I pledge to this podcast. We just had a funny conversation online. We're talking today. I've got a

question. I'm going to pose a question to the other two, one that just rattles around in my head.

There is no answer. I am no authority here. It's just a question I would like some help quantifying

in my head. So the question is, US Open is on at the time

of recording this, and I'm not singling out the US Open. I think you could argue lots of tournaments

would have this question asked, and they're probably already asking it to themselves as well

and do more than I know for the game is do these tournaments have so this is a question

do these tournaments have some responsibility in the way they set up their courses to how

everyday golf is played around the world and can be played. So my question kind of poses, you know,

if we take Oakmont, not the single out but one course, let's do this. Just a basic question

like this. I'll pose this to you, Lou. If you have massive greens, does that, is that really

expensive or really cheap to maintain?

And is it environmentally more friendly or less friendly to have huge greens on a golf course?

I pledge to give you my best answer here.

You've had a long discussion about pledging here. This is a private joke between us.

So, yeah, larger greens obviously cost more money.

Greens are the most expensive thing to maintain on a golf course.

And I don't have it in front of me, but I want to say the typical golf course is about

102, 103,000 square feet of greens.

I don't know exactly what it is at Oakmont, but I'm guessing it's significantly, significantly more green than that.

So more greens means more effort, it means more equipment.

It means more chemicals.

...