• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,125 Legend of the Game

About iacas

  • Rank
    5SK® Director of Instructor Development • Co-Author, LSW
  • Birthday 03/23/1978

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Erie, PA

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness
  • GAME Golf Username

Recent Profile Visitors

15,901 profile views
  1. My Swing (nevets88)

    The original post is fine. My quote is unchanged, so that link is still invalid.
  2. Memorial Day 2016

  3. Presidential Race 2016

    I don't have a take. I'll post it there too.
  4. My Swing (PumaAttack)

    I'm really not a big fan of people lying, particularly about me. I'm honest, direct, forthright, blunt… whatever you want to say. But I am not a liar, and I do not suffer lies gladly. Tony's last post contained several lies, and while I'll send him a PM outlining these, to continue to point them out here in this thread serves no useful purpose. This line of discussion is adding nothing positive to the community. Tony is dead set, seemingly, in playing the victim role when @mvmac, myself, and others took time to volunteer free help. We've learned our lesson, and will not help Tony in the future. P.S. Tony was given a warning yesterday by Mike, and today by me, so if he doesn't reply for a day or two, he's unable to. Nor, though, is he allowed - this matter is closed.
  5. Added! Congrats!
  6. Standing on Tee Marker for Aiding a Swing

    Would anyone here saying there's no penalty say the same if a player wanted to sit in a chair to play his tee shot? What if the chair was already there and the player didn't move it? What if they did move it?
  7. There is no attitude. It's all something you're reading in to the text that's not there. Stick to the topic and defend your positions and we'll do just fine. I'm also, on a few topics, fairly well informed and fairly well educated. So I have a strong sense of what the facts may be. I tend to avoid or dislike uninformed speculation. Let's avoid hyperbole. I agreed with @natureboy's assessment of about 67, and it matched up with what Dave told me in our discussion. It matched up too with what I've seen from PGA Tour and Web.com guys playing random courses as well as guys trying to Monday qualify (which is not done on the tournament course, just a nearby course). It's also one data point, so if it's okay with you, I'm giving it the weight of one more data point. He shot 68 twice, but he averaged 69.25. Did he win? Finish in the top half? It's clearly also not a course he was seeing for the first time. What was the course rating? Look, guys, going from an 18 handicap to a 9 is significantly easier than going from a 9 to a 0. But that level keeps increasing: going from a 0 to a +1 is tougher than going from a 1 to a 0, and right on down the line. It's not linear, and so while I appreciate how darn good PGA Tour players are, at the end of the day, the limiting factor is still that the hole is really small, and if you give anyone a 360-yard hole, they're probably going to make a 4. Not 18 of them, but the average will be 4. 360 yards = 6480, and if a PGA Tour pro scores 3.92, that's only a score of 70.56. Now, that's on a PGA Tour setup, which often has a course rating of about 75 or 76… but you have to balance that against a few things: That 75 or 76 CR is not based on a course playing only 6480 yards. That 75 or 76 CR is based on thicker rough, faster greens, etc. But also on better conditions: consistent bunkers and fairways and greens, decent lies around the greens, etc. If you think those two things balance out, you again conclude that a PGA Tour player shoots about 4 or 5 below the course rating. What few people are publishing here are their course's course ratings. I've played three courses in the last few days, and each has a course rating above 73, despite not being super long. (One will actually host the Web.com tour in July). Oh, that course, btw… the low score each day would be around 66, typically. The average would be 70 or so. And they weren't seen the course for the first time. Yes, come at the discussion with facts. Don't come at me with stuff like: I can - and usually will unless someone else beats me to it - turn to statistics on things like that. Conventional wisdom is dumb. And look, I have a shit ton of respect for PGA Tour players. But at the end of the day, Golf is Hard® because the hole is still tiny. Imagine an 1800-yard course with 18 100-yard holes, but you start everyone by pretending they're hitting their second shot so par is still 72. They'd have to average 2.5 shots - or 3.5 with the added stroke (well below what they'd actually average) to shoot even a 63. (According to Broadie they take about 2.8 strokes from the fairway from 100 yards). (2.8 + 1) * 18 = 68.4. (But that's with holes measuring, on average, about 385 yards or so = 6900 yards.) Nothing's coming up that presents a case for a mid-level PGA Tour pro shooting 63 (or 59) on a course from the back tees seeing it for the first time. The only arguments that I can see with some validity for lowering the number below about 67 are: Psychological pressure. All the stats are from tournament rounds, of course, so maybe guys playing for nothing do better? I have a few reasons why I don't think this one applies very much, but it's not really a "knowable" or "measurable" thing, so maybe? Course conditions. Maybe it's not really a wash. Maybe most public courses - or at least the one many people are picturing in their minds - are soft and maybe this accounts for more "good" scoring than I can attribute. Again, I doubt it - I think for every partial stroke saved by a soft green, they lose a partial shot with some other weird condition somewhere. That's it. Now, I didn't give it much thought, so maybe there's more, but PGA Tour players are good, but they're not otherworldly. Yes, they can birdie a 380-yard hole fairly often. (Consider the second hole at Colonial. It's 387 yards and relatively open. The average on the hole right now is 3.817. Played 18 times, that's a score of ~68.7). Indeed. Anecdotal evidence has its place, but it is just what you said: one data point. It pales in comparison to the thousands of data points. Here's one nobody's really mentioned yet: the average PGA Tour player is about a +4 to +5. This has remained relatively steady for the past decade (I'm sure it's likely dropped a little, but about or less than a tenth of a stroke). Remember, too, that these are their best 10 out of 20 scores, and they're on courses they've seen before. That too backs up the idea of players shooting about 4 or 5 below the course rating (slope actually works "for" these players: a +4 index might get 5 strokes because the slope is 137 or something). Yeah. It's not like there were six shots a round separating Nick at the time from an average PGA Tour player.
  8. Reading Greens

    A yard stick is too big. There's a reason the Husky 9" digital level works well.
  9. I wouldn't, and it's this kind of random unverifiable side road that you tend to travel without anything more than speculation. Let's not do that here. Like that. Nobody said they'd be any closer. A 360-yard hole is still going to be a 360-yard hole. They may actually play longer if the course is not as firm as a PGA Tour level course. Too much speculation with no way to verify anything. Moving on… I don't agree, nor does my experience working with players on SAM. Generally speaking shorter strokes are better: they deliver the face at a better angle and more consistent speed at impact. So if you have a 15-footer on a faster green, you'll generally put a better stroke on the same 15-footer on a slower green. (I am not saying that players should strive to have "short" strokes.)
  10. No, because smooth and fast tend to go together. Unless you're talking about an artificial surface, slower greens tend to be bumpier greens. And… faster greens (even if you could control "bumpiness" independently) require smaller strokes, so they would also logically result in slightly better putting stats. Plus the other stuff you said.
  11. A PGA Tour player's game is optimized to do well on the kinds of courses they play, where conditions are fairly uniform from hole to hole and week to week. Their proximity would not change significantly playing on different greens - it may even suffer slightly if they couldn't adjust well, or if some greens released while others plugged and sucked back. Additionally, as noted, bumpy greens decrease make percentages, so even if they were a foot closer, they might actually take the same or more putts. Same answer as above. Proximity might even suffer due to poorer conditions, failure to adjust, differing conditions hole to hole, etc. I'm not going to guess, and it's off topic anyway. I was just quickly pointing out that scratch doesn't mean they average the course rating. They don't. Only in their 10 best rounds. Of course. But most of a course rating is still the distance. If it's wide open with no rough, no trees, and huge greens, it'll be lower, but not a lot. 67, 66.7, something like that, yeah. But not 61. Not 59. Not 63 very often, either. Studies have shown this to be the case. Players of all ability levels, given time to adjust, putt better on faster, smoother greens than slower (and ostensibly bumpier) greens.
  12. My Swing (Jeremie Boop)

    If you need me to elaborate let me know, but… The hand path looks better. You have to do the hand path and the speed boat feel (which also means you can start down slower and keep speeding up, rather than slowing down prematurely). There's only so much you can do with where the shaft and sweet spot are going. As I've mentioned before.
  13. My Swing (PumaAttack)

    Yeah. Cuz that's what happened.