Leaderboard

Earlier this summer, I entered a sweepstakes for a round of golf at TPC Sawgrass, home of course to The Players Championship. This has been on my bucket list for quite some time. Imagine my shock as well as suspicion when received an email that I won. I called the number on my card to make sure it wasn’t a scam. Being in the world of IT, I see so many scams that I’m constantly suspicious. As it turns out, it was legit! They flew me to Jacksonville on 12/10 where I am met with a guy holding a sign who loaded my clubs into a black SUV and drove me to the resort. My friend, Billy, has gotten me on many very nice courses over the years like Oakland Hills and Valhalla. I was able to invite a +1, so I was happy to be able to be able to reciprocate. After checking in and having some hors d’oeuvres, we headed over to the course to soak it in and do some putting on the practice green. It’s been a while since I played Bermuda, so it took some time to get a feel for the grain again. They were much slower than I expected for a championship course, but I’m sure they are much faster for the tournament. Q School was going on there at the same time, so we got to see some of the players trying to get their tour card. That was pretty cool! The next morning, we headed to the course bright and early for breakfast, drinks and some time on the practice facilities. We were then treated to a short game clinic with Trevor Immelman and Kira Dixon. They are both awesome people. Trevor walked up straight from the car and pitches one to a few feet without any warmup. Show off! 😃 Now for the golf part. As many of you know, I’ve been battling a bad knee since an accident at work about 5 years ago, so I don’t play much anymore. I was hopeful since the week prior, I had a gel injection that supposedly works better than the steroids. No such luck. I wasn’t able to finish several holes, and I was in so much pain, I was almost in tears. I battled through though. I shot a 92, but don’t get too excited. This was a shamble format with a double bogey max on each hole. I estimate I would have been over 120 had I played my own ball. One of the guys in the other foursome had to have a sore back at the end of the day from carrying us. I did crush one on #10 that our caddy said was in the “Pro Zone”. He got a good tip just for saying that. I give some credit to the “Sawgrass Splash” drink they served us at the turn. Unfortunately I pushed my second into the junk and ended up taking a legit double. When we get to 13, there stands Trevor on the tee. We got to chat a bit while waiting on the group ahead of us to putt out. It turns out he lived pretty close to me when I lived in Winter Park, FL, but I’m sure his house was quite a bit bigger than the one I was renting. I hit my shot a bit thin, but it ended up pin high on the right fringe. He hit a shot for our group, and it was an out 10’ short and downhill. I liked my putt from the fringe, but the others wanted to play from his shot. Nobody made it. We started on #3, so thankfully we were good and warmed up by the time we got to 17. This was the hole I really wanted to conquer. Several people from the GM Rewards Program that we met were standing there watching. The others seemed nervous, but I like a crowd. I stepped up and hit one to about 12’ left the birdie putt a tad short. I was happy with a tap in par. Billy put his into the pond, so I claim a major victory. We finished the last 3 holes after that which I finished with 3 bogeys. I was grinning from ear to ear even though I was in misery. This is certainly one for the memory books, and one that I plan to return to in 5-6 after they will do a knee replacement. I would have loved to play this course 10-15 years ago.

You didn't even know about PCC. You seemed to be unaware of soft and hard caps. Saying that you know and demonstrating that you know are two different things. We know. It could take way, way too long to rise. It's what you're used to, and change is hard. That's the language we used to have here, too. Now it's "demonstrated ability." The new system more accurately reflects the golfer's demonstrated ability. Plus the soft and hard caps that limit upward movement. That's not true. The opposite is closer to true. It's more reactive than the old UK system (a good thing IMO), and it's much quicker to go down than it is to go up, especially if a golfer shoots an exceptional score. This is just math and is factual. This has been demonstrated several times for you. You refuse to acknowledge that you've got it wrong, mathematically, or you're being quite loose with the definitions of some words. Again, pal, post the handicap history or pipe down, because that doesn't make any real sense. The first good score you shoot drops your handicap. The next good score you shoot drops it again. The first twelve bad scores you shoot have the potential to not affect your index at all, if they bump off other non-counting scores. It's just math, man. And you're still a sample size of one, with some strange definitions and you play a lot of golf. I'm also not even really sure I believe you anymore. So, again… Please post your handicap record (like below) for the past year so we can all see exactly what you're talking about or just stop posting in this thread. It's going nowhere. Would look like a bigger version of this (not mine):

Wow! What a great experience. Thanks for sharing the details and photos. You earner a 🤛 for the tap in par on #17.

Sounds like a great experience, and an early Christmas gift to you from the golf gods.

When you've been teaching golf as long as I have, you're going to find that you can teach some things better than you previously had, and you're probably going to find some things that you taught incorrectly. I don't see that as a bad thing — what would be worse is refusing to adapt and grow given new information. I've always said that my goal with my instruction isn't to be right, but it's to get things right. To that end, I'm about five years late in issuing a public proclamation on something… When I first got my GEARS system, I immediately looked at the golf swings of the dozens and dozens of Tour players for which I suddenly had full 3D data. I created a huge spreadsheet showing how their bodies moved, how the club moved, at various points in the swing. I mapped knee and elbow angles, hand speeds, shoulder turns and pelvis turns… etc. I re-considered what I thought I knew about the golf swing as performed by the best players. One of those things dated back to the earliest days: that you extend (I never taught "straighten" and would avoid using that word unless in the context of saying "don't fully straighten") the trail knee/leg in the backswing. I was mislead by 2D photos from less-than-ideal camera angles — the trail leg rotates a bit during the backswing, and so when observing trail knee flex should also use a camera that moves to stay perpendicular to the plane of the ankle/knee/hip joint. We have at least two topics here on this (here and here; both of which I'll be updating after publishing this) where @mvmac and I advise golfers to extend the trail knee. Learning that this was not right is one of the reasons I'm glad to have a 3D system, as most golfers generally preserve the trail knee flex throughout the backswing. Data Here's a video showing an iron and a driver of someone who has won the career slam: Here's what the graph of his right knee flex looks like. The solid lines I've positioned at the top of the backswing (GEARS aligns both swings at impact, the dashed line). Address is to the right, of course, and the graph shows knee flex from the two swings above. The data (17.56° and 23.20°) shows where this player is in both swings (orange being the yellow iron swing, pink the blue driver swing). You can see that this golfer extends his trail knee 2-3°… before bending it even more than that through the late backswing and early downswing. Months ago I created a quick Instagram video showing the trail knee flex in the backswing of several players (see the top for the larger number): Erik J. Barzeski (@iacas) • Instagram reel GEARS shares expert advice on golf swing technique, focusing on the critical backswing phase. Tour winners and major champions reveal the key to a precise and powerful swing, highlighting the importance of... Here are a few more graphs. Two LIV players and major champions: Two PGA Tour winners: Two women's #1 ranked players: Two more PGA Tour winners (one a major champ): Two former #1s, the left one being a woman, the right a man, with a driver: Two more PGA Tour players: You'll notice a trend: they almost all maintain roughly the same flex throughout their backswing and downswing. The Issues with Extending the Trail Knee You can play good golf extending (again, not "straightening") the trail knee. Some Tour players do. But, as with many things, if 95 out of 100 Tour players do it, you're most likely better off doing similarly to what they do. So, what are the issues with extending the trail knee in the backswing? To list a few: Pelvic Depth and Rotation Quality Suffers When the trail knee extends, the trail leg often acts like an axle on the backswing, with the pelvis rotating around the leg and the trail hip joint. This prevents the trail side from gaining depth, as is needed to keep the pelvis center from thrusting toward the ball. Most of the "early extension" (thrust) that I see occurs during the backswing. Encourages Early Extension (Thrust) Patterns When you've thrust and turned around the trail hip joint in the backswing, you often thrust a bit more in the downswing as the direction your pelvis is oriented is forward and "out" (to the right for a righty). Your trail leg can abduct to push you forward, but "forward" when your pelvis is turned like that is in the "thrust" direction. Additionally, the trail knee "breaking" again at the start of the downswing often jumps the trail hip out toward the ball a bit too much or too quickly. While the trail hip does move in that direction, if it's too fast or too much, it can prevent the lead side hip from getting "back" at the right rate, or at a rate commensurate with the trail hip to keep the pelvis center from thrusting. Disrupts the Pressure Shift/Transition When the trail leg extends too much, it often can't "push" forward normally. The forward push begins much earlier than forward motion begins — pushing forward begins as early as about P1.5 to P2 in the swings of most good golfers. It can push forward by abducting, again, but that's a weaker movement that shoves the pelvis forward (toward the target) and turns it more than it generally should (see the next point). Limits Internal Rotation of the Trail Hip Internal rotation of the trail hip is a sort of "limiter" on the backswing. I have seen many golfers on GEARS whose trail knee extends, whose pelvis shifts forward (toward the target), and who turn over 50°, 60°, and rarely but not never, over 70° in the backswing. If you turn 60° in the backswing, it's going to be almost impossible to get "open enough" in the downswing to arrive at a good impact position. Swaying/Lateral Motion Occasionally a golfer who extends the trail knee too much will shift back too far, but more often the issue is that the golfer will shift forward too early in the backswing (sometimes even immediately to begin the backswing), leaving them "stuck forward" to begin the downswing. They'll push forward, stop, and have to restart around P4, disrupting the smooth sequence often seen in the game's best players. Other Bits… Reduces ground reaction force potential, compromises spine inclination and posture, makes transition sequencing harder, increases stress on the trail knee and lower back… In short… It's not athletic. We don't do many athletic things with "straight" or very extended legs (unless it's the end of the action, like a jump or a big push off like a step in a running motion).

What Is an Internet Troll? (and How to Handle Trolls) Internet trolls are common online. Here's what they are---and how to avoid feeding the trolls.

What part of anything anyone said is in dispute with this statement? Did you miss the bit about playing different tees?

Went up to Erie for a lesson. I still need to work on how I shift my weight into my right leg and turn into the right leg. I extend it too much and externally rotate it too much. That all causes me to over rotate the hips and cause weight shift issues in the downswing. I need to feel like my right leg gains flex (it doesn’t), and my knee cap faces forward. The right hip sinks back and right. I need a need a ton more internal rotation. I still have some right elbow issues in the backswing. The path is better, but too much right elbow bend. I need to maintain width in the right elbow and let my right shoulder retract more, let’s say at A3, which helps keep that right arm extended.

In the UK, it will inflate your handicap if you were better, but are getting worse or have got worse. If you are improving then it will probably lower it if you're a lower handicap and have little impact if you're a higher handicap. The old UK system was like this (spoilered since it's kind of long and not entirely on topic):

Didn't say anything about your understanding in my post. Well, if you are not insisting on alignment with logic of the WHS, then no. Try me/us. What do you want from us then?? You are not making sense. You come here and post in an open forum, question a system that is constructed with logic, without using any of your own and then give us a small window of your personal experience to support your narrative which at first sight does not makes sense. I mean, if you are a point of swearing then I would suggest you cut your losses and humor a more gullible audience elsewhere. Good heavens.

Just let me know where you work. I'll send your boss some links of Lexxii and Greg Norman getting a golden bukkake from your spoofed email for you

So you play 3-4 rounds/week, post ALL of your rounds, yet these 'three best rounds' from summer JUST fell off?? Give us your score history or should we say, err..the plot thickens?

What drives me nuts most about Elite Golf Schools/Milo Lines type instruction is: Claims about the "health benefits" of swinging like they prefer. Claims about how "athletes" should move Claims about the advantages of swinging the way they swing (while constantly listing golfers like Rory, Tiger, Scottie, Jack, etc. as "swingers") Basing much of their "analysis" on 2D video and what they think is happening versus 3D and force plate data. Ignoring facts and data in other ways. I didn't time stamp my notes, but you can pretty much follow along… Jimmy Walker (why Jimmy Walker? Because he has a "not great" swing that exaggerates some of what he sees as flaws?) vs. Viktor Hovland (even though he notes Scottie as a swinger), also notes that Rory has a higher ROC than Viktor at 18:40 (another swinger). Also… Jimmy won a major ("Hovvie" doesn't) in 2016, got Lyme disease in 2017, and this video is from 2018 when he was saying he couldn't practice, couldn't play, etc. Also, there's never been a correlation between Rate of Closure and either distance or accuracy. It sounds like there would be, but there isn't. You have accurate and inaccurate, long and short, and every combo of those players who have high ROC and low ROC and everything in between. No correlation. But it sounds good… Main reason for Riley's "preference" is injury prevention. D'oh! Never shown any actual evidence or support for this, and the rash of players moving away from the "extreme-right-side-bend/rotational" for their health is just ignored, I guess. He will talk about Jimmy Walker's shoulder tilt and "right side bend" at P8, but ignore that Viktor's right shoulder is about 18" below his left at P9. Then he goes into the high ROC stuff I wrote about above. Seriously, again, Jimmy Walker less than a year after a Lyme Disease diagnosis? From 2018? Riley now likes to say that golfers "express the golf club to the golf ball." 😛 Oy. Says Walker's swing is "lots of lateral bend" (right side bend) while the body moves up and pelvis goes forward. See Image 1 where he's comparing himself to Hovland and let's see if you can spot the differences! Riley is not doing ANY of this using 3D, just what he thinks and what it looks like on a video. If only we had measured data on these kinds of things. Word Salad just jumped to level 7. He's now using the words "antecubital fossa" instead of just saying "elbow pit" or "inside of your elbow." Also, you could just call it the cubital fossa if you want to use a medical term, but adding "ante" adds two syllables and makes him look smarter (he thinks?). Jimmy Walker is at P8.2 while Hovland is at P7.2 and he's comparing left arm internal rotation. Riley clearly doesn't know the YouTube shortcuts , and . Opening the chest is a clubface opener. It makes it tougher to square the face. Riley keeps saying Hovland squares the face with heavy rotation of the chest. Oh geez. Now he's saying they're "more or less stacked up" by guessing at where the centers of his rib cage and pelvis are at P5 by looking at an off-angle video on YouTube. We can and have measurements for these kinds of things. See Image 2. You want to know who's actually stacked up late in the downswing? See Rory McIlroy, a swinger, in Image 3. Almost all of the stuff around 18:40 and Rory vs. Viktor is laughable. a) Rory is as "stacked" for as long as almost anyone, b) Rory's high ROC and "swinger" pattern have led to a 15-year span in which he's consistently top 5 in the world, and often #1, and won the Career Slam. Riley doesn't seem to understand how pressure is generated at 21:02. Some of the biggest swayers generate the least pressure in the left foot, and some of the biggest rotators generate the most. He's guessing at Jimmy's and Viktor's pressure/force numbers. Lost steam after that stuff. He doesn't say much in the last six or seven minutes anyway. A summary, which is almost a comment I made on the YouTube video. If only we have actual measurements (3D, force plates). It'd contradict or show to be misleading if not outright false a LOT of what you have to say. Video was great… two decades ago, and it's an effective tool for practicing, etc. largely due to its availability, but you're guessing at things. We have better tools now than video. You guess at things golf instructors (and biomechanists, and others) have actually measured. What's worse, you wrap it in an "injury prevention" package with zero evidence of that (and the evidence at the highest level generally supports NOT moving like Will Z or Joaquin Niemann, who is moving AWAY from being the type of "mover" that you like). There are too many factual errors or asterisks to detail in a single YouTube comment, so I won't bother to list them all out. Also… Rory's had a 15-year career of being a top-five player in the world. Scottie and Tiger, both "swingers," have put up some of the best seasons we've seen in the last 30 years. The two greatest players of all time in Tiger and Jack are both swingers… While Hovland is constantly searching for his swing and tinkering. Jason Day, Will Zalatoris, Joaquin Niemann… etc. are moving away from this extreme-right-side-bend, rotation-heavy "hitter" pattern for health reasons (and quality of play reasons). Image 1: Image 2: Image 3:

This seems like something that might help those opens to have stronger fields more so than changing much about the eventual Masters field. Maybe not so much for the Scottish Open since lots of top players play that as a warm up for the Open, but for Japan, Hong Kong, South Africa I could see this being a big boon.

What a way to kick off a good discussion! So detailed! We have a lot to discuss here given the breadth and depth of the info you shared. 🙂 Masters, Open Championship change qualifying criteria - ESPN The Masters and Open Championship changed their qualifying criteria by eliminating invitations to PGA Tour winners in the fall and recognizing winners of six national opens on every main tour in the world. Even though it was sold as a "big" change, I don't see it as such. They added six national opens as getting qualifying spots (Scottish Open, Spanish Open, Japan Open, Hong Kong Open, Australian Open and South African Open) The eliminated qualifying spots from the (seven) Fall Series events. I'm trying to tease you there, above, too… cuz you really could have posted more than just what amounts to a complaint about a lack of discussion… while doing nothing to create a discussion. This news dates back to August, too.

I guess that just tells us you don't know the handicap system all that well.

038: Dr. Raymond Prior (Golf Beneath the Surface) and the Psychology of Practice | The Spin Axis Podcast - Golf Coaches Discuss Instruction Modern Techniques and Technology I think we did the latter part, but in the show we did talk briefly about block vs. random practice. I asked him on the show about how someone might appear to be doing block practice (rehearsing the same move with a 7I or something, hitting the same type of shot on repeat), and he said that would likely be what he and others in his field would call Variable Practice. Now, this is big, because I think block practice gets a bad rap. In the post-show conversation (not recorded), I asked more questions about this. Basically, block practice to people in this field is literally doing the same exact thing over and over again. Given that definition, and except for the guy literally just hitting drivers on the range, I don't think anyone really ever does block practice. It casts serious shade on the studies that show block practice is horrible and random practice is the only good way to go. If just altering what you're doing a little, by exaggerating more or less, or doing "the thing" a little more or less, or altering the speed a little is enough to make it "variable" practice, then… do that. It'll look like block practice to others, or at least what they think is block practice, but apparently… it's not! So, anyway, I'd like to have a discussion on this stuff. The value (or lack of value) in how we practice to ingrain movement improvements.

I played tennis in college. I thought block practice was great for serves because you were starting the point and you could easily adjust where you wanted to place the ball based off the same motion. I equate those to tee balls. I despised block practice for groundstrokes once you reached a certain level and your fundamentals were good. To me, hitting a 100 crosscourt backhands in a row was silly because I would never do that in a match. I needed to randomize it by hitting some deep, some angled, all with different speeds and spins. I share that same thought about iron play. Because we seldom hit the same approach shots hole after hole, I prefer to practice irons randomly.

I was at a golf clinic yesterday with Trevor Immelman and he answered a question about which is better. His take was that you need both. Block practice is for working on something specific. p.s. I’m curious if the question asked is on here.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something (plausible) the whole point is that that is not block practice. At least not in the terms used in the study that said block practice doesn't help much.

Yeah, which throws a different context on all the "block vs. random practice" studies, no?

Quick question since I feel like maybe I'm mixed up too. If I go to the driving range with a 7 iron and aim at a flag at about the right distance, hit it 10 yards left of it, so on the next one I try to keep the face slightly more open say, this time it goes straight, but I hit the mat a bit before the ball, so this time I try to get a fraction more forward and hit it clean this time, but it goes a bit right, so the next one I try to get a fraction more forward and go back to my first release. Is this block practice since I'm hitting the same club to the same target each time, or is this variable practice since I'm trying to do something slightly different with each swing?

It's not meaningful, because driving = playing golf. We'll talk sometime, Vishal, because I'm not sure I'm reading you right or vice versa. Block vs. Random practice "studies" are cited all the time, but it turns out that block practice isn't what many actually think it is, per Dr. Raymond Prior himself. I think it's a much narrower thing than what many people think it is.

I found it odd that both Drs. (Raymond Prior and Greg Rose) in their separate videos gave the same exact math problem (23 x 12), and both made the point of comparing block practice to solving the same exact math problem (23 x 12) over and over again. But I've made the point that when you are learning your multiplication tables… you do a bunch of similar multiplications over and over again. You do 7 x 8, then 9 x 4, then 3 x 5, then 2 x 6, and so on. So, I think when golf instructors talk about block practice, they're really not understanding what it actually is, and they're assuming that someone trying to kinda do the same thing is block practice, but when Dr. Raymond Prior said on my podcast that what I was describing was variable practice… then… well, that changes things. It changes the results of everything you've heard about how "block" practice is bad (or ineffective).

What change are you talking about? The switch from 10/20 * 0.96 to 8/20 kept handicaps almost exactly where they were. 8/20 instead of 10/20 reduces it, but eliminating 0.96 brought the 8 back up a little. So net… almost nobody saw a change to their index let alone to the number of strokes they got on the course.

To flog this subject even further, if that's even possible, this article from Golf Monthly just appeared today in one of my news feeds. Written by a golf writer in the UK who I never heard of, he's basically saying that there should be only 3-5 rounds from the most recent 20 that should count towards the average and only competitive rounds should count. He claims the erratic scorers would have less of an advantage than they do now. He makes a lot of references to "club golfers" in the UK being the ones who are mostly dissatisfied. https://share.google/qmZZBEoJvOxHxJGil In my experience with my league where we have golfers with indexes ranging from 5 to 40, looking at the weekly results from the past two years, I can detect no pattern that would substantiate the claim that the current system gives an unfair advantage to either erratic golfers (aren't we all?) or higher handicappers. Apparently though, at least in the UK, this seems to be "a thing."

As an analyst by nature, I would like to compare the scores under both systems. It is something we can easily do if we have the data. I actually thought the new system was less fair to those whose game was on the decline - like mine! Old: Best 10 of last 20 scores with the .96 multiplier. Course handicap excluded course rating and overall par. New: Best 8/20. Course handicap includes course rating -par. My understanding is Stableford caps scores at Net double bogey like stroke play. If so, handicap should be slower to rise because you are only using 8 versus 10 scores. If I am missing something, I am curious enough to want to understand what that may be. My home course tees that I play are 72.1/154 now. My best score out here is 82. When my game started to decline, my handicap didn’t budge for 13 rounds because of good scores in my first 8! I know I am an anomaly but my handicap has increased almost 80% in the past few years (with only a few rounds this year). For a few months I knew I was losing every bet because my game was nowhere near my handicap. I suspect I have steamrolled a few nuances but that shouldn’t matter much. When I have modeled this with someone playing the same tees and course, one good round, or return to form, will immediately reduce the handicap by some amount.

Meet the new guy from Australia😁 I'm Jack, I'm 29.

I have access to far more data (including surveys and polls) than you do with your anecdotes. I mean this as plainly and literally as possible: you’ve demonstrated that you do not. They would, one way or the other.

Really enjoyed today’s putting podcast. As someone who uses the face to aim it was fun to hear about this.

Big thumbs up @bkuehn1952. I think this is a key for the enjoyment of the game. Average leave after a tee shot on the PGA tour is 171 yards. Which would probably be an 8 or 7 iron. That includes par 5's. So, on Par 4's they are probably having 8 iron or less on average. If every shot into a par 4 is a hybrid or long iron, move up. If PGA Tour get to have mid and short irons as approach shots, we as amateurs don't need to make the game tougher for ourselves. 🤣 I have found that I like playing golf in the 6600 to 7200 range. There are some good golf courses sub 6600 as well. I think course rating is also a good indicator of how long a course will play. I might try to play some courses from the front tees to see how low I can shoot next year. I've enjoyed a few of those break whatever number from the front tees YT videos. It sounds like fun. I still try to play one club golf a few times a year. Golf is hard, but we should make golf fun 😉

I think it is great to see others move forward. My group has been playing tees around 5800 since my surgery, and it likes that distance. My takeaway from this: Be thankful you're healthy enough to swing a club. I think it's great that there is an option to play golf from shorter distances

I wouldn't trust GAME to do much of anything. Hard pass. Heck, years ago I was contacted again about getting back on board with GAME (as you may recall we supported the early versions…). They also: Stole some work from Dave and I without any compensation or even mention. Still owe me five figures in actual $. Neither of which I care about, and haven't for… almost a decade at this point? But which I still remember, of course. And few of the current people in charge were even around back then, so, it's not even a memory of them.

I've always been a big fan of "play the tees you want to play." Golf is supposed to be about fun for most people. @Hardspoon regularly plays up a set of tees or two on most trips and courses; good! That's what should happen. John won't take that as a shot at him, and I've not intended it as one.

Why? Because you said so? I’m on the board of directors for my AGA. I’ve been a course rating captain for almost 15 years and I’ve been to multiple national course rating seminars. I ran a GHIN eClub and am a rules official that has worked at national championships. You are saying things that are factually and mathematically incorrect. Like that, demonstrating a continued lack of understanding and knowledge.

When I go to the range, there are a couple of things I might be trying to achieve. One is just keeping myself moving, so I don't get too far out of whack. The other is often seeing where the ball is going when I just make a swing without any thought and then trying to adjust that, so I might be working on my strike or clubface control and what not. I would have always considered that as block practice if I'm using one club and just hitting balls to the same target. I'll switch clubs and types of shots from time to time so I don't get too repetitive, but still not sure I'd call that random practice. To my mind, random practice would be hit a driver between those two posts, then hit a 7 iron to that green, then hit a 50 yard wedge shot, then a three wood off the ground, then a low 6 iron, then a big fade with driver around x target. That kind of thing. Sounds like that's wrong though? That and if I'm hitting 7 irons over and over to the same target, it might well not look like they're all going at the same target. 😂 So my practice may look fairly random even if I'm trying to repeat the same shot over and over.

You'll notice they shred the first six words, and are a bit softer on the last four. (I have a bit less of an issue with "arms straight" than they do, and "tuck hips" isn't terrible.)

He was a character. RIP

LIV players? Meh. I think @Ty_Webbseems to have nailed it. Also, I think the Masters itself will benefit from a stronger international flavor. I like this a lot.

And that is why I wont google it from my work laptop!

LEXXII sounds like a stage name for someone in the adult entertainment industry.

After reading through this whole thread, I actually have no idea what the hell your point is other than your apparently insatiable desire to get the last word in. It's more reactive when you're playing better, less reactive when you're not, which IMO, is the way it should be.

Just saw this, will now be known as Lexi!

Then you have your answer, yeah.

Very unfriendly.

WOW, are things that different in the U.S.? I play in the UK, and on my course a player with a handicap of 6.9 would play off of 6, and a player with a handicap of 20 would play off of 19. In a medal comp that means the higher handicapper would get an additional 13 shots, or 13 points if it were stableford. If the difference were only 5 shots the lower handicapper would win 10 times out of 10

Can't you just accept that most golfers in the UK are not fans of the system. I am capable of seeing both sides of the argument, and appreciate it's positives, whilst you appear to have been brainwashed into thinking it's perfect. I'll say it again, I just averaged my handicap over three rounds in terrible winter conditions, but got a shot back, yet you defend the system. Sorry, that's just crazy. IMO a handicap should reflect potential, and the old system only expected a golfer to hit his/her handicap about six times a year, the current system is far to reactive. I am Mr Average and believe a shot a hole reflects my ability. If I continue to put in cards during the winter (which I have to) by the spring I will be playing off about 30. It's bonkers I see absolutely no point in posting my scores, because I am not looking for an explanation, I am simply telling you the system has flaws. There are rumours it may change before long, I hope I am right