The Sand Trap » Erik J. Barzeski

PING i15 Irons Review

Erik J. Barzeski — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:00:00 +0000

I admit that I held out on the hybrid craze longer than made sense. I carried a two-iron in place of a 5-wood or hybrid and would use it from the tee, the fairway, and the rough when the lie was good enough to goad me into going for it.

What's that have to do with a set of irons? My two-iron was a PING Eye2, and until I tried the i15s, that single club represented the vast majority of my experience with PING irons. Sure, I'd seen how popular the Eye2s were with players in the 90s, but I never liked the look of the excessive high toe weighting, the bulge in the heel, the thicker topline, and the general look and feel. Even that two-iron had a bit too much offset for my taste - I had to watch that I didn't hook the thing off the planet.

Having played with the i15s for several rounds now, though, it's obvious to me that while PING has stayed true to their roots (the i15 is immediately recognizable as a PING iron), they've made substantive improvements through the years and deserve consideration from a wide variety of players.

Design and Technology
PING's i-series irons of irons - though not their "S" series for the best players (or those wanting the most blade-like irons, anyway) - were designed with the better player in mind. However, the i15 borrows heavily from the company's G15 line of irons and works the technology into a sleeker, more workable iron that better players will find more pleasing to look at and play with more compact heads and thinner lines to give these better players more workability and shot control.

PING's i15 irons remain true to their lineage while taking advantage of newer technologies.

The most prominent feature on the i15 is the tungsten weight low in the toe to add forgiveness. The bulge that houses the weight is visible at address only in the longest irons and only if you tend to lean the shaft forward a bit. The toe weight also helps to optimize the center of gravity to provide trajectories better players prefer across the set.

The back of the i15 features a dual stabilizing bar and a Custom Tuning Port (CTP) support the face for a solid feel and sound across the hitting surface. In photos, the bars and CTP are housed in the raised "PING" on the back of the irons.

The i15 was designed as a progressive set of irons. The long irons are slightly longer heel to toe for a touch of added forgiveness while the short irons are a more traditional width for better shot-making ability and control.

And yes, the i15, like all of PING's irons, is a cast club. If you're still hung up on the process by which the metal in your golf clubs is formed, then you've either drank the Mizuno Kool-Aid or you have a heightened (and unrealistic) opinion of your ability to feel things.

Esthetics
I've never cared for the look of PING's irons, but if I'm being honest with myself (and you), I really stopped looking at them a decade or so ago with the Ping Eye2. As you'll recall, that club had protuberances and bulges all over the place, with thick lines and a healthy amount of offset.

In the years since, I'd picked up a few of irons in the S series in golf shops, but hadn't really looked at the i or G series at all. My bad.

The i15 is still obviously a PING iron in the Eye2 lineage, but PING has done well to choose a color scheme that looks great and to do all they can within their design beliefs to minimize any obvious thickness, bulging, and protuberances, since I want to use that word again.

The silver/black/dark red thing PING has going on with the i15 irons appeals to me. Again, I've always liked their slightly darker grey/silver clubheads, and the i15s carry that color forward. The back of the irons get the bulk of the "decoration," and on the i15 that means a PING logo on the CTP, "i15" on the high toe, and a black meshwork pattern printed in the cavity with a splash of red paint between the dual stabilizing bars.

The hosel retains the look of recent PING irons: a gouge of metal is taken out of the hosel on the very heel end of the clubhead (which undoubtedly helps to move the sweet spot further towards the toe), and the hosel is angled at roughly the lie angle so that the collar is level at address.

Dare I say that a set of PING irons are attractive? The red/black/silver scheme is easy on the eyes.

The large tungsten housing in the low toe isn't as hidden as I'd like at address in the longer irons, and the topline is thicker than I prefer as well. Though these are nowhere near the "shovel on a stick" look favored by some other companies, they're halfway there. Some players may like this - they'll say it "inspires confidence" or something like that - but I've never been among them. The thick topline I can deal with - the protuberances and bulges (one more time!) less so. On the bright side, it's only a two-club issue: from about the 5-iron on up, the back cavity and toe aren't visible at address, and the notch in the hosel/sole is never visible.

On the bright side, again, the clubface remains relatively uncluttered. A number stamped on the high toe lets you know at address that you have the right club, and the bottom groove is filled with white paint to aid in alignment.

Performance
The PING i15 are targeted at better players. They're not PING's "top" club in terms of feel (and corresponding lack of "game improvement") - that honor belongs to the S57 - but occupy the second slot on the list.

The first thing I noticed when I picked up the irons was the reminder rib installed along the underside of the grips. The grips themselves were PING's standard all-rubber grips, and just fine for the job. This reminded me that PING pioneered what may still remain the most advanced custom fitting system in the world of golf, and they'll fit golfers to a wide range of shafts, lofts, lies, lengths, and grips. If you're ordering a set of i15s (or any other PING club), be sure to check out your options. PING's custom department is second to none.

Overall, and in a variety of situations, the i15s performed extremely well. The feel is freakishly consistent all over the clubface. No matter how good the contact, the i15s never felt as good as a svelte muscleback struck on the button, but only the worst mis-hits relay a noticeably different feel to your hands. I'd personally prefer more feel - I like to know exactly where I struck the ball on the clubface - but I've come to understand that I'm in the minority on this issue.

I've long postulated that feel and forgiveness are diametrically opposed to one another, and that seems to be the case here once again. While the lack of specific feedback and feel is mildly disappointing, the forgiveness offered by the i15 does more than make up for it. In short, the i15s are some of the most forgiving irons in this category that I've ever hit. If you make contact anywhere in the "it all feels the same" area on the clubface - say within a half inch in any direction of center - your ball will pretty much go where you expect it to go, give or take two or three yards. Ball flight is almost completely unaffected as well.

You can see the 3-iron's cavity at address, but from the 5-iron on up it's well hidden.

On a lark I grabbed some impact tape and hit some balls at the range. No, it's not the most scientific of tests, but the results were still surprising. Shots struck as much as 3/4" towards the heel or toe lost about five yards of distance and were a few yards offline. Shots struck high and low on the face were affected even less. No doubt the range mats helped (particularly on the "high on the clubface" shots, which on grass, would have been fat), but the results were still surprising. Play during rounds of golf did nothing to lead me to any different conclusion than: these are incredibly forgiving irons for better players.

If you're a golfer who likes to work the ball with every shot you take, these clubs may impose a bit of a ceiling on your ability to do so. However, such players are few and far between these days, particularly within the i15's target market. The i15 excels at hitting the ball high in the air - it's fairly easy to hit a 7-iron with a 9-iron trajectory and a normal 7-iron's distance if you need to clear a tree, for example - but it lacks the ability to really go downstairs, what with the thick sole and the tungsten weight. Though I understand the modern trend towards putting more weight in the sole, I still wish the center of gravity was a bit higher specifically for this knock-down, escape-from-trees shot.

Golfers in the northern states know that the lies can get somewhat "cuppy" in the spring and fall, and though I feared that the thicker soles on the i15 might cost me some striking quality from these cuppy lies, that never turned out to be the case. The normal adjustments one would make for a cuppy lie - moving the ball back a smidge in your stance to ensure a bit more downward angle of attack - worked just fine with the i15s. If anything, the thicker sole and lower center of gravity helped with those lies, as you could catch them a tad thin and still get a fairly normal ballflight and distance.

The i15s have grooves which conform to the 2010 groove rule, so I've got to mention something which will again become a factor in golf: the flier. The i15s are susceptible to flier lies, as I think all irons in 2010 will be, and golfers everywhere will have to learn the lost art of reading their lies. The i15s are what they are - neither better nor worse than other clubs with the "new" grooves, and I personally think having the occasional flier lie is fun.

Overall, the i15s were impressive in terms of forgiveness, consistency of ball flight and distance, and in providing uniform, consistent feel to the golfer within a wide range of strike positions.

Specifications
PING's i15 irons have the following specs:

Club  Length    Loft °  Lie °   Offset   Bounce
----  ------    ------  -----   ------   ------
3     38.75"    21.0    59.25    .26"     -2.7
4     38.25"    24.0    60.00    .22"     -1.8
5     37.75"    27.0    60.75    .19"      0.8
6     37.25"    30.0    61.50    .17"      2.8
7     36.75"    33.0    62.25    .14"      5.0
8     36.25"    37.0    63.00    .11"      6.0
9     35.75"    41.0    63.75    .09"      8.0
PW    35.50"    46.0    64.00    .07"      9.0
3I-9I swingweight is D0; PW is D2

I was going to compare these numbers against some other clubs in the same niche (one spot down from any company's "for the best players wanting the most feel" irons), but this is a PING i15 review, and I don't want to throw in the names of other clubs (and exclude others in the same market) just for the sake of comparison.

I will say that I found that the PING i15s tended to have as much as or more offset, particularly in the longer irons, than many of their peers. Their lengths and lofts are "fair" - they don't "give you more distance" via a 37.5" 40° pitching wedge. The bounces had the widest range, but that's largely due to the negative loft in the 3I. By the time the i15s get to the 6-iron or so they matched up well with the others.

This toe-angle photo gives a great view of the thickness of the sole and topline. Whether or not these are too thick or just right is a matter of personal taste.

The i15s are available in sets of 3-PW, and come with either the PING-designed AWT steel (Soft R, R, S and X flexes) or TFC 149i graphite shaft (L, Soft R, R and S flexes). MSRP is $115 per club with steel shafts and $142.50 per club with graphite shafts.

Overall
The i15 remains true to its PING roots while taking advantage of newer technology. If you're looking for a more consistent iron game, they deserve a look: they offer a consistent ball flight, distance, and dispersion when struck almost anywhere on the clubface. You won't get the marshmallow feeling on a well-struck shot, but nearly everything will feel "solid" instead, and that's a tradeoff I think a lot of people are willing to make.

Golf Talk [Episode 129]

Erik J. Barzeski — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:00:00 +0000

We catch up on Tiger, Phil, Michelle Wie, the PGA Tour (and its first drug test failee), and everything we've missed in the past month, and a whole lot more in this episode of Golf Talk.

You can subscribe to the RSS feed for our podcasts here or download Episode 129 as an MP4 file. For those who want to subscribe to us in iTunes, click here.

For this week's Show Notes - links to articles we discuss in the show and additional information - just read on.

Off the Tee

Colophon

This show was recorded with QuickTime Player over a Skype connection. We then used Soundtrack Pro 3 to edit the show and GarageBand to produce the AAC file from the AIFF file, to add the artwork, and so forth. Feeder was used to create the XML file.

Note: This is an AAC (MP4) file, an open file format. iTunes - free software - can play AAC files, as can numerous other players, though we heartily recommend iTunes.

You Can Contribute

If you'd like to submit a listener question that we can answer on the air, send the question to podcast@thesandtrap.com.

Tiger, You’ve Crossed the Line

Erik J. Barzeski — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:00:00 +0000

Australia wisely invested $3M to lure Tiger Woods to the JBWere Masters, and they were treated to nothing less than Tiger's best effort in a two-shot victory.

Fortunately for Tiger and those same Australians, nobody was treated for an injury caused by a flying Nike driver, which only moments earlier had let the world's best golfer down with a poor tee shot on the thirteenth hole Saturday.

I've excused Tiger's verbal outbursts in the past. Ben wrote an article about them and largely supported Tiger as well. I continue not to care about Tiger's verbal outbursts, and will point out that he seems to have improved both in volume and content in recent years.

But tossing a club into a crowd of people? Well, now, that's well across the line.

So far as I know, Tiger's thrown a club only a few times like this - an overhanded hammer-throw - only once before. That happened at TPC Boston on a secluded tee well away from spectators.

He's thrown or slammed - sometimes quite violently - clubs into the ground, his golf bag, bunkers, and even a tee or plastic bottle - on several occasions. He's cursed and sworn, occasionally quite loudly, in the past as well.

These acts don't bother me so much. I prefer to see golfers who show a bit of emotion, and I think this aspect of Tiger is the yin to his fist-pumping yang. Take away one part and you'd be left with an unbalanced Tiger.

Tiger Woods retrieves his driver from the gallery after chucking it following a poor tee shot.

But there can be no offsetting yang large enough to absolve a yin which puts spectators at risk of injury (however small).

All that said, I'm willing to give Tiger Woods a pass on this incident. And before everyone jumps on me and accuses me of being a Tiger Woods apologist, read on.

Tiger gets a pass on this occurrence because people make mistakes. However, a smart person who cares about the traditions of the game as well as the respect and safety of the fans will learn from his mistake, and Tiger Woods is a smart guy. Additionally, there are ten ways in which this type of behavior can hurt him and none in which it can help, so even if Tiger's a prima donna jerk who doesn't really care if someone's eyeball gets in the way of his hurtling titanium, he's smart enough to realize that this behavior can't help him win golf tournaments, it can't help him fund the Tiger Woods Learning Center or his children's great-great grandchildren's lives, or anything else.

Everyone makes mistakes. People worth respecting learn from their mistakes and don't make them again. While the lesser offense of slamming a golf club down away from spectators may or may not cross your own personal line of "showing respect" or "acting like an adult," you'd be hard pressed to find a sane person whose line sits beyond "tossed clubs entering the gallery." That's just to say that while you'll find disagreement that the occasional "goddammit Tiger" is a mistake (or not), nobody will disagree that this most recent act is an egregious one.

I'm reminded of the time Bobby Jones threw a golf club (as detailed in the Mark Frost biography The Grand Slam):

But just prior to that, dissatisfied with his approach shot, Bobby had thrown his club back toward his bag, lying on the ground near the gallery. The club glanced off the bag, bounced up, and hit a female spectator in the lower leg… Walker [USGA President] warned: "You will never play in a USGA event again unless you learn to control your temper."

Tiger, you've crossed the line, both metaphorically and physically (the rope that's supposed to separate a player - and his equipment - from the gallery). Like Bobby Jones before him, Tiger is human. He deserves most of what people are saying, but he deserves a chance - like Bobby Jones - to realize the error of his ways and change his behavior.

I hope never to see a golfer behave like this again.

Photo Credits: © golf.com.

Sneak Peek at Sun Mountain’s Upcoming Micro E Cart

Erik J. Barzeski — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:00:39 +0000

We liked Sun Mountain's Speed E Cart. We liked their Micro Cart too. So - and I'm going out on a limb here, I know - it stands to reason we might very well like this upcoming Micro E Cart when it comes to market.

Have a look:

Not much is known at this point, but we can tell you that:

The cart is early on in testing and, if I were to guess (and that's all this is), we should expect it in the spring of 2010.
It's obvious in the video that the controls are very much like the Speed E Cart. I'm kind of hoping they added an audible sound to button presses so that you know whether you pushed "60" so you don't start to worry that your cart's just going to keep going… I think that was about the only thing I didn't like in the Speed E Cart.
Speaking of the controls, they again appear about the same: 15, 30, and 60 yards, power on/off, and speed up/down buttons. The Speed E Cart maintains the same actual land speed over varying terrain, and this cart should do the same.
The handle height adjustments - my lone complaint about the Micro Cart - are reported to be variable on the Micro E Cart.
No word on price, but Sun Mountain seems to understand the economy and doesn't typically set high prices just because they figure golfers have money, so I'd expect the price to be about the same as the Speed E Cart's (give or take a hundred bucks).

So that's all we know - or can guess at.

Stack and Tilt vs. Power Pivot: A Conversation

Erik J. Barzeski — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:00:00 +0000

A few years ago, two instructors made a large splash in the relatively small pond of golf instruction when they shared their thoughts on what was perceived by many to be a radical new way to swing the golf club.

Though Andy Plummer and Mike Bennett studied the moves of some of the greatest golfers in history, including Ben Hogan, Tiger Woods, Jack Nicklaus, and others, the The Stack and Tilt golf swing was rejected by virtually every known teacher as a fad. It was tarnished with "that's a reverse pivot" and "you'll hurt your back with that reverse C finish." Mudslinging, golfers discovered, wasn't just for politics anymore.

In the years since, the Stack and Tilt golf swing has gained a steady following on the PGA Tour. Some high-profile names "gave up" on the swing, but many more higher-profile players have joined the ranks as well. What's more, the violent reaction a lot of "traditional" instructors have had to the Stack and Tilt move has subsided and allowed for some real study, and many instructors who take the time to understand the swing have come to see that it's not as different as they once thought.

On October 15, 2009 we held a chat between Stack and Tilt instructor David Wedzik and The Sand Trap's own T.M. O'Connell, Swing Check columnist and author of "Golf's Not Hard." Dave Wedzik just opened the first Stack and Tilt certified academy. T.M. O'Connell is a proponent of what he calls the classic move with a "Power Pivot."

The chat was a revealing one, and given the popularity of The Sand Trap's lone article on S&T from 2007, I suspect a lot of you out there may benefit from reading it.

Speakers
David Wedzik - Stack and Tilt
T.M. O'Connell - Classic "Power Pivot"
Erik J. Barzeski - Moderator

Erik J. Barzeski: We'll be getting started shortly.

David Wedzik: Hi - Glad to be here.

T.M. O'Connell: Hello.

David Wedzik: Hi T.M. - how are you?

T.M. O'Connell: Good, you. Heard lots of good things from Erik. Look forward to talking to you.

David Wedzik: Me too!

Erik J. Barzeski: OK, we'll get started now. I'll moderate questions from the crowd - and at the end we'll have an official Q&A session.

I figure we'll start things off by having each of you explain the basic theory of the golf swing, from your perspective. T.M., would you like to go first?

T.M. O'Connell: Sure no problem.

I would describe the core theory of my methodology as efficiency. Each of the pieces of the swing that I advocate are meant to create the most powerful swing possible with the simplest motion.

I think that is the briefest way I can describe it.

Some of the fundamentals which I advocate include: (a) treating the leading shoulder as the center of the swing, (b) taking the most efficient path both away from and through the ball, (c) using a pivot to maximize the use of the core muscles, and (d) further increasing the speed of the clubhead through the use of lag.

There are several other pieces to the swing but these are some of the more basic.

I think that should help give us something because we differ a bit on several of those principals.

David Wedzik: I'll go from there for a bit.

Interestingly enough I believe we will agree on most if not all things about the swing before we are done. I also think that efficiency is very important.

To keep things as simple as possible, if I were to define Stack and Tilt in two words it would be "weight forward." There is much more than that of course but in considering the main things that average golfers do wrong it is the most important one.

From there I think it is extremely important to understand that the shoulders turn in a circle around the spine and the spine changes flex to allow this to happen. I will elaborate more as we go.

I'm sure there are some things you have questions about regarding Stack and Tilt so shoot them at me when ready.

One thing I would like to ask about is what you mean by the leading shoulder being the "center" of the swing?

T.M. O'Connell: When I first started working with my teacher a number of years ago one of the first fights I had with him was my belief that the head and spine were the center of the swing. He showed me using biomechanics that treating the spine as the center prevents you from maximizing torque and creating a consistent impact position. It was hard for me to accept at first but I think that is going to be a major sticking point between us even with our commonalities.

Oh, and I have tons of questions too.

I suppose I am curious about why a stack and tilt swing is centered on the spine and how that uses the core muscles.

David Wedzik: I certainly believe that the lead shoulder sets the low point of the swing but the center of gravity can only really be at the center.

Stack and Tilt really uses two centers of gravity - the first is the center of the hips (say the belt for simplicity) and the second is the center of the shoulders (say sternum for simplicity). By turning the shoulders around a fixed center point we get the greatest speed and most efficiency. I did initially assume here that you are referring to COG (mainly because of the mention of torque). In looking a bit closer I believe you may be referring to center of the arc - and if that is the case, I, do, completely agree that the lead shoulder sets the center of the arc.

Would you agree that the shoulders should turn at 90 degrees to the spine (or upper center)?

T.M. O'Connell: They should turn at or approximately at that angle in the golf swing, yes.

I suppose I am just confused on why the centers should be "in front of the ball" at impact. I saw that on your site and that threw me.

David Wedzik: I agree completely and this is where the Stack and Tilt makes more sense to me than any other way of swinging the golf club. Please know that my background was as a player and I had the chance to work with instructors such as Mike Bender, Fred Griffin, Robert Baker, and Randy Smith - all for more than a year. These great instructors who know the golf swing never explained to me properly how the shoulders turn 90° to the spine - on the golfer's tilted angle.

What is important to know here is that it can only be accomplished by the spine changing flex during the backswing.

Up until two years ago, because of my background with many great instructors I would have likely battled some of the S&T principles as well until I began to understand them fully first hand.

The lower center should be in front of the ball and is with all great players - the upper center is on the ball or slightly in front with an iron. With the driver the upper center is a bit more back. Honestly on the site where it says both centers in front of the ball is a bit misleading considering the driver. The main reason the upper center seems further back with the driver is that the ball position is much more forward.

T.M. O'Connell: I think that is why I would say approximately at 90. You can turn around your spine in a golf position and not result in a perfect 90 degree turn simply because of the pull of muscles. S&T does turn around 90 degrees but in doing so it seems to also create an undue stress on the lower back.

For instance, Tiger Woods and Ben Hogan don't turn around their spine at 90 degrees.

I think whether we call the hips the center of the swing or not I don't think we dispute the position of the hips at impact. So score one for commonality.

David Wedzik: First - Tiger - I believe if he was to improve something it would be that. He should side tilt and extend his back a bit more in his backswing. This would allow his shoulders to turn 90 to the spine.

T.M. O'Connell: Interesting. I am a big fan of Tiger's shoulder position at the top of his swing since about 2005.

Just to be clear, what players - past or present - would you say have achieved that shoulder position?

David Wedzik: As far as players with shoulders 90 to the spine I would note Watson in his prime, Miller, Sergio, Player, Palmer came close - Charlie Wi of course and about 15 other tour players currently.

T.M. O'Connell: I am not sure about Sergio but I would think you would add Snead as well?

David Wedzik: I was thinking quick and adding players but Snead is a good one. Sergio definitely and Colin Montgomerie as well.

T.M. O'Connell: OK.

David Wedzik: Before, you made a comment about the lower back. I would say that the back issue is just the opposite of what many believe about S&T.

When a player side tilts and extends the back they are taking all compression out of the back. This is the best thing for your back. By staying in flexion your back is in compression and this is a bad thing. Nobody who has worked with Mike, Andy, etc. on S&T has ever had a back problem.

This is very important to note - S&T reduces compression and maximizes extension in these areas.

T.M. O'Connell: Interesting. Perhaps that is a misconception because the position at the top of the swing as well as the finish seem to actually create back problems. My concern would be not with bone issues but with muscular issues.

David Wedzik: I think it is VERY MUCH a misconception about the back.

There are many people that consider the Stack and Tilt finish a reverse C - I will address that briefly.

T.M. O'Connell: Go ahead.

David Wedzik: I think that is why the back issues come into play - In the S&T finish we teach our players to extend fully from the ground up - legs, knees, back, even the neck. Again… reducing all compression. The Reverse C put the back into a bit more of an arch and left the knees flexed instead of extended. It is the flexed knees and arching together that actually compressed the back in the Reverse C.

T.M. O'Connell: When you are talking about compression you are referring to bone or muscular? I say that because I would think that biomechanics suggest that S&T is bad for muscles while Pivot can be bad for bones.

Erik J. Barzeski: T.M., what do you mean by muscular compression? I think everyone understands bones from a joint perspective - and that a back arched in the classic Reverse C is very compressed - but my understanding of muscles is that they simply contract when they do their jobs. What's "muscular compression?"

T.M. O'Connell: I got lectured on Monday about this by Titleist Performance Institute. Sore subject I suppose. Basically, when you arch your back the way that you advocate in S&T at the top, impact, or finish you are relieving tension on joints and you lesson your risk for spinal injury such as discs. However, you run a risk of pulling muscles in an awkward motion that can cause tears.

David Wedzik: It is just something I have never heard or seen - the muscular issue - I know the TPI guys take issue with S&T but I haven't seen data to back up the concerns. I think it is great though that they believe by extending the back the tension is relieved.

Now, I know you - and many other instructors teach a weight shift and a sort of Reverse K atthe top - can you tell me why this is better than being stacked and centered. I have seen my share of the poorest players with weight shift hitting across balls in a pull/slice pattern. This is one of the reasons S&T came to be.

T.M. O'Connell: As to the question of why I advocate a pivot, it is a primer of sorts. I agree that many players do keep their hips behind the ball but all too often they are anxious to move their shoulders too far forward. This is one of the most common problems I have seen in my experience - particularly with the driver…

The pivot primes a player to get back to return their leading shoulder to the proper position but also utilizes the core muscles - particularly the chest, abdominals, and upper legs - to create the majority of the power. No doubt, learning how to swing with a pivot can be difficult at first but it becomes second nature after practice as I am sure that a S&T swing does.

David Wedzik: One thing I can say for certain is that when classifying swings - the poorest players have their weight the furthest back and hit the most behind the ball. The most expert players have their weight the most forward and hit in front of the ball- this is one of the reasons S&T came to be.

Why not just leave the leading shoulder much closer to the proper position by turning around a fixed center - not have to worry about "returning" it so much?

T.M. O'Connell: In my mind the reasoning is that it does not utilize the core muscles nearly as much and despite the fact that it seems that swinging around a fixed center seems simple it may actually require your body to go against a unified motion of the body.

Behind the ball is an interesting term. I haven't seen a S&T player at impact so can we clarify that a bit. Let's use driver to be consistent.

Erik J. Barzeski: You haven't seen an S&T player at impact? What do you mean?

T.M. O'Connell: As in I haven't worked with a S&T player personally to be able to measure their weight distribution. Pictures are one thing but in person is a little different in my mind.

David Wedzik: As to the pivot - swinging around fixed center and your reply - This is why it is important to understand that the spine changes flex during the swing. Do you understand and agree that the spine should change flex during the swing?

Sorry, two things going at once now: let's quickly go to the behind the ball thing first.

T.M. O'Connell: OK, sounds good.

David Wedzik: I meant to say that they have their weight the most on their back foot and they hit the ground (with an iron) the furthest behind the ball. The most expert players hit the ground the most in front of the ball.

T.M. O'Connell: Center of hips would be at or approximately at your left heel at impact. Weight with lower body going towards target. I think we can agree on that.

David Wedzik: Yes - that is pretty much Stack and Tilt 101 - and very few players know to get their belt/tailbone that far forward at that point.

Good point T.M. - for those out there the lower body center is hugely important.

T.M. O'Connell: Upper body is where the rub may be. The Pivot has a player shift their upper body behind the ball and then turn through the ball with their head staying at or very near where they pivoted to.

Just to be clear, especially for those reading, lower body is INCREDIBLY important to creating power in both a classic and S&T swing. It is a major component I feel many, many players are missing.

David Wedzik: This is because the pivot teacher believes the golfer should stay in their "spine angle" throughout the swing. The only way to accomplish that and turn the shoulders is to stay in flexion and that gets the golfer into the reverse K look with upper center translated to the right.

My last point is why it is so important to know that the spine changes flex in the backswing - it is by knowing and doing this that the shoulders can turn 90 to the spine and stay centered.

T.M. O'Connell: David, I wouldn't argue with the statement about the reverse K. That is a major part of what creates the muscle tension to snap you through the ball in my mind.

David Wedzik: I would say that the Reverse K actually reduces torque and reduces speed - when the golfer stays in flexion it is the slowest possible swing.

T.M. O'Connell: Can you point to a player on tour that produces the power of a classic swing though? I know Charlie Wi is a major player for S&T. His driving average was 285 this year if I am not mistaken. That's great for amateurs but even on the long drive you rarely see an S&T player.

David Wedzik: Sean O'Hair would be a good one - Sergio another - these guys are not in the S&T camp but certainly hit it a long way and display the principles.

Also, Charlie Wi was not any longer (in fact he was a bit shorter with his "classic swing") before he stared working with Mike and Andy on Stack and Tilt.

T.M. O'Connell: Interesting. Would you advocate S&T for a baseball player or a hockey player. I ask because both of those sports supply power through a pivot as well.

Erik J. Barzeski: T.M., a good hockey player can hit a slap shot with his back foot off the ground from the moment he starts down. One of the biggest flaws in a slap shot is to get your weight too far back. That's how you slam the stick into the ice well behind the puck. Plus a slap shot tends to be a slice swing in golf (if for no other reason than that the hands are so far apart on the hockey stick).

David Wedzik: Good question - baseball has plenty of forward motion but there is not the issue with the spin being put on the ball - S&T very much takes into consideration the fact that we can't hit across the ball or we slice it. The weight forward and center more forward puts the ball, effectively, further back on the swing circle. Making it easier to hit out at it

I actually teach some hockey players and they are the most forward players I work with. The hockey player is pushing into the ice under his front leg very much.

If the weight is at all too far back the ball is effectively further forward on the circle and the golfer will hit across it more (out to in).

T.M. O'Connell: I don't play like you Pennsylvanians.

David Wedzik: I think it is important to go back to the spine changing flex - can we do that?

T.M. O'Connell: Fine with me. Can I make a brief point?

David Wedzik: Sure, of course.

T.M. O'Connell: I just like commonalities. One of the things that always makes me laugh is how despite our differences in ideologies that the proper impact position always seems to look the same. Ball position can change that a lot but as far as the position of the body it looks nearly identical.

David Wedzik: I agree for the most part and I also like commonalities. That is why everything about S&T came from classifying and finding those commonalities and differences.

T.M. O'Connell: I think the key is that we have different ways to approach that impact position that we see as either more efficient or simple.

David Wedzik: One of the first things we discuss when doing a school is how the fundamentals in golf are not what people believe them to be.

Back to spine flexion - this is a very important component that ALL great players display to some extent.

I just think that when the golfer understands how the spine changes flex and how they can turn their shoulders 90 with the most torque and do that being centered… it makes it much easier to arrive at the proper impact position. Takes out a lot of the movement back and forth.

David Wedzik: To go back briefly to the fundamentals, most instructors dive right into grip, alignment, posture, etc. and though these are important there are no commonalities amongst the greatest players in history in these areas, but there are commonalities regarding where the great players hit the ground (in front of ball) as well as a couple other things.

T.M. O'Connell: Does posture need a commonality though? I think that video and study of how muscles work should dictate proper posture above all else. I wouldn't advocate swinging like Vardon even though he won a million British Opens.

David Wedzik: Yes… for the most part - but I think a player could be in even more trouble in some ways if they try and be to "erect" and chin up - this can create tension and other issues.

Posture needs to be "correct" within a range but there is no commonality - there are many different postures out there. Guys who bend over more… guys who stand tall… guys with open hips, closed shoulders, etc.

T.M. O'Connell: You would stress that a player should not be slumped over at set up though right? Open hips, closed shoulders, and things like that can be based on the golfers range of motion and body type.

David Wedzik: Yes - they could be but my point is that posture is not a true fundamental or commonality of all great players. Neither is grip or so many others.

T.M. O'Connell: I agree completely on grip.

Do you want your players to achieve lag. I just know lots of people love talking about lag and those that know me know I love lag.

David Wedzik: Yes - lag is extremely important!!! We teach it a TON!!! Proper mechanics and motion help the golfer create lag naturally. By doing the things we prescribe such as keeping the weight forward, and swinging the arms correctly S&T makes this much easier. There are also drills we use to teach lag and maintaining the flying wedge and they go hand in hand with these other procedures.

T.M. O'Connell: Good. Love hearing it because I feel like that is one of the more misunderstood parts of the game and the more teachers that "get it" the better.

David Wedzik: I still feel this is important to go over as it leads to the main thing I think you disagree with about stack and tilt - do you realize and agree that the spine changes from flexion to extension during the backswing? And then again into impact and the follow through?

S&T isn't just a "reverse weight shift" you know. (Said tongue very much in cheek of course.)

I'm very much enjoying this by the way - the best part is that I think too many golfers out there believe S&T is this ultra radical method - it is very rooted in classic mechanics displayed by the greatest players of all time.

T.M. O'Connell: Can you clarify flexion and extension for me here? Curious as to the importance.

David Wedzik: Sure. Flexion would be defined as the "bend" from the waist at address - as the backswing progresses the golfer tilts their shoulder to the left and extends (the extension part) their back to straight (it feels like they are standing up).

T.M. O'Connell: I would say that I roughly agree then.

David Wedzik: It is the tilt to the left and the extension of the back that 1) allows the shoulders to turn 90° to the spine and 2) keeps the golfer inclined to the ground in what "appears" to be the same posture as address.

T.M. O'Connell: I agree with the second point, but on the 90° shoulder turn, I think we could go for days on that.

David Wedzik: Actually you did say you agree that the shoulders should turn at 90 to the spine - I'm just saying that it is by going from flexion to extension (with side tilt) that makes this possible.

Erik J. Barzeski: Are you both ready to take some questions?

T.M. O'Connell: Sure.

David Wedzik: Yes.

Erik J. Barzeski: OK, we'll open it up to any questions now. We have three in the queue plus I have one which I'll start off with…

It seems to me and perhaps to others watching that the reverse K involves a shift or a sway of the sternum, shoulders, head - whatever upper-body part you want to pick - away from the ball, while S&T advocates leaving them there ("stacked"). Doesn't this "sway" introduce a point of failure in timing the move back to the ball, while that point of failure is lessened or removed in S&T?

T.M. O'Connell: Point of failure is a tricky term. I would absolutely say that in principle an S&T swing seems simpler but I think that both take an immense amount of practice to achieve the proper impact position. I would say that the amount of practice required would be comparable in either method.

Oh, and sway is a dirty word for me. Sway in my mind implies your hips are moving back. I would absolutely not want to have the hips move back during the back swing. That would lesson the power of a pivot and would create inconsistency.

Erik J. Barzeski: OK, we'll move on to a question from John.

[Comment From John Orr]
David Wedzik mentions Stack & Tilt has a trade-off between less danger of back injury, but danger of muscle tear. Does this imply a particular conditioning program to prepare the muscles for Stack and Tilt? I'm 58 years old, and want to make sure the "S&T" swing won't put me in a stretcher.

David Wedzik: Hi John. Actually - I did not mention any muscle issues AT ALL. In fact I said I had never heard of anything like that. There is no conditioning needed to do Stack and Tilt properly. If you can tilt (shrug your front shoulder towards the ground). Extend your back to straight and push your hips forward a few inches you should have no problem. Andy Plummer jokes with Mike Bennett often about how he eats Twinkies to prepare to demonstrate for students. Most TPI guys might not agree but I have seen first hand Stack and Tilt work just fine with "not so" athletically inclined golfers.

Erik J. Barzeski: The next question comes from a guest…

[Comment From Guest]
Who does not use a stack and tilt swing on the PGA Tour now?

T.M. O'Connell: Dave you can correct me on this if I am wrong but numbers 1-123 on the world rankings but I'm not sure other than Charlie Wi. Tiger Woods is a pivot man though for sure since 2004-2005.

David Wedzik: Well - to go through the 140 or so players by name would be tough but a couple points…

1) Mike Bennett and Andy Plummer are teaching about 15 players on Tour currently - this is without a doubt the highest percentage out there and these are players who only get paid if they play well. I think this speaks highly of S&T in general… 2) Of the players who are not in the S&T camp the HUGE majority display a HUGE number of S&T characteristics - things like side tilt, spine extension, belt forward and to the sky, pelvic release to allow the hips to keep turning, etc.

Tiger included… he displays so many ofthe principles well - for sure with the irons - not so much with the Driver. Which is why he hits about 27% of his fairways when hitting driver.

T.M. O'Connell: I would associate Tiger's problems with other things but I think we differ there as well.

David Wedzik: To the players who use S&T… J.J. Henry, Joe Ogilvie, Fredrik Jacobsen, Troy Matteson - many more

O'Hair could be on the S&T DVDs - he does it better than almost anyone and works with Sean Foley who teaches straight off of the Stack and Tilt DVDs (fact). If you look at this article I sent to Erik a few days ago, you'll see what I mean. Sean doesn't "know" he's learning Stack and Tilt, but his terminology gives him away.

But anyway, there are plenty of players in Top 100. Mike and Andy don't start with the ones that are great to begin with - anyone here can "teach" Tiger or Phil and they will win a bunch.

T.M. O'Connell: O'Hair is a curious one. His swing from the beginning of the year to the Presidents Cup has changed a bit.

David Wedzik: For sure - pretty much all S&T stuff in his swing. Again, check out the S&T verbage in the linked article above. Funny part is how Johnny Miller calls his swing the best in golf.

T.M. O'Connell: Johnny Miller… not much else needed to be said though huh?

Erik J. Barzeski: Next question comes from Ted.

[Comment From Ted]
I tried "Stack N Tilt" once before. Every shot I hit was a long straight push. It felt difficult to turn on the ball. Any ideas? Thanks.

David Wedzik: Could be a few things but here is a good thing to work on - on the backswing tilt your left shoulder to the ground more (at a spot outside your front foot… this is the tilt) so as not to translate your shoulders to the back foot so much - generally if you are seeing a straight push the shoulder center and axis is too much back with too much tilt away from the target - also - be sure that it is not a cut or fade you are describing - I am giving you input for a straight push.

Erik J. Barzeski: David has our last two questions of the evening - I'll post this as an article and you can ask questions of Dave and T.M. there too. But here's David's first one…

[Comment From David]
From impact to follow threw would it be like the backswing… axis tilt created by hips moving forward and an extension of the back?

David Wedzik: Yes - the hips move forward and this puts in the final tilt (this time on your right or back side) - at the same time the belt is raising and the back is extending. This acts to shallow the swing out and creates a great amount of speed through the extension and "catapult" effect.

Erik J. Barzeski: And David again asks this:

[Comment From David]
With S&T are the arms every swinging or they just glued to the body as mentioned in the DVDs?

David Wedzik: The arms are swinging but with connection to the body - there is less "swinging" on the backswing as they are carried more by the torso. However… as the forward push happens in the lower center on the downswing the power accumulators kick in through the arms. This is where the left (lead) arm moves down away from the right shoulder and right arms straightens almost as fast as possible (straightens at the elbow not the wrist joints).

Erik J. Barzeski: That concludes this evening's chat. I'd like to thanks David Wedzik, T.M. O'Connell, and all of our visitors.

If you have a question, please leave them in the comments here. I'll let Dave and T.M. know to expect them, and they can answer them when they have a moment.

Thanks again.

Golf Talk [Episode 128]

Erik J. Barzeski — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:00:00 +0000

Tiger goes 5-0, Phil goes 4-0-1, Stricker goes 4-1, and the U.S. team wins with relative ease, 19.5 to 14.5 at the 2009 Presidents Cup. Also this week, Kuchar wins at Turning Stone, Lorena wins again... finally, with Wie T2, golf makes the Olympics, Rory may play stateside in 2010, and a whole lot more in this episode of Golf Talk.

You can subscribe to the RSS feed for our podcasts here or download Episode 128 as an MP4 file. For those who want to subscribe to us in iTunes, click here.

For this week's Show Notes - links to articles we discuss in the show and additional information - just read on.

Off the Tee

U.S. Wins (
one, two, three, four)
AK the 'Current John Daly'

Beating Balls

Colophon

Note: This is an AAC (MP4) file, an open file format. iTunes - free software - can play AAC files, as can numerous other players, though we heartily recommend iTunes.

You Can Contribute

If you'd like to submit a listener question that we can answer on the air, send the question to podcast@thesandtrap.com.

Sonic Golf System Pro-1 Review

Erik J. Barzeski — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Several years ago John Novosel released a book called "Tour Tempo." The book has been a big help to many golfers, including those in the Reading Room section of our forum. The premise is that most PGA Tour players swing at about a 3:1 ratio, and that you should as well.

The "Tour Tempo" training regimen involves swinging to a series of beeps, spaced at a 3:1 ratio and at whatever total speed best fit your personality. Though the practice undoubtedly helped some golfers, I personally found swinging to beeps to be annoying and ungratifying. Plus, so long as you hit the beeps at the right time, your swing was deemed to have good tempo, regardless of how quickly you snatched the club away at the start of your swing or how smoothly you accelerated from the top.

As a decent golfer, I realize the importance of tempo, but I've yet to discover a great way to teach and learn tempo. I was excited the first time I heard about Ph.D. scientist Dr. Bob Grober's Sonic Golf system, which converts the rotational movement of the club into a sound gradient. Vijay Singh used it to win the 2008 Deutsche Bank tournament and the FedExCup, making the Sonic Golf system a legitimate $10M idea.

Read on to see what we thought of the Sonic Golf system.

The Equipment
The Sonic golf system is comprised of two main pieces: a transmitter and a receiver. The transmitter, or "SX-1," slips inside of the butt end of your golf grips where it measures the rotation of your club and transmits the data to the "RX-1" receiver. The RX-1, which clips to your belt or slides into your pocket, has a minijack for headphones and translates the data received from the SX-1 into realtime audio.

The Sonic Golf system currently comes in two configurations. The "System-1 Solo Edition" comes with one each of the SX-1 and the RX-1 as well as three special Golf Pride Tour Velvet grips. The "System-1 Pro Edition" adds three grips (for a total of six) and a second RX-1. Both come with tape and headphones, a screwdriver, batteries, a roll of tape, a carrying case, and a training DVD. The Solo edition runs $399 and the Pro edition $599, but both have been offered for $100 off for quite some time ($299 and $499). Additional grips, tape, receivers, and transmitters are all available separately as well.

The Pro edition comes with six grips, two receivers, one transmitter, and all the little extras you'll need. The Pro edition is intended for teachers who will want to listen to their students' swings.

The Sonic Golf system comes with special Golf Pride Tour Velvet grips because the transmitter - the long, blue piece of equipment in the image above - won't fit inside a normal golf grip. Instead, Sonic Golf worked with Golf Pride to produce grips with a special molded butt that receives the SX-1 transmitter.

If you normally play Tour Velvet grips, you won't mind installing the special grips on your normal set of clubs at all. Unfortunately I use Golf Pride's New Decade Multicompound grips, so I installed three of my six grips on a backup wedge, 6-iron, and driver. It's less than an ideal solution, but perhaps Sonic Golf will one day become so large that they can talk Golf Pride into making a full line of specialized grips.

Operating the Sonic Golf system is simple: you turn the transmitter on by pressing the power button, set the channel to any one of the eight available, and do the same on as many receivers as you'd like to listen. You slide the transmitter into the special Golf Pride grip, clip the receiver to your belt or slip it into a back pocket, and put the headphones in your ears.

The size of the receiver presents a minor issue. It's noticeably bulky (4.5 x 2.8 x 1") and noticeably heavy at 5.58 ounces. Compare this with an iPod Nano at 3.6" x 1.5" x 0.24" and 1.28 ounces and you'll start to understand how bulky the Sonic Golf receiver is in comparison (while having a much shorter list of features).

Performance and Practicality
The size of the receiver is but one of a few stumbling blocks apparent in this first-generation product. Each issue is small, but depending on how sensitive you are to these types of things and how you use your Sonic Golf system, they can add up.

The first and second I've already mentioned: you've got to install custom grips on your clubs, and if you don't use Tour Velvet grips, you may be installing them on a backup set, and the size and weight of the receiver.

The third involves the roll of tape that comes with each system. You're supposed to wrap tape around four places on the transmitter so that it fits snugly into your shaft(s). Unfortunately, the inner diameter of your shafts likely changes from club to club, so as you swap the transmitter from your driver to your six-iron, you're regularly adding tape, removing tape, and checking the fit. It's a time-intensive operation that interrupts practice sessions. Why couldn't the smart folks at Sonic Golf build in some sort of foam or spring-loaded system?

The transmitter and the custom-made Golf Pride Tour Velvet grip. The transmitter clicks into the notch on the butt end of the grip which, along with the tape, holds the transmitter securely in the club.

Once you've got your grips installed and the transmitter taped up, you're ready to start swinging. The premise is simple: you're supposed to use the sound produced by the Sonic Golf system to fine-tune your overall tempo as well as a few key spots in the golf swing. Your tempo is translated into realtime sounds in a practical fashion: slower movements produce a lower-pitched, quieter sound. Faster movements produce a higher-pitched, louder sound. Easy.

Though at first it was disconcerting hitting balls while I a shifting tonal gradient played in my ears, I quickly adapted and began focusing on producing a proper "swing sound" - a term my instructor and I came up with to describe the sounds.

Prior to working with the Sonic Golf system, my instructor and I identified several areas where tempo could be measured and improved upon fairly easily. We came up with three key areas - one at each phase of the golf swing - and began testing the efficacy of the Sonic Golf system at identifying and eliminating problems in these areas.

The RX-1 receiver requires two AA batteries. Though it fits into a pants pocket, the size is quite a bit larger than you'd expect, particularly when you consider how small cell phones can be.

Takeaway
The first potential problem area is the takeaway. I've always had a fairly fast tempo, and we weren't looking to change that. But sometimes I take the club away from the ball a bit too quickly. I've tried a lot of things to fix this problem, but none work for very long because it's incredibly boring to practice a slow takeaway and incredibly easy to forget while you're working on something else or out on the course.

With the Sonic Golf system, I didn't have to remember anything. Instead, I simply worked on something else in my golf swing while listening for a good takeaway "in the background." With a good takeaway - a gradual building of pitch and volume - I'd simply ignore the sounds and hit the golf ball. But if the volume and pitch shot up too quickly, I could stop the swing immediately and re-start thanks to the instant feedback.

Transition at the Top
The second area we identified was at the top of the backswing. Some players pause longer than others at the top, but nearly every player will see a substantial drop in volume and pitch as their club reaches the top of their swing. My pause - though brief again thanks to my faster tempo - was pretty good, so we tried out a few other swing flaws and the practicality of the Sonic Golf system became evident.

Specifically, the system helps to identify two major problems with this portion of the swing: the loop and the jerk. The "loop" occurs when a golfer takes the club to the top and, rather than simply reverse the direction, loops the clubhead around. The shaft is still rotating (though not on the "proper" swing plane), so the Sonic Golf system still puts out sound. The "jerk" is a bit more obvious and is essentially the same as my takeaway problem. If you don't accelerate smoothly from the top of the backswing, you'll hear it a louder, higher-pitched noise than the ideal.

The third area we identified is impact, and specifically, achieving the loudest, highest-pitched sound right at the golf ball. Worse golfers tend to have the highest volume and pitch - and thus the highest clubhead speed - somewhere to their right, behind the golf ball. They're casting and decelerating into the golf ball.

The RX-1 receiver with attached (and included) headphones and the SX-1 sensor/transmitter.

Lower handicappers, on the other hand, tend to get overdo the old "accelerate through the ball" swing thought. We've all seen the drill where you turn your driver around and make the grip go "whoosh" the loudest somewhere in front of the ball, right? It's a great swing thought, but inefficient all the same - you want to accelerate to your maximum clubhead speed at the ball, not after the ball.

The Sonic Golf system makes finding and fixing problems in this stage of the swing easy. I discovered that my swing was reaching maximum speed at the golf ball pretty well, but my instructor wasn't reaching his maximum speed until about 12 or 14 inches after the ball. Through practice, he adjusted and gained a few yards with his 6-iron, which might translate to eight to ten yards with his driver.

The Sonic Golf system works outside of the full swing as well. For 50-100 yard pitch shots, it can work wonders. A lot of golfers have reasonably good tempo with their full swings, then resort to jerking and pulling the club around with their less-than-full swings. If you lack consistency in the longer sections of the scoring zone, the Sonic Golf system may help you to diagnose any tempo problems that exist.

Inside of about 50 yards, you'll find that you simply don't move the club enough to get much sound from the Sonic Golf system. If you suffer from poor tempo in your shorter pitches, your chip shots, or your putting, you're out of luck. Sonic Golf has developed a separate putting transmitter - I assume it will work with existing receivers - and is accepting pre-orders for shipment in early 2010. It's disappointing that there's not simply a switch to enable a shorter swing mode on the existing transmitter/sensor.

Conclusion
I'm a relatively good golfer, and I understand the importance of a good tempo. Though I believe the Sonic Golf system is the best tempo training aid on the market, and despite wanting to like it, I came out of the experience rather unexcited. At $299 even the Solo system is fairly costly, and the transmitter requires too much fiddling - backup clubs because of the special grips, messing with the tape - for my taste. It only really works on reasonably full swings and will require an additional few hundred dollars in the future (the current transmitter costs $219) if you want to work on your putting and short-game tempo.

The SX-1 is easy to control. One button turns it on and off and two others change the channel.

My instructor is a bit more upbeat. At $500, he only has to use the Sonic Golf system in a few lessons per year to justify the cost. He can install a few grips on a few different 6-irons to suit the taste and ability of various golfers. He can plug the RX-1 receiver into his high-speed digital video camera to record the "swing sound" right along with video of his student's swings to show them yet another dimension in which they're improving (or need improvement).

Dr. Bob Grober seems to have taken a "do-it-yourself" approach to this invention, and though I admire the desire to go it alone, I'm left wondering if perhaps the approach isn't hurting the product a little bit. The product still feels a bit like a technical demo or a proof of concept and not a finished product. I can't help but feel that if Dr. Bob Grober had paired with an established golf company he might have a sleeker, easier-to-use, less costly device that might sell easily to individual golfers and instructors alike. Imagine how well an iPod Nano-sized receiver with a transmitter/sensor that worked on putting strokes and full swings and cost $199 for Solo and $329 for the Pro system might sell!

Though the Sonic Golf system is good start I believe the product may need a few revisions before it's ready for the masses. The concept is good - the technology works and can help golfers and instructors to identify and correct tempo-related issues - but the implementation needs work. I'm left wanting more, and I hope to see it in future revisions to the system.

Five Sacred Rules of Golf

Erik J. Barzeski — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:00:00 +0000

At some point in the past decade or so, Golf Digest became a lifestyle magazine. With reviews of $100,000 cars and style columns featuring $250 belts, Golf Digest morphed from golf magazine and something more like an off-shoot of the Robb Report. At best, it's become a great way to scoff at the elite members of society who happen to play golf while reading through the same re-trodden tips you read a few years ago. At worst, it's a coffee table flipbook for top-tier country clubs - completely worthless to the 98% of golfers who don't need to spend a hundred grand to drive to their local muni or $250 to hold up their pants.

The latest evidence - not counting the belts and cars, of course - comes in the form of Editor in Chief Jerry Tarde's "Golf's Five Sacred Rules." This week in Trap Five we take a quick look at Tarde's "rules" and come up with a real list of five sacred rules - if, that is, we're sufficiently pretentious enough to think that golf is religious enough to warrant calling anything "sacred."

Tarde's List

The column (despite the title) applies only to private country clubs, of which I belong to one and have played at several. Let's have a look at the rules the title would have us believe apply to all of golf.

Tarde's Number Five
No cell phones on the course or in the clubhouse. (One club I know is very tough on this: Mobile phones are only permissible sitting in your car in the parking lot with the windows rolled shut. A friend of mine adheres to this rule with his convertible top down.)

I have my cell phone with me at all times. It's got a weather application that I can use to check the proximity of an incoming storm. It's got a calendar so I can check availability for future tee times. And, lo and behold, it's got a phone so that my wife can reach me when plans change and I can reach the clubhouse in an emergency (partner has a heart attack, cart runs out of juice or gets stuck or driven into a lake, six-some in front of us is holding up play and needs to be split up, etc.).

Instead, cell phone usage should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Not once in fielding the occasional call from my wife have I held up or distracted play. I'm as annoyed by the guy loudly talking about his stock portfolio with his broker while holding up play as the next guy. If you want to make a rule, how about the far more reasonable "ban the behavior, not the instrument."

Tarde's Number Four
Take off your hat when you go indoors or when sitting down to eat.

Because hat hair is so much more attractive. Let me put it this way: if it's perfectly acceptable to wear spikes, I see no problem wearing a lid as well. My country club has a grill room where spikes and hats are worn by virtually everyone, and a dining room where they are not worn by anyone. Guys don't take their hats off in the locker room or the pro shop. They don't take their hats off at the halfway house or when greeting women.

Sorry, Jerry, but you're showing your age here, and the "hats off" rule is murky at best. Rather than draw up a hard and fast rule, I prefer the rule of "When in Rome…"

Tarde's Number Three
No blue jeans, even the expensive kind.

Though I personally won't wear blue jeans to play golf (I may have once, when it was winter, beneath some snow pants…), I couldn't really care less what someone else wears. This is yet another of the rules that says more about those attempting to enforce the rules than those who might break them.

And do these rules apply only to men? Tarde never really says. Perhaps he's assuming that the only women Tarde will run into at these private clubs will be asking him what he'd like to drink.

Tarde's Number Two
Do not change your shoes in the parking lot. (Perfectly OK at a public course, but the locker room at private clubs is preserved as the last bastion of golfing ablutions.)

I changed my shoes in the parking lot just yesterday at my country club… and I've got a locker inside. I think I may even still have the key for it somewhere…

Frankly, the locker room can be a scary and frightening place, particularly since Tarde left out the first sacred rule of Locker Room Etiquette, which could be stated simply as "Nobody Wants to See Your Ding Dong." The less time I have to spend trying not to look at the penises of fat, wet, naked old dudes, the better.

Tarde's Number One
The most important: Never throw a club in anger.

Bobby Jones once said that "some emotions cannot be endured with a golf club in your hands." And while I gave up club-throwing as a teen, I do enjoy burying a clubhead in the earth two or three times a year. (The damage is easily repaired and you can do it without your playing partners even noticing, though neither are an excuse.)

My List

As I see it, Tarde's list suffers from two problems. The first is that it seems to come from the perspective of a privileged old white dude stuck in the 1950s. The second is that his list has almost nothing to do with golf.

Tarde's "Golf's Sacred Rules" are more about day-to-day etiquette than they are about golf (at any type of course). It's rude to talk on your cell phone when you're riding in a car with someone. It's rude to wear your hat at a nice restaurant… but at McDonald's it's okay. Would you wear blue jeans to a church? I suppose that depends on the church. And so on…

In the spirit of the title of Tarde's article, I've come up with my own "Golf's Five Sacred Rules," and here they are.

Sacred Rule Number Five
Pay Your Bets and Buy Drinks with the Winnings

If you never bet while you're golfing, by all means skip this one. Congratulations, you've only got four "sacred" rules to follow!

If, however, you're like most golfers who engage in the occasional bet - on the putting green or on the golf course - pay up immediately after losing, and do so gracefully. If you're competitive, a little "I'll get you next time" type jab is perfectly appropriate.

If you win enough and the opportunity presents itself, buy drinks for the vanquished.

Sacred Rule Number Four
Understand the Rules of the Game

The Rules of Golf are the same for everyone, and everyone who plays the game of golf should understand them.

But the "Rules" (capital R) don't need to be followed to the letter each and every time you set foot on a golf course. In addition to understanding the "Rules," you're responsible for knowing the "rules" (lowercase r). If your foursome allows for gimmes inside of a foot or two, go ahead and "gimme" and "givve." If you're betting, understand the rules of the bet so you're not whining on the 16th tee that you're up five bucks when you're actually down ten.

If you're playing with strangers, assume that the "rules" are the same as the "Rules" until told otherwise. And when conflict arises - you'd rather not give that three-footer your partner wants to give the other team - man up and make whatever decision you think is right in the situation.

One last thing: don't brag about your 82 with six mulligans and eleven gimmes. You can brag that you took fifteen bucks off your buddies that day, but your score is only valid if you followed the Rules of Golf.

Sacred Rule Number Three
Respect Your Fellow Golfers

Here's where the cell phone bit comes in. And the hat part. And the club-throwing part.

Respect is a lot more than not talking in someone's backswing. It's more than refraining from the telling of crude stories or smoking your Cuban in a cart with a non-smoker. It goes beyond offering unsolicited advice while you chop it around in 93.

Some foursomes trash talk each other all around and make "your wife" jokes all day. Some don't. Virtually all care about things like "don't step on my line." Respect the maintenance workers, the pro shop attendants, and the guy two fairways over who just duffed a shot because you unknowingly shouted obscenities at the top of his swing.

Sacred Rule Number Two
Leave the course in Better Shape

Repair ball marks. Replace divots. Rake bunkers properly and leave them outside the bunkers in the direction of play (unless the club wishes otherwise). Clean up tees while you wait and put broken tees in the proper places.

These go without saying, and yet each of us can do more to improve the way we treat the gorgeous grassy areas on which we play the game of golf.

Sacred Rule Number One
Play Quickly

There's simply no excuse for a five-hour round. Slow play is a selfish, obnoxious, loathsome trend that everyone can do something to change. If you need some tips, we spent a whole week on slow play in 2007.

To those who would undoubtedly reply to this by saying "I paid as much as you, so don't tell me to rush - I'm out there to enjoy my leisure time and if that takes five hours, so be it" I will point out a simple fact: if everyone played faster, you could play 27 holes instead of just 18 (and perhaps less expensively too!).

Be a smart golfer. You're not playing for a million dollars like the guys on TV. Hit the ball and keep your group moving.

Golf Talk [Episode 127]

Erik J. Barzeski — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:00:00 +0000

Tiger and Phil both win on the same day (but Tiger wins a bit more). Also, trouble in the LPGA and PGA Tours - what will their schedules look like in 2010 and beyond? Who will be the commish of the women? That and a whole lot more in this episode of Golf Talk.

You can subscribe to the RSS feed for our podcasts here or download Episode 127 as an MP4 file. For those who want to subscribe to us in iTunes, click here.

For this week's Show Notes - links to articles we discuss in the show and additional information - just read on.

Off the Tee

Forum Topic of the Week

Beating Balls

Colophon

Note: This is an AAC (MP4) file, an open file format. iTunes - free software - can play AAC files, as can numerous other players, though we heartily recommend iTunes.

You Can Contribute

If you'd like to submit a listener question that we can answer on the air, send the question to podcast@thesandtrap.com.

Golf Talk [Episode 126]

Erik J. Barzeski — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:00:00 +0000

Tiger Woods wins in a walk while the rest of the field struggle to get into the Tour Championship (particularly Brandt Snedeker). Also, Phil's decision to play in the Presidents Cup, Zach Johnson's shank, and a whole lot more in this episode of Golf Talk.

You can subscribe to the RSS feed for our podcasts here or download Episode 126 as an MP4 file. For those who want to subscribe to us in iTunes, click here.

For this week's Show Notes - links to articles we discuss in the show and additional information - just read on.

Off the Tee

Forum Topic of the Week

Beating Balls

Phil to Play in Presidents Cup?

Colophon

Note: This is an AAC (MP4) file, an open file format. iTunes - free software - can play AAC files, as can numerous other players, though we heartily recommend iTunes.

You Can Contribute

If you'd like to submit a listener question that we can answer on the air, send the question to podcast@thesandtrap.com.