I am nothing like a Pro Golfer!!!!!

[Strandly]

Yes, the cost is very high just for practice. There are other ways to improve without such a drain on your wallet.

For instance, a net in the backyard can help you with your ball striking, and is a very minimal cost.

My son and I only go to the range if we want to try different ball flights and see how far we hit on any given day (Contrary to what I've read, range balls go roughly the same distances as most playing balls. Only really old ones with no dimples left or ones that say "limited flight" go shorter). It's also a good for warmup to gain some confidence before the first tee shot.

I live in apartment at the moment so this is not at all an option.  If you have a house and yard then yeah I guess you could do some things with it.  I agree with what Jeremie said too, I think you need to see a lot more of your shots than ones you don't.

[Lihu]

I live in apartment at the moment so this is not at all an option.  If you have a house and yard then yeah I guess you could do some things with it.  I agree with what Jeremie said too, I think you need to see a lot more of your shots than ones you don't.

It really depends upon your skill level. You can tell quite a bit by the feel off the face, even my cavity backs give me feedback and I know roughly where the ball is going right after impact.

Is it possible to swing a PW/GW/SW/LW without putting the head through your ceiling? If so, the net might still be an option for you.

BTW, this is getting a little off topic, we should find another thread to put this in.

[mdl]

Similarly, Erik and Mike..and many others on this forum can run circles around me on the golf course....but not because they can hit the ball all that farther than me....just a hell of a lot better.

Yeah I played in a foursome with Mike at one of the first SoCal TST tourneys a while back.  I hit the ball a bit farther than Mike.  He kicked my ass.  Of course, we were on the same team, so maybe not technically, but you know what I mean...

[mdl]

I think that one of the things that a lot of star athletes have in common is that they are incredibly boring and narrow minded people. Any interview will show that.

This is an aside, but David Foster Wallace wrote a great essay about this.  I'm pretty sure it's in the Consider the Lobster collection.  He came at it more from the perspective of thinking about the kind of mental skills and mindset required to be an elite athlete, especially in an individual sport.  He came at it from a tennis perspective.  I believe he was a pretty serious junior player.  One of his points was that the kind of laser focus, combination of supreme confidence with obsessive drive to be better, and the mastery of the forget the last shot as soon as you hit it mental game we talk about is a totally different mental frame and set of skills from the kinds that let you be self-reflective or articulate about what you do.  Sure, lots of elite athletes just aren't that smart and are narrow minded in a negative sort of way.  But by all rights some of them are supposedly quite smart people, yet in interviews about their performance you still basically only get Bull Durham style platitudes.

Anyway, totally beside the point, but an interesting read.

[Strandly]

This is an aside, but David Foster Wallace wrote a great essay about this.  I'm pretty sure it's in the Consider the Lobster collection.  He came at it more from the perspective of thinking about the kind of mental skills and mindset required to be an elite athlete, especially in an individual sport.  He came at it from a tennis perspective.  I believe he was a pretty serious junior player.  One of his points was that the kind of laser focus, combination of supreme confidence with obsessive drive to be better, and the mastery of the forget the last shot as soon as you hit it mental game we talk about is a totally different mental frame and set of skills from the kinds that let you be self-reflective or articulate about what you do.  Sure, lots of elite athletes just aren't that smart and are narrow minded in a negative sort of way.  But by all rights some of them are supposedly quite smart people, yet in interviews about their performance you still basically only get Bull Durham style platitudes.

Anyway, totally beside the point, but an interesting read.

That's because you're talking about something as (frankly) stupid and insignificant as rolling a small ball into a cup.  These people aren't building space rovers and curing cancer, I'd be more offended if they thought what they did actually deserved serious analysis.

[Lihu]

That's because you're talking about something as (frankly) stupid and insignificant as rolling a small ball into a cup.  These people aren't building space rovers and curing cancer, I'd be more offended if they thought what they did actually deserved serious analysis.

Isn't it, though?

Yet tens of billions of dollars are spent every year because of all the golfers wanting to do just that. They are the ones who want every possible analysis done if it even has a small hint of making their own game better. Deserve it or not, desire it or not, they will have every aspect of their game and swings analyzed to the minutest detail to satisfy the millions of golfers who want to get better.

[Strandly]

Isn't it, though?

Yet tens of billions of dollars are spent every year because of all the golfers wanting to do just that. They are the ones who want every possible analysis done if it even has a small hint of making their own game better. Deserve it or not, desire it or not, they will have every aspect of their game and swings analyzed to the minutest detail to satisfy the millions of golfers who want to get better.

I was referring to players and the mindless platitudes they spew during interviews.

[Lihu]

I was referring to players and the mindless platitudes they spew during interviews.

I know. I just wasn't clear enough in the "they" they as in the consumer or they as in the player's who's swings are analyzed.

Smarter people analyze their swings for the masses to consume.

[Strandly]

I know. I just wasn't clear enough in the "they" they as in the consumer or they as in the player's who's swings are analyzed.

Smarter people analyze their swings for the masses to consume.

Isn't it, though?

Yet tens of billions of dollars are spent every year because of all the golfers wanting to do just that. They are the ones who want every possible analysis done if it even has a small hint of making their own game better. Deserve it or not, desire it or not, they will have every aspect of their game and swings analyzed to the minutest detail to satisfy the millions of golfers who want to get better.

I don't necessarily agree with that.  I think the only reason the vast majority of weekend hackers use whatever technology is there is because.. it's there.  If equipment companies decided to release a new set of clubs every 3 or 5 years I'd be extremely surprised if the golfing community suddenly became upset.

[Lihu]

I don't necessarily agree with that.  I think the only reason the vast majority of weekend hackers use whatever technology is there is because.. it's there.  If equipment companies decided to release a new set of clubs every 3 or 5 years I'd be extremely surprised if the golfing community suddenly became upset.

I think yours is the voice of reason. That is, if there's no reason to change something, don't.

There are plenty of people who think that the latest equipment will solve their issues. I don't think manufacturers fabricated the market for a new driver every 6 months (Like TM???). We can thank the PC/high tech industry for that. Many people fall into the technology trap of getting the latest, longest  and most forgiving this and that to improve their games.

It's natural for people to believe in marketing hype, because that's the job of advertizing. Sometimes it really improves their games if only because they look nice and shiny.