s a lot of gray area.
You might hear a top coach or trainer insist that a certain move is the best way to swing or train. Then you dig a bit deeper and, much to your confusion and frustration, another respected coach or trainer says something completely different. I don’t think anyone is trying to confuse you—at least I hope not. It’s just where the industry is right now.
You have to be careful with advice from tournament pros, too. They might be great at scoring, but they’re also human and sometimes just as susceptible as amateurs to believing things that don’t really move the needle. Tour players might describe what they feel, but that’s not always what they’re actually doing when assessed with technology.
I recently ran a test on my YouTube channel (which connects to my GolfWRX article “How to use your hands in the golf swing for power and accuracy”), and, interestingly, two of the most commonly taught hand actions produced the worst results in the test.
Coaches can certainly help. If you find someone you connect with to help navigate, that’s great. But there are many ways to get the ball in the hole. In the current landscape, you may need to seek multiple opinions, think critically, and use your own intuition to discern what seems true and whose advice resonates with you.
I’d recommend seeking someone who is open-minded and always learning, because things constantly change. Absolutes like “correct” or “proper” should raise a red flag. AI can be useful, but it tends to confidently repeat popular advice, so proceed with caution.
3. Get Custom Fit
If you’re serious about becoming a better player, getting custom fit is hugely important. There’s no sense fighting your equipment if you don’t have to. Most better players get fit these days and, if they don’t, they’re usually skilled enough to work around clubs that aren’t ideal.
If you plan to play for a long time, it’s worth spending a little more upfront to get something that truly fits you and your game, rather than continually buying and discarding equipment.
Equipment rules haven’t really changed significantly since the early 2000s. To stay in business, manufacturers keep pushing those limits. If you pull a bunch of clubs and balls off the rack and test them, you’ll find differences. I’ve tested two new drivers and seen a 30-yard total distance gap. Usually, the issue isn’t bad equipment; it’s that the combination of components simply isn’t the best fit.
It’s like wearing a new pair of floppy clown shoes. Sure, they’re shoes—but you won’t sprint your best in them compared to track shoes that fit perfectly.
Be wary of what’s called custom fitting, too. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing strategy rather than an actual fitting. In some retail settings, fitters may be incentivized to steer you toward higher-priced components. That doesn’t automatically mean it’s not the best fit, but you should be aware of potential biases.
I learned a version of this lesson outside of golf. Years ago, I bought a tennis racquet at a big box store from a seemingly knowledgeable employee who thought it would suit me best. The racquet gave me tennis elbow, and I spent months recovering with rest and acupuncture. The next season, I invested more time and money to find what actually fit me, and I walked away with something amazing that I still play with years later.
So if you’re going to get fit, be smart about it.
Find someone you believe has deep knowledge—possibly with certifications, but not necessarily. Make sure there’s a wide inventory across many brands. Check recent reviews for the individual fitter if possible. Make sure you trust that the fitter has your best interests at heart. If they’re wearing a hat or shirt with a specific brand’s logo, proceed with caution. Unless you specifically want a certain brand or look, be wary of upsells, especially if two options perform nearly the same.
Also, while golf is called a sport of integrity, there’s a thread of manipulation in the industry. I once drafted an equipment article for an industry magazine, structured just like one of their previous popular stories, with matching word count and great photos. The assistant editor loved it; it was useful to readers and required little work on his part. But the editor-in-chief nixed the story. When I asked why, I was told it was because I wasn’t an advertiser. It turned out the article I’d modeled mine after was a paid ad cleverly disguised as editorial content.
I really dislike games, clickbait, and fear-based manipulation. I hope this changes, but golfers deserve to know it exists.
4. Distance and Strategy Matter
There’s a real relationship between how far you hit the ball and your scoring average, even at the PGA TOUR level.
I experienced this early in my pro career. I started as a power hitter, swinging in the high 120s and breaking 200 mph ball speed with a stock driver.
Back then, some instructors advised swinging at 80%, so I tried slowing down for more accuracy. That worked fine on shorter, tighter courses. But on longer setups, I was coming into greens with too much club, and par 5s stopped being
-
Equipment2 weeks agoJustin Rose WITB 2026 (April): Full WITB breakdown with new McLaren irons
-
Equipment1 week agoWhat’s the story behind Webb Simpson’s custom-stamped irons?
-
Equipment2 weeks agoCadillac Championship Tour Report: Spieth’s sizable changes, McLaren Golf launches, and more
-
Whats in the Bag3 days agoKristoffer Reitan’s winning WITB: 2026 Truist Championship
-
Whats in the Bag2 weeks agoCameron Young’s winning WITB: 2026 Cadillac Championship
-
Whats in the Bag3 weeks agoNelly Korda WITB 2026 (April)
-
Equipment2 weeks agoJustin Rose on the switch to McLaren Golf, learnings from previous equipment moves
-
Tour Photo Galleries2 weeks agoPhotos from the 2026 Cadillac Championship

JK
Sep 24, 2014 at 3:43 pm
USA! USA! USA!
\
\
\
hahaha j/k
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Konnor
Sep 24, 2014 at 10:14 am
Plus one for you sir