x129

No need to hate just because you can't dial in a fade while the ball is on the club

Costs vary considerably from 225/month with no initiation to 75k initiation with 600/mon min(and I am sure there are higher ones). The first one you can financially justify if you play golf once a week and hit balls a couple times. The second one is a lot harder since you need to play a lot of $150 rounds to make back the initiation fee. The second one is all about lifestyle and convience. The tricky part with clubs is as you say they can have really expensive guest fees. You might find that very few of your current golfing friends want to pay those more than a couple times a year.

From Broadies paper Tiger was (2.08/.42/.7) for the 2003-2010 period. Granted those numbers are a bit low do to 2010). In general you can gain a bit over2 strokes in the long game, about .75 in the short game, and about 1 in putting). If you look at the top 10 for that time period, there is a bias toward the long game but several guys (Donald, Padraig, Retief, Furyk) got there were games where long game and short game/putting equally important. There were also a bunch of guys (Ernie, Vijay, Sergio, Scott) that were worse than average putters (no one on the list was a worst than average long guy) but did fine because of great long game and decent short games. Of course these numbers might also be telling us that it is hard to gain strokes putting because everyone is spending more time on putting than their long game to keep up with their peers. Your back up is a bunch of math tricks. You are discarding data (i.e.

He did cheat during the tournament. He played 2 rounds when he knew he should have been DQed. By playing those rounds when he should not affected the outcome of this tournament. He failed in his duty to protect the integrity of the field.

There are a couple guys that took up golf in their early 20s and won on tour. If you look up Calvin Peete and Larry Nelson, they both needed 5+ years and from what I have read they were both playing 4+ hours a day for a good chunk of that. Figure 5k+hours. I think in theory someone in there early 30s could do it (i.e they would have until early 40s) but the number of adults who can spend 4+ hours/day playing golf as a 30 year old is very small. Of course for most of us, it doesn't matter when we started playing golf. Few of us have the genetic ability to be a > +5 player no matter how much we practice.

The next best thing to having Tiger at your event is having all the press reporting on your bashing of Tiger......

Those are facts. What is questionable is the interpretation of the facts. Maybe it just means that Rory and Tiger are great long game players and if you wait 10 years the top 2 guys will be super putters and short game players (note in his prime Tiger was in the top 5 in pretty much everything. That is what made him Tiger and not Vijay for example. Give him the short game and putting from his prime and he might have won 2 majors this year). The facts are indisputable (well I guess you could question methodology), the interpretation is that you need to practice 65/25/10 is. Now the published Tiger woods practice schedule has him doing 4.5 hours of driving, 1 hour of short game and 1 hour of putting (along with 18 holes of golf). That is even more long game practice that was suggested but I always take published stuff on pros with a grain of salt. Unless you get a full year schedule you can never be quite sure what you are looking at. That being said ratio seems about right to me but it isn't like this is backed up by scientific studies. And if I had to guess a good periodization program would yield much better results than doing 65/25/10 year round. Focusing on one skill for 2-4 weeks periods while maintaining others has proven very effective in other sports. I am unaware of any golf specific studies though.

He didn't think about cheating. He cheated. There were at least 2 guys that didn't get to play the next round (i.e. they went back to europe) because of this guys cheating. It would be impossible to say how many changed their approach over the last 2 rounds in an attempt to meet a number that was lower than it was in reality. Obviously DQing your self is late is better than never, but failing to protect the field for 2 full rounds is pretty bad. He cheated and then decided that he couldn't deal with it. That is better than cheating and not coming forward but it isn't something that a person with integrity would do.

The chart is about right (at least for distances) for maximum carry. For maximum distance (ie. carry plus roll) you tend to use a slightly lower loft driver. I wouldn't be shocked to learn that in TX you hit your driver about 160 yards carry and get 30+ yards of roll. Teebox elevation can also be good for a half dozen yards. Quote:

The solution to this question is to go the store and bang out some balls with various clubs. If you are looking to replace a 220 yard 5 wood (for example) go to the store and see what type of hybrid gets you about that distance.

The number of shots per round is a poor measure of the importance of a club. The number of strokes to be gained or lost is more important. For example look at you number of putts. How many really matter? To me it is the ones between 4-15 ft (I have shot of making those) and 35+ ft (a decent of leaving it 4+ ft from the hole). Yes I do miss the

I saw this on Golf.com . If it is true, it puts the event in a totally different light. By playing 2 more rounds, he changed the event. Maybe someone was extra aggressive to try and make a cut line that was a shot lower than it really should have been.

Why the heck would any coach bring this up with the umps before a game? They don't make the rule and letting your team know that you don't like their situation isn't exactly encouraging. I bet the team also loves the fact that you think they fold under pressure. Did you also complain that you had to face the worst seed rather than getting to pick the one that you match up best against? I am guessing you will find that the higher seed wins a lot more often on a neutral field. There is a reason they are the highest seed. I would actually be shocked if home field mattered in any sport below high school and even there I doubt it matters at most schools. In the pros things like living in a hotel, traveling 8 hours,.. and so on add up. Driving 30 mins across town doesn't do much. And I doubt your rowdy fans are really a factor...

If you are worried about the yardage, laser it. If your in a tournament that doesn't allow them, you will have played a practice round 99% of the time before hand. Distance is a total nonissue these days. It isn't 1950 anymore. Between lasers, gps, and course books, if you don't know the yardage it is a choice you have made. Personally I don't want to see Bones and Phil talk for 5 min at some tournament about if they want to hit first or let the other guy. I also don't want to see the angle shots (I know some people love them) that will result. And the arguments about if you gave me the right to tee off or not.

I don't want to wait on every hole for someone to decide if they want to go first or second for something that just doesn't matter.

I think it depends on the situation. Indoors (i.e. If they cut the price of the gc2 (without HMT) in half, I would seriously consider one for my house. I do a lot of golf swings into nets and while the p3pro gives some data (i.e. better than nothing) I think it does a poor job with mishits. The new flightscope looks awesome BUT I don't think I have enough space. Also not sure if I want to get irradiated

I forgot that a bunch of the tournaments were lower level ones. Of those cuts made I am counting 1 canadian tour 1 nationwide 1 Ladies Dubai (I assume whatever the euro ladies tour is) 2 Euro tour The guy that got 4 nationwide events probably got the best break.

Has any Big Breaker made the cut at the event after getting the exemption? There is a reason why these guys are on Big Break instead of the the tour. It isn't opportunity. It is lack of game. That being said this season had to be one of the highest in overall talent. The last couple guys shows have had a lot of personalities but only a couple with games that looked almost tour worthy.

Doesn't everyone stall (or slightly reverse) at impact? I am under the impression is that it is a result of biomechanics where the hips fire, coast for a bit at impact, and then are pulled through on the follow through. The hips are not some rotating motor. The are a couple sets of muscles that fire independantly at different points in the swing. I am guessing most of use would be better off trying to figure out how to turn our hips faster rather than figuring out how to stall more at impact.

Of course they are counterfeit. There is a reason why they are not listed as an authorized dealer on any of the manufactors and why the website was created 90 days ago.

Everyone loses tournaments because of putting. It happens. And I am not saying she was every a great putter (she lost 2 majors in 2006 because she was a top 50 putter instead of a top 20 one) but the putting was passable. Has it gotten worse (seems like it) or is she not hitting the ball as close (looks that way from the few rounds I have seen). Again the point was that she was a legit superstar in the early days. You can debate if she was going to be the #1 player in the world or just a fixture in the top 10. Since those days she has really regressed game wise. It is easy to blame her parents (seemed way too involved), coaching (why switch from the guy that has gotten you to the top), and so on.

The 4 min mile has been a benchmark for HS milers since the mid60s ( I.e. when Jack was playing.) when they were running on much slower tracks. Don't get confused by the lull in the late 80s or early 90s. The top guys in the 60s and 70s were sub 4:10 which if you adjust for the track is about the same as today. Ryun's 3:55 is as good as any HS mile ever run. I think your delusional if you think golfers are not improving like other sports. Now pure atheleticism is not as important in golf as it is in other sports (i.e why golfers can play at the highest level at 40 while in most other sports the greats all retire). As far as Jacks inferior equipment, all his competition played with the same stuff. It doesn't matter. And sure Jack had a good scoring average that would be competive on the PGA tour today. Except of course Jack was playing easier courses so it is sort of like looking at your local club champion who is averaging 69s on a 6200 yard course and wondering why he isn't on the PGA tour. And I have no doubt Tiger would do fine with old school equipment. Look at the irons he plays or the driver he used to win his first couple masters. Heck his driving was a heck of a lot better when he was swinging that old 43" steel shafted driver.

Go back and look how good she was in 2004-2006. Finishing T3,T5,T3,T26 in the majors is the sign of a top 5 player. 6 top 10s out of 8 events entered (4 top 3s). Thats top 10 also if your being conservative. But since then her game hasn't largely regressed. I don't care how anyone feels about Leadbettter (love him or hate him, this would be what I would be saying about ANY coach) but she really should consider a coaching change. It doesn't matter if the next guy/gal is a better or worse coach. She needs a change of some type. I have no idea of her recent crappy putting (look at pre 2010 when she was decent) is a result of poor putting, poor short game, or general pressing because of a poor long game. Quote:

We have been talking about the fast mobile quarterback who can through the ball accurately for 30 years now. QB's might be getting more accurate but the number of guys who can run 4.5s AND be good passing QBs is pretty small and you rarely have more than 1 or 2 in the league at the same time. Given the choice between an good runner who is a poor passer and a good passer who is a poor runner, you always pick the better passer. Eventually RGIII will have to learn to be more selective in his runs (See someone like McNabb) if he wants to last. Otherwise he will be a Vick type QB who is awesome for 10 games a year (well Vick was awesome back in the day....) but who misses a couple of games every year. I expect that RGIII to make that evolution. I expect the designed runs for RGIII will drop a bit but he will still be able to rack up the yards when the play breaks down.

The methodology is all important. For example how do we know that the 14 people that got the lucky ball just weren't better putters to start with? What happened when those putters putted with a nonlucky ball? Did they sink more or less putts? What about when you extend the number of trials to 100 putts per individual? What does it do to an experienced golfer? Does have the noise about a lucky ball help them (distracting though) or hurt them (distracting thought)? And so on. And yes there are numerous pro athletes going through crazy rituals. Who knows if that helps or hurts them in the long run.