Scottie Scheffler Facts

[Archimedes65]

11 hours ago, cdnglf said:

 

I'm not fan of LIV, but I don't think it is a stretch to say it has taken about  20% of the Tour's strength.

 

Agree they’ve taken about 15-20% of the top players, depending upon how your measure it.  But that hasn’t diminished the Tour by anywhere near that percentage, because it’s not just about the specific players.  Outside of the Tigers and Jacks, golf is about the tournaments, the venues, and the history.  Players today, particularly the ones that are forgettable (which is a high percentage) aren’t as important as they think they are.  If they were, a true financial investor would have come along a long time ago to try to challenge the PGA Tour model.  The reason they didn’t is because the real assets of the Tour don’t reside in a few top players.  LIV’s financials can attest to that.

[Golfnutgalen]

12 hours ago, cdnglf said:

 

I'm not fan of LIV, but I don't think it is a stretch to say it has taken about  20% of the Tour's strength.

Rahm, Koepka, and Dechambeau are 3 of the very best players in the game.

Smith and Niemann probably top 25.

Gooch, Reed, and maybe a few others top 50. 

DJ was the best player in golf for quite a while. Seems to have slipped quite a bit last year, but talent like that...

 

In 2004 the top foreign players were Vijay, Ernie, Goosen, Sergio, and Harrington.

Vijay played the PGA Tour almost exclusively. Ernie, Goosen, and Sergio played full PGA Tour schedules but also played the Euro Tour (not dissimilar to Rory today).

 

Harrington was mostly Euro at that time, but he still played 5 regular PGA Tour events + 3 WGCs. 

 

There were occasional skips, but nearly everyone who was eligible (regardless of tour) played the Players and the WGCs. 

 

Yes, it's silly to pretend that it doesn't make a difference. It's basically like we went back in time to when the Euro tour was actually competitive with the PGA Tour and those guys rarely played here in the states other than the majors of course. It might even be worse because those guys usually played a few PGA Tour events and the WGCs now even that's not happening. 

 

Rahm won 4 times in 2023, Bryson would dominate any long golf courses which the Tour is full of. Niemann, Garcia, Hatton, Koepka, Oosthuizen, Smith, even Patrick Reed are all capable of winning on the current PGA Tour and removing a few titles from Scheffler. Other players too of course but those are the ones I miss. 

 

But again none of that changes the fact that Scottie played unbelievable golf this season. He's the best player since Tiger Woods. Sure if his career ended right this moment Rory and Brooks would be ranked ahead but it is inevitable that he will overshadow them in the next decade. 

[Shilgy]

12 hours ago, cdnglf said:

 

I'm not fan of LIV, but I don't think it is a stretch to say it has taken about  20% of the Tour's strength.

Rahm, Koepka, and Dechambeau are 3 of the very best players in the game.

Smith and Niemann probably top 25.

Gooch, Reed, and maybe a few others top 50. 

DJ was the best player in golf for quite a while. Seems to have slipped quite a bit last year, but talent like that...

 

In 2004 the top foreign players were Vijay, Ernie, Goosen, Sergio, and Harrington.

Vijay played the PGA Tour almost exclusively. Ernie, Goosen, and Sergio played full PGA Tour schedules but also played the Euro Tour (not dissimilar to Rory today).

 

Harrington was mostly Euro at that time, but he still played 5 regular PGA Tour events + 3 WGCs. 

 

There were occasional skips, but nearly everyone who was eligible (regardless of tour) played the Players and the WGCs. 

20% is a massive stretch. If they don’t win regularly on LIV how are they going to dominate PGA Tour?
 

Most of the events you mention don’t interest Koepka…so he doesn’t count. He only cares about majors.😏

 

DJ has seemingly lost interest …results are not very good sine move to LIV. Same could be said about Gooch and Reed.

 

So you name five players that would have maybe impacted Schefflers record this year…maybe.

 

Since you mentioned 2004 European players of the top ten on their order of merit just five played a relatively full US schedule.  Today every season the top 10 get US tour cards. Harrington’s five events include two unofficial events in 04.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Shilgy

[Golfnutgalen]

My issue with Scottie is he didn't win against full fields. That's even worse than the fact many top LIV players were missing. Full fields make a huge difference because anybody can get hot for one week. That's not Scottie's fault it's these stupid signature events. And yes there were WGCs before which were basically the same thing but there were only 3 of them during the Tiger era not whatever it is now 8 or so. 

 

[Titleist99]

13 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

My issue with Scottie is he didn't win against full fields. That's even worse than the fact many top LIV players were missing. Full fields make a huge difference because anybody can get hot for one week. That's not Scottie's fault it's these stupid signature events. And yes there were WGCs before which were basically the same thing but there were only 3 of them during the Tiger era not whatever it is now 8 or so. 

 

I do believe that Tiger had approx. 26 of his wins against less than full fields.

[Golfnutgalen]

15 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

I do believe that Tiger had approx. 26 of his wins against less than full fields.

 

And he would have had a lot more if there were 8 of them a year. Seriously he had a 40% win rate in fields of between 29 and 85 players and a 26% win rate in all of the other events in his prime years through 2009. 

 

I tallied it before so here it is again:

 

---------

Tiger from his pro start to the end of 2009 PGA Tour only

 

wins in fields between 29 and 85 players = 22/54 = 40.7%

 

wins in fields of more than 85 players = 49/185 = 26.5%

 

That difference is staggering. Of course, winning 26+% of his more or less full field events is already rather impressive. That 85 players number is because anything above that includes the Masters. He had a 31% win rate in that event and everything else is over 100 players where he won at 26% clip. 

 

Fields 85-99 (The Masters)

4/13 (31%)

 

Fields 100+

45/172 (26%)

Edited December 17, 2024 by Golfnutgalen

[Golfnutgalen]

And here are Tiger's career numbers as a pro:

 

Fields 29-85 (Mercedes, Tour Champ, WGCs. Zozo, BMW Champ)

26/82 (32%)

Fields 85-99 (The Masters)

5/25 (20%)

Fields 100+

51/257 (19.8%) 

 

Last one in more detail:

 

Fields 100-132 (Memorial, AT&T, Bay Hill, Fed Ex Playoff events)

15/48 (31%) 

Fields 140-156+ (US and British Opens, PGA, Players, and other full field events)

36/209 (17%) 

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by Golfnutgalen

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Golfnutgalen said:

My issue with Scottie is he didn't win against full fields. That's even worse than the fact many top LIV players were missing. Full fields make a huge difference because anybody can get hot for one week. That's not Scottie's fault it's these stupid signature events. And yes there were WGCs before which were basically the same thing but there were only 3 of them during the Tiger era not whatever it is now 8 or so. 

 

That I can agree with…much more so than the defector influence.

[Maine Golfer]

I thought Stephen Jaeger was gonna win. The only man who can take Scottie down! 😉 

[cdnglf]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

20% is a massive stretch. If they don’t win regularly on LIV how are they going to dominate PGA Tour?
 

Most of the events you mention don’t interest Koepka…so he doesn’t count. He only cares about majors.😏

 

DJ has seemingly lost interest …results are not very good sine move to LIV. Same could be said about Gooch and Reed.

 

So you name five players that would have maybe impacted Schefflers record this year…maybe.

 

Since you mentioned 2004 European players of the top ten on their order of merit just five played a relatively full US schedule.  Today every season the top 10 get US tour cards. Harrington’s five events include two unofficial events in 04.

 

There aren't many LIV wins to go around, so not everyone can win regularly. But... DJ won a LIV event just this year (and has 3 in total). Koepka showed how much he doesn't care with 2 this year (5 total). Rahm/Niemann finished 1/2 with 2 wins each. Gooch won 3 times last year. Garcia and Hatton won events and finished 3 and 4 on the individual points list this year. etc

 

Reducing it to "five players" is incorrect. There are more than 5; and more importantly 3 of them are right at the top of the game. I think pretty much everyone who watches golf would agree that Rahm and Koepka are top 5; and Dechambeau isn't far behind. That's >35%+ of the weighted strength of the top ten... and these guys play zero PGA Tour events. Much worse than  2004 Harrington playing half a schedule and 2004 David Howell not getting a card.

 

The Players is the clearest example of how the PGA Tour has been diminished. 5 years ago (or 20 years ago), its field was effectively indistinguishable from the PGA. Today? Not so much.

 

(as an aside: it is getting worse with the 120 man field starting in 2026).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cdnglf]

1 hour ago, Golfnutgalen said:

My issue with Scottie is he didn't win against full fields. That's even worse than the fact many top LIV players were missing. Full fields make a huge difference because anybody can get hot for one week. That's not Scottie's fault it's these stupid signature events. And yes there were WGCs before which were basically the same thing but there were only 3 of them during the Tiger era not whatever it is now 8 or so. 

 

 

At least during the peak WGC era, pretty much every top player was there.

 

(Peak WGC: mid to late 2000s - after they gave up holding them overseas but before the Fedex Cup and other limited field events gave the players a choice in big purse/no cut paydays)

[Shilgy]

57 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

 

There aren't many LIV wins to go around, so not everyone can win regularly. But... DJ won a LIV event just this year (and has 3 in total). Koepka showed how much he doesn't care with 2 this year (5 total). Rahm/Niemann finished 1/2 with 2 wins each. Gooch won 3 times last year. Garcia and Hatton won events and finished 3 and 4 on the individual points list this year. etc

 

Reducing it to "five players" is incorrect. There are more than 5; and more importantly 3 of them are right at the top of the game. I think pretty much everyone who watches golf would agree that Rahm and Koepka are top 5; and Dechambeau isn't far behind. That's >35%+ of the weighted strength of the top ten... and these guys play zero PGA Tour events. Much worse than  2004 Harrington playing half a schedule and 2004 David Howell not getting a card.

 

The Players is the clearest example of how the PGA Tour has been diminished. 5 years ago (or 20 years ago), its field was effectively indistinguishable from the PGA. Today? Not so much.

 

(as an aside: it is getting worse with the 120 man field starting in 2026).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you mention the Players….the crème de la crème of the tour is not the equivalent of depth.

The last 20 years of Players winners include

Funk

Ames

Tim Clark

KJ Choi

Kaymer 61

Simpson

Si Woo Kim

 

It’s not just the top 15-20:that matter. 
 

As for the rest of the LIV guys

Reed has one top 10 in his last 13 majors

DJ 2 top 10’s and 4 MC’s since going to LIV

Gooch* has 3 MC’s and 0 top 10 since LIV began(zero top 10 in his whole career!)

Niemann also 0 top 10’s in majors ever

 

Funny thing to me is some feel Scotties wins are somehow tarnished because of missing players and then use LIV wins to somehow show that the guys that defected are still great players.🤯 Talk about dubious wins.

 

 

 

 

[cdnglf]

4 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Yes, it's silly to pretend that it doesn't make a difference. It's basically like we went back in time to when the Euro tour was actually competitive with the PGA Tour and those guys rarely played here in the states other than the majors of course. It might even be worse because those guys usually played a few PGA Tour events and the WGCs now even that's not happening. 

 

Rahm won 4 times in 2023, Bryson would dominate any long golf courses which the Tour is full of. Niemann, Garcia, Hatton, Koepka, Oosthuizen, Smith, even Patrick Reed are all capable of winning on the current PGA Tour and removing a few titles from Scheffler. Other players too of course but those are the ones I miss. 

 

But again none of that changes the fact that Scottie played unbelievable golf this season. He's the best player since Tiger Woods. Sure if his career ended right this moment Rory and Brooks would be ranked ahead but it is inevitable that he will overshadow them in the next decade. 

 

Agree with all of this. With the amendment that Oosthuizen would bump Scheffler's 2nds to 3rd.

[cdnglf]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Since you mention the Players….the crème de la crème of the tour is not the equivalent of depth.

The last 20 years of Players winners include

Funk

Ames

Tim Clark

KJ Choi

Kaymer 61

Simpson

Si Woo Kim

 

It’s not just the top 15-20:that matter. 
 

As for the rest of the LIV guys

Reed has one top 10 in his last 13 majors

DJ 2 top 10’s and 4 MC’s since going to LIV

Gooch* has 3 MC’s and 0 top 10 since LIV began(zero top 10 in his whole career!)

Niemann also 0 top 10’s in majors ever

 

Funny thing to me is some feel Scotties wins are somehow tarnished because of missing players and then use LIV wins to somehow show that the guys that defected are still great players.🤯 Talk about dubious wins.

 

 

 

 

 

You did ask who was winning consistently on LIV... 😉

 

Scottie's wins aren't tarnished. He didn't cheat, and he beat the guys he had to.

But you can't ignore that he did it on a Tour that is missing some very important players.

14 of the last 31 majors are on LIV, by my quick count.

[Archimedes65]

2 hours ago, cdnglf said:

 

You did ask who was winning consistently on LIV... 😉

 

Scottie's wins aren't tarnished. He didn't cheat, and he beat the guys he had to.

But you can't ignore that he did it on a Tour that is missing some very important players.

14 of the last 31 majors are on LIV, by my quick count.

 

For pretty much everyone missing there was a replacement of near equal caliber, with the exceptions being Bryson and Rahm, though Rahm hasn’t exactly been playing lights out anywhere but LIV.  Last I checked, the PGA Tour won three of the four majors this past year, and would have won all four save for a Rory meltdown coupled with a whole lotta luck on Bryson’s part in terms of lies in the rough.  The idea that guys like Gooch, Nieman, DJ, or Reed were gonna challenge Scheffler the weeks he won is laughable.

 

Saying Scottie’s wins are diminished is simply sour grapes.

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Archimedes65

[Shilgy]

47 minutes ago, cdnglf said:

 

You did ask who was winning consistently on LIV... 😉

 

Scottie's wins aren't tarnished. He didn't cheat, and he beat the guys he had to.

But you can't ignore that he did it on a Tour that is missing some very important players.

14 of the last 31 majors are on LIV, by my quick count.

If the wins by Scottie are diminished how do you feel about Harrington’s two majors?

 

No question the Saudi tour chose names to go after that often were major winners.  I would say the assertion a few posts ago saying Rahm Koepka and Bryson are missed from a competitive standpoint is true.  The others on that tour are not.

[grm24]

6 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

Bryson would dominate any long golf courses which the Tour is full of.

Except for the fact when he was on the PGA Tour he didn't do that.

[Dutch1008]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

If the wins by Scottie are diminished how do you feel about Harrington’s two majors?

 

No question the Saudi tour chose names to go after that often were major winners.  I would say the assertion a few posts ago saying Rahm Koepka and Bryson are missed from a competitive standpoint is true.  The others on that tour are not.

 

Having all of LIV in each field may not have changed Scottie's season one bit, but there are good golfers beyond the aforementioned 3. Niemann has won at Riv. Cam Smith has a Players and Open title. Tyrell Hatton is not better than Scottie Scheffler, but neither is Stephan Jaeger and he clipped Scottie at the Houston Open. 

 

LIV has a bunch of past their prime stars, career journeyman, and never has beens, but there are about half a dozen legit Eastlake quality top 25-30 golfers. Players of that caliber have the ability to beat anyone. Just takes a hot putting week. Still a lame tour w/ a lame format but lets not get carried away.   

[cdnglf]

2 hours ago, Archimedes65 said:

 

For pretty much everyone missing there was a replacement of near equal caliber, with the exceptions being Bryson and Rahm, though Rahm hasn’t exactly been playing lights out anywhere but LIV.  

 

 

I guess I missed the 5x major champ they pulled off the waiver wire.

Edited December 18, 2024 by cdnglf

[cdnglf]

8 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

If the wins by Scottie are diminished how do you feel about Harrington’s two majors?

 

No question the Saudi tour chose names to go after that often were major winners.  I would say the assertion a few posts ago saying Rahm Koepka and Bryson are missed from a competitive standpoint is true.  The others on that tour are not.

 

Different situation, IMO. Injuries are part of the game, the greatest ability is availability, etc. 

 

I'd draw a parallel to Nelson during WW2, although obviously not nearly to the same extent.

 

The 3 you mention are surely the most missed. But I think DJ was too good for too long to write off. Cam Smith was a 6x winner including the Players and Open before 30. Niemann's pedigree (PGA Tour winner at 20, etc) and record post-LIV suggests he'd be a notable player on Tour. And so on. YMMV.

 

[Golfnutgalen]

1 hour ago, grm24 said:

Except for the fact when he was on the PGA Tour he didn't do that.

 

Players go through peaks and valleys. Bryson since late last year is playing the best golf of his life. Have you seen his stats? I'm not saying he would have won more than Scheffler but the guy is a beast on tough courses. 

 

I've said this before, his game is better suited to the PGA Tour than LIV. Longer golf courses favor longer hitters no exceptions. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Golfnutgalen
typo

[Archimedes65]

Bryson favors long courses and, it appears, warmer climates...

[grm24]

9 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

Longer golf courses favor longer hitters no exceptions. 

Counterpoint. Check out the results of Brandon Matthews and Recent Cameron Champ. They would disagress based on actual tournament results. In fact many of the longest drivers on tour don't win. As well as BDC has played he hasn't dominated anywhere regardless of tour played,

[PedronNiall]

12 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

 

Players go through peaks and valleys. Bryson since late last year is playing the best golf of his life. Have you seen his stats? I'm not saying he would have won more than Scheffler but the guy is a beast on tough courses. 

 

I've said this before, his game is better suited to the PGA Tour than LIV. Longer golf courses favor longer hitters no exceptions. 

 

His game is better suited to more difficult tracks than easier ones? LIV sites have not exactly been top tier in the challenge department and despite his distance he hasn't exactly been taking anyone to task at their events.

 

Let's also not pretend Bryson didn't get an absurd number of breaks in how his ball finished in the sandy areas and wire grass that Pinehurst was claiming would eat the lunch of anyone who ended up in it. He recounted those breaks he got after every round and mentioned how much of a difference they made. Every single round he ended up in the "trouble" and had no pain to show for it.

 

He has a single Major on a difficult track where he was forced to and manged to gouge his way out of the thick stuff. Pinehurst let him go wild bombing it all day every day. He came close at the PGA, once again a layout where he faced no consequences for going all out off of every tee, but came up short.

 

All golf courses favor longer hitters because they can take less club for the same result, which means less variance in their misses, and being closer to the hole on average. Those are statistical realities that are borne out if you look at datagolf or the Tour's stats, end of discussion. Yet Bryson did not dominate while he was on Tour and he still doesn't dominate now even in the exhibition league with its wide open courses. Not sure why you want to portray DeChambeau's overall performance as otherworldly when it's not when it comes to results despite his undeniable advantages in length.

[Golfnutgalen]

5 hours ago, grm24 said:

Counterpoint. Check out the results of Brandon Matthews and Recent Cameron Champ. They would disagress based on actual tournament results. In fact many of the longest drivers on tour don't win. As well as BDC has played he hasn't dominated anywhere regardless of tour played,

 

You misunderstand.

 

Bryson finished T6, 2nd, 1st, MC in the majors this year. Why? Because long courses favor his game. Same reason Tiger and Jack were so unbelievably dominant. It's (part of the reason) why Tiger played so well at Firestone and Torrey Pines South. It doesn't mean he can't win at short courses it just means they remove a long hitter's advantage. It does not mean length is everything but it certainly helps. Scottie Scheffler for example is not a short hitter, the guy is 26th in driving distance all drives, he was 12th the year before. 

 

2 hours ago, PedronNiall said:

 

His game is better suited to more difficult tracks than easier ones? LIV sites have not exactly been top tier in the challenge department and despite his distance he hasn't exactly been taking anyone to task at their events.

 

Let's also not pretend Bryson didn't get an absurd number of breaks in how his ball finished in the sandy areas and wire grass that Pinehurst was claiming would eat the lunch of anyone who ended up in it. He recounted those breaks he got after every round and mentioned how much of a difference they made. Every single round he ended up in the "trouble" and had no pain to show for it.

 

He has a single Major on a difficult track where he was forced to and manged to gouge his way out of the thick stuff. Pinehurst let him go wild bombing it all day every day. He came close at the PGA, once again a layout where he faced no consequences for going all out off of every tee, but came up short.

 

Again LIV tour tracks are short and somewhat narrow. That does not favor Bryson's power at all. It's also why Phil struggles so much out there and yet can still show up and place at Augusta. 

 

Everybody gets breaks, Bryson nearly won the PGA Champ too if you remember it wasn't a fluke that he won the US Open. And Bryson drove the ball phenomenally until that final round in which he had to use a backup driver and leaked everything a little right. Not a lot right, he only had a couple really poor drives. 

 

Quote

 

All golf courses favor longer hitters because they can take less club for the same result, which means less variance in their misses, and being closer to the hole on average. Those are statistical realities that are borne out if you look at datagolf or the Tour's stats, end of discussion. Yet Bryson did not dominate while he was on Tour and he still doesn't dominate now even in the exhibition league with its wide open courses. Not sure why you want to portray DeChambeau's overall performance as otherworldly when it's not when it comes to results despite his undeniable advantages in length.

 

 

Longer courses favor longer hitters. In other words, Bryson's distance advantage is magnified on longer courses. By this same token shorter hitters have better odds on shorter courses. Tiger proofing actually helped Tiger and the other big hitters even though it was supposed to do the opposite. 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Golfnutgalen

[williemayeshaze]

fantastic run for scottie thus far, IMO its a bit early to be making tiger comparisons...

[mosesgolf]

On 12/17/2024 at 8:41 AM, Archimedes65 said:

 

Two basketball games are going on.  One has teams comprised of Anthony Edwards clones, the other Nikola Jokic clones.  You can only watch one game.  Which do you watch?  The super athletic, animated guys who jump out of the gym, or the lumbering oafs who have a four inch vertical, move slower than tar on a cool day, and have never seen a set shot they didn’t love?  Jokic is the best, but do you really want to watch 10 of him play basketball over AEs?

 

Winning can be incredibly boring.  The New Jersey Devils built a dynasty with the left wing lock, and Tampa Bay followed that with the even more boring, but very effective, 1-3-1 that they rode to the top of the NHL.

Jokic and Ant are bad examples.  Jokic has 1 ring and yes his style of basketball is boring.  Ant hasn't won anything.  Perhaps better examples would be Bird and Magic.  I could watch 10 Birds and 10 Magics all year long.  Winning is winning and it's never boring.  Scotty is a proven winner and it's fun to watch imo.  Lakers and Celtics 1980s, Jordan 6/6, Lakers 3 peats with Shaq & Kobe, Yankess 5 rings with Jeter and Mariano were exciting every time.  It's Scotty's time to win and it's not boring.

[Archimedes65]

3 hours ago, mosesgolf said:

Jokic and Ant are bad examples.  Jokic has 1 ring and yes his style of basketball is boring.  Ant hasn't won anything.  Perhaps better examples would be Bird and Magic.  I could watch 10 Birds and 10 Magics all year long.  Winning is winning and it's never boring.  Scotty is a proven winner and it's fun to watch imo.  Lakers and Celtics 1980s, Jordan 6/6, Lakers 3 peats with Shaq & Kobe, Yankess 5 rings with Jeter and Mariano were exciting every time.  It's Scotty's time to win and it's not boring.

 

You think Scottie is as interesting as Bird or Magic, two of the biggest trash talkers in the history of the NBA, and two of the more flamboyant/creative playing styles?  Scottie’s nowhere near the needle mover either of those guys were. He’s tan slacks, white shirt, white shoes bland.

 

And Jokic is the perfect analogy for Scheffler.  He’s been the best player in basketball three of the last four years (and should have gotten that 4th MVP).  He awesome.  And watching him play is like watching trees grow.

 

Edited December 18, 2024 by Archimedes65

[csiachos]

Now that his putting is improving, Scottie is the most complete player the Tour has seen since Tiger.  It's unfair to say he wouldn't have won as many tournaments with the LIV guys in the field.  Who's to say he wouldn't have elevated his game higher. And also it's VERY unfair to compare him to Tiger.  He had a comparable season to one of Tiger's great seasons, but not nearly as good as the 2000 season where 3 of Tiger's 9 wins were majors.  Just let him play golf and see where it goes.

[PedronNiall]

23 hours ago, Golfnutgalen said:

Again LIV tour tracks are short and somewhat narrow. That does not favor Bryson's power at all. It's also why Phil struggles so much out there and yet can still show up and place at Augusta. 

 

My guy, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter, longer players would be expected to fare better on average than shorter hitters. Bryson takes a 9 iron into a hole where a shorter guy is taking 6 or 7, and on and on. For two players with similar fairways hit the one who is longer would be expected to have more strokes gained approach and closer proximity to the hole. Let's not act like Bryson is absurdly crooked. His dispersion is in keeping with his higher than normal distance. 

 

If you want to argue it argue it with facts. Show me via data where shorter courses favor shorter hitting players. Don't give me anecdotes. Happy to concede any point based in reality.