flanagan

Maybe they're just a degree out of whack from playing and need to be flatter just to get back to where they were. Anyway, you know what's best for your game.

Good get.

Given that most of the shots are live, do you feel the guys in the truck are Kreskin-like in their ability to know who is not going to hit a shot that will require them to cover it up? Most taped shots are good shots, for obvious reasons, but that's not always the case. You think at the Masters when Phil misses a two footer (or at this year's U.S. Open), they aren't showing that, of course they are. Johnny Miller hasn't been villified over the years for commenting on good shots. The networks aren't there to put out a "bloopers" reel at every tournament, but bad shots that play into the outcome are shown. Nobody is covering anything up.

This doesn't make sense. You don't necessarily "beat the game" by shooting under par. Course conditions change, your personal health and mental state change, "beating the game" (assuming that makes sense) might be shooting 6 over par on a given day, given certain conditions, for any given pro (you are using pros as examples). The premise is flawed.

The Golf Channel should have some more original, instructional programming. I like Breed and I believe he enjoys what he is doing and is good at it, but the format is too frantic and his use of toys a little too contrived at times. It's a good show for the type of show it is, I just would prefer a different type. A good, normal 1/2 hour on one phase of the game could be done in any number of ways and be a lot more effective, and I think draw an audience.

For heaven's sake, the networks will normally dwell on it, and give the announcers plenty of opportunities to take the really bad ones apart. The announcers continued to comment on it for the next few holes. Things were happening so quickly in the "race" for the top 30 that there weren't a lot of shots replayed that would normally be replayed. I actually enjoyed seeing a few more shots for a change and not endless replays. No basis for crying "conspiracy" on that one.

He had to know he was on the bubble, I can't imagine, as quickly as the landscape was changing and how close everything was that he knew exactly where he stood, which is why the casual third putt shocked me. After the Masters, then injury and working back for this and now the end he had, he's got a lot to come back from again, in my opinion. It will be interesting because he seems to take his failures pretty hard.

Send him a Fed Ex this week, that should clinch it!

It depends on where your head is when you start. I don't have my head completely behind the ball with my wedges, but I don't move it forward when I swing with them. As for the range thing, if it's all going wrong, what I do is work on wedges and getting alignment right, solid contact and a good tempo, taking a divot, releasing, etc. Sometimes, even a good 1/2 hour of chipping, followed by some 40 or 50 yard pitches (half swings). I may not even hit a seven iron until after doing the same routine the next time out, seems to settle things down for me. I know if I'm going out to play and have no time to really hit balls, I'll chip and pitch a bit. Works wonders.

Nicklaus played like that, but in most of the reading I've done, I haven't found it to be the most common theory in terms of ball position. Like many others I subscribe to the ball moving progressively back for shorter clubs, but I don't know if there's even a total of 2 balls' difference between my driver and my wedge. I don't go beyond the middle of my stance, though, for normal shots.

1. You don't trust her; 2. You like her (you don't love her); 3. You don't trust her. No trust means there's a good reason for not trusting her which means you should not be together and it's on her, or it means you have no good reason for not trusting her which means you should not be together and it's on you. Neither Phil nor Oprah could save a relationship where there is no love and no trust. Move on, you'll be happier in the long run, and that's the best advice you will ever get from a total stranger.

If you buy into Pelz's ideas, the wedges should have a more flexible shaft for feeling the clubhead. I can't tell you whether this will work for you. I would generally suggest shafts in your wedges consistent with what you play in your other clubs. I'd be nervous about going stiffer, but it comes down to how YOU swing the golf club (not just how fast, but how).

Not claiming to know or have personal experience that would allow me to have faith in their science, just reporting what the USGA's official stated reasons were at the time. The primary reason given was poor compliance with the old ESC system (i.e., ordinary golfers weren't using it correctly), so the new system was made easier. A secondary consideration only was that the old system was not as equitable to individuals with handicaps in excess of 35 . Based on the USGA's publicly stated reasons, I prefer the other system.

That is not why the USGA changed it. It was changed (1) to make it easier to use, and (2) because the old ESC was felt to be unfair to golfers of VERY high handicaps. Par is the benchmark, and saying you can max out with an 8 on a par 5 or an 8 on a par 3 and those are considered equally eligible scores, is not "equitable". Interesting that in defending the change the USGA would also disagree with the orginal poster. In responding to criticism that the new system would allow large numbers on par 3s, the USGA indicated if golfers were making those big of numbers on par 3s, those rounds would likely not be counted anyway (which, interestingly, also is an argument against the change in the ESC system).

So true, don't forget to release.