3+ before 25 over the past 30 = 11

[downlowkey]

I'm no math whiz but that equation looks wonky and until roughly 3:00 PM EST, Sunday 8/26/18 the answer was actually "10".

 

But after grinding out a final round (-2) 69 at The Northern Trust, Bryson Dechambeau turned it up to "Eleven" and joined the following list of professional golfers that have won 3 or more PGA Tour events before their 25th birthday over the past 30 years: Phil, Tiger, A. Scott, Sergio, A.K., Rory, Spieth, JT, Hideki, P. Reed.

 

Of the 11 names currently occupying this list, only 3 have yet to claim a major title: A.K. - this mystery deserves further study; Hideki - it's only a matter of time; Dechambeau - the subject of this thread...

 

Alright, I've thrown enough historical numbers at you. Let's focus the rest of this discussion on the "Mad Scientist". Love him or hate him (I personally fall somewhere in the middle), this man is playing a different game than the rest of the tour; and quirky as it may be, the stats are getting harder to ignore.

 

FedEx Cup Rank: 1

OWGR: 11 (how serendipitous)

2018 Cuts - PGA Tour : 19/23 (technically adjusted for injury related WDs 21/23)

Total Strokes Gained: 5th

 

B.A.D. has been making history since his college tenure (5th player to hold both NCAA Championship and U.S. Amateur in the same year - Nicklaus, Woods, Phil, R. Moore) and upon turning Pro in 2016, seems hell bent on elevating his game to equally rarefied professional ranks.

 

But how is he really getting it done? This question is the heart of the matter and what I find so intriguing. During interviews he exhibits a supreme (to the point of annoyance) confidence but just last month cameras captured the driving range meltdown reminiscent of a weekend hacker. The foundation of his game champions accuracy over length but coming down the stretch we have seen the swing science go awry with some shots that are absolutely off the map. It's now clear that the protractor wasn't his sole trump card.

 

So let's suss it out Spies...

[cksurfdude]

Don't know the inside game of any of the pros well enough to comment on the "How", but - do agree that Bryson is an interesting character, and that it will be also be interesting to see how his game / career continue to develop and evolve.

[DPattGolf]

I wonder if some of the awry shots have to do with his new F8+ driver being 2 degrees more upright compared to his old King LTD Pro. 

[downlowkey]

I wonder if some of the awry shots have to do with his new F8+ driver being 2 degrees more upright compared to his old King LTD Pro. 

 

If that's indeed the case, I wonder how much further right his tee shot on 18 yesterday would have been with the flatter oriented LTD?

[DPattGolf]

Also does anyone else find it odd that Bryson doesn't use the One Length version of the Cobra King wedges??

[DPattGolf]

If that's indeed the case, I wonder how much further right his tee shot on 18 yesterday would have been with the flatter oriented LTD?

Per article from GolfDigest. "According to Cobra tour rep Ben Schomin, DeChambeau's previous driver, the company's LTD Pro model, had a flatter lie angle at 56 degrees. The F8+ has a 58-degree lie angle, and DeChambeau felt more comfortable with that, which makes sense given that his typical miss is to the right and a more upright lie angle can help mitigate that."

[downlowkey]

Also does anyone else find it odd that Bryson doesn't use the One Length version of the Cobra King wedges??

 

I'd surmise the lack of grind options in the King One stamped wedges was the impetus to bag the regular King wedges, built to match the rest of his single length Cobra wrenches.

[chemclub]

I am a big fan of Dechambeau. I like anyone who breaks a mold and finds his own swing to get him around the course. 

 

I think it is a great thing that he is passionate and melts down at times. Good to see someone who is human.

 

I think too much is made about "The Scientist" calculating all the angles and variables. He just uses physics vocabulary to describe his swing. Cripes Faldo, read a book.

 

As for wedges, I would assume you want shorter shafts on wedges for more control at partial yardages.

[Berg Ryman]

But after grinding out a final round (-2) 69 at The Northern Trust, Bryson Dechambeau turned it up to "Eleven" and joined the following list of professional golfers that have won 3 or more PGA Tour events before their 25th birthday over the past 30 years: Phil, Tiger, A. Scott, Sergio, A.K., Rory, Spieth, JT, Hideki, P. Reed.

 

As an aside, I remember watching the telecast as Bryson was coming up 18 yesterday and I think it was Faldo who said that Bryson was joining the "exclusive club" of 3+ wins before the age of 25, and I laughed by the time he got to Reed. Not because of animosity, but because if you're touting an exclusive club, it really shouldn't have like 10 dudes in it.

 

You want exclusive, how about this one from Sean Martin from PGATour.com. 4 guys have won an NCAA, US Am, and 3 times before turning 25. Jack, Phil, Tiger, Bryson. That's it. That's a club to get hyped about, not this 10 person gaggle.

 

Nothing against you Downlow, just found it funny that this touted as an exclusive club when there's a more exclusive club that they could have referenced on the telecast.

[Mr. 82]

 

 

A.K. - this mystery deserves further study; 

 

 

 

FedEx Cup Rank: 1

OWGR: 11 (how serendipitous)

2018 Cuts - PGA Tour : 19/23 (technically adjusted for injury related WDs 21/23)

Total Strokes Gained: 5th

 

I have no idea who A.K. is but I'm limited in the hypnotic spiritist realm.

 

And your OWGR number is incorrect.

 

[DPattGolf]

I'd surmise the lack of grind options in the King One stamped wedges was the impetus to bag the regular King wedges, built to match the rest of his single length Cobra wrenches.

If that is the case you would think the tour staff would just hand grind the soles to what he wants and then add weight where necessary.

 

Now that I say that, maybe its a starting weight issue with the One Length's and how much material would have to be removed to turn the Versatile grind to the WideLow grind he likes in the 55* & 60*....

[DPattGolf]

I have no idea who A.K. is but I'm limited in the hypnotic spiritist realm.

 

And your OWGR number is incorrect.

 

Capture.JPG

A.K. is Anthony Kim

[GB13]

I think he will continue to win and work inside the top 3 in the OWGR by the end of 2018-2019 season. He isn't fazed by the pressure and plays at the highest level no matter the circumstances. This is a recipe for majors.

 

His mental approach to the game gives him a better understanding of what is happening on the course. It removes variables. He know how the ball will bounce and roll. If you can calculate all of those variables out of the equation, all you have to do is hit the required shot.

 

I also like his swing a lot and my only concern for him is health. This swing looks tough on the back and wrists.

[DPattGolf]

I also like his swing a lot and my only concern for him is health. This swing looks tough on the back and wrists.

What makes you think that??

[Berg Ryman]

If that is the case you would think the tour staff would just hand grind the soles to what he wants and then add weight where necessary.

 

Now that I say that, maybe its a starting weight issue with the One Length's and how much material would have to be removed to turn the Versatile grind to the WideLow grind he likes in the 55* & 60*....

 

I'd assume it's the latter case DPatt. Why start shaving weight when you have something near the base grind he wants and the staff can just make it work within those parameters? 

[GB13]

What makes you think that??

Well, for the wrists, whenever you try to lock something in place, and hit the ball and take a divot, it puts more pressure on the wrists and makes the ligaments more susceptible to damage than it they had a little give in them.

 

Think about a tree, in high wind the big oak that is stick straight and won't bend but breaks, the little tree will bend over sideways but won't break. The locking of the wrists is like the big oak that has not give. Wrists with give are like the little tree that bends but won't break.

 

As for the back, that is more of guess on my part. I just think with the way that he follows through, he puts more strain on the back to slow the club down, instead of using his arms.

[DPattGolf]

Well, for the wrists, whenever you try to lock something in place, and hit the ball and take a divot, it puts more pressure on the wrists and makes the ligaments more susceptible to damage than it they had a little give in them.

 

Think about a tree, in high wind the big oak that is stick straight and won't bend but breaks, the little tree will bend over sideways but won't break. The locking of the wrists is like the big oak that has not give. Wrists with give are like the little tree that bends but won't break.

 

As for the back, that is more of guess on my part. I just think with the way that he follows through, he puts more strain on the back to slow the club down, instead of using his arms.

I don't know how much studying of his swing you have done but I think your mistaken thinking he is locking out his wrists any meaningful amount more than the average player of his caliber. His more upright angle makes it seem like that is the case, but if you go to impact his hands/wrists are in a very familiar position for tour pros. 

 

As for the slowing down the swing, I still don't see anything that is sign for concern more than any other player and I'm not sure where you are seeing him slow his swing down with his back. He keeps his spine angle through impact and the finish so its not like he is ever making a jerking motion that would be a potential worry for injury.

[downlowkey]

I think he will continue to win and work inside the top 3 in the OWGR by the end of 2018-2019 season. He isn't fazed by the pressure and plays at the highest level no matter the circumstances. This is a recipe for majors.

 

His mental approach to the game gives him a better understanding of what is happening on the course. It removes variables. He know how the ball will bounce and roll. If you can calculate all of those variables out of the equation, all you have to do is hit the required shot.

 

I also like his swing a lot and my only concern for him is health. This swing looks tough on the back and wrists.

 

These are exactly the subjects on which I had hoped to dig deeper.

 

I'm not convinced his self-professed confidence isn't compensation for an overactive gut full of butterflies. In the final pairing, going (+5) the last 5 holes of the Porsche European Open (to lose by 5) indicates to me that he doesn't always constructively channel the pressure. Where I grew up, we tended to label his personality type "high strung". To me, the guy seems to be wound pretty tight - not the typical characterization of an unflappable athlete.

 

I agree that the goal of his scientific approach is to remove variables and simplify they way he navigates a golf course. I don't entirely grok why the heck it's working against the best in the world.

 

Regarding the particular swing mechanics; I really like the way he consistently covers the ball. He manages to create plenty of speed but has largely removed the timing variable of an impact release. To me the result it a very quiet and repeatable impact position.

 

But the guy makes me nervous and the aforementioned characterizations are definitely part and parcel to my feelings. Despite another total meltdown seemingly looming around the corner; it doesn't bear out in the stats. On paper, BAD is Steady Eddy.

 

The fact that all these contradictions add up to a PGA Tour victory every ~20 events (in a 2 year professional career no less) is puzzling.

[chemclub]

I agree with DPatt - if you look at his swing from the front, it isn't all that different from all the other non-single plain swings -wrist action is the same.

 

Watching him on TV from behind/side it definitely looks locked due to the single plane and upright lie.

 

Can't comment on the back - so dependent on flexibility. It does look controlled though

[chemclub]

These are the exactly the subjects on which I had hoped to dig deeper.

 

I'm not convinced his self-professed confidence isn't compensation for an overactive gut full of butterflies. In the final pairing, going (+5) the last 5 holes of the Porsche European Open (to lose by 5) indicates to me that he doesn't always constructively channel the pressure. Where I grew up, we tended to label his personality type "high strung". To me, the guy seems to be wound pretty tight - not the typical characterization of an unflappable athlete.

 

I agree that the goal of his scientific approach is to remove variables and simplify they way we navigates a golf course. I don't entirely grok why the heck it's working against the best in the world.

 

Regarding the particular swing mechanics; I really like the way he consistently covers the ball. He manages to create plenty of speed but has largely removed the timing variable of an impact release. To me the result it a very quiet and repeatable impact position.

 

But the guy makes me nervous and the aforementioned characterizations are definitely part and parcel to my feelings. Despite another total meltdown seemingly looming around the corner; it doesn't bear out in the stats. On paper, BAD is Steady Eddy.

 

The fact that all these contradictions add up to a PGA Tour victory every ~20 events (in a 2 year professional career no less) is puzzling.

 

Would you say Tiger didn't look like he was wound pretty tight in his early career? Remember when he would kick and cuss after shots - the golf upper crust did a lot of tut tutting.

 

Can we compare those outbursts by tiger to the meltdowns by Dechambeau? Although, I agree, that display on the range by BAD was just not something you see out there. I feel like Tiger always had the same unflappable demeanor on the range.

[downlowkey]

Would you say Tiger didn't look like he was wound pretty tight in his early career? Remember when he would kick and cuss after shots - the golf upper crust did a lot of tut tutting.

 

Can we compare those outbursts by tiger to the meltdowns by Dechambeau? Although, I agree, that display on the range by BAD was just not something you see out there. I feel like Tiger always had the same unflappable demeanor on the range.

 

I think Tiger was wound pretty tight for the first decade of his professional career; but from the perspective of sheer will, Tiger seemed to feed off pressure. I don't get that same feeling watching BAD compete.

 

Tiger gave himself the "Ranger Rick" moniker early on in his career with good reason. I remember watching TW hit a large bucket where he went through the entire bag, absolutely flushing every shot. At the end of his range session there was a neat 3'x3' patch on the deck where the grass had been slightly bruised but the turf was otherwise undisturbed. Giving the grass a perfect 1/16" haircut on 70 straight pure shots with every club in the bag was outside the scope of things I considered humanly possible.

 

On the subject of reactions to a poor range session; I think Tiger was measured enough to understand that the nuance of a golf swing required adjusted expectations day-to-day, namely not fighting the swing he happened to show up with. BAD's swing notions on the other hand are cemented in science and he ends up fighting his swing rather than taking what it offers on any given day. I think we witnessed this on the day of his infamous range meltdown. The results didn't match his hypothesis and he subsequently went berserk.

 

But perspective is important because while I witnessed a meltdown, BAD claimed it was a breakthrough session. How it all adds up to a 5% rate of victory is fascinating.

[chemclub]

On the subject of reactions to a poor range session; I think Tiger was measured enough to understand that the nuance of a golf swing required adjusted expectations day-to-day, namely not fighting the swing he happened to show up with. BAD's swing notions on the other hand are cemented in science and he ends up fighting his swing rather than taking what it offers on any given day. I think we witnessed this on the day of his infamous range meltdown. The results didn't match his hypothesis and he subsequently went berserk.

 

But perspective is important because while I witnessed a meltdown, BAD claimed it was a breakthrough session. How it all adds up to a 5% rate of victory is fascinating.

 

I think there is a lot to your point here. Tiger was famous for finding a way around the course. I recall one tournament he won (Masters?) where he said he didn't have his A-game that day. He resorted to another swing/game/approach that still allowed him to score. That was the key to his consistent winning success and what kept him in the hunt for so many tournaments (before this year, his win percentage was almost 25% !!!).

 

Is BAD built to find the "less than optimal" path to winning a tournament? There is no reason why his swing couldn't be adapted to hit alternative shots on any given day, but is he mentally able to grind through that? Maybe the range session tells us he isn't, even though it can lead him back to his A-game.

[downlowkey]

I'm no math whiz but that equation looks wonky and until roughly 3:00 PM EST, Sunday 8/26/18 the answer was actually "10".

 

But after grinding out a final round (-2) 69 at The Northern Trust, Bryson Dechambeau turned it up to "Eleven" and joined the following list of professional golfers that have won 3 or more PGA Tour events before their 25th birthday over the past 30 years: Phil, Tiger, A. Scott, Sergio, A.K., Rory, Spieth, JT, Hideki, P. Reed.

 

B.A.D. has been making history since his college tenure (5th player to hold both NCAA Championship and U.S. Amateur in the same year - Nicklaus, Woods, Phil, R. Moore) and upon turning Pro in 2016, seems hell bent on elevating his game to equally rarefied professional ranks.

 

But how is he really getting it done? This question is the heart of the matter and what I find so intriguing.

 

So let's suss it out Spies...

 

As an aside, I remember watching the telecast as Bryson was coming up 18 yesterday and I think it was Faldo who said that Bryson was joining the "exclusive club" of 3+ wins before the age of 25, and I laughed by the time he got to Reed. Not because of animosity, but because if you're touting an exclusive club, it really shouldn't have like 10 dudes in it.

 

You want exclusive, how about this one from Sean Martin from PGATour.com. 4 guys have won an NCAA, US Am, and 3 times before turning 25. Jack, Phil, Tiger, Bryson. That's it. That's a club to get hyped about, not this 10 person gaggle.

 

Nothing against you Downlow, just found it funny that this touted as an exclusive club when there's a more exclusive club that they could have referenced on the telecast.

 

I think extrapolating the "4 Player" stat overlap from the aggregate of my OP is well within your abilities, counselor. And considering nearly 75% of the players with 3+ wins prior to their 25th birthday are also majors champions, I'm not as inclined to summarily dismiss the stat as laughable.

[downlowkey]

I think there is a lot to your point here. Tiger was famous for finding a way around the course. I recall one tournament he won (Masters?) where he said he didn't have his A-game that day. He resorted to another swing/game/approach that still allowed him to score. That was the key to his consistent winning success and what kept him in the hunt for so many tournaments (before this year, his win percentage was almost 25% !!!).

 

Is BAD built to find the "less than optimal" path to winning a tournament? There is no reason why his swing couldn't be adapted to hit alternative shots on any given day, but is he mentally able to grind through that? Maybe the range session tells us he isn't, even though it can lead him back to his A-game.

 

I think your thoughts are a perfect segue to the intangible of Golf IQ -vs- Standardized IQ. TW put on a demonstration of superior Golf IQ with his final round (64) at the PGA Championship. He steered tee shots all over creation but managed to get the ball in the hole nonetheless. The announcers pondered what the rest of the field would likely shoot if you dropped them in those same spots on a major championship Sunday and the consensus seemed to be ~10 shots worse. Recognition and adaptation are two hallmarks of intelligence and Tiger has displayed some flashes of brilliance of late.

 

If we put BAD in the same situation, I can see things going sideways... quickly. While his Standardized IQ is noteworthy (announcers incessantly note it anyway) and he has decided to apply it to golf; his scientific method and the rub of the green are methodologies in opposition. I can envisage a scenario where he hits several sideways shots in a row or gets a string of bad bounces and his processor subsequently shifts into cognitive lock. Beep boop beep... results do not compute... beep... initiate safe mode shutdown. I think he's probably one of the most capable players on tour when it comes to executing commands, but reprogramming mid-round to bridge a gap between game plan and results... not so much. However, he's continually producing solid results week in, week out, so the game plan seems to be working. It's also pretty hard to tear down a guy who is on an arguably torrid pace in a very short professional career. I'm fascinated by the way he is playing the game right now and it's also exhausting to watch. I could see him having one the best Ryder Cup records ever... or the worst. Fingers crossed he has impeccable pre-match warmups.

[Berg Ryman]

I think extrapolating the "4 Player" stat overlap from the aggregate of my OP is well within your abilities, counselor. And considering nearly 75% of the players with 3+ wins prior to their 25th birthday are also majors champions, I'm not as inclined to summarily dismiss the stat as laughable.

I think you may have missed my point DLK. Your stat isn't laughable by any stretch. What I found funny was that on broadcast they went with the 10 person stat, while having access to the second stat and called the 10 person one a highly exclusive club.

[downlowkey]

I think you may have missed my point DLK. Your stat isn't laughable by any stretch. What I found funny was that on broadcast they went with the 10 person stat, while having access to the second stat and called the 10 person one a highly exclusive club.

 

We are in agreement. I find it beneficial to keep the potential motivations of the source at the forefront of my mind anytime information is disseminated. In this case, I'm guessing producers encouraged the talking heads to parrot the specific "(3+)But it really helps in the markets we play to have some of these players be there at some point. We like that part about it.''

 

The foundation of a great player is achievement. The formula for a superstar is achievement + coverage. It was foolish to convince golf audiences that a major victory is _the delineator_ of a standout golfer. Everyone on the PGA Tour is, by definition, a standout. And from the perspective of strength of field, globally there are probably ~15 tournaments a year that could be considered "majors". The things Tiger did on the golf course from '98-'08 sewed the seeds for the current bumper crop of talent. It took 10-20 years of development for those impressionable young athletes to arrive, but the reckoning is upon us. And it's taking the form of the Tour (via CBS/NBC/FOX) ironically reminding us of the broad modern spectrum of compelling exclusivity available for viewers to enjoy.

 

Taking the above into account, it's clear why I prefer European Tour coverage. Their announcers are less prone to meander off on tangential opinions or hype hot hands. They simply articulate the unfolding spectacle and constantly remind viewers of the subtle difference between true greatness and the temporary nature of a presently hot hand. It's also makes clear the reason there are statisticians sitting in the booth every week trying to add an obscure footnote to the PGA Tour history books.

 

But back to the subject of BAD and his role in all this. Since the reality we live in posits major championships as the mark of exception, let's look at the list that began this thread. Taking A.K. (Anthony Kim) out of the metrics (retired at 27) we have 10 players in the mix, 8 of them major champions. The remaining 2 - Hideki and BAD are 26 and 24 years old, respectively. From the perspective of age, 33 is the mode for major champions and the stats drop off precipitously under the age of 25 and over the age of 35. I think it's likely if the current group were frozen at 10 players, within the next 10 years every player in that group will have at least one major title. But the list owning the "(3+)