Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The 18 players who can absolutely win the PGA Championship (according to science!)

Published

on

Admit it, GolfWRX: The only thing we golf dorks love more than golf, is science-y golf. Golf where we boast online to strangers about our 1.5 smash factors, our stupidly positive angles of attack, and our (community average) 138 mph clubhead speed.

And how can we not love science? After all, it offers us life, and breath, and Phil Mickelson’s spectacular calves. But most importantly, this week, science offers us a 100 percent foolproof way to determine which players stand a chance against the formidable Black Course at Bethpage.

And let’s get this out of the way up front — maybe you’re here because of Rich Hunt’s annually excellent piece, “The X Players who can win the Masters,” where Hunt filters out those who cannot win the Masters, using complex statistics like Max Height, Carry Distance, and other very important stuff.

Yeah. This isn’t that.

This, my friends, is for the guy (or gal!) who likes their golf blended with unnecessarily complex scientific theory, compiled by a dude whose greatest scientific achievement transpired in the urinal of a 7th grade bathroom.

By now, we’ve all seen that Bethpage WARNING sign at least 324 times this week. We get it, Golf Channel. The course is difficult. But something not so difficult? Proclaiming that PGA Pro Ben Kern wasn’t going to beat Brooks Koepka last year.

Kern’s 1991-era super-relaxed-fit Dockers and wide-brimmed hat will be sorely missed this year, replaced by 20 other PGA teaching Professionals with the same chance to win in 2019 as Julius Boros.* (Zero. Zero chance.)

Moving on.

Have you heard of Albert Einstein’s theory of “Special Relativity?” For those of you whose scientific acumen is akin to Ben Kern’s fitness plan, here’s the gist; Time is a landscape. We move through it, and time is the same for everybody. Therefore, using Einstein’s theory, the following dudes are obviously way too damn old to win this week. Science!

Vijay Singh, Rich Beem, Jim Furyk, Brian Gay, Paddy Harrington, Shaun Micheel, John Daly (even in his stupid cart,) Steve Stricker, Y.E. Yang and of course, Beau Hossler. Yes, Hossler’s actual age is only 24, but he went from looking 15 to 48 overnight with the growth of seriously patchy facial hair. In this pure scientific study, looking old = being old. Surely, Einstein would agree.

Another group with no shot at the Wanamaker Trophy stems from the 16th century concept of Heliocentricism– the belief that earth revolves around the sun. Clearly, this eliminates Ian Poulter, Bubba Watson, Sergio Garcia, and Patrick Reed, who believe the earth revolves around them.

We’ll assume everyone is familiar with the Broglie-Bohm theory, right? Good.

In considering the velocities of particles in terms of the wave function, and applying it to the 2019 PGA championship, anybody who doesn’t possess GolfWRX-level clubhead speed doesn’t stand a chance. As a matter of science, you must bomb it at Bethpage, so you can eliminate these short-knockers from your betting list; Jordan Spieth, Zach Johnson, Webb Simpson, Kevin Na, Brian Harman, Brandt Snedeker, and a whole bunch of others. For the purpose of time, you know who they are. Cross ‘em off.

A surprisingly fun science rabbit hole is the idea of “Quantum Randomness.” There’s a real thing out there called a “Quantum-mechanical random number generator” and people sell them commercially. You are all now 3 I.Q. points smarter after reading this paragraph.

Now, here’s some people eliminated at random, in the spirit of Quantum Randomness; Jon Rahm, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson, Kevin Tway, Richy Werenski, Kyle Stanley, J.J. Spaun, Andrew Putnam, Pat Perez, and Thorbjorn Oleson.

Oh, Kevin Tway is your favorite player? Feel free to argue with science in the comments.

And last but not least, we’ll scrub the remaining field through the incredibly influential Physics concept of “Nonlocality.” Do I understand the concept, even in the slightest? Nope.

So, I’ll just apply it literally, and we’re going to boot every non-American not named Rory McIlroy, since McIlroy owns property here, married an American girl, and practically never plays in Europe anymore. Basically, Rory McIroy is more American than you.

So, for those following along at home, here are the 18 people that can scientifically win the PGA.

Tony Finau
Tiger Woods
Rory McIlroy
Brooks Koepka
Dustin Johnson
Bryson DeChambeau
Rickie Fowler
Patrick Cantlay
Xander Schauffle
Jimmy Walker
Max Homa
Lucas Glover
Jason Kokrak
Gary Woodland
Keith Mitchell
Scotty Piercy
Keegan Bradley
Aaron Wise

Who’s going to win? I don’t know. I’m waiting on my Quantum-mechanical random number generator to arrive that I bought off Amazon Prime (free shipping!)

Once it arrives, scientifically, I’ll have a much better idea.

*Boros, in case you were wondering, is not in the field this year due to his untimely demise back in 1994. **

6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. AggOwl

    May 16, 2019 at 8:21 am

    Was Michelson intetionally ignored?

  2. Monty

    May 15, 2019 at 9:32 pm

    Has anybody actually read the theory of relativity? Didn’t think so. But hey, this was fun. Hooray, golfwrx for fun stuff.

  3. Zach

    May 15, 2019 at 9:27 pm

    I hate science. I like this though.

  4. Josh D

    May 15, 2019 at 9:11 pm

    Keegan Bradley is to 10. Woodland misses the cut. DJ wins. Book it.

  5. Hjkn

    May 15, 2019 at 7:43 pm

    ?????????????????????????

    • 9821

      May 15, 2019 at 9:23 pm

      The direct implication of Relativity is that time is NOT the same for everyone. Otherwise, this was a fun read. 🙂

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