Scotty Scheffler boring to watch?

[TiScape]

30 minutes ago, PuffyC said:

I always cheer for John Daly when I can, and I love watching him on YT as well. Would I want to see myself as him? LOL no. But he’s still super entertaining to watch and I enjoy his authenticity.

 

It’s also kinda funny how people have “theories” about why some people have an opinion and like different things than they do. Which reminds me, I have a theory about all you clowns who like In-n-Out burger better than 5 Guys…

Five Guys, In-n-Out, The Habit, Shake Shack  🍔 

4 different burgers. I like em all! 😊

[FootWedge16]

33 minutes ago, mshills said:

This, exactly this!

 

It is mostly because Internet, I get it….but the number of disparaging, full of hyperbole posts made here lately is 👎🏼

 

”You think Scheffler is boring to watch because you want to see someone get fired up….I don’t really care about that, actually I don’t like it, just give me the golf.”  Totally OK. 
 

“You think Scheffler is boring to watch? You must want golf to be like the WWE. Can’t stay focused unless someone is cussing and doing all those embarrassing histrionics? Enjoy the MMA that’s on tonight!”  Not cool. 
 

Way too much of the latter on here lately. Debates and discussion are great without all the hyperbole and veiled insults. 

 

Sir this is a Wendy's

[CTgamer]

9 hours ago, mshills said:

Can’t agree with this, which is OK, not an attack. Stratifying golf fans into “good enough to appreciate…” versus not? Well, I can’t get with that. The guy who has been a 22 his whole life won’t necessarily grasp how hard it is to do all the things he is seeing, but I don’t think you necessarily have to be a stick to know what good looks like and appreciate it as a fan.

 

I never even played football, let alone was any good, but that didn’t keep me from appreciating what I saw Brady or Rice or Sanders do. 

 

Very different than dispensing advice on here, which should come with a level of competence. 

I’m not sure you read what I wrote - it’s not about “good enough to appreciate or not,” it’s about what the basis for that appreciation is. And again it wasn’t a criticism - I’ve already said in a different post in this thread that the main difference between what different people like to watch probably has to do with underlying psychology and nervous system sensitivity - but I am (personally) curious how handicap influences this.  
 

Let’s take an entirely different sport - Formula 1. I know on the surface that driving a car and hitting the perfect lines on the track is incredible difficult at those speeds. But I don’t know anything about driving a race car, and I have no experience with it. Personally, that means I’d rather watch someone who’s exciting - a driver that constantly seems like they’re on the razor’s edge of crashing. I’m sure a technical driver who always looks in control is as, if not more, skilled - but because I have no experience with driving the race car, I can’t appreciate it the same way (or at the very least, it’s not as entertaining to me to watch). Someone who’s actually driven a race car, or something adjacent (like high level kart racing) can have a way more *technical* appreciation than I do. Again, *can*, not will. 
 

Technical appreciation means things that seem boring on the surface can actually be riveting to certain people because they’re focused on the minutia on what it takes to perform at the highest level. They understand it, even if they can’t do it themselves (versus someone that can’t understand it yet), and are inspired by that excellence. 
 

To bring it back to golf, that’s what some people find exciting about Scottie. Just because a player is lower handicap, doesn’t mean they *will*, as @Obee has stated (which is totally fine and their preference). But it does mean better players have the possibility to find that kind of thing entertaining 

 

Cheers 🍻 

[bscinstnct]

49 minutes ago, CTgamer said:

I’m not sure you read what I wrote - it’s not about “good enough to appreciate or not,” it’s about what the basis for that appreciation is. And again it wasn’t a criticism - I’ve already said in a different post in this thread that the main difference between what different people like to watch probably has to do with underlying psychology and nervous system sensitivity - but I am (personally) curious how handicap influences this.  
 

Let’s take an entirely different sport - Formula 1. I know on the surface that driving a car and hitting the perfect lines on the track is incredible difficult at those speeds. But I don’t know anything about driving a race car, and I have no experience with it. Personally, that means I’d rather watch someone who’s exciting - a driver that constantly seems like they’re on the razor’s edge of crashing. I’m sure a technical driver who always looks in control is as, if not more, skilled - but because I have no experience with driving the race car, I can’t appreciate it the same way (or at the very least, it’s not as entertaining to me to watch). Someone who’s actually driven a race car, or something adjacent (like high level kart racing) can have a way more *technical* appreciation than I do. Again, *can*, not will. 
 

Technical appreciation means things that seem boring on the surface can actually be riveting to certain people because they’re focused on the minutia on what it takes to perform at the highest level. They understand it, even if they can’t do it themselves (versus someone that can’t understand it yet), and are inspired by that excellence. 
 

To bring it back to golf, that’s what some people find exciting about Scottie. Just because a player is lower handicap, doesn’t mean they *will*, as @Obee has stated (which is totally fine and their preference). But it does mean better players have the possibility to find that kind of thing entertaining 

 

Cheers 🍻 

 

Share an example of “technical appreciation” that a lower handicap golfer would have greater insight into than a higher handicap. As it applies to watching Scheff play and appreciating his game over any other tour pro.

 

What exactly is Scheff doing that you see that a higher handicap golfer can’t appreciate?
 

 

Edited June 4 by bscinstnct

[CTgamer]

2 hours ago, bscinstnct said:

 

Share an example of “technical appreciation” that a lower handicap golfer would have greater insight into than a higher handicap. As it applies to watching Scheff play and appreciating his game over any other tour pro.

 

What exactly is Scheff doing that you see that a higher handicap golfer can’t appreciate?
 

 

I don’t think it’s about Scheffler *specifically*, he just happens to be the topic of this thread and a good example

of a player who doesn’t make many mistakes because he does a lot of technical things very well. In other words, he’s doing things well that a non-golfer wouldn’t necessarily understand how difficult they are and what goes into them. 
 

To the question of what are those things? Well, this might sound harsh, but there’s an entire litany of things that the average 20 handicap can’t do - ie, they may know that those are things *that* they need to do, but they have no real idea *how* to do them or *what* makes them happen…

In terms of swing:

-Low point control

-Path control

-Face to path control

-Varying strike height low to high to control spin (which is a function of low point and swing plane, which together make up AoA)

 

In terms of ball-flight: 

-hitting it pin high

-removing one side of the fairway/green as a miss

-spin control

-trajectory control

 

In terms of context:

-playing under pressure, trying to post a score, under the actual USGA rules of golf 

 

Again, this is not about Scheffler specifically - let’s take Tiger. There’s no technical appreciation needed to be awed by the fact that in 2000 he could hit it 50 yards by everyone else, that he could hit 2 irons higher than everyone else, that he could miss fairways by more than anyone else and still hit it close. He’s got more shots that are clearly just stupidly, spectacularly that-much-better-than-what-anyone-else-would-try-to-attempt that anyone, regardless of golfing knowledge, can recognize their sheer brilliance. The 6i out of the bunker at the Canadian Open. The 3i out of the hanging lie in the trap at Hazeltine. The chip in at Augusta in ‘05. The chip in the at Players in ‘13. *All* the dramatic putts over the years. 
 

But! There’s a reason his absolutely methodical performance at Hoylake in ‘06 doesn’t top the major highlights. Arguably, that was his most “Scheffler-esque” major win - he hit iron off (iirc) more than half the tees that week. He made fewer mistakes than anyone in the field. But it isn’t the major that we think of as vintage Tiger. Even his final round performance at Pebble in ‘01, where he’s stated his only goal was to play smart golf and not make bogeys, doesn’t quite pull on the heartstrings like his hero shots earlier that week (the 7i out of rough up the hill on 6, and his theatrics on 14). 
 

I’m not saying there isn’t something less exciting about a player that doesn’t make mistakes - obviously it’s harder to take our eyes off the players that’s running it closer to the redline. But like, let’s take Scottie hitting wedge shots or chips around the green. Every single time he pulls that off (which he does more and better then almost anyone on tour) requires ELITE low point control, path control, face to path control, course strategy, etc.

 

Even with Tiger’s Herculean feats, having a player who’s worked for decades and tried to eek out every inch of speed, athleticism, etc to hit it further, higher, closer vs your average 20 handicap player who knows “golf is hard” and identifies with how unlikely the shots Tiger pulled off are - the former of those players has a more visceral understanding/appreciation than the latter.  

It’s like the difference between an average consumer going to a 3-star Michelin restaurant, vs someone who’s worked as a chef. It takes expertise to truly appreciate excellence. That’s not to say non-expert appreciation is invalid or that it means less - but it certainly is different
 

 

Edited June 4 by CTgamer

[mshills]

8 hours ago, CTgamer said:

I’m not sure you read what I wrote…

 

I am sure. I read what you wrote.
 

We simply disagree and that is ok. 

Edited June 4 by mshills

[DJDJ]

For the record, if you are driving to win, your car is always on a razors edge. So is every other car, unless they aren’t trying to win.

Edited June 4 by DJDJ

[bscinstnct]

6 hours ago, CTgamer said:

I don’t think it’s about Scheffler *specifically*, he just happens to be the topic of this thread and a good example

of a player who doesn’t make many mistakes because he does a lot of technical things very well. In other words, he’s doing things well that a non-golfer wouldn’t necessarily understand how difficult they are and what goes into them. 
 

To the question of what are those things? Well, this might sound harsh, but there’s an entire litany of things that the average 20 handicap can’t do - ie, they may know that those are things *that* they need to do, but they have no real idea *how* to do them or *what* makes them happen…

In terms of swing:

-Low point control

-Path control

-Face to path control

-Varying strike height low to high to control spin (which is a function of low point and swing plane, which together make up AoA)

 

In terms of ball-flight: 

-hitting it pin high

-removing one side of the fairway/green as a miss

-spin control

-trajectory control

 

In terms of context:

-playing under pressure, trying to post a score, under the actual USGA rules of golf 

 

Again, this is not about Scheffler specifically - let’s take Tiger. There’s no technical appreciation needed to be awed by the fact that in 2000 he could hit it 50 yards by everyone else, that he could hit 2 irons higher than everyone else, that he could miss fairways by more than anyone else and still hit it close. He’s got more shots that are clearly just stupidly, spectacularly that-much-better-than-what-anyone-else-would-try-to-attempt that anyone, regardless of golfing knowledge, can recognize their sheer brilliance. The 6i out of the bunker at the Canadian Open. The 3i out of the hanging lie in the trap at Hazeltine. The chip in at Augusta in ‘05. The chip in the at Players in ‘13. *All* the dramatic putts over the years. 
 

But! There’s a reason his absolutely methodical performance at Hoylake in ‘06 doesn’t top the major highlights. Arguably, that was his most “Scheffler-esque” major win - he hit iron off (iirc) more than half the tees that week. He made fewer mistakes than anyone in the field. But it isn’t the major that we think of as vintage Tiger. Even his final round performance at Pebble in ‘01, where he’s stated his only goal was to play smart golf and not make bogeys, doesn’t quite pull on the heartstrings like his hero shots earlier that week (the 7i out of rough up the hill on 6, and his theatrics on 14). 
 

I’m not saying there isn’t something less exciting about a player that doesn’t make mistakes - obviously it’s harder to take our eyes off the players that’s running it closer to the redline. But like, let’s take Scottie hitting wedge shots or chips around the green. Every single time he pulls that off (which he does more and better then almost anyone on tour) requires ELITE low point control, path control, face to path control, course strategy, etc.

 

Even with Tiger’s Herculean feats, having a player who’s worked for decades and tried to eek out every inch of speed, athleticism, etc to hit it further, higher, closer vs your average 20 handicap player who knows “golf is hard” and identifies with how unlikely the shots Tiger pulled off are - the former of those players has a more visceral understanding/appreciation than the latter.  

It’s like the difference between an average consumer going to a 3-star Michelin restaurant, vs someone who’s worked as a chef. It takes expertise to truly appreciate excellence. That’s not to say non-expert appreciation is invalid or that it means less - but it certainly is different
 

 

 

 

Great post and i appreciate all the details.

 

Two things come to mind…

 

First, as a NYer who’s eaten at a practically uncountable number of restaurants and got to know some great chefs, I can tell you that being “technically” astute, does not necessarily translate to being fan or preference of a dish strictly based on the execution of complex process/elements of that dish. 
 

A great Italian chef can prefer a very simple dish of octopus 🐙 @Duct Tape 🤣 and heavily peppered red sauce than a perfect French preparation of chicken in aspic. While a non-chef can be a huge fan of the latter dish and go into great detail about why.

 

 

Second, as applicable to golf and once again along the lines of expertise not necessarily having a bearing on preference,

 

In an interview during the TW 1.0 era, Lee Trevino said he doesn’t watch any pro golf anymore…unless Tiger is on. He didn’t mention any stats or technical aspects of TWs game, he simply fawned along the lines of,

 

He da man!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mshills]

26 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

In an interview during the TW 1.0 era, Lee Trevino said he doesn’t watch any pro golf anymore…unless Tiger is on. He didn’t mention any stats or technical aspects of TWs game, he simply fawned…

This is what I meant a couple pages ago. While I do not find Scheffler boring, I understand the point @Obee and others are making about excitement.

 

I call it charisma….and like something else memorably summarized by the US Supreme Court — I can’t necessarily define it, but I know it when I see it. 

[CTgamer]

23 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

 

 

Great post and i appreciate all the details.

 

Two things come to mind…

 

First, as a NYer who’s eaten at a practically uncountable number of restaurants and got to know some great chefs, I can tell you that being “technically” astute, does not necessarily translate to being fan or preference of a dish strictly based on the execution of complex process/elements of that dish. 
 

A great Italian chef can prefer a very simple dish of octopus 🐙 @Duct Tape 🤣 and heavily peppered red sauce than a perfect French preparation of chicken in aspic. While a non-chef can be a huge fan of the latter dish and go into great detail about why.

 

 

Second, as applicable to golf and once again along the lines of expertise not necessarily having a bearing on preference,

 

In an interview during the TW 1.0 era, Lee Trevino said he doesn’t watch any pro golf anymore…unless Tiger is on. He didn’t mention any stats or technical aspects of TWs game, he simply fawned along the lines of,

 

He da man!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Oh for sure! Your point about chefs is (I think) exactly what I’m getting at…like, the simple dish of octopus is Scheffler. On the surface, it can seem simple, maybe boring even. But perfectly executed, it’s delicious - maybe made even more so by its simplicity. That simplicity also makes it easier to recognize when it isn’t made perfectly, because the dish can’t hide behind complexity. 
 

Tiger in ‘00 is the chicken in aspic (as long as we’re keeping this analogy). And to agree with Lee Trevino, he da man lol!

[bladehunter]

Scottie is the most exciting player since Tiger.    I love watching excellence.  Really shows you the parity that’s below him.  And how it’s mostly based on who makes putts. They’re all the same.  

[bladehunter]

17 hours ago, TiScape said:

IDK man. I think that does a disservice to Iceman. Iceman had that big D energy swag. SS more like Goose IMO 

They always underestimate the quiet ones.  Until it’s too late. 🤣.   

[BlackDiamondPar5]

30 minutes ago, bladehunter said:

Scottie is the most exciting player since Tiger.    I love watching excellence.  Really shows you the parity that’s below him.  And how it’s mostly based on who makes putts. They’re all the same.  

Plus I enjoy that entertaining footwork of his! 

 

[bladehunter]

Just now, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Plus I enjoy that entertaining footwork of his! 

 

 I love that it makes folks skin crawl 🤣.  They don’t understand what a truly athletic person with exceptional spatial awareness is capable of.    He’s not alone in that.  Watch long drive guys dig divots  with their feet.  His brain knows what it’s doing.  

[TiScape]

2 hours ago, bladehunter said:

They always underestimate the quiet ones.  Until it’s too late. 🤣.   

Says the quite one 😝 

[Obee]

11 hours ago, CTgamer said:

I don’t think it’s about Scheffler *specifically*, he just happens to be the topic of this thread and a good example

of a player who doesn’t make many mistakes because he does a lot of technical things very well. In other words, he’s doing things well that a non-golfer wouldn’t necessarily understand how difficult they are and what goes into them. 
 

To the question of what are those things? Well, this might sound harsh, but there’s an entire litany of things that the average 20 handicap can’t do - ie, they may know that those are things *that* they need to do, but they have no real idea *how* to do them or *what* makes them happen…

In terms of swing:

-Low point control

-Path control

-Face to path control

-Varying strike height low to high to control spin (which is a function of low point and swing plane, which together make up AoA)

 

In terms of ball-flight: 

-hitting it pin high

-removing one side of the fairway/green as a miss

-spin control

-trajectory control

 

In terms of context:

-playing under pressure, trying to post a score, under the actual USGA rules of golf 

 

Again, this is not about Scheffler specifically - let’s take Tiger. There’s no technical appreciation needed to be awed by the fact that in 2000 he could hit it 50 yards by everyone else, that he could hit 2 irons higher than everyone else, that he could miss fairways by more than anyone else and still hit it close. He’s got more shots that are clearly just stupidly, spectacularly that-much-better-than-what-anyone-else-would-try-to-attempt that anyone, regardless of golfing knowledge, can recognize their sheer brilliance. The 6i out of the bunker at the Canadian Open. The 3i out of the hanging lie in the trap at Hazeltine. The chip in at Augusta in ‘05. The chip in the at Players in ‘13. *All* the dramatic putts over the years. 
 

But! There’s a reason his absolutely methodical performance at Hoylake in ‘06 doesn’t top the major highlights. Arguably, that was his most “Scheffler-esque” major win - he hit iron off (iirc) more than half the tees that week. He made fewer mistakes than anyone in the field. But it isn’t the major that we think of as vintage Tiger. Even his final round performance at Pebble in ‘01, where he’s stated his only goal was to play smart golf and not make bogeys, doesn’t quite pull on the heartstrings like his hero shots earlier that week (the 7i out of rough up the hill on 6, and his theatrics on 14). 
 

I’m not saying there isn’t something less exciting about a player that doesn’t make mistakes - obviously it’s harder to take our eyes off the players that’s running it closer to the redline. But like, let’s take Scottie hitting wedge shots or chips around the green. Every single time he pulls that off (which he does more and better then almost anyone on tour) requires ELITE low point control, path control, face to path control, course strategy, etc.

 

Even with Tiger’s Herculean feats, having a player who’s worked for decades and tried to eek out every inch of speed, athleticism, etc to hit it further, higher, closer vs your average 20 handicap player who knows “golf is hard” and identifies with how unlikely the shots Tiger pulled off are - the former of those players has a more visceral understanding/appreciation than the latter.  

It’s like the difference between an average consumer going to a 3-star Michelin restaurant, vs someone who’s worked as a chef. It takes expertise to truly appreciate excellence. That’s not to say non-expert appreciation is invalid or that it means less - but it certainly is different
 

 

That's a lot of ... words. 
 

Have you not learned that that is frowned upon here?

[Obee]

3 hours ago, CTgamer said:

 
Oh for sure! Your point about chefs is (I think) exactly what I’m getting at…like, the simple dish of octopus is Scheffler. On the surface, it can seem simple, maybe boring even. But perfectly executed, it’s delicious - maybe made even more so by its simplicity. That simplicity also makes it easier to recognize when it isn’t made perfectly, because the dish can’t hide behind complexity. 
 

Tiger in ‘00 is the chicken in aspic (as long as we’re keeping this analogy). And to agree with Lee Trevino, he da man lol!

Did you just write, "...the simple dish of octopus..." in this thread?

 

I want to be sure that that wasn't a series of typos…

[TiScape]

5 minutes ago, Obee said:

Did you just write, "...the simple dish of octopus..." in this thread?

 

I want to be sure that that wasn't a series of typos…

I think this thread has officially jumped the octopus 🐙!

 

🤣

Edited June 4 by TiScape

[mshills]

Ensalata palabra. 

[bscinstnct]

9 minutes ago, Obee said:

Did you just write, "...the simple dish of octopus..." in this thread?

 

I want to be sure that that wasn't a series of typos…

 

🤣

 

That was from my post.

 

Is true though. Chefs love octopus! I’ve been to a bunch of Italian places and even if it’s not on the menu, I’ll just ask the waitress to ask the chef if they’ll make me some octopus in a robust sauce with pasta, and they’ll come back and say sure. 😃

[Titleist99]

4 hours ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

Plus I enjoy that entertaining footwork of his! 

 

That's part of the fascination, as far as I'm concerned. Every shot, I think the guy is going to flub it or hit it in the adjacent fairway, but then the trackman/shot tracer shows it heading down the middle. I find myself saying GTFOH quite a lot. 😄🤣

[Valtiel]

On 6/3/2025 at 10:43 AM, CTgamer said:

I’m really curious what the handicap distribution is for folks who feel  “Scheffler is boring and/or more boring than other elite golfers throughout history” and the folks who feel “great golf, even if executed in a methodical, stoic way, is exciting, period.”

 

There’s a concept in sport of “being good enough to know how bad you are.” In golf, a 25 handicap literally has no way of conceiving how good a tour pro is. Sure, they can see the shots on tv. They can see the scoring differential. But when it comes to the actual difficulty and skill involved in doing it at that level, they’re not good enough to even begin to truly understand. These players “are so low on the mountain, they can’t see the top.” 
 

Versus, for sake of argument, a scratch player might see glimpses of what tour players do regularly and with ease. Maybe they’ve shot 65. Maybe they executed staggeringly difficult shots, reading lies, catching perfect contact, seeing the ball land in a tiny circle to pull off a shot. These players are “far enough up the mountain to see how far away they really are from the top.”

 

My hypothesis (not a criticism) would be the more someone is in group one, the more Scheffler is boring. And the more someone is in group two, the more they *could* but not necessarily *will* find Scheffler exciting/awe-inducing. 

 

On 6/3/2025 at 10:51 AM, bcflyguy1 said:

Variation on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it's absolutely at play here.

 

On 6/3/2025 at 11:39 AM, CTgamer said:

Lol, though jokes aside I’m not sure it’s quite the same as overestimating one’s abilities or intelligence - I think this is more like “you have to know differential equations to do linear algebra” - If you only know fractions, you can be wowed by the complexity/spectacle, but you can’t understand it for what it is (rather, you can only understand what it isn’t). 
 

I’d venture a guess that the actual difference underlying opinions here is what Susan Cain talks about in her book “Quiet” - different levels of sensitivity and excitability in our nervous systems, and the cognitive processing layers built on top of that, which mean some people need more stimulation than others. For those people, they can’t just watch a good race, they also want to see the (near or actual) crash 🍻

 

On 6/3/2025 at 11:53 AM, mshills said:

Can’t agree with this, which is OK, not an attack. Stratifying golf fans into “good enough to appreciate…” versus not? Well, I can’t get with that. The guy who has been a 22 his whole life won’t necessarily grasp how hard it is to do all the things he is seeing, but I don’t think you necessarily have to be a stick to know what good looks like and appreciate it as a fan.

At the risk of disappearing too far up one's own a**, I do agree with @CTgamer here and see what you're getting at @mshills, but we can't argue with the fact that to know more about how something works is to be capable of appreciating things you wouldn't be able to otherwise. And this is true just about everywhere. The more you know about something the more there is to engage with on a deeper level, and the less you know the more reliant you are on things that appeal to more base emotions. As with anything there will be exceptions, but broadly speaking this will be true for anything that he depth beyond the surface level. 

[L29]

Well, you have to be pretty good to even qualify for a “is so and so a boring player?” thread on golfwrx, so there’s that. 
 

I personally love watching Scottie and am in awe of his precisional consistency. Everyone will eventually come around on the entertainment factor if he keeps this up for a few more years. 
 

I do, however, think most golf fans want the tour players they get excited about to perform “super human” type shots such as Rory driving a long par 4 or Tiger hitting a 2i 255 to 2’. Scottie is super human in his precision and consistency, but doesn’t necessarily do anything on the course that other players can’t do on any particular hole—he’s just the best in the world at doing it much more often than anyone else.  

[Ferguson]

On 6/2/2025 at 2:09 PM, MattC555 said:

 

Disagree.  Bryson, Koepka, and Rahm are 3 top players and are missed by many, including myself.  Scotty is having an amazing run, and I love watching him, but I'd much rather see him playing against the aforementioned.  

 

👍

[CTgamer]

3 hours ago, Obee said:

That's a lot of ... words. 
 

Have you not learned that that is frowned upon here?

Who knew the internet wasn’t a place for nuance?? 😂

 

[Obee]

4 hours ago, L29 said:

Well, you have to be pretty good to even qualify for a “is so and so a boring player?” thread on golfwrx, so there’s that. 
 

I personally love watching Scottie and am in awe of his precisional consistency. Everyone will eventually come around on the entertainment factor if he keeps this up for a few more years. 
 

I do, however, think most golf fans want the tour players they get excited about to perform “super human” type shots such as Rory driving a long par 4 or Tiger hitting a 2i 255 to 2’. Scottie is super human in his precision and consistency, but doesn’t necessarily do anything on the course that other players can’t do on any particular hole—he’s just the best in the world at doing it much more often than anyone else.  

And ... he kind of has a "hangdog" expression on his face most of the time. 

[straightshot7]

A better word for Scottie might be “dull”.

 

It looks like he intentionally tries to remain stoic during the round. It’s hard to argue with his results so far.

 

but for watchability his personality and style is definitely dull, boring, bland.

 

extremely vanilla 

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

I have through a reliable that Scottie's been reading this thread. He said some of you are such  Mean Girls 😂😂😂

 

[TiScape]

45 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I have through a reliable that Scottie's been reading this thread. He said some of you are such  Mean Girls 😂😂😂

 

 

[JungleJimbo]