Ole_Tom_Morris

As a hypothesis to be tested by observation, I predict that when a golfer shows the "swing spring-back effect" it is related to tension in muscles antagonistic to the golf swing, that swing speed is lower (though the one swinging the club thinks he is swinging harder), that there is increased probability that the shot is suboptimal, and increased chance of that golfer suffering an injury.

Was play faster in the 1950s? From the USGA Journal, July, 1950, quote: "The pace and mode of lay by some golfers have now reached the state where they closely resemble civil engineers... One person who doesn't like the unfortunate slowness of today's golf is P.W. Furlong of Pomona, Cal., who has written the USGA as follows: '"It now takes me five hours to play a leisurely three hour round of golf !! "'If a few strokes were added to the scores of the professionals who take longer than three hours to complete any 18-hole competition, this deplorable situation would soon correct itself..." This and much more at http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1950s/1950/500719.pdf From AP golf writer Doug Ferguson May 11, 2013, via the Jacksonville Herald, quote: "If the players at the U.S. Open this week would read David Barrett’s book, “Miracle at Merion,” on Ben Hogan’s victory at 1950, they might laugh. "Or maybe cry. "Joe Dey, the USGA’s executive director at the time, is quoted in the book as saying, “The time has come when we simply must act if the game is not to be seriously injured.” "The size of the field for the 1948 U.S. Open at Riviera was 171 players. It was lowered to 162 players the following year at Medinah, but that didn’t seem to help. Dey lamented that the first group (threesomes) took 3 hours, 27 minutes to complete the opening round, while the last group took a whopping 4 hours, 16 minutes...." Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/sports/golf/2013-06-11/story/us-open-decades-later-golf-still-struggles-slow-play#ixzz2xeNb6AkJ From Golf Digest's Speed Bumps, 5/6/2013, quote: "Outcries over slow play started even before Bobby Jones' address-to-impact time was less than three seconds and Gene Sarazen was missin' 'em quick. The dawdling of Ben Hogan and Cary Middlecoff would show the unenforceability of Rule 6-7, which directs competitors to "play without undue delay." In 1950, after the final second-round threesome in the previous year's U.S. Open required four hours, 21 minutes to complete its play, USGA chief Joe Dey said: "The time has come to act if the game is not to be seriously injured." After television began presenting golf regularly in the 1960s, many criticized Jack Nicklaus' interminable time over the ball for setting a damaging example. A 1965 cover story in Golf Digest headlined "Crisis in American Golf," stated in its first sentence that "the game of golf is slowing to a sickening near stop." Lee Trevino, whose brisk style recalled Sarazen, loved zinging slowpokes with lines like, "Just once, I wish I could play behind myself.".... ' Read More http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/2013-05/gwar-golf-slow-play-jaime-diaz-0530#ixzz2xeLoR6Tj Is the contention that play was significantly faster generations ago merely an "old oaken bucket" delusion? Possibly to a degree. There is Speed Golf -- a neat sport btw that features few clubs and very fit competitors running the course to achieve the fewest strokes in the shortest time -- and there is golf. Golf tends to be leisurely. It can be leisurely to the point of irritation, but you don't want to speed it up too much because then golf loses its character. IMO. As a TV viewer I could not care less how long the players take, though I don't like to have coverage cut off and to be referred to the Golf Channel which I do not receive. I like to enjoy the green expanses and the rhythm of the swings. I am not at the edge of my seat to see who ultimately wins. Enjoy seeing somebody from the back of the pack winning, like Bowditch, otherwise I don't care what the scores are. If you are obsessed with scores, try basketball or baseball. Otherwise, let's just settle back for a pleasant afternoon. Do I play golf that way? No. Normally, no address ceremony, no waggles, just trot up to the ball and hit it. I really ought to take more time on putts. My mental model is Mich. Gov. George Romney, who, according to the Sat Evening Post back in the 60s, played 2-3 balls and ran between balls tugging on a pull cart. But really, who wants to run on a golf course?

Is there any correlation with "springing-back" with injuries? With the quality of the shot? With measured swing speed? I mean, talking about muscle physiology, this ought to have some significance.

The thread is about what some deem slow play at the professional level. Did you notice the tendency above turn it to slow play for everybody? My own thesis in the thread I started was that slow play on the PGA Tour is not the same as slow play for average golfers, because the conditions are not the same -- nobody in a pro tournament has to get home ASAP to an impatient spouse or dinner engagement, and if the players behind are held up a little, darn it, they don't have to be anywhere else either. To respond to IACAS' post: 1. Is it true that fans want to see PGA pros play faster? I totally disagree with this. Fans on the course are ticked pink for a tour player to pause for a longer period in their vicinity, pondering the next shot; fans would be happy for the pro to stop and eat a burger nearby. As for TV viewers, there are so many cuts from different places on the course that we are unaware of slow play unless we are told it is slow. And if the last grouping is way behind schedule, the network can show earlier play on the same hole. Fans do want to see the last of the tournament however. 2. Is play slower now than in the 1950s? Are there stats on this? Yardages at top courses are longer for sure, so on that basis, pro play may be longer. I suspect as well that the game is more scientific at the pro level, with much more info being kept in yardage books and statistics for players, and consulting this during the game can mean slow play. Amateurs? Are there stats on the average time an average golfer took on an average course in 1955 versus today? Seems to me that is likely anecdotal. 3. Yes, when it comes to baseball fans have complained about slow pitchers and the reluctance of umpires to call a balk. Has been so since the 1950s at least. I am champing at the bit for networks to cut off a football game because it runs over 3 hours. :) 4. In golf, the money comes from (a) television networks and (b) the golf equipment biz. If networks want faster play to fit the coverage into their predetermined time slots, then they have the clout. (Who pays Johnny Miller's salary?) But should we the public buy into the network's perceived needs and definitions of slow play? 5. As for being jerks, many golfers are jerks while playing, pros and amateurs. And jerkiness can be part of gamesmanship. Think of Trevino's distracting patter; didn't hurt him back when he was playing for a $100 bet and he didn't have $100. Think of the slowness of Bobby Locke [intentional or not, slow play can be tactical]. Think of cussing and temper tantrums [plenty of players at all levels have those]. And I suggest that even fast play can be a form of intimidation. Looking bored, lying down, looking at your watch, shaking your watch, right down to outright complaining about speed of play -- isn't that jerkiness too?

So it's related to swing speed?

Something's been bugging me for years. You know how some golfers -- Michelson is an example, at least sometimes -- will follow through after a full swing and instead of holding the follow-through position their arms will bounce back as though their muscles were made of rubber and resisting the follow-through? Always wondered about that. Is it good or bad? Is it related to the tension of opposing muscles?

There have always been slow players and fast players. People have different inner clocks. If a ton of money and a career is riding on a game, then everybody ought to be allowed to take their time, within limits, instead of -- for example -- being limited to 45 seconds to address and strike the ball. Slow play can be gamesmanship. Good example are baseball pitchers on the mound, who are not only psyching themselves up for a good pitch but psyching out the batter. Part of the game, man, get used to it. If I were playing with would-be Tigers, I'd look for any advantage I could get, right down to rattling them with bad jokes to pacing out the distance to the hole and waggling like a young Sergio. I wonder. How do our opinions on this correlate to our driving habits? Me, I drive slow, and if someone comes up close behind me acting impatiently, I drop back farther from the car in front. :)

Complaints about the pace of play at the Texas Open that finished yesterday: http://www.golfchannel.com/news/jason-sobel/pace-play-once-again-takes-center-stage-tour/?cid=Email_MondayNL_20140331 IMO, slow play on a pro tour is not the same animal as slow play for ordinary golfers, and should not be put in the same category as slow play on your local course. Why? At the Valero, these were pro golfers. They didn't have dinner dates or appointments to keep 4 hours after they tee'd off on the first hole. This was their day job,for which many of them were very well paid. And often leasing/owning their own airplanes, they don't even have to get to the airport on time to make a flight Sunday evening! The pressure about slow play on tour comes from the need to fit a golf tournament into the time the TV network allotted for it. I don't have a lot of sympathy for that. Do you? As for TV viewers, how often does a football game not end on time? Is there an upwelling of support for faster play on the football field? For pro baseball? Why should televised golf be any different? The need for faster play for ordinary golfers on ordinary courses comes down to (1) golf course economics and (2) the fact that amateur golfers (some!) have a life off the golf course and they need(or think they need) to get on with it. Not the same thing at all. Moe Norman was criticized for lying down out of boredom years ago and flak for that was one of the things that drove him off the PGA Tour.. Bowditch's example yesterday is heralded as a comment on the problems of slow play! Fair?

Right Edge, I can empathize in a couple of ways. First off, when you try to start a conversation about somebody else, it's not uncommon to find yourself attacked. Thick skin helps. Second, I find myself in a similar boat when it comes to hitting a driver. I actually got re-interested in golf about 10 years ago, and particularly in the sport of long drive. Not that I was any good at it. Few days ago I played a round after a long layoff. (Developed arthritis in my thumbs and hadn't picked up a club since last June or so.) Hitting balls on the range warming up, I couldn't hit a ball solidly with any club. Went to play and found my drives were the only good thing about my game. (Did end up on the green off the tee on a par 5, but it was the wrong green. Penalty! Hit a fade on a dogleg left and bounced the ball off a brick wall back into play, on in 2.) Not claiming 300 yds but most drives were well over 250. I topped a drive, to find it rolled 200+ yards down the center, not a problem. Generally on or just off the green in 2 on par 4s and 5s. Short wedge to the green on the last hole, 360 yards, then 6 putted. Typical. Back to tour golf. Really -- long drivers tend to have problems. John Daly in his prime would be all over the map, had to have a great short game to make up for erratic drives. Fred Funk, a short driver, was most accurate. Seems a trade off, doesn't it? But I think statistically, and on many courses, long but erratic drivers are better off than short but consistent ones. Depends on how erratic. Erratic for me is always fatal, erratic for Tiger or Phil is not. Erratic for Daly could be really erratic. In times long past George Bayer, a former football lineman, was the longest driver on tour. He was said to have felt pressured to keep his drives long to please the crowds and felt that hurt his game and kept him from scoring as low as he could have. Longer necessarily means worse misses when you miss. Tiger as was pointed out no longer leads the pack in driving distance. I don't think it from aging per se but because of swing changes, seeking more control, and concern for longevity. He could hit one 350 if he wanted to. He has had what seems like a lot of physical issues for a 38 year old.. Maybe we can debate whether his weight training has helped or hurt. Did you suffer from back spasms at 38? How many golfers have? Other hand, how many golfers have had the strength and physical capability of Tiger and used it on a golf course?

This thread seems mostly about the right elbow. Lately I've been worrying about the left one. You remember where in Five Lessons Hogan talks about pointing the elbows backward and inside of the elbows forward? That diagram where the arms are bound together in front with bands? Like probably most of us I tried that a little and then quit thinking about it. What difference does it make? Isn't it better to just relax the arms and take a natural elbow position as opposed to a stiff unnatural one? Lately I've come back to that part of Hogan's book. Here's why. Consider what is called a "strong grip." It is used as a "fix" for slicing because if one's clubface is open at the time of ball contact, a "stronger grip" can be a patch for that. Well, I think left elbow position can also be a reason why the clubface is open at contact. I also think that if one is careless with elbow position in taking a "strong grip," the clubface will be open at ball contact for that reason alone, that it promotes slicing the clubhead across the ball. A "strong grip" should not be taken when the left elbow points outward instead of back. That compounds the problem. There are two reasons why the left elbow tends to point out at address. (1) it enables a longer appearing backswing because the elbow can bend along the plane of the swing = a sort of "cheat move. (2) It seems more natural especially to those involved in athletics. To illustrate #2, think of how we do bench presses or ride a mountain bike, elbows outward. Or in boxing or MMA. Keeping our elbows outward in a sport reinforces the musculature for keeping elbows outward and makes a position that Hogan recommended all the harder and less natural. (The shoulder like the hip is very flexible. I'm talking about the position of the humerus and how it moves with regard to the rest of the shoulder complex.) My hypothesis is that when your left elbow points a bit outward, and especially when combined with a "strong grip," the result is a tendency to cut across the ball with an open clubface and to inhibit full release. Why? Because (1) it's harder to release through a left arm that is in an elbow out position, and (2) if the left elbow points somewhat outward, release takes the arms into a large radius on the follow through that creates a swing that looks like an ellipse and stresses the back. This is related to another hypothesis of mine that the "strong grip" restricts movement of the left forearm and inhibits release, that it is appropriate for those with weak forearms and to treat RSI. As I say this is a hypothesis for testing and not dogma. It's what I'm currently working on in my own swing. Critiques?

Sorry, IACAS. I reviewed your posts in that other thread and find you are correct; I misquoted you.

Tell you what I use for tar on the car, sharpie marker ink and so on. WD-40. Not so hot as a lubricant, but as a solvent or water repellant, A-1! BTW, those marks are good because they tell you where on the face you are making contact!

For me, what makes a hybrid a hybrid is bulge and roll versus a flat face. Hybrids have bulge and roll just like woods. I own a set of hollow irons, but because they have flat faces like irons, I call them irons. The complaint against blades is involved here too and muddies the discussion about 1-irons. To clarify the issue under debate, there are 1-iron blades, Muirfield 20ths for example, and then there are 1-iron cavity back irons, for example Armour 845c or Ping Eye. Cavity-back 1-irons are not as hard to hit.

Sponge with a plastic scouring pad on one side, retired from dish washing duty. Rough side for clubhead and grip, soft sponge side for shafts, all with a little Dawn or Ivory bar soap under a running faucet. My RTGs I just let rust. Rust is good. :) Many modern clubs though you would not want to use even a bronze brush or buffer on, such as the back of the club which can have aluminum or softer materials on it. The only ones like that I own are Cleveland TA5s, that have a sticker in the cavity that is prone to damage. I wouldn't use a brass wheel even on my old chromed clubs. Won't it dull the shine?

Saw a laminated wood driver (or "1+") at a thrift store and decided it was worth $2.01. Club head is marked only "Riley Aerologic R-W Sole." Shaft is a Riley G-26 made by Aldila and presumably graphite. Light club, nice feel to it, original grip still good, swings real well. Wood head has an unusual design, with part of the wood milled out in a "V" to form heel-toe weighting. Anybody heard of Riley clubs? Owned any? Looked the name up on the internet and it seems John Riley worked for Ping and then set up his own company. One of those design geniuses like Stan Thompson of Ginty, except that not much is available about his clubs. From the presumably graphite shaft and unusual design, was this club made in the 1990s? When were the last wooden-head clubs made?