sonicblue

Erroneous! The rule of thumb is quite the opposite. We all know that you can putt 'through a break' with extra speed, and similarly, a putt that loses speed will tend to take an exaggerated break (e.g., a putt with not enough speed will fall rapidly to the low side). You can extrapolate this to uphill/downhill as well. A downhill putt will maintain its speed, thus taking out some break, so a downhill putt will 'hold its line' longer. Conversely, an uphill putt, because it will tend to lose speed, will have an exaggerated break. Now, not that you can't hit an uphill putt like Zuback and ram it through all break, and you can certainly tap a downhill putt way too softly and it may break across the hole as well. However, all things equal, if you had two putts where the left/right 'tilt' was exactly equal, you would play less break for the downhill one and more break for the uphill one.

IMO, It's never imagination, it's 'visualization.' Imagining implies seeing something fictional, something unreal. You can't make a golf ball change direction, jump over obstacles, and make turns. When you hit it, it goes in the air for some period of time, comes back down, then rolls some. Simple as that. You simply need to visualize how that will happen. I consider myself a very good scrambler, and it's a recent improvement, so I'll explain how I think I've accomplished that. 1) You have to pick the best shot you can FOR the situation. Not every shot can be hit close. When you have the green light situation, yeah, try to make it, but if it's not there, it's not there. Make the best shot you can, and take pride in the execution of THAT shot, whatever it is, and have confidence that you'll make the best NEXT shot after that. 2) Simplify the shot. While scrambling always involves a distance control aspect, it's not like that distance is out of anyone's reach (everyone can manage to chip a sand wedge 20 yds, e.g.). No matter the lie, you focus on contacting the ball first with the clubface pointed on your desired line. Sometimes the lie will make it impossible and you'll have to hit some grass first, but you still focus on it. When you trust this, the fear of the chunk or blade goes away. For some shots, it can literally be as simple as just touching the ball with the club (e.g., an 8-iron fringe bump and run). 3) Confidence, confidence. It can almost be cart before the horse, but you need confidence, not only for the current shot, but for the next. For example, say you have a difficult flop over a trap and the green slopes away. You're NOT going to put it close, realistically. The BEST you can do may be a 20-foot comebacker. You need to, a) realize a flop leaving that 20-foot comebacker is the best you can do, b) execute it properly; don't trust it, and you could end up in the bunker or with a 50-foot comebacker, c) trust that you can make that next putt for the up-down. Confidence in the scrambling game can subsequently improve your iron game. When you feel confident in your chipping and putting, you will no longer feel pressured to pepper the pin (which, be honest, do you ever?). A solid iron to the fat of the green will be ok when you believe you can make the long putt, or do no worse than two-putt. When you're terrified of the sand, or scared to three-putt, you'll choke that approach shot trying to be perfect, and you'll end up far from it.

I played with a guy once, he hit a sand shot and skulled the junk out of it. He walked out of the bunker saying, "welp......didn't cross my wrists...." My friend and I just looked at each other like......um.........wuutt?? LOL I agree, in principle, with both sides of this. To some extent, I believe that a player needs to envision a finished product - which is what I believe the concept of 'release' is, it's a snapshot of the end of a relaxed, extended swing - and then rely on our mind's ability to get us from some point during the swing to that finished product. However, I don't think many of us have the sound principles in place for our brains to do that properly, and we need advice on the actual mechanics, and it is to that end that I think a term like "release" doesn't work. It's actually what I'm working in very hard right now, as I seem to have lost the ability to find that "impact" position with my hands, that I know the term 'release' is referring to, but that I'm not finding on my own. So even though I know I'm not releasing right now, simply saying to me, "release the club" would be absolutely no help.

You're correct that the difference between a 5 and Phil (what, a +6-8?) is very small when it comes to statistical percentages, but that bolded section is completely misguided. It's not like you can just say, "Gee, if I hit more greens from 200 yards, my scores would really go down," or "I think if I made more 15-foot putts, I could trim some strokes off my cap." It's all cart before the horse. You need to figure out HOW to hit greens with your 5-iron, or HOW to make more putts. And, like this OP is finding, it's VERY mental, especially if he's a range cowboy. All of the SHOTS on the course are just like the driving range, but certainly none of the PLANNING is like the range. On the course, you have to plan EACH shot singularly, design it based on your hits and misses for that day, pick your shot shape, etc... Once you do all that, the swing part should be easy. It sounds to me like the OP is hoping his 'swing' and 'striking' carries him through, while skipping the focused planning part. As an example, I remember watching Tiger one day. He had about 185 into the 18th green. He and Stevie were discussing the shot, particularly the wind. Tiger did his 'feel' practice swings, watching the trees, staring down the green, you could see him picturing the shot, always uneasy about the wind. He got over the ball, gave the wind one more look, then finally swapped clubs with Stevie. As SOON as he made that decision, boom, he was over the ball (not rushed, but not wasting any time), swing, bang, knocks it to ten feet. Tiger spent all his time on the plan, the situation, the singular focus of that shot, and when he was decided, the swing was incidental. Most of us do it backwards: our 'plan' is devised in about two seconds, then we spend ten times that length of time practicing and/or thinking about the 'swing.' Now, granted, Tiger's swing is inherently better than most of ours', but we are NOT going to change our swing on the course, so you have to just play the swing you have that day. What we CAN control, and do well, and improve upon, every round you're out there, is our focus and our planning. No matter what swing you have, when you add in that focus, you WILL play better, and THAT is what will LEAD to lower scores (and stats).

Tiger, of all people, is LEAST likely to say he's the greatest. Not that he is THE most humble person in the world, but even knows enough to have the humility to acquiesce to Jack (for now). Think about it, has there EVER been a person who, when asked the question "Are you the greatest to ever play?" has actually said yes? Even when there's hardly a doubt? Michael Jordan is, by a lot of opinions, unequivocally the greatest ever to play basketball. The most complete player, with a load of championship rings and remarkable athleticism and physical gifts....and I've never heard him do anything but bow to the other greats of the game. Conversely, the Bill Russels and Kobes and LeBrons, it seems, will all quickly tell you that MJ is the greatest. Just like one day, if he hasn't already, Jack will be forced to say the same about Tiger. With all of the powerful drives, the towering 6-irons over lakes, the 50-yard slice around the trees, the magical chips up and down the hill just in the lip, the clutch triple-breaking island green putts, and the one-legged major-tying-to-go-on-to-win birdie putts...and then when he hits the 100 wins/20 majors mark, there will not be any argument. And he will reach that mark. When you account for how hard it is to win a major, any major, let alone multiples, and how hard it is to win 10 tournaments vs. 20 vs. 80....Tiger's win tally won't have beaten the others, it will have OBLITERATED the previous marks. Forget money, b/c THAT is not comparable across eras, not even a little. Forget charity, Tiger does a TON, maybe more than Jack b/c of the money, who knows, they've both been great for the game. Tiger jumped on this game as a toddler, he tore throught he junior circuit, dominated the amateur fields and now is torching the pro circuit. He makes everyone else an 'also-ran' on Thursday morning. Maybe Tom Watson, e.g., was so good b/c he wasn't intimidated by Jack? Maybe Ernie Els would be a 'great' if Tiger didn't demoralize him (not saying that's the case, just hypothesizing)?

Weakest argument EVER. This just in: ALL of Tiger's opponents have the same equipment advantage, the competitive field is still level in that regard. Golf courses are ALL ramped up, not only for technology, but specifically FOR TIGER. The courses Tiger plays are SO much harder than those that Jack played. Even at his peak, Jack would need all the available technology just to compete on today's courses. Tossing aside his hickory shafted driver for a graphite R9 wouldn't catapult Jack to the top, it would simply let him keep up with the courses changes and make him competitive. Oh, and for the record, while at Stanford, it is WELL documented that Tiger was THE strongest pound-for-pound athlete in the entire school. There is simply NO way that you could say Jack was stronger, not at any point in his career. MAYBE he was farmboy strong, and certainly relative to the general fat-assness that used to be prevalent in golfers 40 years ago, whereas today's golfers are more fit, but simply Jack v. Tiger? No contest. However, current internet research shows Tiger's bench is over 300, but likely not 350. Still no contest.

You must be kidding me, right? You're trying to diss Tiger as a person? I don't know either of me enough to even truly present an valid argument, but my personal opinion, based on what I see? Jack is a pompous, arrogant old man, who seems to be doing a whole lot in the public eye to 'relive' his glory, in hopes of one day winning this exact debate. Meanwhile, Tiger is dismantling the record books, and if he has anything resembling longevity in his career, will hold every meaningful record there is. Tiger has lived under a media scrutiny unparalleled ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, not even over LeBron James, and certainly not like anyone from Jack's time saw. Aside from fulfilling his golf potential, Tiger has put his inconceivable wealth to awfully good use. Jack had no such concerns until late in his career, he was not earning the fortunes modern golfers do while playing. The talk about Tiger not having the same competition is complete junk. There are plenty of golfers today with lots of wins who were 'supposed' to challenge Tiger. The problem is, he's not letting them. Mickelson, Harrington, Els, more?...all have multiple majors. Why not more? Because Tiger wins them! Sure, the CHIII's, Adam Scott's, et al, haven't risen up, but all of golf history is littered with guys who didn't do what we thought they would, just as all of history has people who are 'real damn good' but end up paling in comparison to the elite. I think it's a weak argument to claim that somehow, despite the same consistent process of the PGA Tour collecting THE best golfers in the world, to say the competition just isn't as good. The fact is, among the best golfers in the world, who all play the same (now long-ass) difficult courses, with the same modern technology and access to teachers and fitness, etc..., Tiger is beating them all, more than anyone ever has. Next year, Tiger WILL pass Jack for most wins, and probably Snead in 2011, and the odds are still HIGHLY in Tiger's favor to beat Jack's major wins. It is WELL within expectations (that's what Tiger does, he makes you expect him to win) to say Tiger will end up with 100 wins and 20 majors. End of debate, c'mon, seriously.... Further, let's look at Tiger's "claw into it" factor, which is his ability to - if not win - get REAL close. In his career, Tiger has won 28% of his starts. Going only through 1986, Jack won only 16% of his starts. Tiger comes in 3rd or better more than 45% of the time; Jack 36%. Think about that, when Tiger steps on the course Thursday, he's nearly just as likely to finish in the top THREE as not. Phil's (currently the only guy that seems to repeatedly come up as Tiger's modern challenger) 50/50 mark comes almost at the top 25! Heck, Tiger's nearly a 2:1 favorite to finish in the top 10 (65%)! And consistency? Tiger has a season of 9 wins, 8 wins, two 7's, a 6, a bunch of 5's... Jack's two best years ever were 7 wins each, then a handful of 5's and then maybe 4, 3, 2... Tiger's 71 wins are over 14 years; Jack's 73 took him 25 years. And this just isn't about winning, it's about command of the game. Tiger was 5th in sand saves this year, 1st in scrambling, 7th in driving...he's a complete player, not just someone who overpowers a course. And mentally? I know Jack was supposedly real 'intimidating,' but did Jack have - literally - thousands of people watching EVERY single one of his shots, not to mention countless cameras, galleries swarming him at every turn? And, just for good measure, I give Tiger the "oh, and I'm built like a Greek god" award, too. Maybe five years ago this was up for debate. I just don't think there's any doubt anymore. Maybe if Tiger collapsed and never won another tournament, maybe....but c'mon, that won't happen. Jack's best three years were 1971-1973, where he won 19 times, the he fell off fast. Only two wins in 1974, got five in 1975, but only 21 total wins from 1974 through 1986. Discounting 2008 (where he won four of six!), Tiger's won 21 times in his last three full years, and it could be argued it's not even his peak. So, either he's headed toward a peak (holy cow, the thought...) or he HAD his peak already, and his "non-peak" years will continue to grab 4, 5, 6 wins per year. Given his conditioning, there won't be a physical dropoff for quite a while and, if anything, his mental strength will likely carry him until, and beyond, such a thing.

The bolded term above is the key, and ping12 is right. If we all hit the shot we expect, there's no issue. It simply comes down to the difference between your expectation, the small miss, the big miss, and the horrific miss. If I play straight/middle fairway, my small miss won't 'hit an obstacle,' it should still catch fairway, b/c a 'small miss' off a straight shot would be just a slight curve. That's no different that someone aiming left fairway; their small miss might be hitting it straight with no curve, and they'll hit left fairway. Someone who doesn't shape the ball doesn't put "no spin" on the ball, they put "straight spin" on it. If someone told me that everyone's anatomy could more easily hit one shape vs. another, then I'd buy it. Otherwise, as I said before, it comes down to, what is your most reliable shot/flight and how you plan for it. I'm still unconvinced when someone says that this game is easier if you can 'always play a fade/draw,' or such. Further, while some shots may demand a curve to be 'great,' I feel like 99% of the shots I've ever faced could be executed 'very well' with something that flies straight. I'm still of the belief that square contact/square impact should be the foundation of anyone's early learning. If you find you are consistently, consistently hitting a particular shape, fine, but I wouldn't recommend any mid/high-handicapper be worried too much about having an arsenal of shot shapes. I just don't think the return on that effort is rewarded in your score or is as universally applicable compared to working on chipping, putting, sand play, tee consistency, etc...

I never friggin' understood this. If you can reliably hit ANY ball flight, then you can plan such that you have room for error, while there's always a chance you cross yourself and end up screwed. Examples: * I routinely play a fade. I aim off the left edge of the fairway, I expect a fade to the middle. A slight fade ends up on the left half, a more severe fade ends up right half. If I slice it, I'll go right rough. If I hit it straight, left rough; if I pull it, left junk. OK, fine. * Switch it all up for a hook. Same thing, you may expect to be safe, have room for slight mishits, but your severe mishits can end up badly. * What if I routinely hit it dead straight? I aim dead middle and expect to end up middle. If I hit a slight draw, left half; slight fade, right half. Pull or push, one rough or the other. I fail to see why you SHOULD try to shape the ball as your matter of course. IMO, it comes down to, what do you do most consistently, and then you need to plan your shots and your alignment as such. Is being able to shape a ball an advantage? Absolutely. Do I believe 99% of amateurs need to? Hell no. Do I believe it inhibits people learning the simple, yet difficult and necessary, art of knowing how to strike a ball. Hell, yes. The moral is: the most needed shot in golf is the one where you can simply aim at a target and hit it in that direction the proper distance. Whichever ball flight and shape you can do that with most consistently is the one you should play.

I played baseball all my life, 10 y/o through college. My son is playing Little League now. Comparing the two swings is interesting, IMO. In baseball, you can hit a ball lots of ways: line drive, ground ball, fly ball, left, right, middle. You can 'swing' really hard and not really suffer. In golf, you are severely limited. A little left or right, or too high or too low, and your result is going to be significantly penalized. Golf has a need for accuracy like virtually no other sport, so the 'swing' must take on a different definition. The word 'swing' itself - just based on my gut reaction, but also fueled by what I would say I see in a lot of 'bad swings' - seems to imply something more like a 'whip' action. I'm definitely guilty, a lot of times, of trying to build speed by getting my body way ahead, lagging my arms/hands/everything behind, and then trying to whip the club through. Trying to time that action never leads to solid contact, and even days I feel like the timing is good as far as squaring the club, it's rarely on the sweet spot, so I feel maximum effort with minimal distance. I think the concept of 'swing' needs to be redfined, or maybe just rethought slightly. Lately, I'm trying to think of it more as just a 'turning,' a back and forth rotation - with completely connected units (arms, shoulders, torso) - forgetting any sort of 'whip' connotation, and letting the timing and accuracy of my release be (more or less) solely responsible for my speed. Or, it could just be the alcohol and this could make no sense to anyone

Ummm...IIRC, "Natural Golf" was born out of analysis of Moe Norman's swing, which gave birth to the entire "one plane" (and thus "two vs. one plane") swing theory.

Had an idea, documented here for my patent ;)... I had the Izzo Smooth Swing a while ago, a different approach toward a similar goal, keeping a quiet, unified takeaway/backswing. http://www.tgw.com/customer/category...TEGORY_ID=7095 I thought, there should be a way to combine these two, but because both loop around the upper arm in the same spot, there really wasn't a way to. Talking to my mom, who has serious sewing skills, revealed a simple answer. I removed the strap from the Swing Extender, cut off about 6" of the soft velcro side, and sewed that to the cuff of the SS. I then took a few strips of adhesive "hard-side" velcro and, adding epoxy for strength, adhered them to the bottom of the SE. Now, I slide the SS onto my arms, and then just velcro the SE to the proper spot on my bicep area. Voila! A dual training aid! My golf league has ended, so I'm entering full 'swing tuning' mode for the fall, where I don't necessarily care if my scores falter. Stay tuned for results.

In my league (9 holes), I'll routinely miss all 6 of the non-par-3 fairways, so there is no 'painting the fairway' in my game, but I'll go stretches where - seemingly with the same swing and thoughts/approach - I'll stripe and rip. I think my mental approach is probably as good as it can be, frankly (i.e., I'm not trying to crush it, I don't try to shape shots). I just need to work toward more natural, good golf positions that I could more easily repeat.

Don't forget these guys hit the ball on the BUTTON every time.

Range balls do not fly, they're like rocks.

I think I'm going to try (all in small doses) standing farther from the ball, bending slightly more at the waist (I'll have to swing flatter or I'll start carving out earth!) and taking the hands more inside on the takeaway.

I'm 6', so tall-ish, but not really by most standards, I think. My bigger concern, as mentioned, is my hand action. My hands are pretty 'quiet,' I would say, but I think what little action they do is probably incorrect, LOL. Sounds like I'm probably in need of a drastic change, just get it over with, in the hopes of emerging from the overhaul asap...

I'm pretty sure my steepness is the root cause of my poor ballstriking, but I'm just having so much trouble flattening/widening my arc. I got the Swing Extender which I think has the potential to help me compensate but I fear a re-construct may be in order. I don't want that, because I know my scoring will probably go to hell in a handbasket until I emerge on the other side, but I really feel I'm up against a wall and not poised to break through to the next handicap level. Comments welcome...

I logged into this thread JUST to say how obnoxious and embarrassing Christina Kim has been. Have some respect for your competitors. You can be enthusiastic, excited and even patriotic without these absurd antics from her. The constant Arsenio-Hall-like fist-pump whooping and screaming....it's poor sportsmanship. I'll go watch the NBA or the NFL if I see a bunch of 'look at me' attitude. I watch golf b/c it's SUPPOSED to be a sporting game.

Got mine in the mail yesterday. I've got a round scheduled for tomorrow, plan to spend a bunch of time at the range prior with the SE.

Played with a friend of mine that I don't see often, he doesn't play often and isn't very good. He likes cigars and frequently had one while out on the course. To see him in a snippet of time, I could see how one would consider him some "cigar-smoking hacker douche" (I've seen this character, and agree that I don't like it) or something, but he was VERY conscious of his pace and picked up his ball on more than one occasion when he felt like he was holding us up (which we assured him he wasn't). Moral is: be careful about judging

Worth putting $1 on in Vegas, but I'm pretty sure this will be proven wrong before the year is over.

Never intentionally from the tee, but one par 5 in my league has a sharp dogleg left. If you push it and kill it, you can get through a tree line and end up on another hole. One time I did just that, and hit my second up that other fairway, then had just a wedge back over a small tree cluster to my green. I would be surprised if any course designer actually made it such that, off the tee, you're encouraged to play into another fairway.

I shot a 91 and an 80 this past week on the same course, a course I know well. Both rounds actually felt very similar, similarly frustrating, frought with good and horrible shots. It's a landmark in a golfer's life when he realizes that score is often an uncontrollabe and independent product of one's game.

I'm going to give this a try. I've been feeling like I really need some 'thing' to rein in my swing just a little. I've been hitting lots of good shots lately but then mixing in very poor ones, and some kind of 'set' at the top has long been my suspected needed area of improvement and 'solidification.' fingers crossed....