HytrewQasdfg

A guy did measure me once (and recommended what I am now using), but I don't remember the criteria he used. Regrip 1 club and see how it feels. I really think experimenting till you find what feels best is the best way on something like this.

Maybe someone that knows the rules better than me can clarify, but weren't they out of bounds? Is there some penalty for playing an OB ball?

That's probably a good rule of thumb everyone can agree with. If it's OK to pee there, it's OK to spit chew there (and conversely if it's not OK to pee there, don't spit chew there.) If you wouldn't have any problem with the foursome ahead of you taking a piss on the green, then by all means spit. Otherwise, go spit where you pee.

No options for adult men's grips sizes? I use a Lamkin Crossline Jumbo grip (+1/8) which also has a .580 core. When put over a standardard shaft (with a .600 butt diameter) it increases the grip size just enough that it feels right (and my fingers don't dig into my palm.) Anything smaller than that I consider a ladies grip. ;) Honestly though, a club with a standard men's grip feels like I'm holding a pencil.

Handful of things I noticed when researching some clubs for my daughter (not universal to every manufacturer): Driver heads available in higher lofts than men's modes (16 degree+). Lie is 1-2 degrees flater. Weight a few grams (like 5) less than the men's version. Shaft butt diameter smaller (.600-.620 typical men's, .580-.600 women's typical.) Grips smaller diameter than men's. Club length shorter. When I think about it, it reminds me of what I've heard about Japanese specs (Japanse men and American women both typically being shorter than the average American male probably accounts for that.) One thing that could be relaxed on the ladies heads is the COR limitation. As I (imperfectly) understand it, this is some type of limit to how much the face flexes (which produces a trampoline effect) and increases distance.

I'm assuming this was written as a joke to get people riled up. Nobody really thinks this way, do they?

The balls are definitly doable, as companies already make ladies balls. Most companies already offer ladies versions of their clubs now, so I don't see that as any type of barrier either. Ladies NOW are a small part of the sport, but I see this as a growth opportunity for the industry. If they made a few equipment rule changes that resulted in the typical woman being able to hit a ball the same distance as the typical man (given similar golf skill sets) I think it would draw a lot of women into the sport. Combine that with a push/campaign by the golf industry to get more women involved in golf in the junior and high school levels, and in about 10 years you would have a significant increase in the number of adult women playing regularly (which, for an industry that has been shrinking over the last few years is a good thing.) I'm not sure the USGA is up to it though. They seem so focused on keeping pros from overwhelming courses they have (imho) lost sight of the needs of amateurs. Take the recent groove rule changes. Makes sense if you want to make the US Open more competitive, but for the typical amateur (who has trouble spinning the ball off the fairway) it just doesn't make sense. If I was the LPGA, I would look seriously at establishing my own rule modifications, that would be permissable in LPGA events (and if the USGA doesn't like it, tough.)

Yes. The already shorten/modify courses to make them more playable by the women. Why not the equipment? It doesn't make sense to me that women should be bound by the men's equipment standards. The WNBA uses a smaller basketball than the NBA. Why? Because women have smaller hands than men. Women (last time I checked) are different physically than men. They should be playing equipment (including balls) that is designed around their physical characteristics, not those of men. I don't see this as unfair or giving women an advantage, its just reconizing the obvious: women and men are different.

Obviously pure strength does have some impact on distance. IMHO, the reason LPGA players don't reach the length the men do is women just don't have the natural upper body strength men do. I'm talking about the core muscles (stomach, side, back, etc...) that are used to power a rotational swing. Even the typical 5-0 tall man will be stronger in those areas than the typical 5-8 woman. The areas that affect distance are (again imho, and in no particular order): Flexiblity - If you can't get into the proper position at the top of your backswing, you're going to lose power. Clubface impact point - The sweet spot on irons is about the size of a penny. Missing it by just a little can cost you yards. Lag - Holding a late release adds yards. Hip rotation - imho, most amateurs under rotate their hips and/or slide too much. I would include proper weight transfer from the back to front foot in this also. Size of swing arc - An area tall golfers have an advantage (just as tall pitchers do.) Arm mechanics - dragging the left arm through for swingers, pushing the right arm for hitters. I suspect this is where most golfers lose their distance, as doing these wrong will reduce distance/accuracy.

Here I disagree (sorta). Most of Tiger's income comes not from winning golf tournaments, but from product endorsements. Part of those agreements require him to maintain a certain image. In effect, he is always on the clock with those companies (and I think generally, he has done a much better job than most athletes creating a solid image.) A number of the products he endorses do run ads targeted at kids (the Gatorade cartoon with the papa bear and young Tiger comes to mind.)

Here is the explination. Golf has a higher percentage of higher income households, so even though it doesn't attract as many fans it is a good vehicle for advertisers targeting higher income customers. There is a reason Beer companies sponser football games, and premium liquor companies sponser golf tournaments.

One more idea. The LPGA could start setting their own equipment guidelines instead of relying on the PGA guidelines. The PGA ball distance restrictions are there to prevent men from bombing it and overpowering courses. Why should women (who don't have the natural strength men do to hit longer shots) play with balls that are distance restricted? The LPGA should play with a hotter ball to allow women to strike it farther. Same goes with PGA clubface restrictions which are designed to restrict distance. Just as you have a women's tee on each hole, there should be balls and clubs that are restricted to women's usage only.

The big winner at The Open was....Adams golf clubs. Anyone going to give Adams a second look? I know a lot of people have them down as a second tier club maker (mostly due to their lower price, imho), but after Watson's play at the open that might change. It's hard to argue they aren't top-notch when a 59 year old can come within a hair of winning a major using them. I wonder if this event will propel Adams into the same league as Ping, Titleist, etc... in people's minds.

Remember that Cink sunk a 15 footer on the 18th. to get to -2. I don't think it is fair to say Cink backed into it as much as Watson failed to grab it.

The story comming out of the open is certainly Tom Watson, but I still think Stewart Cink should get his props. He shot four birdies on the back nine to end the round with a 69 (and put himself into contention.) He shot a two under par in the four hole playoff (the one time he got into trouble he made a great shot out of the sand.) The way he was playing, it is doubtful anyone could have beaten him in the playoff. So, props to Stewart Cink on his first major.

I guess I'm one of the few that was rooting for Cink. I'm afraid Cink isn't going to get his due credit here. Watching it, the impression is that Watson broke down (I think he got tired at the end.) Cink though, played a great last 9 to put himself in a position for the playoff. Then he shot a 2 under par for the 4 hole playoff. The way Cink was playing at the end of the day, it is unlikely anyone could have won that playoff against him.

Cross leg drill. Stand on your left foot and cross your right foot in front of the left (leaving the right edge of the right foot on the ground.) Practice full swings. http://www.thegolfchannel.com/golf-v...225&select4;=17 Of all the drills I've tried, this is the best at teaching balance and the proper weight shift. Try this for a while and you will be swinging inside your feet and still shifting your weight.

The Perfect Swing - Jim Suttie - Not an instructional book per se, but an enlightenment book. You'll come away from this book understanding there are several different valid swing styles (and what they are.) Gives you information so you can decide what the best swing mechanics for YOU might be. The Golfing Machine - Homer Kelly - (flame retardent suit on, and no I am not a TGM cult member) This is NOT an instructional book. At the end of the day, it is a catalog of golf mechanics/techniques. It is very difficult to read. If you can manage to make it through the book , you will come away with an understanding that there are several (imcompatible) golf swings. You'll also have a catalog of swing techniques and understand which swing styles they do (and do not) apply. Good to know, because the next time you run across a bit of golf advice/instruction you can evaluate it and determine if it is compatibale with your current swing style goals. See and Feel the Inside Move the Outside - Michael Hebron - Small print run book. Very underrated. Discusses how to build a modern swing in simple, plain language. Stresses the importance of building a swing from the ground up, and using your large muscles (the inside). Explains lag, centrifugal force, and COAM, why they are important, and uses simple language to explain it. If you are at all confused abut the modern golf swing, and the role your various body parts (legs, hips, core, arms, hands, etc...) play, get this book. Five Lessons - Ben Hogan - A golfer not owning this book is like a Christain not owning a Bible. The information here is specific to Hogan, so you need to read this while asking yourself "does this apply to my swing?" For many people, when they talk about the modern swing they are talking about the swing described in this book. Has something of a cult following. Golf My Way - Jack Nicklaus - Nicklaus was the one of the early originators of the modern golf swing. You'll notice in this book that there are a number of significant differences between Hogan's and Nicklaus' swings. The lesson you should come away from this is the modern swing isn't set in stone. There are a number of valid variations that you should consider depending on what you need to do. The drawings (as in the Hogan book) are excellent.

Just the one that works best for me. Which may (or may not) be the one choice I would get with an Apple. Are you saying you don't run security/anti-virus/firewall software on your Mac? I've worked with everything from mainframes to micro-computers, and they all had some type of security software running. To do otherwise is to gamble with your data. As far as cost, there are a number of good, free security packages for Windows (AVG, Avast!, AntiVir, etc...) for personal use. Not really a cost issue here. What deserted island have you been living on? People do that all the time. Look up VirtualPC, VMWare, or VirtualBox. Computer virtualization is an OLD, OLD, OLD technology (IBM was virtualizing mainframe computers 35 years ago via its VM product). Apple, in fact, is kind of late to the game on this one. Why it has lately become a standard bragging point for Apple users is beyond me (I assume it's because Apple is pushing this as a talking/marketing point.) I've had a couple of people breathlessly show me this and my response is: so what? What next, you'll show me that your Mac can connect to the internet wirelessly? There's no technological reason the Max OS can't be run virtually on a PC (or Linux, or any other OS.) The reason it isn't is LEGAL. Apple won't license its OS to run on non-Apple hardware (or a virtual machine.) Everybody else will. But really, of all the bells and whistles Apples have, this one is the least bell and whistlely.

I would have to agree, plus there are many applications (like an os embedded into an appliance) where a gui is impractial. The last generation of even computer science majors just aren't geared to using a command line (even most programming environments are heavily gui based.) I've had to help people (very computer savvy people) several times who had graduated college and were working with computers as a career, and they had never used a command line.

Titleist: the standard for balls, "players" irons, tour quality wedges, Scotty Cameron putters, woods do not have as good a reputation as rest of the line. Mizuno: bi-polar company. Forged irons an object of worship by some (almost a cult following) while woods cosidered only average (or below) by most. Callaway: high end game improvement clubs. If you need all the help you can get from your clubs, and want everyone to know that price was no object you purchase Callaways. Nike: marketing company. TaylorMade: Woods full of technology. This is what computer nerds play. Adams: hybrids, several of their driver heads have a strong following among people that compete in long driving competitions. Nickent: clubs people pass over because they look so strange, then fall in love with if they try them. Another nerd's club. Ping: riding on their past reputation. Another brand with something of a cult following. Cleveland: believed by most to be based in Cleveland, Ohio.

Windows server 2008 looks a lot like Vista, so I tend to think you are right. They have probably commited to far in that direction to go back.

No, they still hold. The reason Windows is a better platform for most people is: 1. cost, 2. there are simply more windows applications. There are some great Mac applications. But the fact still remains that for every great Mac program, there are a dozen various Windows applications of the same type (primarily because developers tend to target Windows first because of its larger user base.) Take golf swing analysis software. There are at least a half dozen Windows products (ranging from free to $1000+ programs) available for Windows. For Mac? I don't know, but I would wager the range isn't nearly as wide. I have nothing against Macs (in fact, I'll probably be purchasing one soon as I have a child that wants to major in graphic arts in college), but I understand that picking the right OS does depend on what you want to do.

I'm sure things have changed from my youth, but I knew several people that attended college on an ROTC scholarship. Earned their college degree THEN went into the military as an officer (one also completed their masters, then when they took the physical for the Air Force was found 4F due to their eyesight, why the didn't check that BEFORE the gov. paid for their college I'll never know.) Anyway, if your grades/intelligence are good enough to go to college then they are probably good enough to be an officer. If I was in your position, I would be pushing to do the college first THEN go into the military as an officer. Of course, like I said things might have changed from my day (30 years ago.)

Thanks for some common sense. I've been working on computers longer than many people on this board have been alive (back to Unix on a PDP-11.) The bottom line is Apple OS, Windows (particularly the server versions), and Linux/Unix are all good operating systems. Anyone that says otherwise is just showing their ignorance. The choice of OS should depend on one thing: the applications you plan on running. Desktop graphics/publishing - Apple. Business applications/everyday computing - Windows. Web/file server - Linux (although Windows Server 2000/2003 are darned good.) High end cgi (Pixar) - Unix. Embeded systems - Linux. It really tickles me when people get into the "my os is better than yours" stuff. Apple people seem particularly prone to this (although hardcore Linux guys can be just as bad--"hey dude, it's Unix with a different name." Invarialby they show some "bells and whistles" application or talk about how easy it is to use. I can't help thinking "this is like telling me your car is SUPERIOR to other cars because it has a lot of cup-holders, heated seats, and comes in pacific blue."