roverT7

The difference would be "apropos" of something, regardless of when impact occurs. Something must explain the difference in rate of vibration, right? Furthermore, as the original poster did not relate shaft vibration to ball flight, I'm not certain your use of apropos is grammatically correct. "Immaterial" might have been a better choice of words. Regardless, I am certain your post was incredibly condescending.

I'm thinking of finally taking a lesson. Every so often I hear someone say that so-and-so is a great instructor, or that you've got to talk to Joe somebody at this course over hear. How to decide, without just trying them all I suppose??? Money is a big issue, so I would prefer to not drop $ on a bad instructor. Anyone have thoughts on what makes a good instructor? I've always read that you should stay away from anyone who immediately tries to change every aspect of your swing. Any other thoughts? Also, what do instructors charge in your area? Instructors at the public courses around here look to average about $45/hour. I've also noticed that some instructors will follow you on the course for 9 or 18 holes, at a higher rate. Anyone done this and thought it was much more rewarding that simply hitting shots on the driving range in front of the instructor? Finally, is it pretty standard now for the instructor to have access to video capture technology, equipment to capture launch angle, spin rate, etc., and to include this in the hourly rate? Lot's of questions, I know. Thanks for any responses, Rob

Yes, to win the tournament you shoot the lowest score in order to beat the rest of the field. Golf 101. I think everyone would agree to this point. But we are talking about another concept in discussions of par. It has to do with the psychology of the game. I would try and reiterate the point, but after reviewing the thread again, I think Iacas made the point pretty well:

I think you are both making solid points. With regard to your point, yes I agree that the winner could finish at +6, therefore theoretical "par" is irrelevant to final score. But I think the original speaker is also making a valid point. To complete 18 holes, you have to go a certain distance, right? You've got to go 7600 yards, and you've got 71 strokes to do it in. Par is relevant, because the pro's are going to expect to make par. Which means they will expect to be on a green in regulation, which means they will pressure themselves to make high quality shots. So par is relevant. If you make par 90 strokes, you've relieved a great deal of the pressure, because now the pro can take a shorter club to go the same distance (7600 yards) within par. For instance, if you are facing a 500-yard par 5, you've got to "average" 100 yards per shot. But if I suddenly drop par to 4, now you have to average 125 yards. You are forced to go the same distance in a fewer number of strokes. This translates to a more difficult shot somewhere on the fairway. I.e., you'll be hitting a 4-iron into the green instead of a 9-iron. So by decreasing par, but leaving the course at 7600 yards, the PGA has increased the pressure on the professional golfer, who by his very nature will gauge his play by par. So I think it's a valid point.

I'd say you missed the boat on this by about 15 years. Just like all of the ~22y.o.'ds getting their real estate licenses right now with dreams of easy $$$, you'd be catching a "falling knife". There are too many courses as it is now. Within 60 miles of where I am sitting, I can think of 12 public courses and twice that many private courses. I can also think of 3 of those that are in dire financial straights, and I would think I could guess the next 6 that will follow. Now consider the fact that water resources are only going to become more scarce...I don't think you want to be in the golf course business right now. Your best bet would be wait ~6-10 years for more and more courses to shut down, do a ton of research in the interim, and then cherry pick the best course(es) to buy on the cheap. FYI...the course that's done the best around here has really upset the local market. A nationwide development company came in and bought a struggling course, did some minor work on it, and built apartments on site. If you rent an apartment, you play free. Or you can join for 2 years and get a free set of new clubs as a bonus. Their business model is killing everyone else's traditional model. And most importantly....if you are really going to get in to this, do not use your own money! Find affluent investors, have them sign investment agreements limiting your liability, work your a@@ off, and then sleep well at night regardless of how it turns out. Good luck, Rob

There was an article in the New York Times last year comparing golf to poker. The premise of the article? The rush that a single good shot brings to the average golfer is very similar to the rush a habitual gambler feels over the occasional winning bet. They thought is was an addiction. I think the game is a challenge, and the method of scoring creates an intense desire to get better. And for those who are not great players (i.e., they shoot high scores that are not worth keeping track of), there are so many other "objective" challenges in the game: - how far do you hit your drive? - how far do you hit your irons? - can you put backspin on a ball? - can you get up and down from a bunker? Beyond this, the atmosphere provided during a round of golf with your 3 buddies is very difficult to duplicate. So for me, I don't know that the game is addictive, as much as it is challenging and rewarding on so many levels. Rob

Rolex Air King...what a gorgeous watch. I'd never drop the $$$ for it, though.

Cool...thanks for the input. I'm going to have my 8-iron re-gripped just to see how it performs. Pretty good reviews here: http://www.golfsmith.com/products/18723 I started playing with a set of hogans that had reminder cords running along the bottom, so I guess I'm somewhat accustomed to the feel...hence the affinity for the TM's Thanks Rob

I love the grips on Taylormade's clubs. For lack of a better description, they feel like tapered rubber. I guess they have a guide in the back, to assist with the player's grip (muscle memory, etc.). I'm thinking about replacing the grips on my clubs with these grips. Has anyone tried this? The only thing is, I haven't hit a ball with one of their clubs, so I may not like them on the course. Anyone who plays TM's with these grips have an opinion on them? Thanks, Rob

A basic point regarding your swing: you aren't getting much of a shoulder turn. Because of this, your hips are not turning much at all. Ideally, you want your belt buckle pointing 45 degrees to the right at the top of your backswing. Your left shoulder should be directly under your chin. Your left arm is pretty straight in your swing, which is good to see. Practice a full turn with your shoulders and you'll be generating much more power. Try this: take a broomstick (or your driver) and place it over your shoulders. Stand with your feet shoulder width apart, facing a mirror. Keeping your feet stable, turn your shoulders until the broomstick is pointing at the mirror. You should be facing the mirror the entire time (i.e., all that moves is your upper body - mainly shoulders, thus pulling hips.) This is the type of turn you are looking for. Feel the tension in your hips? Holding this position, bend forward 30 degrees from the hips...here's your ideal position at the top of the backswing.

And realize (as Hogan says in the book) any grip change is going to take forever to feel "natural"...

Same here. I have an i-pod, and I love music. Always listening to music..always. Use it on the range and while playing in regular foursome. Don't use it if I'm playing with anyone else, though. I plan to be jamming to Mercyful Fate when I'm on the driving range at age 90, so I always keep it on the lowest volume setting. Hear others fine...it's just that I love to have music accompanying my thoughts. Classical, jazz, metal, thrash, pop...whatever, so long as it is good. As far as others taking offense? Seriously, get over it. It doesn't affect you at all...and frankly, if you have a problem with me wearing earphones to listen to music that you can't hear or possibly be affected by, you sound like the one with the insecurities in social settings... this thread reminds me of the "do you wear sunglasses while playing poker?" thread. it's an interesting topic, in the senses that i always wonder how those cats image they look when they are sitting in some dark, smoky bar on the strip playing poker with play money at 2am...cuz to me they look pretty goofy, and I wouldn't wear them. but as far as my opinion of them? who cares? it doesn't affect my play, and it shouldn't affect the play of others...so it doesn't matter. same with i-pods on the course. same with the way ian poulter dresses...(just had to throw that in) Rob

Interesting...thanks for the info! Rob

Interesting. Also, I put my swing style in just as info. I would think having an upright swing would be even more of a negative for going with longer clubs. I would think that flatter swingers could accomodate longer shafts more easily. Does this make sense?

Yes, I agree with fitting. I guess my question was more focused on whether, assuming I am best fitted for a standard length shaft, the additional 1/2" in length would be incredibly detrimental, or if it would be a wash (ie, I could grip down, etc.). And I should stress that these are used clubs. If they were brand new, I'd insist on a full fitting process. But if I can get a deal, I will accept a little hardship in the near term. So you can just cut the extra length at a later date?