Issue No. 206 | May 24, 2025 | Read Online

One of my favorite parts of this new full-time job is that you can just … do things.

This week — a week I normally would have been halfheartedly writing about Colonial — I instead wrote the foreword for my friend Jeff Marsh’s upcoming book, Golf is Art 3. Then I worked on a new format for our Saturday post (see below). A back-and-forth type of post that we haven’t really done before but I wanted to try out.

In between, I worked on inventory and distribution for our merch, wrote down 20 different podcast ideas and thoughts and traded ideas with readers via email.

Just about as much fun as you can have at a job. Thank you for making it possible.

Today’s newsletter is presented by Precision Pro.

Here’s a thing that happened earlier in the week: I told you guys that I played a round on Monday with one of my good friends. On our eighth hole of the day, I was trying to shoot a yardage with his old, janky range finder and it kept blacking out like a gun scope if you tilt it the wrong way. Horrific experience!

I grabbed my Precision Pro Titan, got the number immediately and probably went on to leave my approach 20 yards short. My buddy started fiddling around with it and admitted that, yes, this device is a much better experience and a much better product than what he was using.

So Brett, if you’re reading, it’s linked above. You won’t have to use mine next time.

OK, onto the news.

Is Bryson DeChambeau a Good Closer?

Today, I grabbed my friend David Hill, who does our ad sales and helps with editing and we hashed out something he said recently that I could not disagree with more. Hope you enjoy!

David Hill: Is this a bad time to question Bryson’s ability to close on Sunday at a major? Feels like it’s becoming a trend. Even last year at Pinehurst, he did not hit the ball well at all on Sunday. He’ll probably win more, but it’ll probably be because of what he does Thursday-Saturday. Or because of what someone else does on Sunday (Rory at Pinehurst).

KP: I hate to be the deliverer of this news ... truly ... but Bryson is an elite closer.

DH: Again, doesn’t pass the eye test. Wait a minute … are you really hitting me with 3M Open, Valderrama, Greenbrier, etc? I’m talking about major Sundays. Torrey, Augusta (at least twice off the top of my head), Valhalla, Quail.

KP: Sorry, I couldn't filter by tournament. The above graphic is just in order of how good Bryson has been in final rounds. The overall number — he has increased his expected wins from 9.1 to 10.5 in final rounds in which he has entered in one of the top three spots — is the one that matters. To stay with your Pinehurst example, though, Rory is actually a bad closer.

DH: Yeah, he’s a horrible closer. Rory’s inability to close is the only reason why Bryson is a multiple major winner. But Rory being a bad closer isn’t the point I’m trying to make. But it does kinda support the point I’m trying to make with Bryson.

KP: OK, who passes the eye test when it comes to being a closer? This is part of my problem with the eye test -- Soly and I talked about this a bit on the NLU pod this week -- is that one thing can stand out and it erases the other 25 instances in which that one thing wasn't true. Bryson had a couple of bad major rounds, but that doesn't erase what the data says, which is that he's a tremendous closer.

DH: Tiger seems unfair to use as an example so I’ll go with Scottie, Rahm and Brooks.

Ed. note: Here are their expected wins numbers (according to Data Golf) when entering the final round in the top three.

Number on the left is expected wins after R3. Number on the right is expected wins after R4. Number in parentheses is how their expected wins increased or decreased by how they played in R4. You can view anyone you want right here.

Bryson: 9.1 ▶️ 10.5 (+1.4)
Scottie: 14.1 ▶️ 13.7 (-0.4)
Rahm: 15.7 ▶️ 12.4 (-3.3)
Brooks: 9.0 ▶️ 9.3 (0.3)

DH: Sure, there are flaws with the eye test. But if Wolff doesn’t completely eject in the final round and Rory doesn’t miss a tap in then we’re talking about Bryson being the best active player without a major. His Winged Foot win felt more like he actually won than his Pinehurst win. Seems like Bryson plays better with no fans on major Sundays … Maybe Blockie is who we think Bryson is. Also, YE Yang passes the eye test as an elite closer. Can’t forget him.

How would you explain all his poor performances on Sunday’s when he was in contention going into the final round? Elite closers usually close. He usually folds.

KP: Maybe Blockie is who we think Bryson is got me good.

Also, let's break this down. Bryson has been in the top three after 54 holes in four massive events.

1. The 2020 U.S. Open: Gained 8.8 strokes on the field in the final round. Get out of here with the Wolff stuff. Bryson slammed the door.

2. The 2024 U.S. Open: Gained 1.4 strokes on the field. Wasn't amazing but still better than field average as the leader, and hit the shot of his life to win the tournament. Closer.

3. The 2021 Players: Same thing as 2024 U.S. Open. Gained 1.4 strokes on the field. After playing the front in +2, he closed hard, made eagle at No. 16 and had a real chance to catch J.T. on the last two.

4. The 2025 Masters: Lost 1.8 strokes to the field. Fair. He didn't have it here. No iron game to speak of (the manufacturers didn't get it done for him), and he kicked away a real chance to end Rory's career.

I just don't see a ton of evidence there that he's not a closer. When you combine these four big event performances with his overall closing rate, I think he's one of the better closers in the game.

DH: Yeah, but what has he done in Jeddah?

If Tiger is Mariano Rivera then Bryson is Huston Street. He gets a lot of guys out but no one is terrified to get to the 9th down a run or two. He’s fine.

Now let’s talk about the eye test.

I’m not denying facts (shoutout Zatch) of data. But I do think it’s important to leave room for nuance in golf. So the eye test can’t mean nothing, right?

When we go to the Golf Ranch and you’re pumping 183 MPH drives, the data would suggest that you’re a + handicapper. When we get to Sherrill Park and you shoot 94, the eye test tells a different story.

KP: THOSE ARE BOTH DATA POINTS!

Give me your top five "I do not want to be in the final pairing with this guy" list right now.

1. JT (not because he's a good closer - he would just irritate me and get in my head)
2. Scottie
3. Rahm
4. Brooks
5. Xander
6. Bryson

What’s yours?

KP: Here are mine.

1. Cantlay -- Get it away from me.
2. Bryson -- The lack of social and self awareness would end me.
3. Brooks -- Unnecessarily cold, which would bother me.
4. Tyrrell -- No.
5. Kevin Streelman -- The sunglasses on the back of his head would make me want to retire.

KP: To conclude, I would like to acknowledge that I hear you but I very much disagree with you. Bryson’s struggles are more memorable because it’s Bryson. But what about Rahm going from 1st to 12th at the 2019 Players, 3rd to 12th at the 2022 U.S. Open and 1st to 5th at the Olympics? All because he lost strokes to the field or was stuck in neutral.

Everyone has bad final rounds, but the data shows me what the eye test misses, which is that Bryson has fewer bad final rounds than most superstars and is actually one of the closers I trust the most in the game right now.

DH: There’s truth to that. But let’s just wait for Jeddah.

Thank you for reading a golf newsletter that is 1,469 words long.

We are sustained in part (in large part) by readers who are fans that decide to join the Normal Club. If you’re interested in supporting us by becoming a member, you can do so right here.