Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
walk18

Wi lays the smack down!

Note: This thread is 3619 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

103 posts / 6571 viewsLast Reply

Recommended Posts

It seems to me like Sean Foley is actually getting most of the attention. Mike and Andy are actually getting kind of the short end of the stick. But like you said, certainly more attention that before.

I have heard the words "Stack and Tilt" more times in the past 3 weeks on the golf channel then the last 3 years. I have seen online golf articles specifically dicussing Stack and Tilt plus Mike and Andy all this this bruhaha went down.

like I said, any publicity is good publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would save the bold talk until Sunday afternoon. There's a lot of golf left to play and, by then, we could be talking about Charlie Wi, Dean Wilson and the "Stack and Collapse" . .you, know . .if that were to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said Mike Weir was one of the

Uh, past tense. That's the point I was making. WAS (or WERE), not IS (or ARE). And by the statistics he's quoting, they were bad or THE worst. Seriously, what are you arguing? Facts? Seems pointless to me.

Again, maybe he used the term "friend" very loosely, maybe he just means many of the guys on tour are his "pals" and its a "hi / bye" relationship, but whatever.

He didn't mean it that way. They're "friends" in the very real sense of the word.

Here's a comment from another person somewhere:
In response to a question, Wi supported his swing coach. He believes his friends, Mike & Aaron, would be doing better if they hadn't changed. He is likely to have debated it with them. This isn't news, it's opinion. More candid than critical.

Yup. Only thing I'd have changed in that is that it's an opinion based on facts. The proof is in the pudding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Uh, past tense. That's the point I was making. WAS (or WERE), not IS (or ARE). And by the statistics he's quoting, they were bad or THE worst. Seriously, what are you arguing? Facts? Seems pointless to me.

So when he said they were the "WORST" he is referring to pre-S&T;?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when he said they were the "WORST" he is referring to pre-S&T;?

In the words of Alicia Silverstone in

Clueless (or if not her, almost anyone during that time frame): "Like, duh." They WERE bad ballstrikers, and while working with Mike and Andy they improved not only that but their world rankings, won more money and tournaments, and got laid more often. Okay, maybe not the last part, but the rest is pretty easy to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Jamo's put his finger on it, as usual. This story is really about Foley. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the S&T; pattern knows that he basically teaches the method while (sensibly) staying very far away from the name. So when Tiger went to him, it was assumed in the S&T; camp (fairly reasonably, I think) that they might start to enjoy a little more respect from the golf mainstream, especially if Tiger subsequently gets his game back together and resumes winning ways.

Then Foley apparently decides that he's going to take all the credit for himself. Or at least 95% of it. And has the gall to try and excuse his blatant duplicity by (falsely) claiming Plummer and Bennett ripped off Mac O'Grady in exactly the same way, so it's all good. To guys like Charlie (and Erik), who know how much time P&B; actually spent helping Foley develop "his" system, that must have been just a total kick in the nuts. Is anyone seriously surprised that Charlie wanted to try and set the record straight when given the opportunity to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Jamo's put his finger on it, as usual. This story is really about Foley. Anyone with more than a passing interest in the S&T; pattern knows that he basically teaches the method while (sensibly) staying very far away from the name. So when Tiger went to him, it was assumed in the S&T; camp (fairly reasonably, I think) that they might start to enjoy a little more respect from the golf mainstream, especially if Tiger subsequently gets his game back together and resumes winning ways.

QFT.

Seriously, the thread could end here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ryan Ballengee wrote some crap and since their website stupidly makes you wait 24 hours to post, my response goes here instead.

I feel like I'm responding in much the same way as Charlie Wi - someone says something that's full of lies, mistruths, assumptions, and is just crap, and I feel the need to set the record straight.


Source: My "Comment"
What drivel.

"The merits of the swing aren't my debate. It's how Plummer and Bennett have handled themselves." The only thing they've actually done that you mention in your article is putting stats on their website showing how the players they instructed improved under their tutelage. Wow, that's evil. What dirty bastards, being proud of their work and the play of their players! Jerks!

Ryan, did you do any research when writing this article? Or are you just trolling for hits?

You start by saying the swing has "disappeared" from the PGA Tour. Why do Plummer and Bennett teach more PGA Tour pros than any other instructor(s) out there? Why are they on the road 40+ weeks per year with their players? Why do other players working with other instructors routinely ask their opinions or thoughts on thigns? Why did the players rank them T3 in a recent Golf Digest survey ranking top instructors? The facts don't align with your statements.

Did you email Bill Pennington to ask who "orchestrated" the article? No, I presume not, but that doesn't stop you from making an assumption and then using that assumption to badmouth two pretty nice guys. It was a fairly written article, so it must have been "orchestrated" by Bennett and Plummer? Nice try, Ryan.

You ask "What legitimate golf swing has its own site?" Hank Haney has one. Butch Harmon too. David Leadbetter, yep. Brian Mogg, yep. Brian Manzella does too. The Stack and Tilt website is simply Mike and Andy's site - as well as a site which promotes other instructors - just as Hank, Butch, David, Brian(s), and others have sites.

"It was an ignorant pitch at best," you say. If factual performance charts are ignorant, I'm curious how you'd describe your own article. Weir was not hampered by injuries in 2009 and he wasn't in early 2010. He also wasn't injured in 2004 or 2005, either. You're attributing "ignorance" and malice to a factual performance chart. Golf geeks produce them - mentally or in bits or physically - all the time. We look at GIR stats, putting stats, driving accuracy or distance stats... Telecasts tout a player's rise and fall. But to you this equates to "throwing someone under the bus"? They're "desperate to hang onto whatever traction" they've gained? Because of a chart which shows that players tend to improve when working with them?

"Plummer and Bennett complain that Foley - among other teachers - rip off portions of their method." Ryan, where have they done this that you've seen? Really, where? And instead of saying that they "complain" perhaps you could have looked into the story to see if these "complaints" had any legitimacy? No... that might require some work on your end. Much easier to just sit there and make things up, isn't it?

"It's that kind of shot across the bow, emblematic of the brash arrogance of Plummer and Bennett,"

So what Charlie Wi says - when asked the question - in reference to the asinine comments of Sean Foley is "emblematic" of brash arrogance by two completely different people? You seem unaware that nobody who actually knows Bennett or Plummer would ever describe them as either brash OR arrogant, right?

I should have stopped reading at "cult members." Pure drivel, Ryan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Ryan Ballengee wrote some

Well written response. Hopefully you'll be posting it on that site once the waiting period is over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit confused, and maybe to guys like Eric this will seem like a stupid question, so I apologize in advance. My understanding is;

1) S&T; is not a new concept, it is a pattern derived from practices and teachings of many past golfers such as Hogan, Nicklaus, and Snead to name a few.
2) In order to utilize S&T; you don't have to incorporate all of the elements of the pattern, just the ones you want to.

If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't? If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;? It seems S&T; has created quite a bit of controversy as I'm reading a book by Jim McLean (The Eight-Step swing) and while he doesn't explictly call out S&T;, he references "fad" methods throughout the book and seems quite annoyed they get any attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't? If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;?

Most golfers work on parts of S&T;, but that does not mean they are working with the S&T; style. S&T; is a swing philosophy based on the best players in the world, and to make the swing easier. Most PGA players got some parts of what S&T; prescribe in their swing. Who is working on S&T; moves? Considering most guys work on some part of it, that is difficult to say. Those working on those parts as S&T;, taught from the philosophy of B&P;, I would say work on S&T.; Everyone else don't work on S&T; as a swing style, but they still work on parts of S&T.;

If S&T; didn't involve the "stay on your left side", I wonder how it would have been recieved. As far as I've read from people commenting on S&T; negatively, most are mentioning the weight shift. Nobody is "forever S&T;", Baddeley and Weir are proof of that. You can change your swing to get as far away from S&T; as possible, but you'd have to swing a combination of Ryan Moore, Paul Casey and Jim Furyk to do it, not something I would recommend. Is Tiger forever "Butch" because he worked with him? No. More than anything, S&T; explains things very well, better than most I would say. So, trying to fix stuff in your swing will be easier. For the highly gifted PGA players, managing their mistakes is a big part of being one of the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Well written response. Hopefully you'll be posting it on that site once the waiting period is over?

I doubt it. By tomorrow I'll have other things to do. Ryan's never written an article that I've seen that's been well done. I think ignoring him is likely a better response than "participating."

1) S&T; is not a new concept, it is a pattern derived from practices and teachings of many past golfers such as Hogan, Nicklaus, and Snead to name a few.

It's based on what they DID, not their "practices and teachings." They all swung the club fairly differently, but they had pieces in common, as all great players do. Mike and Andy categorized these and put them into a pattern of compatible pieces. For example, Nicklaus didn't have deep hands at the top of his backswing, but most players did, so they threw out that part of Nicklaus's swing... and so on down the line, basically.

A golf swing pattern is like a piece of music (with lots of room for drum solos and personal "flair"). The notes are the same for all the great players - Mike and Andy just noticed that a lot of the great players tended to play the same chords or something. It's a terrible analogy but I think you know what I mean.
2) In order to utilize S&T; you don't have to incorporate all of the elements of the pattern, just the ones you want to.

Just the ones you NEED (which might be different than "want"

).
If my understanding is correct then how do you categorize a golfer as a S&T; golfer and one that isn't?

I don't try to. The only real definition that makes any sense is "someone who is working with an S&T; instructor." I mean, Tiger Woods and every other PGA Tour golfer already do the majority of the things from the pattern, but are they all S&T;? Not by a long stretch. And very, very, very, very, very few "S&T; golfers" do every piece of the pattern. I, for example, don't brake the finish quite yet, but I consider myself an S&T; golfer.

So on the PGA Tour, an S&T; golfer is one who is working with Mike and Andy. On our level, it's one who is trying to apply the principles - in whatever amount - from the pattern. But really, I don't see much point in categorizing people that way.
If they worked with Plummer and Bennett does that mean they are forever S&T;? It seems S&T; has created quite a bit of controversy as I'm reading a book by Jim McLean (The Eight-Step swing) and while he doesn't explictly call out S&T;, he references "fad" methods throughout the book and seems quite annoyed they get any attention.

S&T; isn't a fad. It's not Natural Golf or some of those other goofy things that have come along. A fad is something like "The No Backswing Golf Swing" (that was a year or two ago, right?). S&T; is based on tradition. It's about as anti-faddy (heh) as it gets.

If S&T; didn't involve the "stay on your left side", I wonder how it would have been recieved. As far as I've read from people commenting on S&T; negatively, most are mentioning the weight shift.

I'd put the "tilt left" part above the weight left part. Most people who haven't done much research into the pattern think that you're supposed to actually tilt towards the target at the top of your backswing.

More than anything, S&T; explains things very well, better than most I would say. So, trying to fix stuff in your swing will be easier. For the highly gifted PGA players, managing their mistakes is a big part of being one of the best.

That's what I like about S&T; - that everything is measured. Dan Carraher describes S&T; as simply "a means of measurement." I'd call it a pattern for hitting a golf ball with a near-optimum combination of control and power with fairly wide ranges that can accept lots of room for personality.

It's a one-plane swing, so I tend not to like two-plane swings personally, but if a player can do those and find a way to not wipe across the ball, then you work with that if it's not the #1 priority or the thing they need fixing (if it ever needs "fixing").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Nobody is "forever S&T;", Baddeley and Weir are proof of that.

Thanks for the response. I'm guessing the "stay on the left side" is fairly unique to S&T; then? Is Foley considered to be teaching S&T; because he is instructing golfers to stay on the left side? Seems like a gray area where some attack Foley for not giving credit to Plummer and Bennett, but it also seems possible to take some techniques of S&T; and combine them with other techniques to create a unique pattern. It seems similar to Adkins trying to take credit for any diet that restricts carbohydrate intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'd put the "tilt left" part above the weight left part. Most people who haven't done much research into the pattern think that you're supposed to actually tilt towards the target at the top of your backswing.

That shows the madness in all of this, that S&T; is bashed for something that is not even true. There are many who have critizised S&T;, but how many have done so with facts and fundamentally sound theories, both on geometry and the golf swing? Not too many.

Thanks for the response. I'm guessing the "stay on the left side" is fairly unique to S&T; then?

Not at all. There are many out there that teach centered centers, but none have been in the media as much as S&T.; In the company of the more conventional teaching, favouring the left side is not as common. Remember that a lot of good golfers do this, have done this for ages. It's just that instructors don't always explain it the best way. Just saying "stay on the left side", instead of "keep your centers centered", is a way of misinterpreting S&T.; People believe S&T; tells us to tilt the upper body towards the target on the backswing, moving the weight 80% forward. That is just plain out wrong.

Is Foley considered to be teaching S&T; because he is instructing golfers to stay on the left side? Seems like a gray area where some attack Foley for not giving credit to Plummer and Bennett, but it also seems possible to take some techniques of S&T; and combine them with other techniques to create a unique pattern. It seems similar to Adkins trying to take credit for any diet that restricts carbohydrate intake.

Yes and no. Favouring the left side is a S&T; principle, but there have been people using it before S&T; too (which is why it became a part of S&T; in the first place). Foley is considered to be teaching large parts (more than 5% anyways) because he has spent a lot of time with Mike and Andy, and asked them a lot of questions. What he teaches is also very similar to S&T.; If some instructor out there who had never heard of S&T; incidentially teach a lot of it, that does of course not mean he stole it from Mike and Andy. The problem with Foley is that he learned a lot from Mike and Andy, and then went on to bash them and S&T.; They have not asked for credit (though it would not have been outrageous if he gave them some), but you'd at least expect him not to bash them and S&T; the way he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Foley is considered to be teaching large parts (more than 5% anyways) because he has spent a lot of time with Mike and Andy, and asked them a lot of questions. What he teaches is also very similar to S&T.; If some instructor out there who had never heard of S&T; incidentially teach a lot of it, that does of course not mean he stole it from Mike and Andy. The problem with Foley is that he learned a lot from Mike and Andy, and then went on to bash them and S&T.; They have not asked for credit (though it would not have been outrageous if he gave them some), but you'd at least expect him not to bash them and S&T; the way he did.

Where is the source for this S&T; "bashing" you say Foley has done? Is it this article?

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/...r-Woods-090210 I've read it and it doesn't sound like Foley is doing any bashing. He does sound arrogant, to be sure, but I don't see the negativity in it. Is this the part you take issue with? " Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas. “Andy and Mike are very bright guys, but how much of what they teach is Mac O’Grady?” Foley said of golf’s Bobby Fisher, a tortured genius who’s spent years breaking down the secrets of golf. “And how much did they take from (Sam) Snead and (Ben) Hogan? And how much of it is taken from (Isaac) Newton?” If there is some other article that directly quotes Foley (and not some blogger's opinion) as bashing S&T;, I haven't seen it. Not saying it isn't out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas.

I think this is the part people are upset about. Especially the first paragraph.

“And how much did they take from (Sam) Snead and (Ben) Hogan? And how much of it is taken from (Isaac) Newton?”

And this part is just stupid. Why would anyone every develop a swing method if they didn't think the best players adhered to at least some of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Where is the source for this S&T; "bashing" you say Foley has done? Is it this article?

Yes, and I'll respond to other parts because Zeph and jamo have responded to some others.

I've read it and it doesn't sound like Foley is doing any bashing.

It is bashing. He's completely downplaying how much he's learned from Mike and Andy and then claims that they are doing the same thing as him by not giving credit. They give credit to Mac O'Grady all the time, and to Ben Hogan, etc. Look in their book, talk to them...

" Foley admits that he enjoyed discussing the intricacies of the swing with Plummer and Bennett

"Discussing" is misleading. Bennett and Plummer NEVER approached Foley - he was always coming up to them with questions. He kept showing them video after video of Sean O'Hair (mostly) and asking them "what next?" Then he'd run to O'Hair and tell him and be back the next week for more. Andy's got hundreds of text messages and emails from Foley on his phone. "Discuss" implies the learning was going both directions. What's worse, Foley apparently was bashing S&T; to Sean O'Hair while basically teaching him the entire pattern, so O'Hair goes out and says a bunch of stupid stuff too.

, whom he likes and respects, but ultimately, he credits them with “maybe 5 percent” of the inspiration behind his own, very similar, swing ideas.

5% is a gross understatement.

“Andy and Mike are very bright guys, but how much of what they teach is Mac O’Grady?”

Enough that they credit him - and Snead and Hogan and Nicklaus and Palmer and tons of good players - all the time. Mac is thanked right there in the book, and is given credit for starting them on their path helping them to develop their way of categorization and classification.

So not only does he not give credit where due, but he lies about it and takes pot shots at two guys who helped him over the course of months and hundreds of hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Foley sounds like a tool, but the worst thing (imvho) about the controversy this weekend, is that a guy having a pretty decent tournament probably didn't need any extra distractions. Charlie Wi was one putt away from Atlanta - he looked exhausted on the back nine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: This thread is 3619 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • I know this is an older post, but it hits home for me. I have some Rheumatoid arthritis that limits some of the things I can do. Every year I kept adding a higher-lofted hybrid and putting an iron in my garage. I now have everything from 3-hybrid to loft-wedge hybrid. I know that sounds strange, but they have really helped me be more consistent. They are SO easy to hit. The only shot they have trouble with is sitting up in heavier rough, where they can go right under the ball. I keep one iron wedge in my bag for that and chipping. I have old Nike SUMO Square 3-7 hybrids, and 8-LW hybrids from Thomas Golf (also square-heads). I have dropped from a 22-23 handicap to a 12-13 and have shot in the 30s several times (No 79s yet though). Does anyone else here play these clubs regularly?
    • You're passing on Kanye and Kim???
    • He’s probably more like the new Tiger Woods......
    • The question I've posed is somewhat simple: if he's so great on Thu/Fri, and not on Sat/Sun, is it mechanical? Why don't the mechanical issues appear on Thu/Fri? He had a very good 2017… which is well after he's been said (in a few hearsay-level posts) to have been "chasing distance." Is there any non-third-party evidence of this? After 2017? Do you expect him to just say "I'm in the weeds, completely lost"? Are his Thu/Fri rounds evidence of his "getting it back"? (Not that they're awesome, but they're better than average.) Nobody said it was, but the statement that he's below-average doesn't have a lot of merit. What are his goals? And why would switching to someone he hasn't known since he was 12 help him get to his goals much more quickly and/or easily? What do what other people do - including Tony Finau, who can't hold JS's jock when you compare careers - have to do with what Jordan needs to do? I could cite a number of people who switched things — caddies, equipment, coaches — and went into a slump. Played badly. Etc. Do you think JS has a sort of Stockholm Syndrome with CM or something?
    • Actually I'll record my equipment journey for posterity, as it's interesting to look back. When I started playing I bought a set of Macgreggor V-foil M455 clubs from ebay - with a regular steel shaft.  My friend gave me a Taylor Made Quad driver and a Callaway Big Bertha Steel Head 3W.  I couldn't hit either.  I added a Ping 4H and a Oddessy putter, and some Taylor Made ATV wedges (60 and 64, and then a 50).  I used this lot for a while until my son got too big for his junior clubs, so I gave him my irons, and bought myself a set of Cobra F-Max irons.  I bought my son a Taylor Made Burner and 3W American Golf, gave him my 4H, and then bought myself a matching Cobra F-Max Driver, 3W, 5W, 4H.  I kept the 60 and 64 in my bag.  I quite liked the Irons, but couldn't get on with the 4H up to the driver, so stopped using them. Then for a random reason I bought a set of Nike VR Forged Pro Combo irons.... because I wanted to make the game a bit harder, right?  Actually I got on with them - they didn't flatter me when I hit a bad shot, and when I hit a good shot, they felt amazing. And then, at the club shop, there was a barely used set of Callaway Razr irons, with graphite shafts, for almost nothing.  I borrowed them, liked how they felt, and started to use them.  I liked them enough to give my Cobra irons to my son. Then, at my lesson about 7 weeks ago, I took a Nike, a Callaway, a MacGreggor, and a Cobra... and asked him which he preferred.  He said he didn't like the Callaway or the Nike, but that either the Macgreggor or the Cobra were ideal.  So, I had the MacGreggors regripped, and used them for a few weeks.  They're heavy, and clunky, but with a semi-decent hit they go in the air.  But they feel a bit industrial, and they are very heavy. This week, after I had a revelation at the range about how well I hit the ball with a smoother, slower swing, I decided to try the Callaways again, and they feel ok. Now, I mentioned, until very recently, I hadn't played with anything above a 5I or 4I.  But reading LSW and thinking about it, I realised I need to knuckled down and get over my fear of the longer clubs. I long since sold the old Quad driver, and having given the whole Cobra set to my son, I tried his old Burner driver (with an inch cut off the shaft).  I seemed to hit it ok at the range, so that went in the bag.  I also took the 4H out for a round, and hit it well, so that went in too, and I dropped the 4H.  I then took the old 3W and the Cobra 5W to the range, and then to the course just before sunset, and hit a few dozen balls.  The results were good enough to persevere, so I played a round with them, and hit them reasonably well.  I asked my son if I could "borrow" the 3W and 5W and he said of course, since he rarely plays and doesn't really care what he uses.  So they've crept back into the bag.  Finally I decided I'd try a 6H since i was hitting the 4H well, and picked one up from ebay.  I've been really pleased with it - it's solid for a ~150 tee shot, I can use it for bump and run shots, and I hit it straight - definitely feels like a keeper, and more reliable than my 6I. So, the bag contains the old cut down driver, which I'm hitting about 190 yards.  The Cobra 3W and 5W, which I'm hitting 185 and 165 respectively (based on Arccoss), then the original Ping 4H, the new Ping 6H, the Callaway 7,8,9,P, and the ATVs at 52, 56, 60, 64. I might try the Macgreggors again, and maybe the Cobra Irons.  The Ping Hybrids are keepers, and I wonder if I ought to try the Cobra Driver. To be clear: I'm not thinking that clubs are a fix... and I'm not taken in by marketing toss.  I'm sure anything would do to get me where I want to get, but with a range open to me, I feel a bit unsure which way to go. I also had an improptu "fitting" at American Golf at the weekend... at which I found I hit best with a very light graphite shaft, with a swing speed with a 7I of about 65-70 mph.  I had "orange" clubs and a standard length shaft.  Since I really like the Ping Hybrids, I might just shell out for a full Ping set, and be done with it. Open to recommendations.
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. bste
      bste
      (63 years old)
    2. JasmineReedTheAuthor
      JasmineReedTheAuthor
      (26 years old)
    3. jmitri
      jmitri
      (41 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...