• Announcements

    • iacas

      Introducing TST "Clubs!"   08/28/2017

      No, we're not getting into the equipment business, but we do have "clubs" here on TST now. Groups. Check them out here:
Jonnydanger81

The Dan Plan - 10,000 Hours to Become a Pro Golfer (Dan McLaughlin)

Recommended Posts

My understanding was that Barkley was a decent golfer before he hit a fan and developed the mental hitch. There are a lot athletes (Matt Ryan, Tony Romo, John Smoltz,...) who are low single digits and you have to imagine most of them are not spending 10+ hours a week practicing. Golf might not require you to be 7' or 8% body fat but it does require you to be able generate a 110mph clubhead speed and to be able to reproduce that motion very consistanty.  The first is easy to measure. The second is much harder.  You might think it is only the amount of practice but I am not convinced. I think some people just have much better motor control than others and no amount of training can get you beyond a certain point.

As far as the pros, most of them that take up the game later in life (Larry Nelson is the prime example) or as teenagers (Greg Norman started at 16) are at scratch within a year.  If you take up the game much before 16 there are physical maturity issues so it might take longer. Do some guys take more time? I am sure but Dan is also a long way from scratch.

And who ever said just making it through q school makes it more reasonable, not really. Anyone who makes to close to the pros is super talented even if they don't stick. The competition at the top is really tough. We don't get a feel of  how good the bottom guys are because they are competing with guys better than they are.

Quote:

I'd agree that golf compared to some other sports isn't as dependant on genetics from a physical standpoint but you're also forgetting the mental aspect.  Charles Barkley had the genetics to play as a top NBA pro for many years but the guy can't play golf no matter how hard he tries.  Golf doesn't require you be 7' tall or 8% bodyfat, but to become a pro you have to have pretty good genetics and a strong mind.





Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I totally agree with everything you said.  It's absolutely a longshot, but I certainly am not going to jump from longshot directly to "100% absolutely cannot be done."  I think those here that are doing so are either basing it on the fact that he never played golf before, or that he's only at an 8.6 after 2,600 hours.  I've never played cricket, jai alai, or squash before, but I might be good at them.  Until I attempt it, how would I know?  And regarding the 8.6 HDCP, do we know what all pros were after they practiced 2,600 hours?  Based on my lame assumptions earlier - assuming starting to take it seriously at age 14 - , that would basically be somewhere around the time they graduated high school.  Certainly, most pros were probably much closer to scratch by that time, so this argument might have some merit.  Then again, who knows, there could easily be some guys who started slower, no?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Quote:
You might think it is only the amount of practice but I am not convinced. I think some people just have much better motor control than others and no amount of training can get you beyond a certain point.

But don't you see that is a circle?  You are *assuming* that the pro athletes you know have that motor control.  Your assumption proves your point.  You are basically saying "look at these pros.  they are really good.  look at joe.  he is pretty good, but not a tour pro.  they play about the same amount of time, so therefore there must be some "secret motor control" joe doesn't have."  No, it could be any number of variables.  You can't use the assumption that pros have better motor control to prove the argument that pros have better motor control!

Read "life is not a game of perfect" by bob rotella.  It discusses this exact point.

Quote:
And who ever said just making it through q school makes it more reasonable, not really.

Of course it does.  Its a matter of statistical fact.  If he isn't good enough to be a pro, his only chance is a one-tournament-take-all approach.  Over time and with number of rounds increasing, the scores will tend to revert more and more back to average / normal.  The Q school gives him the chance of hitting an up outlier in score right on that tournament.  The only way it would make it not more reasonable is if you thought his game was up to to tour standards - then you would want as many chances as possible.  Put it this way: You are a basketball team playing a playoff game.  The other team is better.  Would you rather play one game to decided it or best out of 7?

Quote:
Anyone who makes to close to the pros is super talented even if they don't stick.

See, again, I totally disagree.  Work hard, smart, etc... is just as much a factor.  Go watch Tom Kite do anything.  He is not an athlete.  But he can hit a driver straight and has worked an incredible number of hours to hit a wedge a very specific distance.  He was the all time leading money winner.

See, here is my point.  You could have easily said:

"Anyone who makes to close to the pros is a super hard worker even if they don't stick."

or

"Anyone who makes it close to the pros is a guy with a really, really great sense of what to do in practice, even if they don't stick."

or

"Anyone who makes to close to the pros has a great mental game and always is in a positive frame of mind, even if they don't stick."

etc..

Why did you choose "talented", the one thing we can't measure?

Share this post


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

Originally Posted by iacas

Also, didn't the book say "those with some talent to start with can put in 10,000 hours"? What if he's not starting with some "talent"?


Talent is grown not born. The talent code by daniel coyle

Its been shown again and again, that with quality practice you can become an expert or in this case even a PGA tour caliber player.
I would change around a few things for him, but overall you cant beat practice and time as golf as any requries time to master the shotmaking skill.

10.000hours been shown in a particular context that is the time people normally spend to gather the needed expertise or experience and variation from chess to golf. Can you do it faster or slower? yea. If you know the common position sin chess and memorize those which takes around 50 hours, you be playing pretty good chess.
Having a good learning strategy is highly recomended if one tries that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, I believe it takes superior genetics to become a pro golfer.  My point was that the type of genetics aren't the same as what a NBA basketball player or NFL running back would need so they're not as obvious.  A low percentage of golfers are able to play scratch golf, and even a lower percentage of those scratch golfers will ever make it onto a Pro Tour.  Practice can only take someone so far.

Originally Posted by x129

My understanding was that Barkley was a decent golfer before he hit a fan and developed the mental hitch. There are a lot athletes (Matt Ryan, Tony Romo, John Smoltz,...) who are low single digits and you have to imagine most of them are not spending 10+ hours a week practicing. Golf might not require you to be 7' or 8% body fat but it does require you to be able generate a 110mph clubhead speed and to be able to reproduce that motion very consistanty.  The first is easy to measure. The second is much harder.  You might think it is only the amount of practice but I am not convinced. I think some people just have much better motor control than others and no amount of training can get you beyond a certain point.

As far as the pros, most of them that take up the game later in life (Larry Nelson is the prime example) or as teenagers (Greg Norman started at 16) are at scratch within a year.  If you take up the game much before 16 there are physical maturity issues so it might take longer. Do some guys take more time? I am sure but Dan is also a long way from scratch.

And who ever said just making it through q school makes it more reasonable, not really. Anyone who makes to close to the pros is super talented even if they don't stick. The competition at the top is really tough. We don't get a feel of  how good the bottom guys are because they are competing with guys better than they are.

Quote:



Share this post


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

Originally Posted by newtogolf

A low percentage of golfers are able to play scratch golf, and even a lower percentage of those scratch golfers will ever make it onto a Pro Tour.

Certainly the current percentage of all golfers that actually do play at scratch is miniscule.  But I don't thinkthey are the only ones who are ABLE.

The real question to ask would be what percentage of all golfers who have put in 10,000 hours of "perfect practice" are scratch golfers.  If someone did that study, I would put my money on the number being pretty high.

Share this post


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


Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Certainly the current percentage of all golfers that actually do play at scratch is miniscule.  But I don't thinkthey are the only ones who are ABLE.

The real question to ask would be what percentage of all golfers who have put in 10,000 hours of "perfect practice" are scratch golfers.  If someone did that study, I would put my money on the number being pretty high.

Kind of a skewed question but I'm willing to bet almost 100% of scratch golfers have put in *insert huge number of practice hours* to become that good.  Golf is a really tough game to be that good at.  Any sport is. But that does not guarantee *everyone* who puts in the same amount of practice time will be just as good.  Also, being a scratch golfer is different than being a professional golfer, which is what this guy is going for.  Getting to scratch is probably the easiest part of his journey to get to yet still pretty tough.  Going from scratch to pro is another huge jump in skill level.  Not saying it can't be done, but his odds are very very very very slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by RichWW2

Kind of a skewed question but I'm willing to bet almost 100% of scratch golfers have put in *insert huge number of practice hours* to become that good.  Golf is a really tough game to be that good at.  Any sport is. But that does not guarantee *everyone* who puts in the same amount of practice time will be just as good.  Also, being a scratch golfer is different than being a professional golfer, which is what this guy is going for.  Getting to scratch is probably the easiest part of his journey to get to yet still pretty tough.  Going from scratch to pro is another huge jump in skill level.  Not saying it can't be done, but his odds are very very very very slim.



difference is deep practice which all who makes it does. The talent code book is a good read about that.
IMHO Dan is not doing enough deep practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Talent is grown not born. The talent code by daniel coil


And yet, you can teach someone as long as you like, and they might never be able to jump as high as Michael Jordan or swing as fast as a PGA Tour player.

I think it's all a mix of both: natural born "stuff" and the proper training to bring that out and make the most of it.

Share this post


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

Originally Posted by RichWW2

Kind of a skewed question but I'm willing to bet almost 100% of scratch golfers have put in *insert huge number of practice hours* to become that good.  Golf is a really tough game to be that good at.  Any sport is. But that does not guarantee *everyone* who puts in the same amount of practice time will be just as good.  Also, being a scratch golfer is different than being a professional golfer, which is what this guy is going for.  Getting to scratch is probably the easiest part of his journey to get to yet still pretty tough.  Going from scratch to pro is another huge jump in skill level.  Not saying it can't be done, but his odds are very very very very slim.



Of course, all who are scratch golfers practice a lot, but I was more trying to make the point that most who practice a lot (read: 10k hours) are probably scratch golfers.  And obviously, not everybody is equally as good with equal practice.  And don't think that I am equating scratch with pro, either.  What are pros, +10's??

But ... it just dawned on me why my question is a bit skewed (although not sure if this is what you were going for):  It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy because people (except perhaps Dan) who aren't getting good enough are mostly going to quit long before they reach the 10k hour plateau.

Share this post


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

He's left handed. That will make it even harder. Not nearly as many left handed scratch players. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But ... it just dawned on me why my question is a bit skewed (although not sure if this is what you were going for):  It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy because people (except perhaps Dan) who aren't getting good enough are mostly going to quit long before they reach the 10k hour plateau.



I was just trying to make the point that it is kind of a leading as it only implies one result.  Golf might be a little different but look at it this way.  All professional football players played college football, but not all college football players play professional football.

Not sure about the posting link rules on these boards so I won't.  But everyone should google Scratch vs Pro golfer to find out what it really takes to be that good. On another site i found a person that mentions Tom Coyne's book 'Paper Tiger' and the pyramid of golfers.

"Consider the golf-greatness pyramid's base, a wide mass of good players, great players, best ball strikers you have ever witnessed firsthand, the only ace you have ever been accidentally, terrifyingly, matched up with--we'll call him or her The Best Player You Know. Maybe he's your club champion, maybe your neighbor's sixteen-year-old, perhaps it's your boss who has the scorecard from Pebble Beach on the wall and tells all the clients, "Shot 73, couldn't make a damn putt." The real sticks, guys who talk about what they might have done in golf if they steered their life a little differently, if only they took their shot. A two-, three-handicap--maybe even a scratch player. If you watched them hit balls you would weep inside.

And here's the news about The Best Players You Know: They're s***. Scratch is s***. The Best Players You Know simply cannot play. They are the mere masses, golf's faceless proletariat, utterly forgettable. They are little than the wide sprawling base of wannabes on which the pyramid is planted."

The "Best Player You Know" is the bottom of 10 levels of good golf players:

  • The Best Players You Know
  • Club Pros
  • Stud Amateur
  • Attached Club Pro
  • Mini-Tour Philanthropist
  • Mini-Tour Grinder
  • Nationwide Earner
  • PGA Tour Six-Figure Survivor
  • PGA Tour Player
  • PGA Tour Superstar

Odds of Dan making it to even Nationwide Earner are incredibly slim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think coordination has a genetic (or something that is developed early in life) component that can't be trained beyond a certain extend. I could be wrong about that.  You say Tom Kite isn't an athlete but that depends on your definition of athlete.  He might not be able to run a blistering mile, jump 40", and so on but for golf his skill set might be a perfect match. Golf is deceptive in that most of us have hit 90% of ht shots a pro does (holing a 30 ft putt, holing a 30 yard chip, leaving yourself a 3 footer from 200 yards,... . ) on occasion. The delusion is with x more hours of practice you will be able to do it as often as the pros. None of us think that we are just 9900 hours from running a 9.9 100, throwing a 95 mph fastball, having the ball handling and quickness of a spud webb, and so on. But there is a good chunk that thinks in an alternative life they could have been a pro golfer. I don't think that is true.

Q School is not a 6 round tournament for Dan. It is 4 rounds of prequalifing, 4 rounds of the first stage, 4 rounds of the second stage, and then final 6 rounds. Thats a lot of good golf. But lets say making it through q school is much easier than winning on the pga tour (there are almost always more PGA winners than q school qualifiers in a year for a random thought). It is like saying that winning the state lottery is easier than winning the powerball. Its true but it doesn't matter in the absolute sense. You can play either for a couple of lifetimes without winning.

I didn't say your other stuff because I don't think they are true.  I don't think an average guy (whatever that means) comes close to sniffing the pros no matter how hard they work and mentally tough they are.  I agree talking about talent sucks because there is no real way to quantify it. If you are good at something it is because you work hard. If I am good at something it is because of natural talent or luck. Obviously neither of those is 100% true.

At the end of the day you can go a long way with hard work. After 10k hours will Dan be in the top 1% of golfers? I think that is possible. Is he likely to be in the .0001%  (approximately) who are PGA pros? Very unlikely

Originally Posted by johnclayton1982

But don't you see that is a circle?  You are *assuming* that the pro athletes you know have that motor control.  Your assumption proves your point.  You are basically saying "look at these pros.  they are really good.  look at joe.  he is pretty good, but not a tour pro.  they play about the same amount of time, so therefore there must be some "secret motor control" joe doesn't have."  No, it could be any number of variables.  You can't use the assumption that pros have better motor control to prove the argument that pros have better motor control!

Read "life is not a game of perfect" by bob rotella.  It discusses this exact point.

Of course it does.  Its a matter of statistical fact.  If he isn't good enough to be a pro, his only chance is a one-tournament-take-all approach.  Over time and with number of rounds increasing, the scores will tend to revert more and more back to average / normal.  The Q school gives him the chance of hitting an up outlier in score right on that tournament.  The only way it would make it not more reasonable is if you thought his game was up to to tour standards - then you would want as many chances as possible.  Put it this way: You are a basketball team playing a playoff game.  The other team is better.  Would you rather play one game to decided it or best out of 7?

See, again, I totally disagree.  Work hard, smart, etc... is just as much a factor.  Go watch Tom Kite do anything.  He is not an athlete.  But he can hit a driver straight and has worked an incredible number of hours to hit a wedge a very specific distance.  He was the all time leading money winner.

See, here is my point.  You could have easily said:

"Anyone who makes to close to the pros is a super hard worker even if they don't stick."

or

"Anyone who makes it close to the pros is a guy with a really, really great sense of what to do in practice, even if they don't stick."

or

"Anyone who makes to close to the pros has a great mental game and always is in a positive frame of mind, even if they don't stick."

etc..

Why did you choose "talented", the one thing we can't measure?



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by Tiger Spuds

Fair play to him if he's willing to dedicate that much time and effort to the game. I absolutely love golf, but I don't think I could dedicate 6 hours a day to it. That said, I'm not sure I'd hold much stock in that 10,000 hours theory. I'm sure he'll be a very proficient player after it, but a pro level golfer? I highly doubt it.



I agree. I think it is very impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The absolute best chance Dan has at playing in a professional tournament is playing in the US Open.  Getting his handicap to a 1.4 is probably something that could actually be obtained. After that he *only* has to get through a regional and a sectional qualifier and boom, he's in the US Open.  Probably the easiest way to make a PGA tournament.

Note: I use the term "easiest" as the shortest most time saving way to make any tournament. I'm sure these qualifiers are damn tough to win/advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't they still have Monday qualifing for some events? I am guessing that is the easiest route for a PGA event (technically any minitour is a pro event. You just need cash to enter) as you need to play 1 good round for prequal and then 1 great round.  A quick google shows that a -4 would have qualified you for the Sony Open in 2012. Now that doesn't sound so hard does it?

For a major I might vote for  winning the U.S Mid-Amateur or the US amateur public links. The fields at the open qualifiers are stacked with nationwide, PGA, and top college players but you don't need to win. The Mid and Public links doesn't have the depth of field but you have to win the event. I think it is probably pretty close.

And finally Dan might have the sponsor exemption route. He seems to have an in with Nike so maybe if he gets real close they can pull some strings and some tournament will decide that it would be some good press to get him in.

Originally Posted by RichWW2

The absolute best chance Dan has at playing in a professional tournament is playing in the US Open.  Getting his handicap to a 1.4 is probably something that could actually be obtained. After that he *only* has to get through a regional and a sectional qualifier and boom, he's in the US Open.  Probably the easiest way to make a PGA tournament.

Note: I use the term "easiest" as the shortest most time saving way to make any tournament. I'm sure these qualifiers are damn tough to win/advance.



Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by iacas

And yet, you can teach someone as long as you like, and they might never be able to jump as high as Michael Jordan or swing as fast as a PGA Tour player.

I think it's all a mix of both: natural born "stuff" and the proper training to bring that out and make the most of it.



Bubba watson is long, so is john Daly so is dustin johnson.

None is world nr1.

None of those long hitting hit it long with swing speed is nr1.

Your logic is flawed that swing speed makes a PGA nr1 in the world player.

If that was the criteria, corey pavin never would have won US Open.

Golf is a game from tee to green, and Luke Donald does it best.
What is his talent? hitting it short?

People mimic Ben Hogans swing and his secret when it was his mind all along not swing talent.

Originally Posted by kathybhylton

I agree. I think it is very impossible.


That is why you wont even try.

and even if you did your heart wouldnt be in it.

Talent is overrated.

Proper dedicated deep practice isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Bubba watson is long, so is john Daly so is dustin johnson.

None is world nr1.

None of those long hitting hit it long with swing speed is nr1.

Your logic is flawed that swing speed makes a PGA nr1 in the world player.

If that was the criteria, corey pavin never would have won US Open.

Golf is a game from tee to green, and Luke Donald does it best.

What is his talent? hitting it short?

People mimic Ben Hogans swing and his secret when it was his mind all along not swing talent.

That is why you wont even try.

and even if you did your heart wouldnt be in it.

Talent is overrated.

Proper dedicated deep practice isnt.



Are you serious?  Some people can do things better no matter how hard you work at it.  This guy has been playing 2 years non stop and still can't break 80.  I broke 80 end of my first year and played once a week. Some people are just born with better abilities than others the world isn't fair.

Share this post


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

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Bubba watson is long, so is john Daly so is dustin johnson.

None is world nr1.

None of those long hitting hit it long with swing speed is nr1.

Your logic is flawed that swing speed makes a PGA nr1 in the world player.

Your ability to comprehend the written word is flawed. At what point did I say anything about being the #1 player in the world?

My point stands, even if you completely missed it. :)

Oh, and Luke Donald does not "hit it short."

Originally Posted by soon_tourpro

Talent is overrated.

Proper dedicated deep practice isnt.


Uh, or not.

It may very well be over-rated, but it's not completely unimportant. I'd put it as somewhere between 25-60% of the importance. John Daly got by for a long time on very little dedicated deep practice.

A player needs both to truly excel. Simple as that.

Share this post


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now




  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    Talamore Golf Resort
    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Mission Belt
    Snell Golf
    Frogger Golf
    PitchFix USA
  • Posts

    • Oct. 17 Practiced set-up and backswing for 5 minutes after work in long mirror. Seem to have good set at top without "crossing the line."
    • I'd just ignore the conversion chart and stick to the normal fitting process with the first chart. Like you said, stick to the numbers, not what the color label is.  That conversion chart almost seems backwards. Its weird.  Maybe the new std black dot is a different lie angle from before?
    • The rep didn't tell me "black dot." The factory did when I tried to order "-1 inch" and "purple." They said "using the new conversion chart she's black dot now." But if black is just lie angle, why is she -1"/black and not -1"/red or -1"/orange? Why did -1"/purple (-1.5°) become -1"/black (0°??)?
    • Perhaps the rep that told you black dot is just looking at stock measurements ( like diagram 1). I always gamed ping irons and thought the dot is only lie angle. Not sure if that helps.
    • The reason it's hard to get an objective assessment on golf balls is this...most players aren't sure what to look for when testing different models, plus there is a lot of misinformation that is posted online or well-meaning advice that is simply incorrect, which makes it very confusing. The truth of the matter is what ball works best for me, or the ball that my buddy likes, may not be a good ball for you at all.  There are so many variables, not to mention personal preference, that the ball you chose should be based off of your swing/launch conditions, not someone else. I have conducted thousands of golf ball fittings for players of all types and skill levels, and I can tell you a few things based on my experience: The golf ball will make a bigger difference for a mid to high handicapper than it will for a Tour pro.  I know...this is the opposite of what everybody thinks and what "conventional wisdom" is, but it's true.  How can this be?  The reason is due to our "tendencies".  All players have tendencies...for example, my tendency is to hit the ball a little low and under-spin it, which reduces my carry distance.  Some players have a tendency to hit a slice.  Whatever it might be, we all have them.  The difference between amateurs and Tour pros is their tendencies are much smaller and occur less often.  Because they are more consistent, and have the ability to control their spin and trajectory, the differences in golf balls for them is measured in fractions.  Since their trajectory is very efficient already, the difference between models is like splitting hairs. This is what a pro's numbers might look like: On the other hand, there can be a significant difference for amateurs.  When a player is using the opposite type of ball they need, it's not unusual to see 20+ yards of difference when they hit a ball that fits them correctly.  Going back to my personal example of having a tendency to hit the ball low with not enough backspin, if I chose a ball that was designed to launch low with low spin (like the Bridgestone e7 for example) it would exaggerate my tendency and cause my shots to fly even lower and spin even less.  A ball that will reduce our tendencies will produce noticeably better results.  Here is a typical amateur's numbers: Higher spin doesn't save players as many shots as they think.  In fact, high spin ball cost many amateurs more shots than it saves them.  Spin can be your friend or your enemy.  The trick is to have the correct amount...not too much and not too little.  The more your shots spin, the more everything gets exaggerated.  If you hit a fade, more spin will turn it into a slice.  In windy conditions, a higher spin ball gets pushed around more.  On miss hits, a higher spin ball will curve more, lose more distance, and have an overall larger loss in performance.  One thing I hear a lot is players wanting a high spin ball so they can "throw it at the hole" and make it stop for a short putt.  If you're good enough to wedge it close and make the ball check for an easy up-and-down, then you're good enough to pick another 4 1/4" target on the green about 10' short of the hole and play a lower spinning model.  I'm not saying spin isn't important, because it is, but the majority of players can't control how much spin they put on the ball, and the majority of players spin the ball more than they ideally should. I'm not going to tell you which ball to play, because I don't know.  Telling you which ball I play won't help because you might not swing like I do.  I know choosing a ball is confusing...there are dozens of models on the market, and they all are at least a little different.  I did this for a living full-time, and it was a challenge for me to keep up with everything, so it's almost impossible for the average consumer to know how all the different models stack up with each other.  I encourage you to do your initial testing with a launch monitor, and ideally with the help of an experienced ball fitting tech who can analyze and explain the data.  A launch monitor will save a lot of time and guesswork.  Two different models that go the same distance doesn't mean there isn't a difference. One ball might have carried 230 yds and rolled out 20 yds, and the other might have carried 180 and rolled out 70.  This is a bit exaggerated of course, but my point is even though they went the same distance, one of them is much more efficient than the other and day-in and day-out perform better. If you have to carry a bunker at the corner of a dogleg 200 yds out, one of those balls does it easily, the other doesn't.  When you have it narrowed down to one or two choices, follow up with some on-course testing.  Remember...most expensive doesn't necessarily = best, and more spin doesn't necessarily = lower scores.  When you're dialed in, that's your ball...don't switch around and use whatever ball you happen to grab.  Playing the correct ball all the time will create more consistency.   That is all.  As you were!  
  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. KingHack82
      KingHack82
      (35 years old)
    2. TobyC
      TobyC
      (50 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon