zipazoid

From a year ago? Yes. From five years ago? No. Thus my challenge. Five years back I was breaking 80 regularly & 75 on easier tracks. Somewhere along the way my bad shots got...badder. Which is infuriating to say the least. But a year back I was a mess - I posted 3 straight rounds in the 90s & was lamenting (n Facebook) that I don't shoot f**king 94. But I was. So I've been putting in some good ol' fashioned hard work (within my schedule) to get repeatable & reliable again. And I'm getting results...on the range at least. I shot an 82 last month while visiting a friend in Ft. Myers on a course I never saw before. That's more like it. 82s are okay. 94s aren't.

Okay. If he is not on the green but instead on the collar, then fine. Not on the green. Then the question becomes, are all golfers allowed to do that? If yes there's no story here. If no, then he's still doing something others can't. Some may have a problem with that, some may not. But to me, it seems 'privileged' - that he's doing something only he can get away with.

Enough to drive across a green in a cart? Nope. It's either allowed or not allowed - not conditional based on who you are - the grass doesn't know you're the owner & is damaged equally whether its the owner or a player. Now obviously, I get it. If you own the course you can do what you wish - if you damage the green then the repair is out of your pocket...which would make me question the business sense of the owner. But it also sends the message to everyone else - 'I'm a big shot, you're not.' Personally, I would never play that course again.

It would bother me if I were a member of that course & was told that I couldn't do that, ostensibly due to potential damage...then see the owner do it. It would definitely make me rethink my membership. If it were a public course it would make me rethink whether I would ever play there again since, in both cases, it's no longer an issue of potential damage, but not being 'important enough' to get away with it.

Here's how I see it - If it were someone else other than Trump caught on camera driving across a green, would your opinion change? Then you're being political (in the broadest sense of the word) - you're basing your opinion not on the action but by who is doing it. To me, anyone, course owner or dishwasher, that drives a golf cart across a green is a dick.

The mind writes checks that the body can't cash.

And Trump loses to Arnie.

Still makes him a jerk for doing it. So, "I'm rich so I can" is acceptable? Not to me.

Owning a course does not excuse acting like a jerk. Real simple test - could anyone else do that? Then he shouldn't.

Funny that you posted Furyk's swing. I made a comment about it in this thread earlier. Just because it works for him doesn't mean it works. Show me one instructor who tells someone, 'Swing like Jim Furyk.'

I got a 58 year old body & a 35 year old mind. So I con myself into thinking said body can pull off what said mind is telling it to do. For ex, if it's a par 4 & I got a 200y shot that has to clear a pond in front of the green for my second shot, mind says 'Dude. It's a par 4. Of course you have to go for the green.' Meanwhile the body is saying 'Hit Wedge Wedge you dumbass!'

True story. I was volunteering at Crandon Golf Course on Key Biscayne back in late 2013, and Trump came to play the course. We were cart path only that day due to wet conditions, and by the 4th hole he was driving down the middle of fairways. I heard the radio traffic - "A certain guest is not using the cart path..." and the like. We all knew who they meant. Finally a ranger went over to Trump's group to remind them that it was path only today. The ranger got fired for that.

My advice - beat his a$$.

Jim Furyk is US Open champ. He has a swing that works fantastically well for him. But I don't see him, or anyone, advocating standing real close to the ball, looping the club outside & off-plane on the backswing, drop it inside & drastically get the hips out of the way in order to make room for the arms to get thru the ball.

I think there's a difference between 'what works for you' versus 'what works.' For ex, when I putt, I look at the putterhead thru the stroke instead of the ball. It works for me, but I don't necessarily think it would work universally.

I just read this, and it's really good...the graph hits home on showing why a bad stroke is bad & a good stroke is good. I've never been one to think 'accelerate through' the ball. My stroke is very pendulum & I realized decades ago that to hit the putt further, just lengthen the backswing & keep the same rhythm. In other words, the length of the backswing determines how far you want to hit the putt...same stroke the rest of the way (same rhythm) - no increased speed into the ball. The lengthened backswing will provide the increased speed needed to make the ball go farther. I have an old friend who is a pro in NE Ohio ( @iacas - maybe you know him - Buzz DiSalvo) - we played high school golf together & he was always a superior ball striker to me (not even close, lol), but his main weakness was putting. He would hit 16 greens & shoot 73. Meanwhile I was hitting like 8 & shooting 75. Anyway, to this day he thinks I'm a great putter...I'm not but I let him think that I am, heh. A couple of years back we played. He's in his 50s now & still hits the ball great. He uses this very heavy putter, and when we got to the first green, he started pumping me, 'Jer give me a putting lesson...I can't make anything.' I said lemme see your stroke - 5 footers were fine. 10 footers were fine. We got to 20 feet & he was taking it back almost the same distance as a 10 footer & accelerating thru the ball. I asked him why he was doing that. "It's a longer putt" he said. I just said, increase the length of your backswing...keep everything else the same. A-hole started making everything & took 20 bucks from me.

Just wondering... First Phil skips the US Open, then he & Bones split... Could he be thinking retirement? As we know very well due to the commercials, he has psoriatic arthritis. Maybe it's progressing & he thinks his competitive days are numbered so he will let Bones hook up with another pro.

Couple other thoughts which, based on the results of the poll aren't necessarily needed, but goes to a couple of more reasons why I believe Miller's was the better round. Here's a link that shows the final results of the 1973 US Open: https://www.thoughtco.com/1973-us-open-63-reasons-johnny-miller-won-1564911 Aside from Miller's 63, I see Lanny Wadkins had a 65, and Jack Nicklaus & Ralph Johnston had 68s. Four rounds under 70. So Miller's was two shots better than one player, and FIVE shots better than two more. And at least 7 better than the rest of the field. Oakmont certainly wasn't a get-able course that day. Miller just blitzed it. The other thought was the discussion about the strength of the respective fields. While I certainly agree that today's tour is far deeper in talent, just look at who Miller beat - it's a Golf Hall of Fame - Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Palmer, Trevino, Boros, Player. Floyd, Littler, Irwin.

That's what I was trying to get at. If it helps me arrive at a decision & therefore a commitment, heck, that's half the battle right there. In order to putt well you have to be fully committed to a line, and if bobbing does that, then that's a good thing. YES, I understand when its pointed out that it doesn't necessarily give you the CORRECT line, but as @softjones just said, if it's only at the end of your process & only if the info you've gathered doesn't result in commitment to a line, then I don't see the problem with doing something that puts in your mind, "That's the line I'm going to go with" - it will result in a more confident attitude to the putt. Having said all that, I am certainly intrigued by a better method of greens reading than bobbing, and Aimpoint seems to be that. So I am going to look into it. It's all about making the putt, right? Therefore I'm all about doing something that makes that happen more often.

But does that make JT's 63 "better" than JM's since the field was stronger? (I know you already answered that, just making the point) I don't see the relevance as to what the rest of the field does in comparison to an individual's accomplishment. Miller's 63 was better than the field by almost 2 strokes more than JT's...but if Miller's 63 had a deeper/stronger field then perhaps there wouldn't be that discrepancy. So does that change what Miller did?

Okay...they got one coming up in Miami on July 29th. I will definitely look into it. Thanks.

Maybe I should. Here's what I know about Aimpoint - it's basically about feeling the slope with your feet, right? You're supposed to find the part of the putt that has the most slope in it, then based on how it "feels" thru your feet, you assign a digit to it, from 1 to 4...say it's 2. You then stand behind the ball & put up 2 fingers next to the hole & that's your aiming point. Do I have that correct? I just need to restate this, as I don't want anyone to think I have some kind of devotion to bobbing...I don't. I read the putt in the traditional methods, and 9 times out of 10 I get my line that way. But sometimes the break is just too nuanced to tell, so I do a quick bob to give me one last piece of information if needed. I don't like dead-straight putts...I want to play 'some' kind of break so I have more of the hole to work with. So if the bob shows a bit of movement to the left, then I'll aim right lip (or whatever).

True, but here, in this poll, we didn't ask which round was the lowest score to par at the US Open...wouldn't really be no need in that, in that -9 is better than -8. Instead, it was, which was "better," in a subjective sense. It's kind of like the Nicklaus v Woods who was greater debate. You can say 18 > 14 & be done with it. Or you can dig into it deeper & possibly change your answer based on whatever criteria you wish to use.

Strength of field, or average score of the field? Two different things. And since both happened in the US Open, the "strength" of the field was as good as could be in each case. No one takes the US Open off. And yes, all 63s aren't created equal...which is why I started this thread. My initial post made that very argument, that Miller's was better since it was on a tougher course, in the final round, for the win & the field had a higher average score by almost two strokes.

I've messed with AimPoint a little & am intrigued by it. But the bobbing is kinda ingrained...even if I did AimPoint I can still see me bobbing at times. It's almost subconscious now lol.