Golfingdad

A couple of other bonus side effects of taking extra club and not hitting “full” shots are that a) you’re tempo can be improved because you’re never feeling like you need to kill it. b) your ballstriking is also likely to improve for the same reason - you’re taking a shorter and smoother swing. c) another thing I’ve found is that even bad shots sometimes aren’t so bad - I hit it really fat and instead of coming up 15 yards short in the bunker, it’s puttable from the front fringe. (Just a couple other things to think about) :)

The sweet spot? That’s the part of the club where the grooves end out near the toe, right? I hit it about 20% of the time.

Today was a grind ... a really fun grind. My morning match (with @mchepp, against @cipher and @bkuehn1952) ended in a dead heat with nobody ever being more than 1 up at any time. In the afternoon, with @phillyk vs. @jsgolfer and @coachjimsc, nobody was ever more than 2up, and most of the Day was spent all square. Really fun day.

So was @jsgolfer‘s short game. Many tap-ins for par after missed greens (and one crucial pitch in birdie to top it off)

For the record, @Pretzel and I shot a 69 (gross) and got smoked 2.5-0.5. (Was a great match though) Funny game.

You can do it without being too creative. I subscribe to this as well, but I don't fool around too much. I basically have the 100% swings, and then I have the "flighted" swings, which might be 80%-ish? Another way to look at it is to just call the 80% swings my "full" swings and then the 100% swings my "I need something extra" swings. The benefit of the 80% is they're not going to come in too high or with too much spin. They're nice and controlled, and they don't really roll anywhere when they land.

Since I have the length part of it down already - I vote Rahm. :)

Used to be 4I but I’ve started not being able to hit it high enough anymore, especially if there is any kind of rough at all. I voted 6-7, but it’s probably 6 or 5 usually for me.

Seems like a tough ask, but here goes. Hey look, here's a website solely about the president golfing: http://www.trumpgolfcount.com/ Let's see how truthful he is in everyday life: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/ If you don't want to click, I'll just say that he over 2/3 of the time. But I agree with @Ernest Jones, I highly doubt that wouldn't carry over to his golf game.

The key for me is all those pretty sun pictures and the 0% chances of rain ?

46 at night? I better bring my ski clothes for dinners

Yes, same here. It's a complete non-issue. Wear it during all sports, including karate, showers, to bed, just all the time. The only time I ever take mine off is when I'm fiddling around at work thinking "hmm, I wonder if I've gained too much weight again such that it's stuck?" or on occasion when I have a brain freeze and temporarily forget the exact date so I have to peek at the inscription on the inside. (Will also work if I ever forget my wifes name ... or my own)

That's fine. I think what it comes down to is that we all agree on there being a line, we just don't really agree with where it is. For you, it's more 32 yards. For me, it's when it's far enough away that there's no awkward pausing or dilly-dallying on the part of the guy who's ball is on the green. If he's standing and waiting then he could be marking. In this case, Finau is hitting while he's still walking up so that's why I don't have an issue here. Out of curiosity, could you estimate for me where your line falls? Is it 33 yards? 50 yards?

But that is sort of a random standard, is it not? You think that the distance that each player thinks qualifies as far enough away to justify marking for his opponent is going to be close to the same? And doesn't that also make it even LESS equitable than it is now? If I'm playing with a laid back player who wouldn't bother marking for a Ryder Cup opponent from 40 yards, but you're playing with a guy who deals in gamesmanship in the Ryder Cup and are pulled out of your rhythm because every time he's within 10' of the pin and you're within 100 yards, he's going to want to mark, is that equitable? The issue is with the unspoken agreement, and on that we agree. When a guy hits a pitch from just off the green and is handed his putter then starts twiddling his thumbs waiting for his buddy to play, I'm all for them doing something to curb that, but this isn't that. How do you know this? And this? There is CERTAINLY an unspoken agreement that applies to some of the situations we've seen in this thread, but what evidence is there that this one qualifies? I'm reminded of one particular argument that you'd make to me and others when we argue the DJ ruling in the US Open, or the Anna Nordqvist ruling in the women's open or any number of little rules issues where we make mountains out of molehills. You'd tell us that we're trying to change the rules to fit one outlier situation whereas they exist as they are for all of the other situations we're not considering. This strikes me as similar. This is being lumped in with the "collusion" examples when there is no evidence that it qualifies as such, and more importantly, its only being made an issue because of the fact it actually HIT the other ball. That's another point worth making: the other examples qualify on their own even though their balls weren't hit. This wouldn't have been a blip on the radar if Finau didn't get super lucky and some random tweeter didn't decide to take issue with it.

You wouldn't be the first one, right? (This thread is just asking for this clip, how could I not ;)):