• Announcements

    • iacas

      Create a Signature!   02/05/2016

      Everyone, go here and edit your signature this week: http://thesandtrap.com/settings/signature/.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
MEfree

Why is there a Loss of Hole Penalty in Match Play?

33 posts in this topic

I don`t understand why golf has a different set of penalties for stroke and match play?  Wouldn`t it be easier and fairer to simply assess penalty strokes in all situations?

Take a look at the examples below.  Is the loss of hole penalty fair?

Ex 1.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 in the green side bunker and inadvertently touches a leaf with his back swing while taking his 3rd shot which stops 1 foot from the hole.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6 (assuming he made his 1 footer).

Ex 2.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 on the green side bunker and taps down a spike mark in his line before 2 putting

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Ex 3.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 3 on the green 85 feet from the hole and putts his ball into the cup, striking the unattended flag stick in the process.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Ex 4.

Player A lies 3 on the green.  His ball has come to rest on top of a leaf and he pulls the leaf out from under the ball causing it to move.  He replaces the ball without penalty before 3 putting for 6.

Player B lies 2 on the green and putts his ball towards the cup.  While his ball is rolling towards the cup, a leaf blows into Player B`s putting line and his caddie removes the leaf.  Player B`s putt goes into the cup.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 6, but in stroke player B would make a 5.

In all of the above cases, Player B would make a lower score than Player A in stroke play after including a 2 stroke penalty, but Player A would win all 4 holes in match play.

Wouldn`t it be easier and fairer if there was the same set of penalties for stroke and match play?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to get rid of this advertisement? Sign up (or log in) today! It's free!

I'm with you - but interested to hear from pros/rules experts on this one ... Although you could have stopped after one example. :)
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I believe the presumption is made that players in a match are fairly matched. Either by handicap or by the standard of the competition.

In such circumstances a loss of two strokes will almost certainly make the cause irrecoverable and continuing the hole would simply waste time.

The following doesn't answer the question directly but here is what the great rules guru Tufts has to say.

The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation . In other words, whether the violation be inadvertent or deliberate, or whether it occurs as a result of play or be due to the accidental or purposeful act of the player, or whether it be brought about by failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules regardless of the circumstances, the penalty must always be of sufficient magnitude to discourage the player from seeking or receiving advantage under the Rules.

The purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible everyone plays the same game. The penalties serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected Rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. The penalties must be adequate to provide this protection for if they are too light it is conceivable that golf would become a game of negotiation, with the golfer deliberately accepting penalties in order to obtain some advantage. Thus the Rules

themselves would provide the golfer with an inexpensive method of avoiding the results of a badly played shot. Under these conditions golf would lose all character and become a travesty. In order to maintain this principle, it must be admitted that at times the penalties appear to be unduly severe. It is impossible to provide a completely graduated scale of penalties, though the Rules do permit modifying the penalty of disqualification [Rule 33-7], and the penalty applied to each particular rule must be specific and adequate at least to match the maximum advantage which the player is likely to receive. The penalties cannot be expected, nor are they intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEfree View Post

I don`t understand why golf has a different set of penalties for stroke and match play?  Wouldn`t it be easier and fairer to simply assess penalty strokes in all situations?

Take a look at the examples below.  Is the loss of hole penalty fair?

Ex 1.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 in the green side bunker and inadvertently touches a leaf with his back swing while taking his 3rd shot which stops 1 foot from the hole.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6 (assuming he made his 1 footer).

Ex 2.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 on the green side bunker and taps down a spike mark in his line before 2 putting

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Ex 3.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 3 on the green 85 feet from the hole and putts his ball into the cup, striking the unattended flag stick in the process.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Ex 4.

Player A lies 3 on the green.  His ball has come to rest on top of a leaf and he pulls the leaf out from under the ball causing it to move.  He replaces the ball without penalty before 3 putting for 6.

Player B lies 2 on the green and putts his ball towards the cup.  While his ball is rolling towards the cup, a leaf blows into Player B`s putting line and his caddie removes the leaf.  Player B`s putt goes into the cup.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 6, but in stroke player B would make a 5.

In all of the above cases, Player B would make a lower score than Player A in stroke play after including a 2 stroke penalty, but Player A would win all 4 holes in match play.

Wouldn`t it be easier and fairer if there was the same set of penalties for stroke and match play?

You have it backwards.  Match play came first, by a couple hundred years.  The 2 stroke penalties were "invented" to accommodate medal play long after the match play loss of hole penalties were well established.  What you propose would completely change the flavor of match play.  There would be little reason to even bother with the different formats if it was all stroke play anyway.   One of the most attractive aspects of match play is that no matter how well or how badly you play a hole, or how serious a rules breach you make (with one or two rare exceptions), the result is never greater than one hole won or lost.

Quote:

Ex 1.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 in the green side bunker and inadvertently touches a leaf with his back swing while taking his 3rd shot which stops 1 foot from the hole.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6 (assuming he made his 1 footer).

Player B needs to be more careful.  He breached a rule and deserves to lose the hole.

Quote:

Ex 2.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 2 on the green side bunker and taps down a spike mark in his line before 2 putting

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Same answer.  B needs to learn the rules.

Quote:

Ex 3.

After losing a ball, hitting another OB and another in the water, player A lies 8 on the green.

Player B lies 3 on the green 85 feet from the hole and putts his ball into the cup, striking the unattended flag stick in the process.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 9+, but in stroke play B would make a 6.

Same answer.... keep trying.

Quote:

Ex 4.

Player A lies 3 on the green.  His ball has come to rest on top of a leaf and he pulls the leaf out from under the ball causing it to move.  He replaces the ball without penalty before 3 putting for 6.

Player B lies 2 on the green and putts his ball towards the cup.  While his ball is rolling towards the cup, a leaf blows into Player B`s putting line and his caddie removes the leaf.  Player B`s putt goes into the cup.

Result- Player A wins the hole in match play with his 6, but in stroke player B would make a 5.

Player A didn't make a 6 because he never had to finish putting.  Since it is match play, he marked after his first putt, lying 4 and we will never know if he made the second putt or not.  Player B's caddie screwed the pooch and lost the hole for his bag before Player A played hi 2nd putt.  Player A never had to make another stroke.  Player B didn't make a 5 since the hole was done the moment his caddie moved the leaf.

The whole point of the different formats IS the difference in scoring and thus a very different approach to planning one's strategy.  The loss of hole penalties is just one of the more attractive aspects of match play.  I really don't get your objection.  Skins is sort of a hole by hole stroke play for money.  You can always play hole by hole stroke play if you want to with your buddies, just don't call it match play, because it isn't.

I've played a lot of matches over the years and I've never had a loss of hole penalty come into play on me or on my opponent.  I know the rules well enough to avoid it, and I've stopped a less knowledgeable opponent a few times before allowing him to make such a breach.  That is how it is more likely to go in a match between gentlemen.

I would rather play a one on one or two on two match than stroke play anytime, anyplace.  Match play is really how golf was intended to be played.  You have in the past shown an inordinate amount of concern for pace of play.  Match play is the ultimate speed golf.  Both players on the green, A is lying 3, B is lying 5.  Each hits one putt, B concedes and they pick up and head to the next tee.  A hit's his next tee shot OB and plays his 3rd stroke into a difficult lie in the deep rough.  B stripes his tee ball down the middle.  Both play  one more stroke, with B on the green in 2 and A is lying 4, still 100 yards out.  A concedes the hole and they head to the next tee.  They just played 2 holes in slightly more than the time it would usually take for one.  This is a very typical match play scenario.

Match play rules aren't going to change.  They have been the foundation of the game for 400 years, and it would be sacrilege to do what you propose.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Rulesman

I believe the presumption is made that players in a match are fairly matched. Either by handicap or by the standard of the competition.

In such circumstances a loss of two strokes will almost certainly make the cause irrecoverable and continuing the hole would simply waste time.

A couple other reasons too.

  1. Match play can affect the play of another player far more so than stroke play. If one player committed a penalty, and that caused another player to change his play on the hole, that would be unfair, particularly since the infraction may not be discovered immediately. Imagine two players, one is deep in the woods on a par five and the other is in the fairway. The one in the woods hits a miraculous shot to within feet of the hole, forcing the second player to go for the green to try to halve the hole. He dunks it in the water or flies it OB or something. Then he discovers the first player incurred a loss of hole penalty. He'd have probably played differently if he knew the player had incurred a stroke or two-stroke penalty.
  2. Loss of hole is a significant penalty. We may see cheating if the game was played as you suggest. To use your example of the player lying 8 while his opponent is in the bunker, why wouldn't the player intentionally ground his club behind the ball to "tee up" his ball int he sand, knowing that a two-stroke penalty wouldn't hurt him much but it would darn well eliminate the chances of him blading the ball OB over the green or into the water or something?
  3. Violating the rules is worse than stinking it up on a hole. You could argue that the leaf toucher did "worse" on the hole because he broke the RULES, he didn't just have a bad hole. Cheating is worse than playing poorly.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Perfectly reasonable explanations from rules man and iacas .... I now see the light. Mefree, you satisfied also? Edit: sorry four putt, your explanation was good also!
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Perfectly reasonable explanations from rules man and iacas .... I now see the light.

Mefree, you satisfied also?

Edit: sorry four putt, your explanation was good also!

Reasonable explanations, yes, completely satisfied, no.

This one makes the most sense to me-

Originally Posted by iacas

Match play can affect the play of another player far more so than stroke play. If one player committed a penalty, and that caused another player to change his play on the hole, that would be unfair, particularly since the infraction may not be discovered immediately. Imagine two players, one is deep in the woods on a par five and the other is in the fairway. The one in the woods hits a miraculous shot to within feet of the hole, forcing the second player to go for the green to try to halve the hole. He dunks it in the water or flies it OB or something. Then he discovers the first player incurred a loss of hole penalty. He'd have probably played differently if he knew the player had incurred a stroke or two-stroke penalty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

A couple other reasons too.

3. Violating the rules is worse than stinking it up on a hole. You could argue that the leaf toucher did "worse" on the hole because he broke the RULES, he didn't just have a bad hole. Cheating is worse than playing poorly.

While I agree that cheating is worse than stinking up a hole, many rules violations that result in loss of hole can be unintentional.  You and I have different philosophies- I would rather hit quality golf shots and inadvertently touch a leaf than hit multiple bad shots on a hole.  Overall, I think the rules of golf are more penal than they need to be with too much emphasis being placed on following the rules rather than playing well.  Imagine if in football, you immediately lost possession of the ball for an offensive penalty or immediately awarded points to the offense for a defensive penalty.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

While I agree that cheating is worse than stinking up a hole, many rules violations that result in loss of hole can be unintentional.  You and I have different philosophies- I would rather hit quality golf shots and inadvertently touch a leaf than hit multiple bad shots on a hole.  Overall, I think the rules of golf are more penal than they need to be with too much emphasis being placed on following the rules rather than playing well.  Imagine if in football, you immediately lost possession of the ball for an offensive penalty or immediately awarded points to the offense for a defensive penalty.

Other than Iacas`s first point, I disagree with those that say match play would be fundamentally changed if all penalties were stroke based instead of loss of hole.  Most of these penalties rarely come up so most holes would not be affected.  As Fourputt noted, the 2 stroke penalty was added to the initial rules of golf (which were 1 page long when first published).  When rules are added to but never simplified, you go from pages to books like we have seen with the Tax Code.  Given that we now play both match play and stroke play, I think it would be beneficial to modernize and simplify the rules so that infractions carried a single penalty for both stroke and match play.

You really didn't get the point of anything that was posted did you?  The 2 forms are supposed to be different.  There is a fundamental difference in the thinking that goes into each form.  While I agree that posting match scores for handicap purposes is a flawed policy, not doing so would be self defeating for someone who never played anything but matches.  In such a case the player could never establish or change his handicap.

Again, all I see with your idea is a dumbing down of the game.  For most of us it would diminish the challenge and the pleasure derived from the significant differentiation of the two formats.  I will never agree that the player who breaches a rule (and that doesn't have anything to do with cheating, as you seemed to assume - breaching doesn't mean that it was intentional) should prosper more in a match than the player who plays the hole within the rules.  The player who makes the effort to learn the rules and play by them deserves that added consideration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by MEfree

I knew that match play came first and agree that that was the way the game was originally meant to be played.  I also agree that golf can be more fun in a match play environment and that it can also speed up the pace of play.  However, match play as described by fourputt seems inconsistent with the current handicap system.  Yes, I know that you are suppose to record your most likely score, but there are certainly times when that will cause your handicap to be off from where it be for an identical player who always played stroke play.  i.e. suppose I am given 10 putts from inside 5 feet during a match...while my most likely score on each would have been what I was laying +1, it is likely that I would have missed at least one or two of these.

If you're honest with yourself and know that you're likely to miss a few, for handicap purposes you record your score as +1 on seven on eight or nine of the holes and +2 to account for the missed putts on one or two of them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Tufts again

Since few violations are of the deliberate sort, it is obvious that the word “penalty” is not used in the Rules in its sense of being punishment.

The word “adjustment” would be more appropriate and it is here that we arrive at the principle which applies to penalties. The penalty must not be less than the advantage which the player could derive from the particular Rule violation . In other words, whether the violation be inadvertent or deliberate, or whether it occurs as a result of play or be due to the accidental or purposeful act of the player, or whether it be brought about by failure to proceed in accordance with the Rules regardless of the circumstances, the penalty must always be of sufficient magnitude to discourage the player from seeking or receiving advantage under the Rules.

The purpose of the Rules is to insure that as far as possible everyone plays the same game. The penalties serve to police the chance that by taking advantage of an inadequately protected Rule players will play a game wholly different from golf. The penalties must be adequate to provide this protection for if they are too light it is conceivable that golf would become a game of negotiation, with the golfer deliberately accepting penalties in order to obtain some advantage. Thus the Rules themselves would provide the golfer with an inexpensive method of avoiding the results of a badly played shot. Under these conditions golf would lose all character and become a travesty. In order to maintain this principle, it must be admitted that at times the penalties appear to be unduly severe. It is impossible to provide a completely graduated scale of penalties, though the Rules do permit modifying the penalty of disqualification [Rule 33-7], and the penalty applied to each particular rule must be specific and adequate at least to match the maximum advantage which the player is likely to receive . The penalties cannot be expected, nor are they intended to exactly offset the advantage gained from the violation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

Imagine if in football, you immediately lost possession of the ball for an offensive penalty or immediately awarded points to the offense for a defensive penalty.

I don't know if I'd hold football up as an example of how rules should be implemented. Breaking the rules as much as possible without being called for a penalty is now an integral part of the game, and that is what is meant in the quote above about the game becoming a "travesty."

It seems to me that the key problem you have with this is a philosophical one, and given that, I don't know that there is an explanation that will satisfy you. The basic idea, as expressed several times above, is that you are expected to comply with every rule every time you play. In match play, if you don't follow the rules on a hole, then you lose the hole. It's that simple. (Well, almost that simple---there are the various 1-stroke penalties, but these tend not to be penalties for breaching the rules so much as for "buying" relief from a water hazard or unplayable lie.) I really don't see the argument that this is unfair.

In stroke play, there simply isn't a perfectly analogous penalty since you have to write down a total score at the end of the round. The powers that be have determined that 2 strokes is the best simulation of this. In the majority of cases (for reasonably skilled golfers), a 2 stroke penalty does mean loss of the hole, so it's similar in that sense. It's not so severe that it destroys your entire stroke play round, which would be too harsh. If pushed, I think it'd be easier to make the case for increasing the penalties in stroke play than for reducing it for match play, though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by iacas

If you're honest with yourself and know that you're likely to miss a few, for handicap purposes you record your score as +1 on seven on eight or nine of the holes and +2 to account for the missed putts on one or two of them.

That makes a lot of sense to me, but is that what the handicap manual says to do?  I thought your most likely score is done on a hole by hole basis (but would be pleased to hear that it could be done cumulatively for the round as you suggest).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MEfree

That makes a lot of sense to me, but is that what the handicap manual says to do?  I thought your most likely score is done on a hole by hole basis (but would be pleased to hear that it could be done cumulatively for the round as you suggest).


That's the same thing. If you're likely to miss one of them, you don't just keep giving yourself the putts if your odds of making them are 51% or higher. You do the right thing and say "I'd have missed that one" after you give yourself four or five of them.

But that's OT for this thread, so... moving on...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by iacas

That's the same thing. If you're likely to miss one of them, you don't just keep giving yourself the putts if your odds of making them are 51% or higher. You do the right thing and say "I'd have missed that one" after you give yourself four or five of them.

But that's OT for this thread, so... moving on...


I just go ahead and putt it for handicap purposes.  Whether I make it or not is irrelevant for the match, but I can still putt it for my posting score.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by turtleback

I just go ahead and putt it for handicap purposes.  Whether I make it or not is irrelevant for the match, but I can still putt it for my posting score.

That's good too. You're allowed to finish the hole (even if your opponent concedes on the tee).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by turtleback

I just go ahead and putt it for handicap purposes.  Whether I make it or not is irrelevant for the match, but I can still putt it for my posting score.

Err.... Its very relevant for the match, if you miss it, I'm not giving you the next one from that distance. Pick it up and walk away showing confidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

I just go ahead and putt it for handicap purposes.  Whether I make it or not is irrelevant for the match, but I can still putt it for my posting score.

Err.... Its very relevant for the match, if you miss it, I'm not giving you the next one from that distance. Pick it up and walk away showing confidence.

He's talking about a situation where the hole has already been conceded or he has already lost the hole and is just finishing out for the heck of it.  No doubt that he takes his normal time if he's still in the hole.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by Fourputt

He's talking about a situation where the hole has already been conceded or he has already lost the hole and is just finishing out for the heck of it.  No doubt that he takes his normal time if he's still in the hole.

I know, I still don't give my opponent the chance to see that I might not have made it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2016 TST Partners

    GAME Golf
    PING Golf
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • No Forearm Rotation - Biggest Swing Flaw?
      That's not my username. Which is why it didn't tag me. I disagree that "forearm rotation" (of any kind, really) is the "biggest swing flaw." I think there are many things I'd rank as bigger flaws than this. I don't find that I have to cover this a ton during my lessons. There are several things I cover more frequently. I would say that everyone has a different amount of what's "correct" for them. (And it's not actually perpendicular, and the amount that it's off from perpendicular depends as much on how high the lead arm is at the top of the backswing, which has nothing to do with forearm rotation or arm rotation of any kind, really.) I have no idea what that actually means. There's nothing "natural" about something being perpendicular. We're talking about the human body, after all, and to get it to be perpendicular it takes 90° of rotation! Also, as I said above, they're not actually perpendicular, and the degree by which they're off of perpendicular depends on how high the lead arm is, not any rotational amount. If your arm exactly matches your shoulder plane, they have a chance of being perpendicular, or very close, but few people swing at exactly on that plane. You've yet to define "natural motion," nor do you in this post. Weight transfer does little to disrupt the center of the golf swing (not that there is truly a point that is the center of the golf swing - I'm speaking somewhat colloquially). A weight transfer primarily involves the hips going forward during the downswing, not the point between the shoulders that sort of acts as a "hub" in the center of the swing arc. Again, the "center" is more of a smallish region and not actually a specific point, but… it generally stays in the same place in good players, so the weight transfer has little to do with it. In other words, robots can accurately reproduce the golf swing if they simply have a wrist, because the "center" of the golf swing is a pretty small region. But, I don't want to spend much time talking about this as I have no idea how it relates to your idea that there should be zero forearm rotation during the swing. I don't know what graph you're looking at. In the last one I posted, the right wrist starts at 54° pronated and supinates 83° to end up at 29° supinated. In case you were referring to another graph, though it had to be one with the right wrist shown (only one other graph), also shows the lead wrist as about 50° pronated going into about 16° supinated thought the backswing. I'm not sure you know how to read these graphs or where 0° truly exists. It's not got much to do with how your arms hang at your sides. The measurements are relative to the proximal segment. You've said a lot of things earlier, including "the forearms should rotate zero degrees" (paraphrased). And, again, the right wrist starts out 50° pronated, and supinates 66° (or more - it supinates 83° in the other graph) throughout the backswing. If you want to talk about the rotation, you can't just talk about the rotation after it passes a zero point. Imagine a golfer's wrist started at "80" and ended up at "0" (I don't care if it's supination or pronation for this particular question) - would you say that golfer didn't rotate his forearm because it was at 0 when you chose to take a measurement? Or would you say the golfer rotated it 80° throughout the backswing? The latter is the only answer that makes any sense. The golfer rotated it 80°. Not 0°. Not 20°. Please stop saying things as if they're fact. Who is to say 40° is "too flat"? Who is to say 5° is "too steep"? Maybe for that particular player they're appropriate. Plus, again, in the examples above we saw supination of 66° and 83°. We saw pronation of (in the same two graphs) of 50° (32° to -18°) and 66° (50° to -16°). The initial measurement has quite a bit to do with grip strength - how turned the hands are clockwise or counter-clockwise on the grip. It has quite a bit to do with the elbow location, too. The right wrist supinates during the backswing. It doesn't pronate. You made this mistake frequently. Again, it doesn't turn or rotate only 20°. More like 50, 66, 83°… The shoulder turn doesn't flatten appreciably with a longer club. Re: the fifth point… this is from another thread, but here's Tiger hitting a driver and a short iron. The line is across his lead arm, but his shoulder pitch is nearly the same at this point, as you can see. Both of the numbers read "42°." I imagine you'll find if you study good golfers that the shoulder plane does not change appreciably with different clubs. I'll stop here, except to ask a simple question about the video at the end… honestly because I haven't got a clue what you're saying the rest of the way. You seem to imply that Tiger and Sergio have bad full swings because they don't do whatever it is you're talking about. You implied, if I read it correctly, that Tiger won because of his short game and putting, and is injured because of his full swing. You implied, again if I read it correctly, that Sergio is has a poor full swing, and that his backswing sequencing is off… Yet… Tiger gained more strokes with his full swing (even driving) than he did with his short game and putting. Tiger's full swing has been a HUGE factor in why he's been so dominant, and why he wins as often as he does (or did). Look at that… he gained 1.64 strokes with his approach shots and less than half that with his short game and putting combined. That year was not an anomaly, either: Tiger dominated largely due to his ballstriking, not his short game and putting as you seem to want to contend. Here's another look: Sergio, too, btw is well regarded for his ball-striking. He's consistently been one of the top 20 golfers in the world for a long, long time now. He's currently 16th in the OWGR. Sergio is also pretty high up on the list of strokes gained for driving and approach shots (or tee-to-green). What does that video have to do with anything? It is curious, though, that the robot also rotates its mechanical "forearms" quite a bit in making its backswing.
    • My Swing (coop6)
      Best drills for me are piecing it together the way I want it but always hitting a ball.  I like to go to p2 correct, then Pivot to the top without any arm lift. I then get to p5 where I want it and hit the ball with a good MOrAD p8/8.5 position.    Then I'll do the same except pause at p4 then hit it from there exaggerating my changes. My issues is over flexing the rt arm and over hinging wrist. I'm trying to feel the rt elbow leading and moving faster than the shoulder.
    • My Swing (coop6)
      @coop6 Assuming you guys are working on the connection as you stated earlier, I'm curious to see how you fix it. I struggle with the connection when I'm having off days, and I can't find a good fix. The towel under arms is the original fix, but i structors don't like it, I don't like it, and even Dufner seems to have inconsistencies, though he uses it in his warm up routine. I saw that your drill was moving the arms first from the top to about hip level, and rehearsing this motion several times. I'm trying to find or think of other drills. If you find something you're willing to share and your instructor doesn't mind would love to try it myself.
    • Share a Fact from Your Job
      Moreover, why would a bank bother to provide mortgages at all if they are losing money on them?
    • PGA Tour Caddies file class-action suit against PGA Tour for use of likeness, bibs
      The tour doesn't fine the caddies in any way, they just fine the player because the player didn't follow the stipulated rules of the tournament. The player can fine the caddy because the player employs him, the PGA does nothing with the caddies besides provide the players with uniforms for them to wear.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Images

  • Today's Birthdays

  • Blog Entries