Leaderboard

With a lot of help from @iacas, I was able to take a great trip down to Pinehurst this past week. Took advantage of having a day off because of Veteran's Day and spent 4 days in the Pinehurst area. @iacas, @Hardspoon, @GolfLug, and @NCGolfer joined me for at least 1 round on the trip. I got in 2 courses in Pinehurst proper - Southern Pines and Pine Needles - and then the Duke golf course in Durham and Tobacco Road. All of the courses were new to me, and I really liked all of them. I am going to add more to this later when I have some time, but I wanted to post a quick recap/thoughts for each course. Duke Golf Club I really enjoyed this course. It's a big ballpark that goes up and down a couple of hills. The front 9 starts off going straight downhill, with 1 and 2 being similar dogleg left, downhill par 4s. You make your way to the bottom of the hill with a par 3 that plays over a lake, and then you creep up slowly. The best hole on the front is the 7, the first par 5. It's a dogleg right goes downhill to a small green protected by a creek and bunkers. If you can get your ball to the fairway, you should have a chance at going for the green in 2. That shot was probably the most memorable one I had on this course. You then crest the hill again with the tee shot on 9, which is a par 5 that goes down the hill and then the green is back on top of the hill by the clubhouse. The back only goes up and down the hill once, so it's slightly more tame than the front. I really liked 11, which is another par 5. The tee shot plays down the hill, and if you hit a good one, you could have a mid iron into your hand with your second shot. The green is huge, but protected by a creek that runs in front of it. The closing stretch of holes are pretty good. 16 is a short par 4 playing straight up hill. Distance control with a wedge is really important. 17 is slightly uphill, but the trick is navigating the uneven lies in the fairway. 18 is fairly straightforward but a stout par 4 to end the round. The only negative is that there were a lot of holes with forced carries to the green. 4, 7, 11, 12, and 13 all had ponds or creeks fronting the green. Most of those required hefty carries. Bottom line, I liked the course and the setting. I would be happy to play here regularly. Pine Needles I loved this course. The setting reminded me a lot of #2, and it feels like a mini #2 with a lot of small, turtleback-type greens. The opening 5 holes were outstanding. 1 was a really cool par 5 that was no gimme. The green was pretty wild. 2 was a long, downhill par 4. 3 was one of my favorite par 3s that we played - over a lake with bunkers framing the green. 4 was a short uphill par 4 that I really liked. 5 was an excellent but tough par 3, sitting on a shelf well above the tee. It's a great opening stretch. And again, the feel and look of the place is unique to the Pinehurst area. It feels like something you wouldn't find anywhere else. Other highlights - the green site on 9 was really cool. There is a big run off area to the right of the green that you want to avoid. It reminded me a bit of the second hole at Sand Valley - you don't want to be right of that green either. 12 was a great hole. You can't see the green from the tee, as the tee shot plays over a hill. When you see the green, it looks tiny, with a huge runoff and bunkers to the left of the green. The fairway is pretty wide, so the trick is accuracy with your approach shot. 18 was an extremely cool finishing hole. You can't really see the fairway off the tee, but it turns out to be fairly generous when you get there. And then the green site is fantastic - sitting at the bottom of the hill, but still requiring precision to be on it. I really want to get back and play this course again. There are a few shots that I want to try again (the drive on 10, the approach on 12, the drive on 18). And I just really loved the look and feel of the place. A great course and a fun day of golf. Southern Pines I thought this was the best course of the 4 I played. It's wider than Pine Needles, and the greens are bigger. But the greens are much more undulating. The land here is truly excellent. There is a ton of land movement, and seemingly every hole has elevation changes you have to navigate. I really like both par 5s on the front. If you hit good drives on both, you will get a big kick down the fairway. If you don't, you're going to be faced with a long 2nd shot just to have a wedge in. 2 plays down the hill with the tee shot and then back up the hill with the approach. You have to be careful about club selection and distance control there. 7 was a good, fairly long par 3 with a green perched on a ledge. 11 was a driveable par 4 with a wild green. 15 was really cool as well - the tee shot is downhill, but then the green is back uphill. This is a course I would love to play everyday. It's a thinking man's course, because you have to be really careful with all the elevations changes there. You constantly have to play and commit to a club longer or shorter than the distance. And I don't really think there are any bad holes. Only negative is that a few holes are a bit repetitive - 4, 16, and 18 are all shorter par 4s where you're hitting an uphill approach wedge or short iron. This is a very minor nit, though. One of the best courses I've played. I'd have to think about where exactly to rank it, but easily within the top 10. Possibly cracking the top 5. I will play this again next time I'm in Pinehurst. Tobacco Road I had a blast at this course. It is unique and pretty wild. You start out with these massive dune-like hills pinching in on your tee shot on 1. And then the entire round feels like you're going around these massive dunes. There are a lot of interesting shots here. You have long carries over bunkers, blind tee shots, shots into tiny greens, shots into huge greens, carries over deep bunkers, downhill shots, uphill shots, you name it. The setting is incredible. It is a huge course, and the fairways and greens tend to be very generous. I want to write more about individual holes later. But I really liked 7, 9, 10, and 16. I want to play a couple of the par 3s again with different hole locations and/or different tee boxes. 6 and 17, in particular, could play like wildly different holes with a different hole location (for 17) or coming from a different tee box (for 6). While I had a lot of fun seeing this course, I do feel like a smart golfer could get bored here. To me, it was fairly obvious that Strantz was trying to bait you into trying a bunch of hard shots. On 11, for example, if you hit a good drive to the right side of the fairway, you could have a shot at the green in 2. But the green is over a massive bunker that has to be 40 feet below the green. And the green is narrow, essentially facing perpendicular to you. The only chance you really have is to hit a perfect shot. The alternative is an easy lay up to a wide fairway, leaving you with a wedge at the perfect angle. Maybe I try going for it with a 7 iron or something shorter, but that's about it. I felt similar on 5 - the direct line to the green is not that far and the green is driveable, But if you miss, you're going to have a 40ish yard bunker shot or a lost ball. Meanwhile, if you play to the right, you have a massive fairway and you'll likely be left with a wedge in your hand. I think it would be fun to play with 2 balls on some of these holes and try the shots. If you are a LSW disciple, though, you are not going to try the crazy risky shots Strantz is trying to bait you into. In the end, I really enjoyed this course. But I think it's below PN or SP. It's still awesome, and it was fun to see and play. I would come back here, but it's a lower priority than other Pinehurst courses. Well, that ended up being longer than I was anticipating. I may add some more thoughts about specific holes later, but this is a good starting point. I do want to think more about course ratings out of 10 for these, too. More to come...

I believe that losing a tour card is too extreme but definitely agree that more needs to be done to prevent slow play.

Here's the sim screen/enclosure right after we finished putting it up: Here it is with some of the tools cleaned up, etc.

I'm confused - the team of two is playing a scramble but the single player is playing best of two balls or is he playing a one man scramble with two shots? If the single is best of two balls, then I'd bet on the pair playing a scramble everytime. If it's a two man scramble versus a single person scramble, I'd take the single, at least until fatigue was a factor. Give a regular play two shots and I think he is going to play better than the other two guys. That said, probably works better for the solo for 9 holes than 18. If the solo was smart and self aware of his game, and many of us are not as aware as we should be, he would conserve his energy and not play a second swing after a good shot.

He’s also the best anchoring putter there is!😏

Seconding the aimpoint thing. I had a tournament a couple of weeks ago. Had a putt from the fringe about 25 feet. I looked at it and I thought it looked flat, then went to do my aimpoint and I was trying to figure out the left right break, but realized I was on quite a downslope. Turned sideways to do it the other way and estimated about a 3% slope downhill. Basically straight. It was on a green with two tiers and I was all on the top tier. It's a hole that's benched into a slope and I think relative to the slope around me it just looked flat. My feet told me otherwise and I hit that putt like it was six inches and got it to tap in distance. If I had only relied on my eyes I'd have been chipping from off the green (literally - greens were very fast and the hole was only 6-8 feet from the tier. That ball would have gone off the green. When I got in the clubhouse afterwards people were talking about how many putts they had on that green. Combine that with my having four-putted 4 holes earlier (another tier was involved in that one except I had to go down it). I was thanking my lucky stars I did the aimpoint check. Use your feet. It might take you a little while to get used to it, but once you do, it's golden.

Had a 19 day layoff from all golf activity while we toured parts of Spain and visited grandsons in Sweden and England. Today was the big day and the weather cooperated with sun, little wind and temps in the mid-50's. I was not expecting much and made sure to play a shorter set of tees (5,805 yards 68.4/121). Joined two gentlemen even older than me. Frankly, I was really surprised by the results: 75. Only one birdie but I managed to never 3-putt on some fast sloped greens. I am going to sleep well tonight (5.7 miles and 20 floors).

I agree with @iacas, you're doing it right, your friend is wrong.

Your friend is not correct. They’re holes not played as they’re out of play. You can skip them or play to temporary greens just to hit a few more shots.

@hunterdog, find a good instructor. It's well worth the time and frustration. Or at least… https://thesandtrap.com/forums/forum/13-member-swings/.

When I was shadowing/observing Larry Ward before my daughter played NCAA Nationals last year in Kentucky, one of his lessons involved trying to get the golfer to push harder with his left (lead) foot; to increase his vertical forces. The kid was trying for awhile, trying to "stomp" down into the ground and "land" with his weight into the ground. It wasn't working. I spoke up, and told him the way to push into the ground was to push against the ground, and you do that by trying to jump off of it, by shoving the ground downward by extending your hip, knee, etc. The golfer was almost trying to do it backward - he was trying to use gravity to do the pushing downward, when what he wanted to do was push himself upward. Golfers are generally really bad, in my experience, at understanding how ground reaction forces (GRF) work. For example, to push your left hip back more or to "clear" your hips in the downswing, you have to try to push the ground toward the golf ball. The ground doesn't move, though, so what does move is your left hip… in the opposite direction. For example, if you stand an inch from a solid wall, with your hands against the wall and your elbows fully bent, and you push against the wall by extending your elbows, YOU will move away from the wall. The wall — like the ground — isn't going anywhere. By pushing east, you move west. Ask a golfer to add force to their right foot… and they'll often shove themselves to the right, which adds force beneath their left foot. To be honest, it's one of the reasons that, despite having been one of the first people to own a SwingCatalyst, and owning a BodiTrak as well, we've not really used force plates in the past six years. (The other main reason is that they're a bit of a pain to set up.) This video does a pretty good job of illustrating a few things. I encourage you to watch it, should you have a lesson on force plates in your future.

In truth, while watching the tournament the slow play doesn't bother me. I'm usually dipping in and out anyway. I'm working on other things. It's sort of on in the background. So it only affects the time at which the whole thing ends. Having typed that, I am totally on board with making severe penalties for slow play. While slow play on TV doesn't bother me directly. I know that time is valuable for everyone. What I'd be more worried about is ratings: If we look at baseball for example. As the time per game grew the ratings plummeted. In the 70's and early 80's baseball World Series would get close to a 30 share and the games would be just over 2 hours. In the mid 2010's, games were 4 hours and the World Series share was often below a 6. Obviously there are other factors in play, but slowing the game down has to be considered. To Baseball's credit, they've recognized it as an issue and have been steadily shortening the length of games over the last couple of years. The other thing that I worry about is the folks I see at the local muni who basically imitate what they see on the tour. ... Ugh...

I agree with @dennyjones, a suspension of some meaningful duration would be better than getting bounced from the Tour. They might consider experimenting each week. It might generate a bit of interest. I like the idea of a visible shot clock. If a player and their caddy can’t decide on a strategy and pull the trigger in XX seconds (30? 45? 60?), one stroke penalty. Give each player 2 resets a round. The clock starts when the last player to hit’s ball stops moving. Other pace ideas could be used every couple events until a consensus is reached to adopt or ditch an idea.

He tore his Achilles tendon in February, 2024, and wins 9 months later. He is a machine.

But he won at -18 !!! Are you going to complain that it was too easy and boring to watch like you do for the PGA Tour?

Good read (pun intended) as I have been using my feet more to feel the break and trusting these 65yr eyes less. The only caveat to my case is that most rounds I wear a carbon graphite brace that runs the length of my left foot (replicates the toe "lift" sensation while walking by putting pressure on the rear of the left calf muscle and makes a great conversation piece to the guys I play with), and I tend to find the weight sensation somewhat muted on that foot when I wear it. I do occasionally play without it and the left foot read gives a better transmission of info. However not matter which way I'm playing that day (brace/no brace), pacing off the distance and coming back about 1/2 way and getting a foot read has really helped me determine the break, the startline and oveall pace. Using my feet has definitely improved my confidence in terms of putting.

I'm getting in only two range sessions per week at most these days. I prioritize four gym days per week, mirror work, plus an option day for rest or the gym. It's more important for me to be fit than it is for me to be good at golf right now. That being said, each rep I make on the range is about as efficient as ever. My swing is working the best it ever has in my entire life. This is a slower 7-iron swing for me, but the sequencing is looking really good here. That is reflected in my scores too, which are low 80s these days, despite not playing as much as I know I need to to really progress. Working on: early extension stuff, Penick's magic move, widening the right arm, pushing up with the lead leg, and finally, right side bending an appropriate amount post impact. The last six, seven month or so of core and leg training with my DPT, with a lot of dry needling, has really helped me swing this way. He's TPI certified too and I do the same routine he gives his tour players. Training with him is also training my golf swing IMO. It's insane the amount of work we've done on my left hip and lower back and I'm reaping the rewards now. I re-upped for another year at PGA National too, so hopefully I can have some fun rounds this winter. Fingers crossed! The Foreplay Good Good stuff was still up a day later. Pretty funny. I didn't go because I was watching football all day, but it would've been kinda cool to catch the opening tee shots. I still do rehab twice a week and currently we're doing some work on minor neck and left wrist pain I've been having. Neither I consider serious, but these are just a couple of examples of the weekly grind I face in keeping myself in good shape and why I don't play a ton of golf, which for me, always makes my body weaker in various ways. Golf is exercise too, for twisting related stuff, but it also takes a toll on me in a negative way. Therefore, I always make a point to treat golf like the gym, with highly efficient reps at the appropriate "weight" with appropriate rest and reflection in between. My distances are solid tho. My median driver is probably 260 without trying. My slow 7-iron swing goes like 170. I'm much more concerned with sequencing, and anything that compromises that is a failure in my book, in terms of my long term development. Anyway, clearly the swing isn't perfect. Bit too shallow going back, with a steepening move in transition, but I'm hitting the middle of the face at by far the highest rate I ever have. I get better every month it seems. It would not shock me at all if I hit like a 3.0 handicap or better at some point in the next year or two or three. Fingers crossed, guys. I know I need to get out there more in order to achieve that. Some future pieces I know I need to focus on more are arms/wrist related. My hackmotion sensor tells me to bow the wrist slightly from P5 onward. I know that's a big reason why I have a bleeder fade miss. Otherwise I keep the face square until that point. The only reason I don't really focus on this one is because it's simply too many thoughts to juggle and I want to get to P5 better with my body and arms first. I have to spend too much bandwidth on not early extending and throwing my arms out in the transition, especially with the longer clubs like 3-wood and driver. Pretty darn excited though about my game these days. This is the lowest amount of dread I've ever felt over the ball, ever.

7i from the wrong fairway on 10. Always good to hit one like this with an audience. +9 on the back with triples on both par 3s.

I never heard of this guy before, but what a horrible break. golfer hit in eye

You probably just go too fast. If you can't do it slowly, you won't do it fast. Good.

Does confidence breed game or does game breed confidence? I would think it's both and that I have little of either at the moment. Have struggled to break 80 even on some easier tracks outside of my home course, which seemed like I had it in the bag on most days during the summer. The regression is evident in the variance that has creeped into my most trusted of game aspects, especially my short irons and wedges. I went through a three month period this summer where I couldn't mishit a wedge if I tried. Not exactly terrible but the sharpness is gone and so is the confidence. And as it almost always happens, it has affected my driving as well, which was also something I had made solid strides on. Admittedly, lot of it is self-created as as I am a perennially pathological tinkerer. I didn't bother posting a video I took yesterday as it seems like there is no point in posting it. I saw what I needed and let's just say in spite of all the academic help I have gotten from @iacas, @JetFan1983, @saevel25 and of course, @boogielicious I can only conclude that I am bit dense as a golf student. I will still see this as my best year yet and remain committed. Maybe a trip to Erie is in order at some point in the winter months.

I wash them in the sink and running water with liquid dish soap, rubbing with my hand only or a scotch brite pad and it works very well

Played all summer with a hernia, had to ride and suffer. Had surgery on 9/30 after my best round of the season 4 days prior, go figure. Now 4.5 weeks out and I’ll play tomorrow, walking for the first time since May, finally! Before this one month layoff I had played at least once every month for the last 18 here in the wintery Berkshires.

I played with the group on June 2 in Ohio, my next round of golf was 80 days later, 9 holes on August 21. I did hit a few balls on 8/17, that would mean a gap of 76 days. My back isn't great now, but I can play and enjoy it.

I have not been to a Ryder Cup. At $750 I doubt I will go in the future. I tend to compare things. A year long Senior pass at our city courses ($695) vs. a day at the Ryder. I prefer to play. I will watch on TV.

Yeah, that's not remotely funny.

Approach® R50 Approach R50 is a premium golf simulator and launch monitor with a 10” color touchscreen for virtual rounds, and three-cameras for precise club and ball measurements. The Garmin R50 is a $5k all-in-one camera based launch monitor. It has a built-in sim (the HDMI output is limited to the screen's resolution, which is only 1280 x 800).

I played in a scramble that got rained out. The day was forecast for rain and my 3 partners bailed. I went anyway as I took the day off and did not feel like going to work. Not sure how many groups showed up, but I was assured that I could hit all four shots if I wanted. Long story short: I played 13 holes and was nine under with a couple holes at the end where I was having trouble hanging on to the club due to the rain. If I hit a drive that I deemed acceptable I did not hit another. I probably only took 3 or 4 mulligan tee shots on par 4 and 5 holes. Approach shots I probably hit at least two sometimes 3. I don't recall missing a GIR. Once on the putting surface is where I shined with 4 attempts. I was amazed at how successful I was on these long putts when I had 4 balls sitting there and then hit them in quick succession. One would go high, then one a little low and then the third or fourth would often drop. I "won" the event and got some nice prizes. I was a bit embarrassed by it all.

He needs to avoid pickleball from here onward.

Oh, that's good then.

Whoo Hooo, I know somebody famous! Interesting product which looks well designed and rugged.

This reminded me of a (fictional) book I read about a golf hustler. One game he used was to play against a good player. he'd play his own ball straight up, the other guy was allowed to play the best of 4 attempts, similar to your scenario, but with double the chances. The other guy got ahead early, but was exhausted after 8 or 10 holes of hitting 4 drives, 4 approaches, etc., on every hole. Again, this was fiction, but it has a ring of truth to it. So in your scenario, I'd wonder whether a single player taking two attempts at each and every shot would get pretty fatigued before the end of the round. With a little self-control, taking a second try only when there was real improvement available, he might do really well.

If they sell out, then there's an argument to be made it wasn't over-priced.

Dang... in the realm of things that probably don't matter all that much, golf slumps are the worst. Yes definitely consult a pro ASAP. Get back to hitting it solid again. Hitting the sweet spot solves a lot of problems. For me it's always the latter. My confidence grows as I hit more and more solid shots, which are the result of continuing to improve my swing thru better concepts, better practice, etc. Yea, this for sure. And also, without a professional there to let you know you "did it better this time" it can be unnecessarily frustrating and confounding working alone. It's not that you can't work alone; clearly, you can. But during rough patches, it's always smart to consult professionals. Lessons are an amazing place to take new concepts and turn them into feels that you are confident will work. It's still really cool you consider this your best ever season. Congrats on hitting 7.8 this year!

Shot a 39 today 3 birdies and eagle and a few boogies The group I golf with has a "gold ball" for eagles hopefully can keep it a few days. Tom

2024 has not provided many "layoff" opportunities (usually trips and such with family get in there - and that's not a bad thing). I typically do a little something each day (currently I'm at about day 180 on the 5 Minute practice page). The days off there from hitting a ball are mirror work days - where time or conditions did not provide a window to hit a ball. I've been blessed to remain pretty well injury free - however my left foot (the rebuilt one from the wreck in '16 will flare up with bruising that keeps me from making full swings at times).

I had a little over 3 weeks without hitting balls because of a trip to Europe. Can't complain too much about that!

For 2024.....however many days from January 1 to when the ranges start opening around mid-April.

If it is soggy out, you need to have pretty good control of your low point. You can get away with taking larger divots, if you hit the golf ball first. That is going to be a struggle for higher handicap golfers due their lack of low point control. When it comes to game planning. 1) No roll out with the driver. So, you may worry less with the ball rolling into areas (hazards), but you can probably expect to lose a good % of your distance. If you get 5% roll out with dry conditions that is significant loss. 2) Greens can be tricky. Sometimes it can amplify the ball spinning back, and other times the ball just sticks and stops. You probably see little to no roll out. It is going to be all carry. If you plan for the ball to land short and roll 20-FT, it probably will not. 3) I hate when it is soggy when it comes to pitching. You just need to pick it. When I use the bounce, I can get away with hitting it slightly fat because the club glides. When it gets really soggy, that doesn't happen. It is just an adjustment in low point. Courses play longer. Low point control is key. You got to just adjust your shot zone or club selection.

For starters, you gotta manage your expectations knowing that in wet conditions you are behind the 8-ball all day. Here's what I think happens from my experience (I play in all conditions unless it is pouring down or the ground is frozen). Unless you are hitting tour quality strikes (ball first) your club will loose energy to the wet ground leading up to impact. Additionally, wet ground will also add more friction to the ball taking off (the very opposite of what happens when you get a fluffy flyer lie) even if you strike it cleanly. The reduced spin off the wet clubface will not add sufficient distance to overcome the wet ground effect. In summary, I suggest take more club, then add one more club to it and then strike it as cleanly as you can.

As long as he keeps that haircut, he can never make me feel silly

This. Don't try to figure it out on your own. It's a path to madness and despair. Stay off YouTube instruction vids (unless it's your instructor who created it).

The differences? Well, one is spelled with a q in it, and the other isn't. Plus a few other characters are different. But, seriously though… meh. I think they're both bogus. I was listening to a podcast the other day with Jackson Koivun and the host joked about how guys who can't putt would switch putters all the time and, eventually, just end up in a LAB because that's like the last resort. He wasn't saying that they end up there because they work, they just end up there after nothing else works, and then many will almost start the process all over again. The forces and torques in putting are incredibly small, and overcome by just holding the putter off the ground. They can matter slightly to FEEL, but the most important things in a putter are how you align it and how you perceive your distance control with it. I don't think the LAB does either of those things better or worse than any other flat piece of (usually) metal on the end of a shaft. The Revealer is a carnival trick, and the physics and science are pretty simple and pretty clear.

Wondering about other's experience with course administrators. Do they promote the rules of golf? Should we expect them to? Background: I belong to a golf club that organizes tournaments at a municipal course. Our club is trying to popularize and enforce the rules of golf in our events, but the golf course staff is not on the same page. For example, the course manager just sent an email to our club suggesting we should lift, clean, and place throughout the general area year round, citing allegedly terrible course conditions and lack of staff. The conditions are the same as the other public courses in our area. Also, the greenskeeper has refused to mark GUR or to allow our club volunteers to do it. Not sure why, i think because he believes it is unattractive. He suggested we create a local rule essentially allowing players to decide for themselves what is GUR. To me, this is not appropriate for administrators of a golf course. But perhaps financial concerns are more important than the rules?

Maybe approach the superintendent and suggest you experiment by marking 1 or 2 holes with acceptable white marking paint. I think there are versions for turf and others for pavement. See how it looks and determine whether other players like it or hate it. I don’t think a public access course owes a group any special support. At the same time, a course shouldn’t dismiss out of hand an offer to properly mark the course.

Ball strike is king. You hit with a glancing blow (hook or slice), your smash factor just decreases a ton. Having a face to path angle of like 20 degrees versus something like 3 degrees is huge. Yea, getting in shape is a good idea all around. Power is moving something heavy really fast. So, increasing how much you can lift, then improving on how fast you can move it will improve your power. In general, I think the two biggest tests for distance is like a chest press and standing vertical high jump. Some people are gifted with fast hands, but having good lower body can amplify what you have. Using the ground the correct way really ramps up the rotation speed, and then that can get the clubhead moving faster. Still, the hands do get down from the top of the backswing really fast. If you start gaining strength and power gains. Knowing how to use the ground properly is important. You can have all the leg strength, but if you are not activating it correctly it is a waste. That is where good mechanics come into play.

Launch conditions and swing mechanics are king. Launch conditions aim for the typical high launch / low spin formula, let say 14° and 2200 rpm. Also with less sidespin as possible. Once you have that, swings mechanics are the most important thing to improve club / ball speed. The concept of snapping a towel or skipping a stone in a lake are key. The golf swing is the same concept but extended to the hole body. Speed training is a good way to learn how to swing faster, but take care of your body it can lead to injury. Is vital for this process to get a launch monitor or a speed meter to measure progress.

You ever try walking with a 12 pack and a Bluetooth speaker?

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there that go to the expense of replacing their grips, when only a good cleaning will extend their life. Can make a very noticeable difference, depending on the grip material.

I have now had this conversation with another person on another forum. I've said things like "the math bears this out." I was then criticized for not sharing the "math" and even "making it up" or just yelling "science!" like a COVID denier (or a mask denier, or whatever…). I haven't quantified the math because I don't know the exact math. We have something like 10x the number of golfers playing golf now than we did in the 1970s. This same person keeps saying that he thinks that Tiger's competition doesn't stack up to Jack's, and will say things like "there are fewer 1A players today." He'll list Seve, Watson, Floyd, Irwin, Trevino, Palmer, Player, and others as competitors to Jack, and will, if pushed, list only Phil, Ernie, and maybe Vijay as competitors to Tiger. He'll scoff at Michael Campbell beating Tiger in the 2005 U.S. Open at Pinehurst (and, I guess, ignore that Tiger beat Phil, Vijay, and Ernie?). He'll cite that Player (etc.) all have more majors than Ernie, Phil, and Vijay… and Dustin Johnson, and Jordan Spieth, etc.… while ignoring that those players also benefited from weak fields too. So, in an attempt to put "the math" into a visual form, I came up with this list. If we assume that all golfers are on a somewhat normal curve (a bell curve), this is the tippy top of the curve. The top whatever %. In Jack's day, it may be the top 0.003%. Today, it may be the top 0.0003%, as we saw about a ten-fold increase in the number of players from 1970 to 2005. At any rate, the top graph has 34 dots, with the red dot being Jack, and the bottom has 100 dots, or about triple the number. This is a cautious approach, as I genuinely think the real number of dots should be more than three-fold. The "probability of winning" goes from maybe 0.2% (1 in 500 events) on the left to something (non-linearly) higher on the right. The bottom graph illustrates how much more difficult it is to win in 2005 than in 1970. 3x as many players are squished into far less space. This reduces the chances of one of the top (two, five, ten…) guys winning in two ways: Tripling the number of players, even if the distribution was the same, would reduce everyone's chances by about 1/3. Shifting the players to the right (higher chances of winning, or reducing "1 in 500" to, say, "1 in 200" events) similarly reduces the chances of others winning. For example, if 10 players go from 0.2% to 0.5%, that 3% has to come from somewhere. This graph illustrates that not only are the top 100 players capable of winning the event that week (the real number is likely 200, and includes people who aren't even in the field, a few good Korn Ferry Tour players, etc.), but that those players at the top. To check the "math" I talked with Lou Stagner, someone who KNOWS the math. He and I had this conversation (link to see it full-size is at the bottom, in the postscript): His tweet is this one: Later in the conversation, Lou said this: This is an example I always give. Imagine you invent a game when you are a kid. You and 19 of your friends play every day. 20 players total. You are the best at it of all your friends. The game catches on. And soon there are 100 players. Are you still the best? Then there are 200. You still the best? Then 500. Then 1000 Then 10,000 Are you still the best? Odds are not in your favor. I replied: Right. I've made this point… Imagine you field a football team of 50 from a town of 5,000. They play a football team from a town of 500,000. There are "decent" (way below 50%, but not 0%) odds that the starting QB from the town of 5,000 will be better than the QB from the town of 500,000. But there is basically no chance that the starting QB, RB, two WR, the kicker, a safety, a cornerback, and two linebackers from the town of 5,000 will be better than their counterparts from the town of 500,000. That the best ten (or nine) players from the small town will be better than the best nine/ten from the town of 500,000. It's effectively a 0% chance. So, the #1 player right now (Dustin Johnson) may not be better than Jack. That's not a guarantee. But the top 10 players are almost definitely better than the top 10 players of 1970. Lou, again, in response to that (in addition to liking my last post: Great example. I love it. Perfect. Tiger faces not only DEEPER, but STRONGER at every level. And yeah, Seve won his share of majors, as did Trevino and Watson and Palmer (their careers overlap with Jack's less than many realize) and Player, but they too were taking advantage of the shallow, weak fields. THIS is what the math shows, and there's almost NO chance that the best ten or even the best five players of 1970 were better than the best five or ten players of 2005, let alone for a period of several years, let alone for a decade, or a career. P.S. Here's a full-size link to the conversation: https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/eDuwk5RY/conversation.jpg?v=091ffa1f177b2801866b7e32f2f14126. I forgot TST would resize the image to fit within a boundary.