Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

The stats say Spieth’s collapse at The Masters was no fluke



Before the 2016 Masters, I published my annual column, The 20 Players Who Can Win the Masters, which did not include Jordan Spieth. That drew the ire of a lot of fans, and through 65 holes it looked like I was ready to eat some crow on that prediction.

I originally filtered Spieth out of the top-20 due to his struggles on straight-away par-4s, since there is a correlation between that stat and a player’s performance at Augusta. But just as importantly, his performance from 150-225 yards had dropped, as well. Shots from 150-225 yards are absolutely critical to performance at Augusta, and Spieth’s disastrous 12th hole was due to hitting a 150-yard tee shot into the water.

Spieth didn’t hit the ball particularly well by his standards throughout the 2016 Masters. In fact, Bryson DeChambeau said he felt he outplayed Spieth in Round 1, but Spieth was able to score better than DeChambeau. And throughout the first three rounds, Spieth had quite a few hiccups and was on pace to have the most double bogeys of any eventual Masters winner in the history of the event. But the victory was not to be his.

Here’s a look at Spieth’s current rankings in the key metrics of golf.


Spieth did not drive the ball well at Augusta despite driving it well so far this season. But what we can see this season is a large decline in his iron play. In fact, he ranks 119th in shots from 75-225 yards from the fairway/tee box.

Before I go on, I do need to clear up a couple of the biggest myths in golf.

  1. Jordan Spieth isn’t great at anything; he’s just not bad at anything.
  2. Spieth plays so well because of his short game, and his putting bails him out.

Here’s a look at Spieth’s key metrics in his first three seasons on Tour that should dispel both of those myths.


The decline in his Yellow Zone (125-175 yards) performance and his performance on approach shots from the short grass is what stands out the most.

We know that Spieth started making some changes to his swing last year, so here’s a look at his performances from all of last season to today.

To read the charts: 0 percent is the average for the field in the event. Therefore, anything better than 0 percent is better than the average. Anything less than 0 percent is worse than the average. The dotted line is the trend line to show how Jordan’s performance is trending.


Spieth’s Driving Effectiveness has sustained a flat trend over time. However, his iron play from each of the zones is on a significant decline over time. And it appears to have started right around the 2015 John Deere Classic.

I should remind you, however, that we are talking about the No. 2-ranked golfer in the world who has won two of the past five majors with a worst finish of T4 during that timeframe. And he had held the lead in Masters for 137 consecutive holes before he came to hole No. 12 on Sunday at Augusta National.

I would imagine the swing changes he has been working on were done to help out with his driving, which could be sporadic and have the rightward miss. It just appears that those swing changes have come at the expense of his iron play, however, and that is why I did not have Spieth in my 20 Players That Can Win the Masters list. And that will be what he needs to improve in order to get back to his old ball-striking form.

Your Reaction?
  • 153
  • LEGIT40
  • WOW11
  • LOL8
  • IDHT4
  • FLOP6
  • OB5
  • SHANK73

Richie Hunt is a statistician whose clients include PGA Tour players, their caddies and instructors in order to more accurately assess their games. He is also the author of the recently published e-book, 2018 Pro Golf Synopsis; the Moneyball Approach to the Game of Golf. He can be reached at or on Twitter @Richie3Jack. GolfWRX Writer of the Month: March 2014 Purchase 2017 Pro Golf Synopsis E-book for $10



  1. Freddy

    Apr 22, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    Your point would be more convincing if Spieth had never gotten into contention due to his iron play.

  2. Brendan

    Apr 21, 2016 at 6:27 pm

    In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.

  3. Nick Coleman

    Apr 21, 2016 at 9:16 am

    Richie, do you have stats on scrambling or recovery? Jordan recovered from so many terrible situations during the Masters. And are there any stats available on where shots took place (right rough, left rough, etc)? I’m guessing that information isn’t recorded. Although it seems like it wouldn’t be too hard for the PGA to do it, given you can track shots live in the iPad app. I noticed that feature wasn’t available during the Masters, and I missed being able to see just how far offline a shot had gone. My gut is that the “missing” stats to explain Jordan’s inexplicable second place finish is related to A) play in the wind (he’s from Texas, where there’s a lot), B) recovery shots from bad lies, C) mental toughness. He’s great at all three of those. A lot of players start playing badly and never recover. Jordan bounces back quickly from a bad hole.

  4. A golfer

    Apr 21, 2016 at 1:05 am

    Only one stat matters in majors and that is what goes on between the ears. In the last two years Jordan has been the best at it and is the only golfer I have seen since Tiger that can keep it for many years to come. He lost it on one hole, and it remains to be seen how he does from here on out, but I would not be surprised if he wins another major this year …..and more in the coming years.

    • Brendan

      Apr 21, 2016 at 6:25 pm

      Couldn’t possibly agree more. After reading this article I immediatly thought that to myself even before reading one user comment. In my opinion, (which doesn’t carry much weight), Rich did a great job of analyzing Spieth’s issues over the past three years from a statistical standpoint. However golf isn’t a game played between numbers, it is a game played between human players. I think the reason Spieth has been so successful so far is simply due to his mental strength and attitude and the style of his play. He can poke his drives out there relatively consistently and when his irons can do him more good than harm, he really stands out. In reality, his short game is what keeps him relevant, while his mental ability and attitude sets him apart in big spots when others seem to let the moment get to the best of them. He’s a grinder in the fullest sense of the term and I feel that sometimes viewers forget that. Rory, Jason, and other big names are most likely statistically better in most of the areas listed above, but that isn’t what wins tournaments sometimes. Nobody (maybe Rory) comes close to outplaying other great players on Sundays.

  5. theaveragepunter

    Apr 20, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    Nice work Rich. Your top 20 for the masters made me some $$. Other posters are right – most readers don’t understand your info and think Sugar Diabetes is a Greek boxer.

  6. Patrick

    Apr 20, 2016 at 1:35 pm

    Rich every time you write an article I sincerely believe that 90% of the posters either don’t comprehend statistics or haven’t read the article.
    It’s pretty clear that your a statistician interpreting PGA tour stats.
    You then clearly show the numbers and what strengths / weaknesses they identify.
    And it’s clear, bias or emotion are not statistically measurable. Except by most of the commenters on this board.
    Another substantive, relevant article. No argument here. I love stats and what they represent. I took three units of stats in university. Still don’t think you need that level of knowledge to get your articles. Maybe I’m wrong. Apparently.

  7. N.

    Apr 20, 2016 at 7:16 am

    A lot of you seem to be missing the point of these stats, calling spieths 12th hole a fluke so it was irrelevant and so on.

    If you’re statistically bad from 150yrds and you then dump it in the water on a 150yrd par 3 then this only serves to further prove the statistic.

    Had he been statistically good from that distance then maybe he would have been less likely to be nervous or choke on that tee shot. If you’re ranked 1st on tour from say 150-200yrds id say the chances on you dumping it in the water are much slimmer.

    • CallawayLefty

      Apr 20, 2016 at 8:05 am

      A lot of you seem to be missing the point that the whole argument is that a guy who was #2 in the OWGR and had finished 2nd and 1st in his prior two trips to Augusta should probably have been in the top 20 picks to win the tournament, as proved by the fact that he almost did as such and finished in 2nd. I get it – statistics are cool. But I could probably find a statistical deficiency with every single person in the top 20 of the OWGR. But they appear to overcome them regularly, and a good list of the top-10 to win the Masters would be #1 through #10 of the OWGR. Omitting #2 from your top-20 is just being a sensationalist, and then acting like it was so easy to see his loss coming and that we’re all just idiots/fanboys after what happened at the Masters is just hilarious. I don’t mind the statistical analysis. I mind the over the top gloating in the face of reality.

      • N.

        Apr 20, 2016 at 11:04 am

        In my opinion from a betting stand point, if you are picking a group as large as 20 different people that have a chance of winning you’re just saying that you don’t really have any idea who will. And to be honest with golf, its very hard week in week out to pick winners.

        I would agree with you that not picking speith in the 20 was bold, but he wasn’t in my top 3 picks at the start of the week, although i didnt do much better!

  8. birly-shirly

    Apr 20, 2016 at 6:27 am

    Wow. I think any prediction, including anyone’s top 20 picks for the Masters, needs cut a little slack.

    But to try and argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that you were RIGHT to exclude the chances of the guy who finished second (especially in those circumstances) just seems a little reckless with your credibility.

  9. Mlecuni

    Apr 20, 2016 at 4:55 am

    So Rich, Jordan had one good 2014/15 year with an average yellow zone and good putter. But now is being less efficient in several area (yellow, red and green) and the putter can’t save him anymore / nobody can win only by putting well ?

    • Richie Hunt

      Apr 20, 2016 at 9:23 am

      Jordan had great years in 2013, and 2013-2014. He was a great ballstriker in his first 3 seasons. He can still perform well and win with his current metrics, but essentially his Short Game and Putting will have to bail him out because at this rate, he’s going to miss GIR and/or have longer birdie putts. As I wrote in this article, one of the myths of Spieth was that the ‘putter bails him out’, but as you can see in his first 3 seasons he was a great ballstriker who putted well and thus why it is a myth.

  10. :-p

    Apr 20, 2016 at 2:41 am

    Them SM6 wedges suck. Totally over-rated. He never should’ve switched from the SM5.

  11. Desmond

    Apr 20, 2016 at 2:05 am

    By his own assessment, Jordan played his B- game at Augusta. Watching him play, most had to think that he was on the verge of collapse most of the week. That it took 66 holes is a testament to Spieth.

    • Richie Hunt

      Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 am

      I agree. I thought it was one of the grittiest performances I’ve seen in recent memory. He hit a lot of bad shots and started to have a 2-way miss. And it was one of those things where he would hit some great shots and then an awful shot would show up. A situation where you’re about to go off the rails, but are trying to get the round in before that happens. And even after the 12th hole, he came back fairly strong with birdies at #13, #15 and then stuck it close on #16, but couldn’t convert.

      This article isn’t a knock on Spieth. It’s is to show that his ballstriking has regressed from last year and it was trending downward at a pretty good rate leading into the Masters.

  12. 8thehardway

    Apr 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
    Statistics would have missed a 59-year-old Watson leading after 71 holes at the British Open in 2009 and Jack winning the 1986 Masters.
    Yes, he was almost wrong so let’s get him. He was SO CLOSE to being wrong I can’t stand it; if only I had bet on Spieth I would have been so happy for so many holes – how could he not pick him?

    So here’s the best part of what Richie Hunt gave you, and I know all you ingrates used them – great reasons to trash your buddies’ picks… “You went with Kevin Na? But he hits the low ball… that’s death at Augusta.” Yes, your buddies taunted you for 3+ rounds for going off Spieth but before it started, when they were most vulnerable, you skewered them good and, in the end, Spieth lost and you were right again. Now THAT’s entertainment.

  13. CallawayLefty

    Apr 19, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    It’s incredible. You have to be the least sincere statistician I’ve ever read. JUST ADMIT IT – YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG ABOUT JORDAN SPIETH THIS YEAR AT THE MASTERS. You’re gloating about the fact that you basically picked the field against one guy and it proved to be correct (by the skin of your a$$). Yes, you’re right. The guy you said had no chance to win did not in fact win. He just held the lead for 65 holes and finished in 2nd place due to one fluke hole that a player like him will see about 1 time in his career.

    Let me ask you this – is your argument proved because Jordan Spieth finished in 2nd place, or is it disproved by the fact that Rickie Fowler, Marc Leishmann, and Phil Mickelson (all in your top 10) missed the cut? If you’re ok with picking one example to prove your argument is correct, shouldn’t we all be ok with picking one contrary example (or in this case three) to prove your argument is wrong?

    Really – you picked a list of people that included a substantial majority of the top players in the world (omitting the guy who is arguably the best of all of them), and then one of them won. That’s awesome, but in no way overrides the fact that you’re just trying to grab headlines by saying Spieth had no chance. If a guy who was such a statistical outlier was ONE bad shot away from winning, what does that say about the statistics?

    • Nath

      Apr 20, 2016 at 4:33 am

      Whatever, its all in the numbers, moneyball my friend

      • CallawayLefty

        Apr 20, 2016 at 6:24 am

        Check me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the A’s end up losing to the teams that valued the more traditional subject analysis? The point was that they had to use numbers to find diamonds in the rough. But their only goal was to be competitive with the front runners, not to prove that Derrek Jeeter was all smoke and mirrors. In sports there are people who do things that defy objective analysis. Or maybe statisticians overlook the real statistics that determine what makes a winner. But I will stand by that it’s disengenous to say that a guy who has now finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries at Augusta doesn’t statistically show what it takes to win there. There’s always two sides to the story – including in statistics. And if Richie’s statistics show what a poor choice he is, maybe his performance merits another look at what statistics really are most important. So he sucks from the yellow zone – well he’s finished 2, 1, 2, so perhaps yellow zone scoring is less meaningful, statically speaking, than Richie argues.

        • Richie Hunt

          Apr 20, 2016 at 9:36 am

          The core of Moneyball was to help the Oakland A’s find undervalued players because they were a team with a very small budget. A team like the Yankees or Red Sox (at that particular time) didn’t use advanced analytics, but most of their players would have looked favorable according to the statistics. If you look at the all-time greats like Ted Williams, Babe Ruth, Sandy Koufax, etc…their stats would line right up with what Moneyball values. The same with many top players from that Moneyball era like Albert Pujols, A-Rod, etc. It’s just that the A’s ownership simply would not pay for those players. So instead they got players for say $250K that were more accurately valued at $2-3 million.

          Advanced analytics is becoming a growing trend in almost all sports. Two teams that use it the most out of any teams in any sports leagues are…Golden State Warriors and San Antonio Spurs.

          • CallawayLefty

            Apr 20, 2016 at 10:30 am

            I understand and am obviously puffing a little. I actually find the statistical analysis fascinating and instructive for sure. I just think that you have to OVERLOOK facts to rule Jordan out. I haven’t done statistical research on the Masters in particular. But my guess is there is one or more categories that Jordan did very well in that back up his 2nd place finish (and near win) this year. The problem with a statistical analysis, except one that is very objective, is that it tends to start with a desired result and then find statistics that support it rather than objectively investigating those that do not. I question whether you truly picked apart all objective factors, or whether you just settled on Jordan Spieth being omitted because of the road you were already headed down. I don’t mean that to sound accusatory – I’m actually interested…if Jordan is so bad at something that is so important at Augusta, then what makes him so good at Augusta? Really, there must be numbers to support it.

            • Richie Hunt

              Apr 20, 2016 at 12:10 pm

              Historically the winners at the Masters have hit 50+ GIR. This year was a little different because of the wind (which I mentioned with Zach Johnson as being able to change the outcome of the event). Willett hit 48 GIR, Westwood hit 51 GIR. Spieth? 43 GIR.

              I think Spieth was playing with fire for those first 65 holes of the event and again, would have had the most double bogeys of any Masters winner in the history of the event. I think it’s safe to say that his short game and putting really helped propel him at ANGC for those first 3 rounds. The wind also helped because it took away the bombers ability to easily hit an iron into #13 and #15.

              Spieth mentioned during the event that he didn’t feel comfortable with his irons and the metrics show that has been a problem for him going into the Masters.

              • Calling b.s.

                Apr 21, 2016 at 10:21 am

                If I understand this argument correctly, Richie is saying he didn’t pick Spieth as having a chance to win the masters because his stats from 125-175 are bad, and his shot from 150 on the 12th hole validates his argument. I’ll call b.s. on that. It wasn’t the tee shot that cost spieth the victory. It was the embarrassingly fat flip wedge he hit after the drop. We all agree that spieth has an amazing short game. But it was the short game that failed him. That was mental. His loss had absolutely nothing to do with his play from 125-175 yards. Stats are fun. But don’t try to make it out like you predicted spieth’s failure to win with your analysis. You didn’t.

  14. ZQ

    Apr 19, 2016 at 8:48 pm

    Please fire this guy.

    • Brad

      Apr 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm

      Amen. Richie, just admit your omission of Spieth was inflammatory. Just because he didn’t win doesn’t mean your failure to include him in the TOP 20 was correct. Stats can make any conclusion you want them to make, which is what you’re doing here IMO…..lies, damn lies, and statistics.

  15. Gubment Cheeze

    Apr 19, 2016 at 7:48 pm

    Jordan gave a good show and didn’t quit get the winners check. Golfs a tough game and some days you just ain’t got it.

    • MarkB A

      Apr 20, 2016 at 8:33 am

      Seems the haters are gonna just hate. Jordan had a few major mistakes and it is Augusta on Sunday on the back 9. Danny Willet played well and it was a nice win. Last year Jordan was pretty astonishing because he had a real good shot at winning all the majors. I am not a fan boy. I enjoy golf and let the best man that week with the lowest score win.

  16. Roger

    Apr 19, 2016 at 7:31 pm

    Jordan began seriously having issues at the world match play, then in Houston…….he looked good through three rounds but darn he seemed to be jumpy and nervous on Sunday.

  17. Cronos

    Apr 19, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    I can only assume you’re a troll.

    Spieth was T2, 1, and T2 in his three years at the masters. I’m sure it was all because of a “weak” field all 3 years.


  18. Joe

    Apr 19, 2016 at 5:19 pm

    I hope Jordan doesn’t read this. Thanks for the article, it is a good read and interesting. But to my thinking all these stats mean very little, Jordan’s failure was the result of 1 hole, not an accumulation of stats over many holes.

    Stats are just numbers and don’t always give the correct picture. The story here is that he choked/or made a bad swing, it happens. Get over it and move on.

    • Richie Hunt

      Apr 20, 2016 at 9:42 am

      I disagree. In golf, you are what you are. I don’t believe it’s just one hole. Like I said, he was on pace to have the most double bogeys as a winner in the history of the Masters before the 12th hole on Sunday. If he had not doubled all of those holes, he would have had a larger margin going into 12 and could have still won with that 12th hole.

      Jordan only hit 59.2% of his GIR for the event. Willett hit 67% and Westwood hit 70%. Traditionally, GIR% plays a large role in who wins the Masters and typically the winner hits at least 50 GIR for the event. This year was a little different due to the winds, but I think Spieth was playing with fire.

  19. RoGar

    Apr 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm

    Are you serious? Trends, tendencies, and plain old bad luck, are things that just happen. What about weather, stress, and pressure? Really!!! Speith lead almost the whole way, and even after 12 still almost made an epic comeback. If he had won, imagine the headlines then!!! Speith is great for the game, he’s very close to being human…

  20. Johnny

    Apr 19, 2016 at 4:41 pm

    Jordan’s quadruple bogey on #12 in the 4th round was a total fluke. As was his 4 putt at #5 (forget what round).

    • Jay

      Apr 19, 2016 at 6:29 pm

      thats a lot of flukes for the #2 in the world….

    • CallawayLefty

      Apr 20, 2016 at 6:45 am

      Doesn’t that turn the statistical analysis on its head? If a guy who has no chance to win at Augusta has finished 2, 1, 2 in three tries, are we sure that the statistics Richie is focusing on are the ones that matter?

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

Clark: A teacher’s take on Brandel Chamblee’s comments



Because I’m writing to a knowledgeable audience who follows the game closely, I’m sure the current Brandel Chamblee interview and ensuing controversy needs no introduction, so let’s get right to it.

Brandel Chamblee, a former PGA Tour player, now plays a role as a TV personality. He has built a “brand” around that role. The Golf Channel seems to relish the idea of Brandel as the “loose cannon” of the crew (not unlike Johnny Miller on NBC) saying exactly what he thinks with seeming impunity from his superiors.

I do not know the gentleman personally, but on-air, he seems like an intelligent, articulate golf professional, very much on top of his subject matter, which is mostly the PGA Tour. He was also a very capable player (anyone who played and won on the PGA Tour is/was a great player). But remember, nowadays he is not being judged by what scores he shoots, but by how many viewers/readers his show and his book have (ratings). Bold statements sell, humdrum ones do not.

For example, saying that a teacher’s idiocy was exposed is a bold controversial statement that will sell, but is at best only partly true and entirely craven. If the accuser is not willing to name the accused, he is being unfair and self-serving. However, I think it’s dangerous to throw the baby out with the bathwater here; Brandel is a student of the game and I like a lot of what he says and thinks.

His overriding message in that interview is that golf over the last “30-40 years” has been poorly taught. He says the teachers have been too concerned with aesthetics, not paying enough attention to function. There is some truth in that, but Brandel is painting with a very broad brush here. Many, myself included, eschewed method teaching years ago for just that reason. Method teachers are bound to help some and not others. Maybe the “X swing” one player finds very useful, another cannot use it all.

Brandel was asked specifically about Matthew Wolff’s unique swing: Lifting the left heel, crossing the line at the top, etc. He answered, “of course he can play because that’s how he plays.” The problem would be if someone tried to change that because it “looked odd.” Any teacher worth his weight in salt would not change a swing simply because it looked odd if it was repeating good impact. I learned from the great John Jacobs that it matters not what the swing looks like if it is producing great impact.

Now, if he is objecting exclusively to those method teachers who felt a certain pattern of motions was the one true way to get to solid impact, I agree with him 100 percent. Buy many teach on an individual, ball flight and impact basis and did not generalize a method. So to say “golf instruction over the last 30-40 years” has been this or that is far too broad a description and unfair.

He goes on to say that the “Top Teacher” lists are “ridiculous.” I agree, mostly. While I have been honored by the PGA and a few golf publications as a “top teacher,” I have never understood how or why. NOT ONE person who awarded me those honors ever saw me give one lesson! Nor have they have ever tracked one player I coached.  I once had a 19 handicap come to me and two seasons later he won the club championship-championship flight! By that I mean with that student I had great success. But no one knew of that progress who gave me an award.

On the award form, I was asked about the best, or most well-known students I had taught. In the golf journals, a “this-is-the-teacher-who-can-help-you” message is the epitome of misdirection. Writing articles, appearing on TV, giving YouTube video tips, etc. is not the measure of a teacher. On the list of recognized names, I’m sure there are great teachers, but wouldn’t you like to see them teach as opposed to hearing them speak? I’m assuming the “ridiculous” ones Brandel refers to are those teaching a philosophy or theory of movement and trying to get everyone to do just that.

When it comes to his criticism of TrackMan, I disagree. TrackMan does much more than help “dial in yardage.” Video cannot measure impact, true path, face-to-path relationship, centeredness of contact, club speed, ball speed, plane etc. Comparing video with radar is unfair because the two systems serve different functions. And if real help is better ball flight, which of course only results from better impact, then we need both a video of the overall motion and a measure of impact.

Now the specific example he cites of Jordan Spieth’s struggles being something that can be corrected in “two seconds” is hyperbolic at least! Nothing can be corrected that quickly simply because the player has likely fallen into that swing flaw over time, and it will take time to correct it. My take on Jordan’s struggles is a bit different, but he is a GREAT player who will find his way back.

Brandel accuses Cameron McCormick (his teacher) of telling him to change his swing.  Do we know that to be true, or did Jordan just fall into a habit and Cameron is not seeing the change? I agree there is a problem; his stats prove that, but before we pick a culprit, let’s get the whole story. Again back to the sensationalism which sells! (Briefly, I believe Jordan’s grip is and has always been a problem but his putter and confidence overcame it. An active body and “quiet” hands is the motion one might expect of a player with a strong grip-for obvious reason…but again just my two teacher cents)

Anyway, “bitch-slapped” got him in hot water for other reasons obviously, and he did apologize over his choice of words, and to be clear he did not condemn the PGA as a whole. But because I have disagreements with his reasoning here does not mean Brandel is not a bright articulate golf professional, I just hope he looks before he leaps the next time, and realizes none of us are always right.

Some of my regular readers will recall I “laid down my pen” a few years ago, but it occurred to me, I would be doing many teachers a disservice if I did not offer these thoughts on this particular topic!









Your Reaction?
  • 78
  • LEGIT9
  • WOW3
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB2
  • SHANK11

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

A trip down Magnolia Memory Lane: Patron fashion at the 1991 Masters



Like a lot of golfers out there, I’ve been getting my fix thanks to the final round Masters broadcasts on YouTube via the Masters channel. Considering these broadcasts go back as far as 1968, there is a lot we could discuss—we could break down shots, equipment, how the course has changed, but instead I thought we could have a little fun taking a different direction—fashion.

However, I’m not talking players fashion, that’s fairly straight forward. Instead, I wanted to follow the action behind the action and see what we could find along the way – here are the 1991 Highlights.

I love the “Die Hard” series as much as anyone else but one fan took it to a new level of fandom by wearing a Die Hard 2 – Die Harder T-shirt to Sunday at the Masters. This patron was spotted during Ian Woosnam fourth shot into 13. Honorable mention goes to Woosie’s gold chain.

There is a lot going on here as Ben Crenshaw lines up his put on 17. First, we have the yellow-shirted man just left of center with perfectly paired Masters green pants to go along with his hat (he also bears a striking resemblance to Ping founder Karsten Solheim). Secondly, we have what I would imagine is his friend in the solid red pants—both these outfits are 10 out of 10. Last but not least, we have the man seen just to the right of Ben with sunglasses so big and tinted, I would expect to be receiving a ticket from him on the I20 on my way out of town.

If you don’t know the name Jack Hamm, consider yourself lucky you missed a lot of early 2000s late-night golf infomercials. OK so maybe it’s not the guy known for selling “The Hammer” driver but if you look under the peak of the cabin behind Woosie as he tees off on ten you can be forgiven for taking a double-take… This guy might show up later too. Honorable mention to the pastel-pink-shorted man with the binoculars and Hogan cap in the right of the frame.

Big proportions were still very much in style as the 80s transitioned into the early 90s. We get a peek into some serious style aficionados wardrobes behind the 15th green with a wide striped, stiff collared lilac polo, along with a full-length bright blue sweater and a head of hair that has no intention of being covered by a Masters hat.

Considering the modern tales of patrons (and Rickie Folwer) being requested to turn backward hats forward while on the grounds of Augusta National, it was a pretty big shock to see Gerry Pate’s caddy with his hat being worn in such an ungentlemanly manner during the final round.

Before going any further, I would like us all to take a moment to reflect on how far graphics during the Masters coverage has come in the last 30 years. In 2019 we had the ability to see every shot from every player on every hole…in 1991 we had this!

At first glance, early in the broadcast, these yellow hardhats threw me for a loop. I honestly thought that a spectator had chosen to wear one to take in the action. When Ian Woosnam smashed his driver left on 18 over the bunkers it became very apparent that anyone wearing a hard hat was not there for fun, they were part of the staff. If you look closely you can see hole numbers on the side of the helmets to easily identify what holes they were assigned to. Although they have less to do with fashion, I must admit I’m curious where these helmets are now, and what one might be worth as a piece of memorabilia.

Speaking of the 18th hole, full credit to the man in the yellow hat (golf clap to anyone that got the Curious George reference) who perfectly matched the Pantone of his hat to his shirt and also looked directly into the TV camera.

It could be said the following photo exemplifies early ’90s fashion. We have pleated Bermuda shorts, horizontal stripes all over the place and some pretty amazing hairstyles. Honorable mention to the young guys in the right of the frame that look like every ’80s movie antagonist “rich preppy boy.”

What else can I say except, khaki and oversized long sleeve polos certainly had their day in 1991? We have a bit of everything here as Tom Watson lines up his persimmon 3-wood on the 18th. The guy next to Ian Woosnam’s sleeves hit his mid-forearm, there are too many pleats to count, and somehow our Jack Hamm look-alike managed to find another tee box front row seat.

You can check out the full final-round broadcast of the 1991 Masters below.


Your Reaction?
  • 17
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW0
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading


The 19th Hole Episode 119: Gary Player joins the 19th Hole!



Hall of Famer Gary Player gives an exclusive one-on-one interview with Host Michael Williams about his life in golf, his thoughts on the current game and his tips for thriving even in difficult times.

Check out the full podcast on SoundCloud below, or click here to listen on iTunes or here to listen on Spotify.

Want more GolfWRX Radio? Check out our other shows (and the full archives for this show) below. 


Your Reaction?
  • 0
  • LEGIT1
  • WOW0
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading