BaconNEggs

1-2. I try to get to the course early particularly as I want to be able to warm up, putt, hit balls if there’s a range, etc. Sometimes stuff happens though and it just doesn’t work out. I have only shown up late once (I got in a car accident) and met up with the group a few holes in. I only talk to other players’ shots if it actually looks close... it annoys the heck out of me when I mishit a shot that clearly isn’t going to get there and someone is behind me yelling “get up!”

I can't speak to enhancing performance or optimizing workouts for golf longevity, but it's an interesting topic. My guess is that things that are aimed at improving practical strength/functioning are likely to be best for protecting against injury and improving performance. The first thing that comes to mind is bodyweight training (calisthenics), as to me this represents the most basic functional fitness. Also something focused on improving flexibility (e.g. yoga) would seem to be helpful. That's obviously very general. Depending on a person's goals and individual characteristics, some things might help more than others.

Yup. I didn't realize how strong they were getting until someone pointed out some of the newer Ping and TaylorMade sets, and I was shocked at the lofts. On another golf forum, I was seeing people say they were hitting 5-irons 200-210 yards, consistently, and relatively easily, but only hitting 250 yard drives. It made no sense to me as I look at swing charts and figure a 210 yard 5-iron carry should put you at like 280+ driver carry. TM M4s have 21.5* 5-irons. My 3-iron, from 2013 (Nike), is 21*. So it actually makes sense... their irons are basically 2 clubs strong.

I have a 52, 56, and 60 degree wedge. With the 60, I might hit a full shot a few times a year, in a pretty specific situation. Otherwise it's mostly just for short game. With the 56, my go-to range is 70-90 yards out, with the 90 yard being about 3/4 swing. Similar to the 60, there is a specific situation where I'll take a full go at it. With the 52, my go-to range is 90-115 yards out, with the 115 being close to a full swing.

Anecdotally I agree... as someone who has always struggled with trying to gain weight, one of the best things I've done is started to drink a protein shake in the morning. It's about 700 calories, and it immediately fills me up, but by lunch time I'm super hungry and have a large appetite. The less I eat for breakfast, the less hungry I am at lunch. Counter-intuitive.

I played on Monday with my dad, older brother, and cousin at a 6200 yard course (from the whites). It's a pretty basic, straight forward course without many elevation changes. We teed off at 7:15 and were the first group out. We had carts and played in about 4:15. After the round, my brother and dad were talking about how we played pretty fast, and while I would normally be pleased with a 4:15 round on a typical weekend here, given that there was nobody ahead of us, it just felt a lot slower than that. The total lack of ready golf was the most frustrating part, even if it only added 10 or 15 minutes to our playing time. Watching my brother sit in his golf cart next to his ball while my dad searched for his lost ball, only to then start his routine once my dad found his ball and hit... drove me absolutely nuts. There was no reason we couldn't have finished in 3:45 or even 3:30. I'm not trying to rush, but I am there to play golf. Plan your shot, hit your shot, move on. That is golf. Everything else, whether it's yakking it up with your buddies, appreciating nature, whatever-- it should be done within the confines of playing golf first and foremost. If those things are distracting you from playing golf, and in turn that is preventing or slowing other people from playing golf, then you are a problem.

Not a fan of these analogies unless the instructor is working with someone to get them to do something very specific, and that person understands the analogy and the analogy helps them accomplish whatever that thing is. For general online instruction, I think they can cause more harm then good. I think of Shawn Clement immediately in particular for these analogies (although I do like him). In this case, I believe that "driving the spike" is supposed to represent a spike that is nailed in horizontally into an object (near the ground) like an upright wooden post, and you are taking something like a sledge hammer and driving the spike into it by staying behind it and coming in at a relatively flat attack angle-- otherwise, if you came into the spike at a steeper angle, you'd mishit the spike. "Chopping wood" represents a motion more akin to throwing your arms and shoulders over the top in more of a casting action. At least, that's my understanding of that particular analogy. I very much doubt an 11 year old would get either of those, though.

Man, I LOVED the Concept2 when I used to have it. I'd row 3 times a week at high intensity (sprints, HIIT style) and once a week I would do low intensity distance. If he's not familiar with rowing, though, it's important to understand the proper motion, as I see a lot of people trying to use mostly their arms and shoulders instead of engaging their full body. When done right, it's the best full body exercise around imo.

I'm so confused. "i recently trimmed my driver to 39” (was 42) and i’m hitting absolute bombs. My average drive now is about 190-220." - June 30 "I went to the range and used my trimmed driver for the first time today and hit 250-280 consistently. My farthest carried almost 300." - June 30 "with that short of a driver my max may have been 210-220. I currently swing a 44 and love it. I just dedicated myself to squaring it up. I hit my longest drive today on the course at 315 (we used a range finder)." - July 19 So you switched your driver from 42 to 39 and were hitting "absolute bombs" (June 30), averaging about 190-220... and then the very same day, you posted that you hit your trimmed driver for the first time 250-280 consistently... and then a few weeks later, you reference how with a short driver your max was only 210-220 (the one you just said you were hitting 250-280...), and now you're swinging a driver 5 inches longer and are hitting it 300+. Either you're lying, or you really need to learn how to write better, because this is totally incoherent and makes no sense. From start to finish, you went from 42 inches to 39 to 44, and apparently went from ~220 to ~270 to ~300. It just... it doesn't pass the internet sniff test. Sorry mate.

Babe Ruth is an icon and no doubt an all-time great. But relevant to this discussion, he played in the pre-integration era. The league was 99.9% white. The MLB is now closer to 55% white. There was a massive talent pool excluded from the game. There's a good chart of the fastest mile run times by year, that very clearly slopes down over time, and I suspect it's fairly indicative of overall skill levels of athletes in general over time (inverse). Everything about athletics has gotten better: nutrition, equipment, knowledge, etc.. Add to that deeper talent pools and voila. I'm always going to be skeptical if someone says the best person at a particular physical activity lived 100 years ago. Seems like misguided nostalgia, or a desire for some mythical hero who was just that special, that even with 100 years of athletic progress, he's still the best. It's just not likely.

Probably the top 4... if I had to go with one, soft. Toe/heel or a little thin never feel soft.

What's the margin of error here between their two accounts of the ball flight, anyone know? Like, are they 5 yards off but that 5 yards is the difference between crossing the hazard and not (or whatever the exact situation was)? I know Dahmen said something along the lines of there was no way it crossed back, but that's... well, tbh, pretty meaningless to me. People say things like that all the time and turn out to be wrong. I'm skeptical of any eyewitnesses here, particularly those who are coming out of the woodwork now to state definitively that they know XYZ happened. Even more so now that the accusation of him cheating is out there, which can definitely influence one's perception and recreation of the event in their memory. I have a hard time discerning how big of a difference the accounts of the ball flight were. Kang had the best angle on his shot. Even being a few yards off can give you a distorted perception of ball flight. Kang seemed pretty convinced of his flight. The people who had less than ideal views of his ball also seem pretty convinced. Without being there, I don't know that I'd take their word for it just because, particularly when we're talking about projecting ball flights. And I'm very hesitant to insist that he deliberately cheated. I think the whole thing will be a relative non-issue in a few days. Kang might have cheated, Dahmen came off as a DB, both players are nobodies.

Not cunning like a fox, since as discussed, he could’ve just let the ball stop, and replace it at the original spot and take a one stroke penalty. He didn’t understand the rules (and in doing what he did he took arguably the WORST option available to him), he breached basic etiquette, and then he lied about it after the fact. @The Hook Meister I don’t think people are nearly as upset about what he did as they are about his bullshit excuses and lies after the fact. Had he owned up to frustration and said he let his emotions get the best of him and he’ll take whatever penalty the USGA gives to him, I don’t think we’d be here at all.

After the first time I heard Phil talk about the million variables he thinks about when hitting a shot (angle of the sun, high tide / low tide, air quality, etc etc) I thought he was a bit of a blowhard. His very after the fact explanation for why he did what he did yesterday just added to my opinion. Great golfer, seems like kind of an a-hole.