Justin Rose Ruined His Major Chances With a Poorly Timed Equipment Change

Welcome back to SI Golf’s Fact or Fiction, where we’re sure it’s O.K. to eat cheesesteaks at 9 a.m. during a Philly major week.

Once again, we’re here to debate a series of statements for writers and editors to declare as “Fact” or “Fiction” along with a brief explanation. Responses may also (occasionally) be “Neutral” since there's a lot of gray area in golf.

Do you agree or disagree? Let us know on the SI Golf X account.

This week’s PGA Championship field includes 20 PGA professionals, who rarely make an impact in the tournament (Michael Block in 2023 being an exception). With the depth in the game today, it is time for fewer club pros in this major.

Bob Harig: FICTION. Believe it or not, there used to be 40 club pros in the field. That was reduced to 25 in 1995 and then 20 in 2006. And that seems about the right number. This is the championship of the PGA of America, which represents those very pros. The tournament still has the strongest of the four majors. Best to leave it alone.

John Pluym: FACT. The goal of every major golf tournament should be to field the best players, not to provide an opportunity for PGA professionals. So, yes, the focus should be on fewer club pros in the PGA Championship.  

Jeff Ritter: FACT. Block was a fun story a few years ago, but other than the very thin annual storyline of “will a PGA pro make the cut” there isn’t a lot of intrigue here, which means cutting that down to 10 or so spots wouldn’t hurt the event whatsoever. 

Max Schreiber: FACT. As Bob said, it’s been dramatically cut down, but it’s been 20 years since it went to 20. I understand club pros are the lifeblood  of the PGA of America, but is any casual viewer tuning in to watch them? I’d argue it’s time to cut down to 15 or 10. There’s several players inside the top 120 in the world not playing this week. Does that feel right?

John Schwarb: FICTION. Twenty is probably high but if you ask me who I’d replace them with, I can’t think of any glaring omissions from the pro tours. It’s also fun that 20 different clubs across the country have a rooting interest.

Since putting irons from equipment startup McLaren Golf in his bag, Justin Rose has finished T65 and T45, his worst finishes of the season outside of missed cuts. This midseason move was a mistake and he can’t be considered a threat to contend this week at Aronimink. 

Bob Harig: FICTION. There is no doubt the timing is curious, and it is a risk as Rose learned several years ago when he joined a start-up. But it is also hard to believe he didn’t fully test what he is playing, knowing how bad it would look if he performs poorly. Let’s give him a little time to see if this is just an aberration.

John Pluym: FICTION. Rose is one of the best players in the world, and it does take time to adjust to new irons. Plus, he signed a multifaceted partnership with McLaren Golf. It’s too early to bag the new irons. Let’s see where things stand after the PGA. On the other hand, it took Tiger Woods only two starts to win with Nike irons after putting the prototype Nike forged blades in his bag. Stay tuned.   

Jeff Ritter: FACT. I really liked Rose as a serious contender this summer and I have no doubt that McLaren Golf gear is top-notch. But when has switching clubs mid-season actually helped a top player instantly achieve even better results? I will hang up and listen. 

Max Schreiber: NEUTRAL. On the surface, I want to say fact. But I’m not the one swinging the clubs, so I don’t know how they feel and/or if they’re the reason he’s posted those lackluster results. Let’s see how the rest of the year plays out. 

John Schwarb: FACT. In handicapping for this week, crossing off a guy with newer clubs is a no-brainer. I’m not writing off Rose for the entire season but, my goodness, what a time to switch equipment. Granted, fans and media probably are making a bigger deal out of it but we’ve also seen this too many times with ghastly results. By the way, you think Bubba Watson has any Volvik balls lying around?

As Bob wrote in his weekly notes, the PGA Tour’s strategic alliance with the DP World Tour ends after 2027 and LIV Golf’s existence is considered to be a factor in that partnership continuing. But if LIV Golf dies, the Tour should no longer help the DPWT. 

Bob Harig: FICTION. The PGA Tour and DP World Tour should collaborate to improve their relationship by figuring out a way to strengthen a worldwide schedule. One of the reasons LIV emerged is due to the lack of PGA Tour outreach beyond North America. It would be an opportunity to add a few co-sanctioned events, perhaps in Asia or Australia or the Middle East.

John Pluym: FICTION. The Tour should still continue to help the DPWT. Yes, it costs the Tour millions in purses. But the future of the DPWT shouldn't be tied to LIV’s existence. The DPWT can still provide a competitive environment for the best golfers in the world.  

Jeff Ritter: FICTION. The European Tour provided more opportunities for top players and expands golf’s global reach. LIV has actually proven that golf-starved markets like South Africa and Australia will support big events (and big stars) playing in their nations. It would be best for both the PGA Tour and the DPWT to find a way to continue working together.

Max Schreiber: FICTION. The DPWT has been great for the Tour this year. For example, rookie Kristoffer Reitan won the Truist, a signature event, last week. He earned a Tour card by finishing top 10 in the DPWT’s season-long standings last year. Now, ex-LIVer Patrick Reed is going to rejoin the PGA Tour in 2027 through that same pathway. Seems like the Tour is benefiting from the partnership, right?

John Schwarb: FACT. Should we find out if the DPWT can stand on its own? Would that not be healthier for worldwide golf than the PGA Tour being the benevolent big brother? I agree with Bob, maybe the two can combine for more worldwide co-sanctioned events and the PGA Tour could pick up those purses.

The PGA Championship is fourth out of the four majors in terms of popularity with most golf fans. A change is needed—like returning to match play, as was the PGA’s format from 1916 through 1957. 

Bob Harig: FICTION. Everybody clamors for match play until you get to a final day with a couple of no-name players and a course devoid of buzz. While a match play event would be welcome, it shouldn’t come at a major. And for all the talk of the PGA Championship being fourth out of four, it often delivers plenty of drama. Just look at the last few years that gave us in reverse order: Scottie Scheffler, Xander Schauffele, Brooks Koepka, Justin Thomas and Phil Mickelson.

John Pluym: FICTION. It’s still a major golf tournament with a ton of history. Jack Nicklaus and Walter Hagen have won five PGA titles apiece. Although having one major with a match-play format would be interesting, I’m not a big fan of messing with history.   

Jeff Ritter: FICTION. I don’t think match-play is the answer, but unlocking some new, exciting venues following its move to May could help build some familiarity and boost its overall identity. Kiawah sticking in the current rotation is great. Losing Whistling Straits stings.

Max Schreiber: FICTION. I can't convey enough how much I loathe match play. Early in the week, it makes for bad television, in my opinion. But if the Tour wants to bring it back for an event, I’ll live with it. For a major, though? No way. We can’t just change the entire format of one of golf’s premier
events after nearly 70 years. 

John Schwarb: FICTION. Match play is such a tease and always sounds good on paper. I’d settle for a PGA Tour match play event coming back and leave the PGA as it is. Being the fourth-best major is still O.K.  

More Golf from Sports Illustrated

Add us as a preferred source on Google

Follow