One. July of 2015 had it in front of my wife (and 7 strangers) the one and only time she's ever watched me play. Long story short I was supposed to play with a friend he cancel and I ended up with an ace. I was a foot short of another one on the same hole last year. It's definitely luck but so are most of my good shots.
As someone said, the golfers who can hit it longer than everybody else will always have an advantage. Just like tall guys in basketball and fast guys in the 100 meter dash! Let's face it, pros and better amateurs have always been longer than the herd.
And the public will always love the big bombers. Why do you think John Daly got so popular?
And, If you want to hit a PW 150 yards, just get your clubhead speed to about 110 MPH and you can do that. If you can't, well I guess that just sucks for you!
But Blackjack Don's and Natureboy's last comment are still valid. We now routinely see courses on Tour that are 7,400, 7,500 yards long. And isn't there that otherwordly looking course in French Lick, Indiana that is 8,000 yards from the tips? Heck, I have a 7,500+ yard course right here in my back yard not a 15 minute drive away.
And just last Spring I read a "Letter to the Editor" in the local paper where some environmentalist nutlog referred to the local Metroparks course (36 holes of Donald Ross design) as a toxic waste dump, and a waste of water!
I don't have much to add to the conversation, I just wanted to say I don't like this guy at all. I think his comments crossed way over the line. I think he has always been a cry baby like during his whole process of switching to side saddle. I feel its been a huge distraction towards his game. It might have made him more popular or given him more sponsor opportunities because everyone kept talking about him. For 2017 I feel his game is on the decline. I don't see it coming back up this year.
It's tough to say it is just one thing. I will put it is as a this, optimizing spin rate to launch angle.
Peak height. Those who swing slower struggle to keep the ball in the air long enough to get optimal distances on their irons.
I've been revisiting this endless belt concept and imho it does seem flawed.
If I just imagined I was an adjustable camera that could continue pointing normal to the changing swing plane (ie. formed by the front of the left forearm and clubshaft - left arm flying wedge) from the top of the backswing to impact, the real hand path would look different to these 'face on' views.
1. From the top of the backswing to maybe end of the early downswing (left arm horizontal to the ground, right arm/wrist still still retaining its angles) , the radius of the hand arc would probably be the distance from the hands to the sternum notch.
2. From the end of the early downswing to impact - the right arm would have progressively extended somewhat. Therefore that 'camera' would see a hand arc path whose radius (if we used the sternum notch as the centre of the swing) is getting progressively longer.
So if I was that camera , I would see a tighter hand arc radius in the early swing but getting longer into impact which is the complete opposite of what we are seeing from a face-on view (an optical illusion?).
Have I got this correct or completely wrong?
So is all this theory about 'Aiming Point' flawed from both a geometric and physics perspective? Maybe just learning to sequence the passive unhinging of one's wrists for various types of strokes makes more sense than concentrating on an 'Aiming Point'.