bilinguru

Quote: Please start your own thread for your own swing rather than posting in someone else's. Thank you. Sorry about that. Will do. Actually, I'll be posting a more recent one soon. Quote: that's an awesome driving range. So if you had a hook (left to right) how do you think this incorporates to my shank (hosseled straight left)? Yeah, Japan has some amazing driving ranges. Not many places to practice putting, but that's another story. Shanks are tough to read. The fact that the ball went left off the hossel, is not because you don't suffer from a hook swing, rather that the ball hit the hossel and twisted the clubhead open. If you are consistently hitting it off the hossel, it might be about ball position. I note in your set up that your posture is a bit hunched over with your chin tucked into your chest. Therefore you are standing quite far from the ball and are forced to reach out for the ball. You could try moving a little closer and keeping your hands and arms closer to your body throughout, your spine straighter, and your chin up. I hate the idea of throwing too many swing thoughts at you at once. But, I'm thinking here about setting up better. Once you are in the right position, think only about keeping that left elbow in on the downswing. Make good tempo and and come to a good stable pose in the follow through. After a couple of buckets of balls grooving that feeling, hopefully you'll be making better contact.

Hey there fellow lefty! I've suffered from a hook in the past myself, so I feel your pain. Two points that stood out for me. First, you seem off-balance on the follow through. When I get quick it's often because I'm trying to hit it hard. I tend to hook too when I get quick. Think about staying smooth and stable throughout the entire swing and this will give you an easier tempo, which should help a lot. Second, pictures #3 and #4 are only .03 seconds apart, but look how your left elbow has chickenwinged away from your body. This was the main point my teaching pro noticed about my swing, and the resulting hook. Keep that left elbow anchored to your hip through impact and it's almost impossible to hook it. A drill for that is the old 'glove under the armpit.' Good luck! And it wouldn't be fair if I didn't throw my swing up here. This is a couple of years old, and it's a little dark, but I think you can get a good idea of what I'm talking about regarding tempo and balance and the chickenwing.

yep, that's fair. I'm sure the other people will be relieved.

Quote: You have completely gone of topic on countless occasions, made strong comments on religions that you obviously don't know anything about, you have accused the majority the members of never reading or knowing anything about the Rules of Golf, took shots against peoples character whom you nothing about just to name a few.... and you have pretty much made an ass out of yourself in the process. When did I go off topic? When the topic was Tiger I commented on Tiger. When the topic was belly putters, I posted about that. When discussing rules, I brought up rules of soccer to make a point about keeping things simple, but as with the original rules I posted from the 1800's things do change. Anything wrong with that? I didn't accuse anyone of anything. The rulebook is a reference, not nighttime reading, so I doubt most people have sat down and read it. Nothing sinister in that. The only comment I made regarding religion was that I doubt Tiger is a real Buddhist. Another member started debating what Buddhism is all about He said I didn't know what I was talking about. Fine, rather than trot out my experience with the practice of Buddhism to try and prove anything I simply said maybe we shouldn't debate religion on the forum. He agreed. How he or you could know how much I know about Buddhism is a mystery, but that's what contrary people do; they make asinine generalizations that rational people ignore. And the only person taking shots at anyone's character seems to be you. And you call ME a know-it-all ass? Ironic. A few of the threads here interested me and I decided to join and contribute a few thoughts. Now I have to listen to foul mouthed rants by guys who claim have a corner on being right. Get over yourself. I'll give my opinion, people can agree or not. I

I completely agree that Tiger handled Micelli well. My point is that he wouldn't have had to handle him at all if he had told his agent o keep his mouth shut. As to Buddhism and what its many forms mean, well, that's perhaps a discussion for a private mail. I have studied under several monks here in Japan, old school and new school, and the basic fundamental teachings do not waver. Renouncing attachments to material things is a fundamental tenet of all serious Buddhists. Anyway, Tiger, as I've said is flawed, as are we all. My point of contention with guy is that he has zero humility in the face of what has to be predictable scrutiny given how he has lived his life and made his living. You can't make 30 million dollars pretending to be a model citizen and then get upset when people put your feet to the fire when your personae has been exposed as a farce.

I'm not ripping on Woods. I am merely observing that he is not what he purports to be. And the fact that Buddhism has various schools is not the point. The basic teachings of ALL forms of Buddhism, which I have had the good fortune to observe and explore first hand and in many forms, is that nirvana cannot be found in the flesh, which is where Tiger sought his solace. I never said that a 'fondness for pornography' is connected with Buddhism. I think I quite clearly said the opposite. Please re-read the posts. I learned a long time ago that religion is not a topic suitable for casual discourse, so I won't go any further with this. My point, which I feel confident that most readers of this forum will agree, is that for Tiger to evoke Buddhism in his "I've been a bad boy" press conference was pretty calculated and probably not genuine. Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I really would love to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But, as he has been so full of crap over the course of the past 10, no closer to 15, years that I have a hard time believing him. MSchott, please look back on what I posted. I think I am quite respectful to Buddhism and merely point out that Tiger, despite having a mother who is Buddhist, has no concept of what the basic precepts of Buddhism are all about. Life is suffering and suffering is caused by craving. The suffering Tiger is presently experiencing is a result of his craving for pleasure. Correct me if I'm wrong,

No I read the thread Brandon. My point is that we are ALL allowed to putt in our own style. The fact is that we can ALL use a belly putter or use an anchor method of putting means that there is no advantage. Either start putting that way or not. It's your choice. It's almost like trying to ban stack and tilt. The fact that you think it's a crap methodology doesn't mean people aren't entitled to use it.

Quote: Wow, what a strange post. First you take off on the Japanese as if they are especially hypocritical, or as if there is no porn or crime in the US, where the politicians are all competing for "Most Sanctimonious," even serial adulterer Newt. Japan has about 130 million people, packed together a lot more tightly than in the US, and yet the whole country has about 1100 murders a year. Compare that to just one US city --- NYC alone has over 500 murders per year. Japanese porn doesn't even show genitals without censoring, um, at least that's what I hear. As for Buddhists, nobody said they're not allowed to watch porn. How do you think they got so good at clapping with one hand? And just by the way, Japan is not officially anything, let alone Buddhist, but in the past, Shinto was closer to being the official religion than Buddhism. And Shinto has no rigid puritanical doctrine, so you are even further off base. But that's not enough for you, you're also a mind reader. You know exactly when Tiger started screwing around, and you know that he looks down on people based on what, 15 minutes a month talking with hostile reporters trying to make a name for themselves? Total fail. Total fail? Perhaps you didn't understand? OK, let me try to explain, because I actually think you guys know what you're talking about. First, I don't think I characterized the Japanese as hypocritical. My wife is Japanese. The Japanese are, like many cultures, slaves to convention. The prevalence of porn (which does not compare to America) was simply brought out to demonstrate that they do not subscribe to Buddhist tenets. The 'official' categorization of Japan as a Buddhist nation is not mine, but that of any guidebook or resource you care to pick up. Shinto is observed, but much in the same way as buying a lottery ticket. People go to shrines on festival days like you and I hit the casino. Rigid and puritanical are not the adjectives I would use to describe it. Pagan and agricultural would be more accurate. Festivals are what we do here, not masses. Finally, it's true that I don't know when Tiger started screwing around. But, I'm fairly sure it was well before he asked his wife to marry him, and has continued well after. I base this not on a 15 minute press conference but on a decade of lies.

No worries. I also buy most of my clubs used - except my drivers. I live in Japan, where golf is quite expensive, so I try to find any way I can to save money. One other thing I can throw at you, is that you need to groove a good swing plane. Video yourself and check your plane. Ben Hogan's book is probably the best ever on explaining the fundamentals of the golf swing, particularly the swing plane. It's only about 100 pages, but I read it often and always seem to find something new in it. Get yourself a copy.

Fair enough. I'm not sure I have the time or energy to look back on previous exchanges between the two of you, so I will take your word for it that Shorty can push people's buttons. I don't claim to be an expert on the game of golf, but after 30 years of playing this crazy game, one thing I have learned is that golfers are some of the most entertaining people on the planet! It's one of many reasons I love the game. I look forward to more lively exchanges and will try not to be quick to throw my two cents in unless and until I'm sure I have the background first. Keep it on the short grass.

Quote: I guess the "Earl" part of Tiger got out of hand, and Tiger, while paying lip service to his mother, is his daddy's boy ... Exactly. I live in Japan, which is officially a Buddhist country, but a more atheist culture you would be hard pressed to find. People rely on Buddhism for funeral ceremonies, but in every other aspect most, and I'm talking 80% of Japanese people, do not practice the tenets of Buddhism. They visit temples pretty much as tourists do. The core of Buddhism is to unchain oneself from physical attachments, like lust, greed for material possessions, etc. The thriving Japanese porno industry and the consumer driven culture couldn't be less Buddhist. Obviously, Tiger did not buy into that at all either, no matter how many times his mother dragged him to the monks to make offerings of rice and salt. The author of the esquire article seemed to be part of the "Resurrect Tiger's Image" campaign that kicked into high gear after his outing as a serial philanderer. Sorry if I sound cynical, but what else is one to think after a 10 year lie has been exposed for what it really was. I should also say that it took a lot of guts for Tiger to hold that mea culpa press conference after everything came out in the media. Yes, it was contrived and obviously scripted to hit all the right notes, but it must have gone against every cell in his body to stand in front of everyone and say the things he did. The thing that bugs me though is that no sooner was that behind him, he reverted right back to looking down his nose at people. I doubt many people really know Tiger Woods, least of all himself.

Tiger is a flawed person. But, who isn't? If he hadn't won so many darn golf tournaments, no one would care about him. But, he has and he has made many millions off the boy-next-door image he and his handlers have peddled for the past decade. I agree with whoever mentioned it that this whole thing was brought on by Tiger letting his agent do his dirty work for him. "Armchair Psychology" "Ridiculous" "Blatant Self-Promotion" are the terms used to characterize Haney's book. When it was announced that Haney was publishing a book, Tiger actually initially did the right thing by saying that he felt it was an unprofessional breach of trust and that he had no intention of reading it. That was all he, or anyone in his camp, should have said about it. But, when the first exerpts were released, Steinberg was allowed to say what he said. And, there can be no doubt that Tiger gave the nod to these comments. To pretend that he didn't, is disingenuous. That's the problem with Woods, he continually pretends to be someone he is not. I recently played a round with a teaching pro while I was on vacation in Florida last month. This guy had the opportunity to spend more than 3 weeks with Tiger and Annika Sorenstam in the off season back when Annika was still playing. He said that he had never met anyone in his life that sweared as much as Woods. "The foulest mouth on the planet" is I think how he put it. The squeaky clean Erkel image is a complete fabrication created to garner endorsements. And it worked like magic until the veil was lifted a couple of years ago and people realized how sleezy he really is. And yet, here is now, with the same air of superiority and without an ounce of humility for what he has done to his family, friends and fans glaring down Micelli, who, while being an obvious muckraker, is just doing his job. He could have asked the question better; "Did your agent consult you before he made his most recent comments on Haney's book, and if not do you agree with him?" He also could have given up when he was stonewalled the first time. But, again, what does Tiger expect? He's been in the limelight for so long now that it boggles the mind that he is not better prepared for these situations. I think his pride and vanity prevent him from admitting that he needs to prepare or change in any way. I don't believe his sex-addiction therapy had any effect on him whatsoever. And it makes me laugh when people say he ought to go back to his Buddhist roots. Tiger has about as many Buddhist roots as Micelli, who like him or not, never pretends to be anything other than what he is.

Hey Connor; That's cool you are getting into the game. It's a terrible addiction! I see you have spent a fair chink of change on your clubs. You really couldn't spare a few more bucks for a lesson or two? Because that really is the best advice - get some professional instruction as soon as possible so that you can practice the right things now, not after it's too late and your swing flaws are ingrained. That aside, the best advice I think I've learned over the 30 years I've been playing is that golf is often counter-intuitive. By that I mean, doing the opposite of what you naturally want to do is usually the right way to go. If you want the ball to go up, you have to hit down on it with your irons. In other words, don't try to help the ball in the air. The club has loft, so let the loft do the work. Keep in on the Short Grass

Wow, Calm down dude. I may only have just come on to this forum recently, but I know a hot head when I see one. Notice I did not resort to name calling in my post. I obviously saw that you two had a history, but it is clear from your responses that you have a short fuse. Shorty's language was much less inflammatory, at least in that thread than yours. I wasn't trying to offend you at all, but you seem ready to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. My comment about your wife was also just a joke. But, just as it was not clear in your post that you were kidding, it is also clear that you couldn't see that I was only joking as well. You don't know me from Adam, but you made a pretty quick rush to judgement about who I am and what I think. I hope you're not one of those Forum Lords who thinks that because you have racked up 250 posts in a couple of months here, that your opinion (which you are of course entitled to) is somehow more valid than mine.

Your right Newtogolf about how many stipulations and decisions are now present in modern football (and golf). But the game's popularity grew because of the following rules... A GOAL is scored whenever the ball is forced through the goal and under the bar, except it be thrown by hand. HANDS may be used only to stop a ball and place it on the ground before the feet. KICKS must be aimed only at the ball . A player may not kick the ball whilst in the air. NO TRIPPING UP or HEEL KICKING is allowed. Whenever the ball is kicked beyond the side flags, it must be returned by the player who kicked it, from the spot it passed the flag line, in a straight line towards the middle of the ground. When a ball is kicked BEHIND the line of goal, it shall be kicked off from that line by one of the side whose goal it is. No opposite player may stand within six paces of the kicker when he is kicking off. A player is 'out of play' immediately he is in front of the ball and he must return behind the ball as soon as possible. If the ball be kicked by his own side past a player, he may not touch or kick it nor advance until one of the other side has first kicked it or one of his own side, having followed it up, has been able, when in front of him, to kick it. NO CHARGING is allowed when a player is out of play - i.e. immediately the ball is behind him. As with all organizations in the modern age, governing bodies feel the need to respond to a variety of concerns from interested parties by regulating the crap out of them. Sometimes these changes or additions are warranted, i.e. for safety, but by and large they tend to over-complicate the essence of what made the thing worthwhile in the first place.

jhwmusic, if you go back and look through this thread, I think you'll find that you come out looking overly upset by Shorty's fairly innocuous comments about Johnny Miller. Miller isn't my favorite announcer by any means (I think Oosterhuis is the best btw) but he did have a good career and does make some insightful remarks occasionally. Yes, he can say some inflammatory things, but that's what he gets paid to do. And he has toned it down considerably in the past few years. As to Shorty going on and on and sounding like your wife, well those are issues you really ought to address with your wife. Shorty has as much right to voice his opinion on this forum as you do. Name calling and flaming just make you sound foolish. McCord. Used to be amusing, now he sounds like he's lost his marbles. Feherty. Over exposure has diluted his effectiveness. Koch. Sticks to golf but is like a broken record. Faldo. Enjoys Nance's nose up his butt. Nance. Has a good voice, but talks about college football way to much. Oh, and he has his nose up almost everybody's butt. Kostis. Pretty decent analyst but is forced to say Minolta Biz Hub Swing Vision Camera too often. Judy Rankin. Good. Dottie Pepper. Not so good. Nobilo. Ok but a little boring. Chamblee. Weird. Rymer. Awful. Just awful!

Now there is nothing in there about anchoring or what constitutes a proper swing other than it must be a forward motion. I believe sports are best when they are less regulated, not more. The most popular sport in the world is football (soccer) and a big part of its popularity is its simplicity. If somebody wants to anchor the the butt of the shaft to their belly, chest or chin to provide them with stability when putting, they should be allowed to do so as long as the club is not more than 48 inches long as in the rules. A couple of guys have had success with this method and suddenly everyone is up in arms. I don't believe that these putters give players an unfair advantage. We are all allowed to use this method, but many don't like it or think it looks goofy or some other arbitrary reason for disliking it, but that does not make the advantage that players like Keegan Bradley, Webb Simpson and others feel an unfair one.

Well, I just spent an hour reading this thread and have a few observations. Firstly, and this is true generally of internet forums, there is no shortage of opinions that are based in ignorance. I don't want to call out specific contributors, as I think that is mean spirited, but I do wish people would take the time to inform themselves before shooting of their ideas. It would save everyone else a lot of time and save themselves some embarassment. That being said, I wonder how many people posting on this thread have actually read the rules of golf. My guess is almost none of you. So, for your edification please read the following excerpts from the USGA website... Appendix II, 1a provides that: A club is an implement designed to be used for striking the ball and generally comes in three forms: woods, irons and putters distinguished by shape and intended use. A putter is a club with a loft not exceeding ten degrees designed primarily for use on the putting green. In defining what is meant by the term “club,” this Rule makes reference to the three main forms a club traditionally takes, i.e., woods, irons and putters. The words “wood” and “iron” do not necessarily refer to the material the club is made out of, but rather to the general shape of the clubhead. A “wood” club is one where the head is relatively broad from face to back, and it can be made of materials such as titanium, steel or wood. An “iron” club is one where the head is relatively narrow from face to back, and it is usually made of steel. By definition, the loft of a putter must not exceed 10 degrees, and a club with a loft greater than that is normally regarded as an iron club. Putters are permitted to have negative loft. However, a loft of less than -15 degrees would not be considered “traditional and customary in form and make” (See Design of Clubs, Section 1a(i)). The Rules and guidelines sometimes distinguish between “wood” and “iron” clubs (see Design of Clubs, Section 5c for an example of where they do). As hybrid, rescue and utility clubs have increased in popularity and design variety, it is sometimes challenging to define whether a particular club should be classified as a wood or an iron. In such cases, the general shape of the clubhead should be referenced in order to determine which classification should apply for the purpose of applying the rules. Additionally, there are various instances throughout the Rules where different specifications apply to putters. These differences in the Rules will be highlighted appropriately throughout this Guide. As a consequence of these differences, confusion often exists as to which rules apply to “chippers,” i.e., iron clubs which are specifically designed to be used just off the putting green with a putting stroke. For clarification on “The Status of a Chipper,” see Decision 4-1/3 in “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” and Design of Clubs, Section 1c. Appendix II, 1a goes on to state that: The club must not be substantially different from the traditionally and customary form and make. The club must be composed of a shaft and a head and it may also have material added to the shaft to enable the player to obtain a firm hold (see 3 below). All parts must be fixed so that the club is one unit, and it must have no external attachments. Exceptions may be made for attachments that do not affect the performance of the club. In explaining this part of the Rule, it is easier to divide it into the following four sections: (i) Traditional and Customary Form and Make The phrase “traditional and customary form and make” does not mean that clubs must look the same as they did 100 years ago. If so, steel shafts and metal woodheads would not conform to the Rules. As noted in the introduction to this Guide, it is not the purpose of the Rules to stifle innovation. In practice, the “Traditional and Customary Rule” is rarely used — having been largely superseded by the “Plain in Shape” Rule (see Design of Clubs, Section 4a). However, it is still applied in those cases where the Equipment Standards Committee decides that a particular design deviates from traditional appearance and/or construction standards, but which may not be covered by a more specific provision within the Rules. c. Length Appendix II, 1c provides that: The overall length of the club must be at least 18 inches (0.457 m) and, except for putters, must not exceed 48 inches (1.219 m). This Rule is straightforward, and the measurement of woods and irons is well described and illustrated in “The Rules of Golf.” The measurement of length for putters can be illustrated as follows: Note that the Equipment Standards Committee has adopted a position that clubs designed for chipping, including modified wedges, must be no longer than standard-length clubs of similar loft. d. Alignment Appendix II, 1d provides that: When the club is in its normal address position the shaft must be so aligned that: (i) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane through the toe and heel must diverge from the vertical by at least 10 degrees. If the overall design of the club is such that the player can effectively use the club in a vertical or close-to-vertical position, the shaft may be required to diverge from the vertical in this plane by as much as 25 degrees; (ii) the projection of the straight part of the shaft on to the vertical plane along the intended line of play must not diverge from the vertical by more than 20 degrees forward or 10 degrees backward. This Rule is particularly relevant to putters, and it exists mainly as a means for disallowing croquet or vertical-pendulum style putters (with vertical shafts) and shuffle-board style strokes, as well as designs which facilitate such strokes (see Figure 4). For most putters, the “normal address position” is determined by the geometry of the head. The head would be placed on a horizontal flat surface, with the sole touching that surface at a point directly below the center of the face. The shaft angle is measured with the head in this position (see Figure 5). If the putter head shape or weight distribution is very asymmetric, it may be necessary to make a subjective judgment as to where the effective center of the face is, and then to sole the club directly below that point. The position of the head in this instance may not always be the position that was intended by design. Nonetheless, in some cases, a judgment must be made based on how the club could feasibly and effectively be used (see Figure 6). The same subjectivity may also be needed when confronted with a putter which has a very curved sole (see Figure 7). As before, the Equipment Standards Committee takes into account not only the manner in which the putter is designed to be used, but also the way it could feasibly and effectively be used, given the geometry of the head as well as other unique characteristics of the overall design. This interpretation is particularly relevant to long-shafted putters with very curved or multi-planed soles — however, standard-length putters of approximately 34 to 38 inches may also be subjected to this assessment. It should be noted that all putters can usually be positioned in such a way that the shaft diverges from the vertical by less than 10 degrees or even to a position where the shaft itself is vertical. Also, it is unusual for the sole of a putter to be completely flat all the way from heel to toe. When faced with a ruling of this kind, the decision should not be based on whether a player uses the putter with the shaft in a position of less than 10 degrees — but whether the putter design facilitates a player placing the shaft in a position of less than 10 degrees. If the overall design of a putter is such that the player can achieve a “vertical-pendulum” style stroke (i.e., putt effectively with the shaft in a vertical or near-vertical position), it would be ruled contrary to Appendix II, 1d, even if the shaft angle does satisfy the 10-degree Rule when the putter is in its “normal address position.” The shaft angle on such a putter could be required to be increased to as much as 25 degrees. In assessing whether a putter can be used effectively in a “vertical-pendulum” style manner, the combination of the following features should be considered: length of shaft position of shaft attachment to head angle of shaft in toe-to-heel plane and front-to-back plane shape and weight distribution of head curvature and shape of sole intent of the design Even though each of these putter features, when considered separately, could conform to the Rules, the combination of the features might lead to a decision that the putter does not conform. This is an extremely good example of an area where rules officials should take care not to make a decision unless they are 100% certain they are correct. If, after examining the club and carrying out all of the appropriate consultations, it is still not possible to give a definitive ruling, a Duration of Competition or Duration of Round Answer should be given (see Field Procedures — Guidance to Rules Officials Concerning Questions on the Conformity of Clubs at Competitions). The determination of a feasible “normal address position” or whether a putter can be used with the shaft in a vertical or close-to-vertical position can be highly subjective and, in terms of those putters actually submitted to the USGA, the job of making rulings is easier because it is possible to compare them with previous submissions and decisions.