Jump to content


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Blog Entries

  • Posts

    • So with it being the offseason still, I find myself reading and watching a lot of topics on the sport. Lately i came across Scott Fawcett and his strategy for teebox decisions. YouTube has a few videos of his but basically, for people who drive it over 270 pretty consistently, gameplanning should consider any trouble that is within a 70 yard dispersion. Now I already have gamegolf so i can see some dispersion patterns but I obviously dont tag the shots where I completely lose a ball so data is missing. I decided to go to a sim bay using a GCQuad and did a 15 shot driver test. In the end I averaged 268 off the tee in total distance. However off those 15 shots....3 were massive misses of 45, 52, and 60 yards offline. In real life at my home course and most trees courses I play those are lost balls with bad penalties applied. They would only be slightly salvageable at a course with adjacent fairways really. I would say when you look at my gamegolf rounds, the GCQuad result of 3/15 being lost/OB is accurate. So it made me start wondering as someone who has read LSW and Every Stroke Counts and understands advancing the ball far but safely.....how wide of dispersion is considered unusable for a driver? Until my swing improved would I be better off statistically going down to my 16* mini driver or just 21* hybrid? ( next time I do the simulator I was going to do dispersion tests for those)
    • While it may seem like a good idea, you can't just "factory reset" your swing. Better to just focus on a priority and make that better. Rather than trying to achieve a certain kind of swing, just improve on what you currently have.
    • OK -  let me make one final post on this as this horse is well and truly beaten. Just so that I'm fully clear on where you stand in the context of this particular discussion.  Please indulge me. 1. What they DID matters. 2. Why we THINK they did it doesn't matter. 3. Your (and my) opinion of what they did or why they did it is irrelevant 4. The only relevant discussion is the penalty for the infringement. 5. A person's opinion of the character any of the people under discussion has nothing to do with the thread. 6. Anything beyond that is essentially moot. Is that a fair summation?  
    • Not true. Then the conversation ends there, as one cannot suspend a player based on what you think they were thinking.
    • The video evidence is conclusive, I believe, but I understand the semantics of the notion of "proof". I get that. Yep  - I am assuming intent and I fully believe that they intended to cheat. I could not prove it in court and my prejudice may mean that they would have a field day with me in court. I don;t want to be  Suffice to say that it is obvious to many that they both deliberately and blatantly cheated - but you cannot prove intent because you can't prove what someone thought. I am not going to assume that you are playing the devil's advocate or simply  trying not to prove something unprovable or making a philosophical point - I get that you are basically coming down on the side of what can or cannot be reasonably assumed. And that is more than reasonable. I am happy to be o the side of Peter Kostis, Brooks Koepka, Cam Smith and presumably many others. And yes.....I get that your critique of my position applies equally to them. And that is perfectly fair.      
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Catcher20
      Catcher20
      (30 years old)
    2. JD15
      JD15
      (55 years old)
    3. Stixman
      Stixman
      (75 years old)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...