HytrewQasdfg

Wrong. Simply dead wrong. When my daughter was younger I bought a set of Wilson (not Wilson/Staff, but Wilson) ladies clubs for her to get started with. The entire set (Woods, irons, wedges, putter, & bag) was less than $200. For the money it was a pretty decent set. As good as a high end set? No, but certainly worth the money I paid for it. This is the major problem I have with clones. By copying a brand they are trying to imply they are "almost as good as Pings, but at a lower cost." What they actually have are Ping looks, and Wal-Mart Wilson quality (at best). Anyone trying to fool themselves into thinking their clone "Pong" clubs are anything like Ping clubs in any way other than looks is, to be perfectly blunt, well I'll refrain from calling anyone a name here.

Occasionally PGA Superstore has some good deals, but you have to look (right now they have some Miznuo forged wedges at $49 each.) They seem to have a lot of deals in their stores that never make it to the web site though. I can't stand TGW. I find their site almost impossible to navigate. Golfsmith seems to have gone off the deep end. Their online prices are higher than anyone elses (they used to have some decent deals, but no more). Their stores also seem understocked. I'm starting to wonder if they are long for this world. Finally, there is ebay. Although you really have to be carefull. You are just as likely to get screwed by a fake as get a deal. Someone mentioned rock bottom golf. They are also a big player on ebay; most of the stuff on their web site also gets listed by them on ebay and usually goes for less than the web site price.

Ummm, no it isn't. Cloning is an attempt to create an item that visually reminds someone of a name-brand product. Every clubmaker makes a perimiter weighted iron, but I doubt anyone will confuse Callaway's perimerter weighted irons with Ping's. That is taking an idea and incorporating it into your own line. Making a club that visually looks exactly like a Ping iron and putting a label on it that says PONG instead of PING is not incorporating an idea, it is copying a look. Agree with you there, but as I pointed out, if you are patient you can find disontinued name brand clubs for about that price range. As an example, the discontinued Wilson/Staff Ci7 clubs are currently going for $199 and less.

I seem to recall that the Gamer-V2 was the only non-urethane ball that even approached the spin rates of the urethane balls.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say whatever manufacturing agreement someone like Ping has with any factory will specificly state that the dies used to make Ping clubs can not be used to make any other brand. Besides the copyright issue, I just have a problem with clones form a price standpoint. A clone set or irons runs what--$200 or so? If you keep your eye out for discountinued models , you can buy a new set of genuine clubs for that price. New Wilson/Staff's Ci7 sets are going $199 online, and $170 on ebay. Sure, these are "last year's" models, but they are a legit, high quality brand. I don't see any reason to puchase a clone when for about the same amount of money you can get an original.

Sure you can blame him. How do you improve a drunk driver's automotive skills? By giving them driving lessons? No, by getting them to stop drinking. Barkley's problems are 100% mental. So what did Haney do? Focus on the technical aspects of Barkley's swing, instead of the root problem with Barkely's swing (the mental glitch).

Get a plastic book binding comb. Slip your left thumb through the last 3-4 rings from the inside out, so most of the length of the comb is behind your thumb heading towards your forearm. Adjust the comb so that when your left wrist if fully (and correctly) cocked the tip of the comb touches the middle of your forearm. At the top of your backswing, you'll feel the comb touch your forearm in the correct spot, and you'll know your left wrist if fully and correctly cocked. On the downswing, as long as you feel the comb touching your forearm in the correct spot you'll know you are maintaining your wrist cock for a late release. It looks really dumb and I've never seen anyone else do it, it's cheap, simple, and effective.

Having a daughter, I have tried to get interested in ladies golf. Last week I watched part of an event, and once again it was the same story. They mentioned a player was not making her home in Atlanta. I perked up thinking here is a local my daughter and I can follow together. She has a 3 foot put; the camera is lined up directly behind the ball at eye level; she puts and comes within a hair of missing the hole, and I'm thinking "what the ef was that?" Her putting motion was jerky and no where near lined up with the hole. I understand women can't drive the ball as long as men, but when it comes to the short game and putting there is no physical reason why women shouldn't be just as good as men. But they aren't. I don't know if it is the smaller pool of women that play golf growing up that doesn't produce enough quality pro ladies golfers or if there is such an emphasis on hitting it long that they spend too much time practicing their driving and not enough time on their short game & putting, but the bottom line is in the areas where LPGA golfers should (in theory) be able to compete with men head on they aren't as good as the men.

RockBottomGolf is currently selling Ci7 4-GW sets on ebay. Both the steel and graphite versions have been bidding out between $170 & $180 per set (with $16.99 shipping). Below $200 total. Even if you have a trade in, my advice would be to buy the Ci7 off ebay (if that is what you really want), save $100, and sell your current set on ebay. My guess is you'll end up with more money in your pocket that way than if you spend $299 on a set (plus tax or shipping) and trade in a set (because dealers are notorius for paying too little for trade in sets). The reason I know about the ebay thing is I have been watching the Ci7s for a while, and finally broke down twp days ago and bid on a set. Came in right where expected: slightly below $200 including the shipping.

I think that depends on the shaft. A lot of shafts are designed to be combo R/S shafts, and the initial stiffness is determined by how much you trim off the tip. Take this example: Adilia VX Regular flex trimming instructions Driver - 0 trim 2 Wood - 0 trim 3 Wood - 0.5" trim 4 Wood - 1" trim 5 Wood - 1.5" trim Stiff flex trimming instructions Driver - 2" trim 2 Wood - 2.25" trim 3 Wood - 2.5" trim 4 Wood - 3" trim 5 Wood - 3.5" trim Also notice these trimming instructions for an UST V2 Stiff shaft Driver - 0" trim 2 Wood -0.5" trim 3 Wood - 1" trim 4 Wood - 1.5" trim 5 Wood - 2" trim The reason they do this is because (in theory) your shafts should be stiffer as you go up in clubs. The shaft on a 3-wood should be stiffer than the shaft you your driver. They acheive this by trimming the shaft 1 inch. I know trimming the tip is different than trimming the butt, but shortening the shaft from either end will increase the stiffness at least a little.

This is why you should take it to a pro to have it shortened. By adding weight to the head, he can return the swing weight to its original level, and also decrease the effective stiffness of the shaft (adding weight to the head effectivly makes the shaft less stiff). The other thing to remember is you don't "cut" a graphite shaft. If you try to use say a hacksaw (or worse yet a pipe cutter like you would on an iron shaft) the graphite will splinter. You need a special blade that looks like a rope impregnated with grit (it mounts on a hacksaw). In effect you are fileing away the graphite shaft instead of cutting it.

What's that old lawyer saying? When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, attack the person.

http://www.g-forse.com/archive/news259_e.html "So is a ball inferior, if it has been submerged in a body of water? 'Yes' says an U.S. Army Research Laboratory study. Golf balls absorb water that cannot be removed and this affects a permanent change. Testing by Golf Digest in 1996 found a golf ball submerged in water loses six yards after one week, 12 yards after three months and 15 yards after six months."

Not 100%, but 90%. Do you know if they were fine to play with before you hit them, or after you put them into play? There have been several studies that show golfballs do degrade after bing submerged in water. Unfortunatly, you can't tell by looking at them, only after hitting them do you know. IMHO, there is a difference between "fine to play with", and "consistent to play with". I'm sure recycled balls are fine to play with, but you just can't gurantee that the every ball in the batch plays exatcly the same way every time.

My job? No. My career? Dang right I'd go. You don't get ahead in your career by doing just enough to get by.

It seems to me that the people that carry are the non-purist. The tradition in golf is to NOT carry you bag--that's the job of your caddy. Things like carts and pull/push trollys are simpley caddy replacements. It is the people that carry that are breaking with tradition.

This issue gets debated all the time, and everyone seems to be stuck in their position. Here's mine: 1. Golf is a game of consistency (the goal is repeatable actions with repeatable results). 2. Recycled balls are inconsistent--maybe they'll play exactly like a new ball, maybe they won't. You can never now for sure. That's why I don't play recycled balls. IMHO, I'm better off playing new TaylorMade TP Red/Black for $25 a dozen than recycled "AAAA" Pro-V1s for $23 a dozen ($69.99 for 36 on Amazon).

I remember a time (dating myself here) when all tennis balls were white. In 1972, someone introduced a yellow tennis ball. Most people said they would never play them, too different. They'd stick with white tennis balls, thank you. When is the last time you saw a white tennis ball? At least 30 years. Tennis in 1972 was at least as conservative as golf is today, yet the yellow ball caught on. Interesting note on why the yellow tennis ball caught on. The US Tennis Federation found that yellow tennis balls were easier for fans to see, both live and on televison (and thus increased event attendance and tv ratings). It will be interesting to see if the powers that be in golf find that yellow golf balls are also more fan friendly. Would they mandate the use of yellow balls for the same reason tennis eventually did?

Yea, I don't know why ball companies havent figured this out. There are plenty of balls that are "just as good" as a Pro-V1 (imho anyway), but the all cost the same amount as a Pro-V1. If I'm going to pay the same amount of money for a ball that is "just as good" as a Pro-V1, then I'm going to go ahead and buy a Pro-V1. TaylorMade seems to be the only company that has figured this out. They lowered the price of the Red/Black (their old "just as good" as a Pro-V1 balls), and have come out with a ball (Penta) at the same price as the Pro-V1 that some are saying is a better ball than the Pro-V1.

Yea, all that zodiac and fortune telling stuff can get on people's nerves. ;)

Is any of those your sand wedge? The "standard" sand wedge is 56 degrees with a pretty high bounce (10-16 degrees). If you don't have a sande wedge you may want to consier getting one.

Most golfers don't ask the biggest question when it comes to balls: what is the cover made of? The answer is urethane vs. everything-else. Urethane covered balls spin more than anything else--a lot more. Even the cheapest urethane golf ball will spin more off a wedge than the most expensive surylan covered ball. If you emphasize your short game (and are looking for a lot of backspin off wedge shots to stop the ball) you've got to go with a urethane covered ball, plain and simple. If not, then you are a candidate for some other material. All of which are more durable and cheaper than urethane. They also generally provide less spin off the driver (and thus less side-spin) than urethane balls. And IMHO, 80% of golfers would be do just as well with any urethane covered ball (expensive or cheap). They wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Between a urethane covered ball and a surlyn covered ball? Definitly.

There is an exception to every rule, but it is just that--an exception.

Sure. You know there is also the concept of conforming by non-conforming. Hippies in the '60s were were all about being differednt and not conforming. Strangely, if you took the time to look you would find they were all "not conforming" in pretty much the same way. In other words they were conforming, just to a different standard. If someone says you shouldn't have all of the same type of clubs, aren't they really just conforming to another standard? A standard that says your clubs should be different? When you think about it, you're the one bucking the trend and being the non-conformist by playing a set of a single brand.

What do you think this old saying means: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"? Or to put it another way: "An athlete that is his own coach has a fool for a student."