Big Lex

Be wary of advice from someone with a hcp much over 2, but you asked, so I'll give you my advice. A pro gave me a lesson where I was casting a little, and he gave me a swing thought that banished this disease for me almost instantly. As you swing back and cock your wrists, you will form an angle between your RIGHT forearm and wrist. As you swing down, try to hit the ball while maintaining this angle, never releasing it. Centrifugal force will end up forcing you to release it, but if you concentrate on maintaining that angle as long as possible, you can't cast the club from the top. If this doesn't improve your problem, then see a pro, because maybe you're not casting, but just think you are...

A couple of things...these are my opinions on how to go about choosing a new driver. My handicap is similar to yours. 1. All new drivers are good today. If you buy a new, pro-line driver, you will be getting a good club, no matter who you go with. Not every club will work for everyone, but the point is you don't have to worry about getting something that's technologically bad or of cheap quality, etc. 2. Yes, go to a reputable place and get a driver fitting. Lots of stores have "launch monitors," but you want to be somewhere where there is an experienced fitter or pro, not some kid in a big box store who has memorized a few numbers on spin and launch. My recommendation is to go with one of the recommended fitting centers of the major manufacturers, which can be accessed by their websites, usually under a link for "authorized fitting centers." Where I live in NJ, most people think the best local fitting experience is at a Callaway fitting center, but there are many very good ones in most metro areas. 3. Swing speed is one thing that factors heavily in choosing a shaft flex, but so does rate of acceleration in your swing, subjective elements of feel, etc. Also remember that "S" and "X" aren't standardized terms, and don't mean the same thing from shaft to shaft. A good fitting session will recommend a shaft flex for you, and a good fitter will usually have you try shafts that are a bit above and below your recommended range, to bring in the subjective element. Most people say that if you're in doubt, the softer flex is better, but I think you have to decide that for yourself. Softer flex usually increases distance but decreases accuracy, although even this is not an iron clad rule. After you've been fitted, you probably will end up with at least 2 or 3 'candidates' for your new driver. My recommendation at this point is to take the contenders to a practice tee or, if possible, out to the course with you, and field test them. Everyone has their own way of doing this, but as a rule, it shouldn't take more than 5-6 shots in the real world with a club to tell if it's going to be good for you. The one that feels the best after a few swings is likely to be the best overall. But you shouldn't do the field test until AFTER you've been fitted "by the numbers." Good luck, and let us know what you pick.

Depends...if I'm posting a score, it's 5 minutes, of course . If not, I'll look as long as I can without pissing people off, if I think I know where the ball should be and it's possible to play on from that spot. If it's in an iffy area or obviously deep in jail, I don't bother looking at all. Provisionals are essential...which leads me to another golf axiom: There are few things more irritating than hitting your provisional worse than the original ball. Really deflates the ego.

Physician...pathologist. Spend alot of time at a computer, so I end up posting alot on golf sites, as I rest my eyes between cases...

Tough topic... Your host was not very polite, and you are justified in feeling insulted or upset. However, the situation deserves more explanation. There is no question that better players often don't like playing with hacks. But the definitions of those terms are variable. I am an 11 index, and I'm a hack to a scratch player, but I'm a very good golfer to someone who can't break 100. Definition problems aside, what are the reasons that people often don't like playing with someone of markedly lesser ability? I believe there are several. First is pace of play: I don't like feeling like I'm slowing someone down, or being slowed down. This isn't always an issue, though, because if the less-skilled player is thoughtful, he can keep pace with almost anyone. You just have to be courteous and know when to pick up, etc. However, it is a fact that less skilled players are usually much slower than better players, and I think you have to make it a point to keep up if you are with better players. Another reason for not wanting to play with players of much lower ability involves the match, if there is one. The pressure to perform that a poorer player can feel in attempting to team with a good player is signficant...if the poor player is playing in a match with three very good players (i.e., he doesn't have a corresponding hack on the other team), it can be worse. Many very poor golfers don't typically play matches, they just go out "for fun," as you say. If you don't have experience playing matches, you probably shouldn't get involved in one. However, if you do have experience, you can often be an asset in a match, because a high handicapper who is getting strokes on every hole usually wins a hole for a team automatically with a par. My boss fits this description--very poor golfer, but understands golf matches, and happily hacks it around and makes 2-3 pars, helping his team immensely. Finally, there is the appearance or aesthetic issue. Good players often don't like watching someone hack it around, simply because it can be depressing to watch, can bring your own game down, give you bad thoughts, etc. For me, I've managed to deal with this if I'm paired with someone with a number up to about 18-20. Beyond that, I get antsy, too. I don't know how you deal with this...when I'm with better players and suspecting I may be stinking the place up, I try subtle humor, mainly to see if the better players will join in and thus break the tension. If it's at the point where it just isn't funny, I try to be as unobtrusive with my hacks as possible, so as not to disturb the guys who may be working on a good round. So there are many reasons why your playing partner(s) may have been frustrated in being paired with you. It is certainly possible for the poorer golfer to be a good, friendly, enjoyable partner with an expert or near-expert player, but these factors I've cited do put you in a bit of a hole to start with. It's hard to judge not having been there, but it sounds like the guy was probably being a jerk to you - a little bit of a golf snob. I think the fact that you were a guest at that club should have prompted the better player to treat you with more respect than you were given (presuming of course that you were courteous, polite, and an otherwise good guest). If I end up with a very poor player at my course, I just accept that I don't have to play a serious match or go for a career low score every time out, and I certainly don't think it's appropriate to beat up on a hacker who was thought highly enough by someone to be invited to play at your course. On the other hand, if you are in a situation where there is likely to be a great disparity in playing levels that may cause frustrations to crop up, I think it is the responsibility of the poorer player to make his situation known before the match is set up, etc. Golf snobs aren't fun to deal with, but there are responsibilities incumbent on all players to make sure the round is enjoyable for all.

My wife asked me to do that, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

Like I might have said already here, the issue is etiquette. Meaning, what you _should_ do, out of respect, civility, etc. You have the _right_ to free speech, but out of considerations of etiquette, you don't call the Queen "bitch," or even "lady" or "hey you." You have the right to dress however you please, but you don't walk into a five star restaurant, or even a grocery store, in a bath robe. There are probably better examples. What Gulbis did with that photo was not a serious moral transgression. She probably was expressing her patriotism, her pride in her nationality and the flag. But she was either ignorant of or disregarded a few very simple, at one time almost universally known customs and courtesies concerning the flag. They aren't that hard to follow: You don't let the flag touch the ground. You don't hang it upside down. You don't do anything rude or disgusting to it. By letting it touch the ground, and sitting on it, she violated two of these customs. Making a political statement by burning a flag or whatever is fine, but she was not intending to do this, she was intending to convey the opposite. In this case, I think you're obligated to respect the flag. The point is also not what I or your dad thinks of the flag, it's the fact that it stands for many things and has meaning to many people, and your treatment of it should reflect courtesy and civility to all connected with it. Does Gulbis deserve a punishment, a sanctimonious reprimand, or anything harsh? Of course not. Should her error be brought to her attention, and the LPGA's and the photographers, and any golf fans who don't understand flag etiquette? Yes. In golf, we worry about cheating, taking an illegal drop. LPGA players pay great respect to their past women champions. It's not too much to ask that we make a point about the use of the flag in this photo.

It's not a good idea to leave clubs in your trunk if you keep the car in sunlight and the temperature is much over 80 or so. When the temp gets up over 100-120 in the trunk (as it will if you leave the car parked in the sun on a hot day), it does, over time, damage the grips, the epoxy bonds, and epoxies within graphite shafts. That said, it would probably take many, many days of such abuse to really damage anything, but as a rule it's better not to leave them this way. Most of the time I keep mine at the club where I belong, but from time to time I take them with me and frequently leave them in my trunk. However, if I'm going somewhere where I know I will have to be parked in hot sun, I leave them home in the basement. When parked in the covered parking garage at work, I will leave them in my trunk.

I'm voting for putting. Erik's points are excellent, and of course we all know that putting and the long game affect one another, so it's always a bit of both. But I think in his case the putter is what's keeping him from winning majors. I think his ball striking since 2005, averaging over weeks and months, is similar to where it was in the 00-02 time frame. He was straighter with the driver then, but he's always been erratic from the tee. But his putting is nowhere near where it was in 00-02. I think the bigger root of all of his 'problems' is his obsession with improving his ball striking. He's allowed his focus to shift off winning and to method, and I think that kills great golfers.

Yeah, it's very bad etiquette, obviously. I don't think she deserves to be fined or anything, but the issue has to be dealt with, if for no other reason than to educate others. The photo suggests that she is happy about winning, and I'm sure she intended it to reflect her pride in being an American, and she probably felt it was a patriotic gesture. But the photo shows she is either ignorant of or simply disregarded the courtesy we extend to this very powerful symbol. She could have done any number of other things, like wave a little flag, or drape one around her shoulders, and accomplished the same end (cute photo, plus patriotism). I hope the LPGA says something about it.

Ball does not go too far. They hit it farther for many reasons, all suggested by iacas in the original posting. Among the reasons, one which isn't seldom discussed is that the pros _try_ to hit it farther today than in the past. They swing for the fences more, and are probably encouraged to do so because the balls and clubs are such that the ball doesn't curve as much as it once did. As for the tremendous distances that iron shots are hit, there are 2 factors which play into this. First, better technology in the iron heads means that the ball is easier to get airborne with less loft, so lofts are stronger. Today's 180 yard 8 iron shot is the equivalent to something like a 6 or "6.5" iron of the 1970s. Also, better conditioning of fairways, giving better lies, allows the players to hit it flush more with the irons, also helping distance. Finally, the notion that only the top players have gotten longer is ridiculous. An average drive for me has improved by probably 20 yards over the last 10 years. I am an 11 hcp player with a swing speed measured at between 96-101 mph with a driver.

Shot 88 the other day on my home course, 42-46. The sad part was I hit 8 fairways, which with decent play otherwise should translate into a low 80s round. I read that your score "should" be predicted by greens in regulation. The "formula" is: 93 - (GIR x2) = score. This assumes 32 putts. I hit 7 greens, so I should have had a shot at low 80s or even breaking 80, but of course my short game and putting didn't keep its end of the bargain.

I think the sponsors have more to do with who gets shown than any of us realize. I was shocked to learn a few years ago that network TV shows with excellent ratings are often cancelled simply because the viewership does not fit the demographic requirements of the sponsors for a particular time slot. As an example, "Murder, She Wrote" was a consistent, highly rated show, but was eventually cancelled because most of the viewers were over 40, and the golden, 18-40 demographic that sponsors want for selling stuff wasn't there. But I agree that the constant Tiger exposure gets old. They even find a way to put him on the leaderboard when he isn't near the lead, as a "notable" or something similar. We're a tough crowd to please, us golf viewers. We're either complaining about the announcers saying too much, or showing Tiger too much, or boring us with stories about Luke Donald's painting. The golf is good enough all by itself, but we may be killing it with overexposure and the perceived need by TV to hype it.

I haven't read everyone's posts completely, so sorry if I repeat something obvious or say something otherwise stupid... Iacas' posts are of course right on the money with respect to the factual things about the USGA study, etc. I don't completely agree with everything he says, though. We can debate what things we want to tweak or roll back or whatever, but why are we doing any of it? You have to decide what the problem is, or even if there is one. Is the game easier today than it was in the 1970s? In some ways, of course. The clubs are easier to hit, of course. But the courses have gotten longer and more difficult. Can pros hit it a mile, spin it from the rough, get up and down from anywhere? Yes, they can. And the equipment helps them quite a bit. But they all have the equipment, and they still give the money to the best guy, so in the end the equipment hasn't made much difference to them. But the equipment has made a difference to those of us who just go out for fun. It's fun to hit a 250 yard drive, even though you know it doesn't mean any more than your 225 yard one did 12 years ago. It's still fun...to hit it high, to reach a par 5 in 2 once in a while, to have a little better result when you miss the center of the face. Most of the redesigning of classic golf courses has been done already. It's not a big issue. Even with all of so-called "cheater" technology, is there anyone who thinks golf is easy? I've never had a set of clubs that keeps me from hitting a shank now and then. What it amounts to is that a few people don't like the way today's pros play the game. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, and I realize they know more about golf and are better at the game than I. But I don't think we need to rewrite the record book and change manufacturing practices just so the pros can play more like they did in 1973. Having said all of that, as an isolated issue, I think the groove change is a good idea. It will make the game harder for pros, and it won't have too much effect on the average golfer. Anyone with a handicap under 15 or 16 will notice the change, for sure, and will probably lose a stroke or two here and there because of the ball not checking as well on finesse shots. But, as iacas says, there will probably be other times when the added "release" and the flyer shots will end up helping the chopper. Practically speaking, I'm fine with it. On a "philosophical" level, I hate it. Now, if they decide to roll the ball back, then I'm headed leading a march on Far Hills.

Great question. I'm not long enough in the tooth or knowledgable enough about architecture to say much about how courses have changed since Nicklaus started out in 1962. But there are two things I am pretty sure of: 1. Course conditioning is much better overall today than it was for at least the first half of Nicklaus's competitive days. 2. Regular tour events and majors are set up more difficult today, in general, than in the past. Pin positions are much more difficult in regular tour events, and I think with the better conditioning comes thicker rough. As to how these changes affect one's assessment of Tiger and Jack, I don't know. Jack has said that the better conditions of courses, like improved equipment, makes it easier for one player to distinguish himself above others. I'm not sure he's correct, but if he is, then Tiger's record becomes even more impressive. Courses are much longer today, as we all know, but probably when you adjust for the longer hitting of today's clubs/balls, it's fairly equivalent to Jack's day. Long hitters still have a head start, if they are straight enough, but they still get passed at the finish line if they can't putt and hit finesse shots. Tiger and Jack are so similar as players that it is really tough to choose who is better. Tiger is, in my mind, by a whisker, superior to Jack in all areas except longevity. We don't know if Tiger's going to last as long as Jack did. It's close, but I just don't think you can ignore the degree to which Tiger has dominated, in fields that are overall much stronger than anything Jack ever faced. Much has been made of the superior competition Jack had in terms of high level stars--Trevino, Palmer, Casper, Player, Watson. Maybe this is true, but I think it's overstated a bit. Tiger's competition is excellent.

This is an interesting thread. Golf lessons--from a _single_ instructor, repeatedly over the months helped me when I started out. The other thing that helped me get better was one summer (I was about a 15 hcp at the time) I stopped thinking about the swing as much as possible, except to focus on hitting a "shot" of some sort on every swing. So, every shot, I was trying to fade, draw, hit it high, low, whatever. I really improved by doing this. It surprised me how I was able to pull off the shots quite often. I certainly didn't have great control over how much fade or draw, and I had my share of double crosses and lousy strikes, but in general I got alot better by doing this--dropped my number by 2-3 over a year or so. Try it some time.