mmoan2

You might consider narrowing your stance a bit. It makes it difficult for me to turn my hips and get my weight fully forward at impact with a too-wide stance. That's the first thing my evolvr coach suggested I change.

http://www.pelzgolf.com/dave_pelz_golf_pro_shop/golf_putting_aid_putting_tutor.aspx Get one of those and mark the equator of your ball with a sharpie. can be done with a thingee from any golf store that costs $8. Best things I've ever purchased. Once you have total confidence in your putting stroke, you can work on speed and green reading almost exclusively. Otherwise, you'll start compensating your stroke mechanics to mask your frustration at misreading greens and/or speed. Consistency is so key with putting. Work on your routine as well. I practice putting with the same stroke pattern every time.

I saw this chart as well. Goes to show you - approach shots and made putts take home the cheese. The only guy in the top 10 who didn't have a good showing on approach shots was Lingmerth, which he made up for with stellar driving and putting. I think the "drive for show, putt for dough" axiom makes partial sense for this reason - tour winners must make putts to win. However, poor driving/approach shots means you must putt out of your mind to even have a chance - i.e. Lingmerth, who wasn't good at approaches, but not awful either. One thing's certain - short game prowess had no correlation to success in this tournament. I would bet that holds true quite often. The old Jack Nicklaus approach - why worry about a short game when I just hit fairways and greens all day?

TW did make some incredible recovery shots and played darn well overall, but his misses were so awful. I'm still wondering how he split the fairway with a 340 yard drive on a Par 5 and bogeyed the hole. I don't know what he hit for his approach, but those kinds of mistakes need to go away if he's ever to win again.

It's a shame that even par yesterday would have put TW in contention today it looks like. Yesterday on a par 5 he hit a 340 yard drive in the fairway and the second shot was listed at 220 and it ended up 286 on a cart path. Still too inconsistent. I'm hoping either Rickie or Howell III wins. I always felt like the latter never lived up to his potential. Would be nice to see him get a W.

Sorry to hear that... Sounds like a hell of an injury.

@billchao - The issue is a lot more complicated, I agree, and the encroachment on habitat and commercialization of animal parts like elephant tusks and rhino horns for often dubious reasons is far more of a problem. It was interesting to see how you proposed that hunting as a sustainable industry might help species continuation. I'm sure there are many other instances if you've named but a few. Thanks for the insight. I'm sticking to golf, basketball, and writing for now, though.

Speaking hyperbolically, all recreation does count as "getting off," yes I employ such a term because it strengthens my statement that big game hunting is an irresponsible cheap thrill in the 21st century. No offense meant personally. I am glad to see you are an informed, responsible person who hunts in this fashion. Thanks also for educating me on some of the hunting-related issues in Minnesota. I grew up just outside of New York City and my father wasn;t a hunter, so you can see why it never registered for me as an activity I gave much thought to. I've spent plenty of time fishing in the Atlantic Ocean to know that thrill, though. I guess I'm a little confused by your last point, but it's really just a semantic quibble about psychological definitions. How does feeding your need for excitement not relate to your ego? I don't think it's a bad thing - in fact it's necessary for mental health. I understand how you differentiate ego from enjoyment, but when I said earlier that big game hunting can be a sign of a psychological issue, I was referring to those who conflate the two. I don't know a lot of big game hunters, but the ones I do know exhibit signs of needing to make great conquests to enjoy themselves. Real Type A personalities. Probably the most famous big game hunters in the United States from the 20th Century - Ernest Hemingway and Theodore Roosevelt - had major confidence problems. One was a manic depressive who committed suicide and the other spent his entire life trying to escape a childhood where he was viewed as frail, turning himself into one of the most prolific self-made men in modern history. I think we've killed this discussion. Happy hunting!

There's this guy at my job who drives a monster truck with a handicap plate on it. I never understood it...

That's the one. I hope they develop rhino-Viagra soon. Anyway, enough ranting.

Dude, lighten up, please. Would you feel better if I said I agree with you? Using a robust multivariate time-series regression model that had variables such as average wind speed in 1977 vs. 1999, comfort level of golf slacks of the top 5 clothing manufacturers, and a decay factor of persimmon wood club heads vs. the wearing of wedge grooves in the 80s,90s,and 00s I've determined that Tiger Woods would take 2 of 3 from Jack Nicklaus in a bare knuckle boxing match. That makes him my GOAT. Screw the majors thing!!!!

One reason I see it as different because those populations proliferate. If there were less than 200 elk left on Earth (the count of Bengal Tigers right now), I'd be against killing them for sport as well. Also, I've never heard of someone going to Africa to kill tigers, lions, or elephants for steak. It's to put a trophy on the wall and feel like a big shot. It's a thrill as you say. I am not a specialist on animal population, but I have to believe that populations of animals would be just fine without hunters shooting them. Show me an isolated incident where human habitats are being encroached upon by rampant deer populations and I would grant you hunting MIGHT be necessary. Do you honestly hunt to help control the animal population, or do you do it for fun and use that argument as an excuse? When you kill a black bear, do you do it to protect the deer it might go eat? Seriously? In the long run, I'm not that adverse to hunting elk, geese, etc. I think it sucks unless you respect the animal by at least using its body for food, pelt for clothing, etc., but I pick my battles. When it comes to hunting for pure sport and the animals are almost extinct, I have a serious problem with it. Whether you think a deity gave humans such marvelous brains or it was evolution, I think it is our job as stewards of the planet to be responsible with our leisure. I think at last count there was 1 male white South African rhino in existence of breeding age. Is it really worth some money or a quick thrill to be the guy who bagged the last one? Does your ego need that much stroking that you need to feel strong by killing a defenseless animal with a high-powered rifle? There's countless other ways to get off in the 21st century.

Got a little carried away with the rhetoric because I feel strongly about this topic. Sport hunting for deer where you eat the meat is far different. Killing a lion, cutting off its head, skinning it, and leaving the carcass to rot is a sign of a mental disorder in my opinion. I seriously believe that. Maybe not on par with paranoid schizophrenia, but truly. In the 21st century, with the massive information about how "big game" are becoming rapidly extinct, there's no reason to get your kicks out of killing animals for pure sport. Even if lions are not currently endangered, rhinos, certain elephants, jaguars, gorillas, etc. all are. It won't be long for lions. If we are to embrace human evolution, it runs the gamut. There are myriad ways to get excitement in the 21st century that don't involve endangering the existence of beautiful animals. I don't apologize for my position and don't care if others think I'm a jerk for it. Am I a vegan? No, but I don't eat meat far as often as I once did after learning about the meat industry. I apologize personally to you, sir, but I hope I have inspired others to think about this topic a bit more.

NP, sorry for not having my sarcasm meter properly raised :) Como wearing shin guards probably should've been a tip off!

I agree with your post wholeheartedly. The only way to answer this question completely rationally is to develop a strength-of-field metric. The problem is, to get a consensus, you would need a team of well-funded university statisticians to account for all the variables and make a peremptory, robust model. They have more important things to do (generally!). Which is why these sports topics about "was the past better than the present" are compelling - they work in incomplete arguments, and appeal to emotion at the same time. Everyone gets to pick their favorite scientific evidence and roll with it. I would agree that some arguments are better than others, and I have my own opinions, but there's no unassailable proof here. BTW - I voted that 17 majors in the 90s-10s is better. I would have voted for 15!

Ditto. Or marathoning, or zip lining, or parachuting, or mountain climbing. People say that their ethics allow them to agree that killing animals for sport is ok. Fine. Have at it. My ethics allows me to say that if you get off on that, you have a small peen and a psychological problem.

Then how do you explain Hoosiers? HA!!!!! How you like them apples, science guy! Sorry, couldn't resist.

Oh, I didn't. Ha ha, I guess...

I guess I don't understand why he ever went to him in the first place if this is true. Tiger Woods knows more about a golf swing than most people walking the earth. How could he call him ? Wouldn't he have realized he wasn't the right person on day 1? Also, I would've been pissed if my coach was wearing soccer shin guards as well. I mean, come on. Does he hide in a plastic bubble during long iron sessions? What a way to instill confidence in a guy. If you can't dodge a wayward chip shot, or take one for the team, stick to shuffleboard.

Good point. A brand new set of TM Rbz Stage 2 irons go for $299 right now. 2 years ago, they were $799.

The PING dot system is very effective, IMO, as well, because you'll always know you're a certain color dot. I don't play their irons, but I got a G15 driver for $85 three years ago and it's still my favorite club. Any golf store you walk into will likely have a G15 or 20 in the used rack for less than $100 with a great shaft that you can test out live for yourself.

You can find a free sample online fitting calculator at several sites for name and non-name brand club makers just by doing a google search. I would guess at 6'6 you would need not only 1 inch more on the shafts but also a lie adjustment of +2 degrees upright, but I would make sure of that. A local golf warehouse like Golfsmith, Golf Galaxy, or PGA Superstore have craftsmen who can add to or cut from your shafts for relatively cheap - like a few bucks per club - without a problem. You may need to buy new grips, though, which might be a good idea anyway if you have extra large hands. If you have forged club heads, it's simple to adjust the lie. Not so much for cast heads sometimes. Finally, I wouldn't worry about extra long driver, wood, and hybrid shafts. A 45 inch driver shaft is plenty for a starter. If I were you starting from scratch, I would be sure to get a driver and 3w, but consider 2 hybrids in place of a 5W and 3 or 4i. Many people find them much easier to get up in the air and out of the rough. That's why they're referred to as "rescue" clubs. Also, don't neglect your wedges. I carry a 60, 56, 51, and 46 degree wedges (PW,AW,SW,LW). Essentially you're right that equipment should take a back seat to playing, enjoyment, and practicing right now, but never hurts to get the right stuff at the outset. I would stress to anyone that $500 worth of proper equipment is a better investment than $300 of whatever you can find just to get on the course. 6 months from now, you'll be much happier. Also, your stance and swing might change, but your body doesn't. It's very unlikely that a "standard" setup for a 6'6 man will change as your swing develops. It's far more likely that a poorly fit set will affect the compensations you make as you develop . For example, if your clubs are way too short for you, you might develop a very steep swing and exacerbate your slice (90%+ of beginners slice the ball). Good luck!

You're going to be extremely frustrated for about a year, trust me. Just keep at it.

I think the media hype to make Jordan Spieth the squeaky-clean good guy is 100% fallout from Tiger's life. Everyone wants to root for the good guy in golf, and the original one fell really hard. I wouldn't pass judgment about anyone I knew from television appearances, BTW. BTW - Did anyone else see this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fFpPA4iYjI "The Fall of Tiger Woods." I had no idea how much pressure his dad put on him, and how insane his personal life was until this weekend. The documentary director seems extremely agenda-driven with his narrative, but all of the stuff about Earl Woods wanting his son to be the next Buddha, and him putting for 8 hours a day after school, etc., the IMG Sports machine, etc. There's one part where the narrator claimed Tiger was having delusions that snipers were in the crowd ready to shoot him as he putted in championship events in 2007. Then there's a backstory about these poor black caddies who live across the street from Augusta with their insight about Tiger hitting 2-irons at Earl Woods while he stood perfectly still... Craziness...

The problem in the U.S. right now is that many people want to say no friggin way, but its hard to tell any longer. I think he's getting so cavalier and loony that the curtain will close soon. In one week he's called out a 5-year Vietnam vet and POW who's been in the Senate for 25 years for "getting captured" and released a personal cell phone number as a gimmick on national television. What's the encore, releasing Hillary Clinton's credit card account numbers to the NY Times? I wouldn't be surprised to see several civil suits come his way if this stuff keeps up.