Chipless

Thought of this thread again today. Seems even more necessary now than it was two years ago...

Excellent post!

That was a great video!

In the overall average of his career, probably. But over the last year, definitely not.

It seems so obvious that Tiger's back physically this year, but an inconsistent mess mentally. Why doesn't he hire a team of the best mental coaches around and get his mind up to par with his physical capabilities?

What's most disturbing though is that he slowed down immediately after the ball moved. He had to be looking right at the ball. He had to know it moved. And to not call the penalty on himself seems like of shitty. Definitely not the same way a lot of other professionals would have handled it. Karma is a funny thing. If he had called the penalty on himself, he probably would have felt a lot better about things, then chipped it in on his next shot.

First, let me say that your progress is stunning. I am very jealous! Second, I would like to point out how easy it is for mortals to shoot over a hundred. You didn't factor mishits into your equation above. Imagine a tee shot on a par 4 that goes into the woods. Then the next tee shot is a grounder that goes 50 yards. Then the fourth shot is a chunk. The fifth shot is topped. There is nothing unusual about this for a beginner. It can easily take one of us six or seven strokes for a normal beginner to get even close to the green.

Same here. My SwingBySwing phone app is always within two or three yards of any fairway yardage indicators, marked sprinkler heads, etc.

121. I'm posting now, even though it's early in the season, because I really hope I don't ever shoot worse than that.

That was a great final! I added up each of their scores. James shot 67 and Mark shot 65. I think they both played really impressive golf.

OK. Looks like I misread the initial post, and now have my tail tucked between my legs.

I have to disagree with the consensus of this thread in three areas... If the conveyor belt is going 170 mph in a backwards direction, and the plane engines are providing enough thrust for the the plane to go forward at 170 mph, then the plane would actually be sitting still and would have no forward movement with regards to other stationary objects. There would also be no air movement over the wings, unless the wind was blowing. [quote] The only thing that the conveyor belt does is makes the wheels spin faster, so the plane is going 100 mph forward, the conveyor belt 100 mph backwards, meaning the wheels are spinning at 200 mph. [/quote] In the example I gave above, the wheels of the plane would be moving at 170 mph, not 340 mph. There is no force that would double the speed of the wheels. The conveyor belt is going backwards at 170 mph, and the plane wheels are going forward at the same speed. 170 - 170 = 0, which is the speed of the aircraft. [quote] I'm a pilot, and the answer is yes. Forward movement of an aircraft is caused by the thrust of its propeller or jet, not by it's wheels like that of a car. Therefore, the movement of the conveyor in no way affects the aircraft's ability to move forward relative to its position through the air which is what generates lift and allows for flight.[/quote] No offense, but si nce the plane is sitting still relative to the air surrounding the wings, there would be no lift, and this plane has no chance of taking off. The rotation speed required for takeoff must be in relation to the air moving across the wings. I think this is called "indicated airspeed". So with a 20 mph headwind, you'd only need 150 mph of actual land speed. But with no aircraft speed, you might need ~ 170 mph headwind to take off. This would be a completely different story if we were talking about a plane specifically designed for vertical takeoff...

It normally takes me until around March to get warmed up here in central Ohio.

I love it!

Almost a year has passed since I started this thread. Coach has taught me much better setup posture, takeaway path and downswing. Slice is completely gone most of the time, and I can actually put a small draw on the ball on some my better shots now. Here is a seven-iron swing video shot at normal speed, then slowed down so you can see the positions frame by frame. Here's the five wood: And here's a driver swing, with the ball starting slightly to the right, then drawing back. Man, what a challenging game this is!

I am interested in this, and have a few questions about it... 1. How old is this unit? 2. Is there anything wrong with it? 3. Do you know what the differences are in the current software and the latest available? 4. I reviewed the brochure, but don't see any mention of optical detectors to track clubface angle and ball movement. What sensors are included, and where are they located? 5. How accurate does this seem to be compared to Foresight for example? 6. Do you have any reasonable guesses how much it might cost to pack and ship it to Ohio?

"This one looks like it's right edge." "At least, but more likely one ball outside the cup." How in the world are the announcers able to "see" these putts without actually being down on the greens?

I have started to notice a pattern with regard to my scores when walking versus riding in a cart. Nearly all of my personal best scores have taken place on days when I was walking. Has anyone else noticed a similar pattern? And if so, what causes this?

Sorry. I was thinking that he was one of the players, so there could be only be 11 possible opponents. Then I realized that he'll probably play against someone on the opposite team rather than his own.

With 12 players on each team, I believe the odds would be 1 in 11.

Like the subject asks, how should a full iron swing differ from a full woods swing? I ask this because I have heard/read lots of people saying that the swing is exactly the same, but I have heard/read others saying the swing with the woods should be more of a sweeping motion. I am also confused about the timing of getting the clubface closed at impact. Seems like if the swings were the same, there would be more time to get the clubface closed with a driver for example, since contact is so much farther forward in the swing. Even if one had the clubface closing timing perfect with a driver, wouldn't he then have the clubface too open at impact if he used the same swing with something like a seven iron?

Blackhawk, Clover Valley and Safari are all nice and reasonably priced.

This is mighty impressive! I have been working hard at it for 13 months now, with lessons and several practice sessions every week. Yet I still can't seem to hit the ball with any consistency at all, and I have been stuck between 27 and 28 for the last couple of months...

I have a putting practice routine that I do a couple times each week. It looks like this... 40 push putts, ranging from 1' to 5' - starting with the putter touching the ball, using no back swing 40 right-handed putts, ranging from 1' to 5' - with my left hand behind my back, and normal back swing 40 normal putts, ranging from 1' to 5' - with normal back swing and normal two-handed grip 40 lag putts to various points on the fringe, ranging from 6' to 30', with normal back swing and normal two-handed grip I would expect that I would putt poorly with no back swing, but understand that this is helping to groove my stroke. I would expect to putt a little better right-handed, since I am taking a back swing. And I would expect to putt a lot better with both hands on the putter. But if I tally my last 1,500 practice putts, it looks like my right-handed ones are as good or better than they are with both hands... Push-putts: 74% accuracy Right-handed putts: 82% accuracy Both-handed putts: 81% accuracy Has anyone noticed a similar pattern in their practice? And what in the world might this mean?