Rudyprimo

I smoke cigarettes. I have to ride in a cart so I bring an ashtray with me. I can't stand seeing cigarette or cigar butts on the course. I can't stand seeing sunflower seed shells on the course either. You'd be surprised at the number of pro golfers who use tobacco, mostly sneaking a cigarette or using Skoal. Nicotine has a calming effect on your nerves and that's why there's a good amount of tobacco use in professional golf. I believe it was Tom Coyne in his book, Paper Tiger, that brought that up. Cigarette smoking is bad for you. With every cigarette you smoke it's like you're killing yourself slowly. But that 's Ok, I'm not in a hurry to die.:-\

Iacas beat me to it so I'll just say I agree with him about removing a hat. That was always done when meeting a woman, not a man. In fact, if you go back far enough, the hat was removed and swept to the side with a bow when meeting a woman. Why golfers started doing that 10 years ago or when ever it was is beyond me. Why would a man even care if another man is wearing a hat on a golf course when shaking another mans hand. Go ahead and even Google social graces or manners for a distinguished gentleman. It fully explains when a man should take his hat off and it is never taken off when meeting or shaking hands with another man. Like I said, how did this silly thing get started in the first place?

Golf has always been an elitist sport to varying degrees. In the 1800's and into the very early 1900's, only the rich could play because of the expense with one of the biggest expenses being the balls. The feathery was labor intensive to make which made it very expensive. Once they started making the wound ball and the methods for mass producing it, golf became more of a game for the masses. Golf was so elitist that pro golfers weren't even allowed in the clubhouse of the course they were playing tournaments on. Caddies were looked down upon and weren't allowed to play on most courses even though all the great golfers from yesteryear started out as caddies. And of course, women, blacks and others weren't allowed to join clubs either. Golf was as elitist and snobby as could be. In my opinion, dress codes are still a part of that elitism. There's people who like to control other people. I'm sure at some country clubs the brands of the clothes they wear and the cars they drive up in are talked about and if you're not up to the elitist standard, you will be looked down upon. There isn't any tradition to wearing certain clothes to play golf other than what was set by the rich people years ago. I'll bet the sheep herders and whomever else played golf before the rich made it their playground in the 1800's didn't wear ties and jackets to play. But country clubs are private clubs and they are free to set their own rules. And I don't think there should be dress codes at public courses other than you should look clean, neat and presentable. I don't think basketball shorts and wife beaters pass that test but there are a lot of sports clothes made that cost a good buck and look fine to wear on a golf course to me. I think too many people dress down too much now a days anyway whether they're going shopping, to a ball game, to a restaurant or where ever and I prefer seeing people dressed a little nicer and neater than what you see a lot of now.

It'd be nice to have an intelligent discussion about this, but Vijay4life doesn't want to have an intelligent discussion. He's just trying to incite. Hogan is one of the greatest golfers of all time. If you took some of today's players and placed them in Hogans era, Hogan would still beat them. If you took Hogan and put him in today's era, growing up with the equipment they have now, Hogan would still be a dominant golfer. I also don't agree with the ones saying that today's coaches would help Hogan with his game. Hogan knows way more about the swing than any of today's coaches. Do you really think Sean Foley or Hank Haney know more than Hogan about the golf swing? Ben Hogan didn't have any inadequacies. Just because a golfer is known for excelling in one area doesn't mean he's bad in the others. There have been several books, some recently like "Ben Hogans Short Game Simplified", that have been written about his short game from 120 yards and in. It covers all the shots he had like flop shots, bunker shots, spinning the ball, chipping, putting etc. There was nothing inadequate in his short game. Byron Nelson once said that the key to Hogan's when he was dominating was his putting. He used to make far more putts from 15-20 feet than the other players. The same key that Tiger had when he was dominating. He had length too when he needed it. When he was younger he used to compete in long drive contests. Golfers back then played a control game, shaping their shots. But when they wanted to they could hit 300 yards or more. And that's with the inferior equipment they had back then. I remember reading in Dr. Bob Rotella's book, "Golf is not a Game of Perfect", that when Sam Snead played the first hole of his pro career, he sliced his first two tee shots off the course and onto a nearby street. He was laying four and still on the tee. He hit his next drive onto the green, 340 yards away, and sank the putt for a six. Golfers from years ago could hit 300 yard drives when they wanted to. Harry Vardon could drive the ball 280 yards when he swung away, with a wooden shaft and a "Haskell" wound ball. Hogan had the length, a pretty good short game and could putt lights out when he was dominating. What inadequacies are you talking about? Old time golfers who were tough as nails mentally, like Hogan, Sneed and Vardon would chew up and spit out 99% of the golfers on tour today.

Tour official Doug Brecht looks like a complete moron in this case. And there's an even bigger problem when rules are not cut and dried and are up to the discretion of an official like the slow play rule is. Brecht should have used his discretion in applying the penalty knowing he had practically handed the match to Munoz, when Munoz was the slower player of the two. And I'm not just talking about discretion as to when the clock should start, I'm talking about the rare instances they call it. Munoz was the main reason the group was warned and then Brecht penalizes Pressel. That's not using discretion the right way. There were only 5 slow play penalties last year on the LPGA. I'm sure there cold have been dozens more called. And they're not because most officials don't want to affect the outcome of a tournament by calling a rules violation that is not evenly enforced. Same thing on the PGA tour, and that's why Na wasn't penalized even when his group had a two hole gap in front of them in the second round. Either set up a clock that starts as soon as the player away from you hits his shot. And then apply the rule even if it's 1 second over the allotted time. Otherwise you shouldn't have officials calling a slow play penalty only when they feel like it. A sport like golf is different from other sports in that there's a lull in between shots. Players have different internal clocks as to how fast or slow they set up and finally hit the ball. The thing I can compare it to is a pitcher in baseball. There are a few pitchers like Mark Buehrle who pitch fast, 2 hour games. Most other pitchers take 3-3 1/2 hours to finish a game. At least the umpires know better than to call such an arbitrary rule, the 12 second rule, that could change the outcome of a game. Brecht's penalty on Pressel would be like an umpire not calling the 12 second rule the entire game, but issuing a warning to speed up, and then calling the rule with the bases loaded in he ninth inning and giving the team a run. And yes, it is fair to compare other sports to golf because in all sports there are rules that are arbitrarily applied that can affect the outcome of a game. Putting a shot clock in with strict adherence would ruin golf. I could care less how long some guys take as far as there being a 10-15 second difference between some players. There's been some really great shots that would never have happened if they had a shot clock. Because of it being an arbitrary, seldom applied rule, the penalty should be monetary, not handing the tournament to someone who caused the warning in the first place.

There's a lot of good information that gets written about in the golf magazines, like certain things the pro's do, but not everyone knows how to go about using that information. If you're the type of guy who reads every tip and tries to incorporate it into your swing, like the one poster who said he had 20 different things going through his mind when he swings, then yes, stay away from the magazines. But if you can read some tips and pick one out that you think might help you, and you work on that tip at the practice range only, until you get it down good enough and then see if it improves your ball striking or whatever, some of these tips can help you. There's a good article in the May issue of Golf Magazine on Rory McIlroy and the way his hips move. In fact, it's the way a lot of pro's move their hips. It's not a complete nonstop rotation of the hips through the swing, and it's not a lateral slide of the hips either, it's kind of in the middle, a little of both. It's a power move that they compare to the cocking and firing of a pistol. Dr. Paul Cheetham did a study of some PGA players using 3D motion analysis. Anyway, I've been working on that at the practice range, part of the time I'm there. Making changes like that take's a lot of swings. When I'm out on the course I don't have even one swing thought on my mind. I have a way of blocking everything out except for my target and visualizing the shot. That's the way I play my best. But I don't see any reason why you can't give a swing tip from a magazine a good lengthy try on the practice range , one tip at a time and only part of your practice time, and see if it helps you. If you're the type of person who knows how to go about it in a logical way.

I like Phil a lot too. Other than his driving, he has an amazing game. I also like the fact he seems to be relaxed and has a lot of fun out there, even the way he interacts with the fans. His driving is terrible though. He consistently ranks near the bottom in accuracy. I read where he was driving Butch Harmon nuts for a long while because he refused to give up his 6° driver. Phil only hits around 50-55% of his fairways. But the rest of his game is incredible where he can get away with it. PGA golf is all about the long ball ever since Tiger dominated 10-12 years ago. By that I mean length over accuracy and a great short game to make up for it. 10-12 years ago there were around 75 PGA players who hit 70% or better of their fairways. That number has dropped to where there's only around 25 golfers who do that now. The majority of golfers on tour don't have a consistently great short game. But 1 or 2 guys get it together for a tournament and then they don't win again for a couple of years. That's what Luke Donald faces every week. He's the most consistent golfer on tour, ranked #1 or close to it all the time. But he doesn't get the wins you would think he should be getting. That's because it's kind of like Luke is playing against the rest of the field, where there's someone who comes out of the pack to put it together for that tournament, the short game to go with the long game, then they slip back into the pack and they don't win again for a long, long time. I agree with the others who say if you're going to copy someone's game from the tour, it should be Luke's. Consistency and accuracy is what every amateur should strive for. On tour, in my opinion, the reason there's no one dominating like there used to be isn't due to parity, it's that almost all the golfers play the "Rip it, go find it and rip it again" type of game. That style of play leads to inconsistency and you can't dominate while being inconsistent. Tiger was able to do it before, but the rest of the PGA has finally caught up with him, playing his type of game. And Tiger doesn't have the consistently great short game anymore. He won at Bay Hill by 5 strokes, he had the short game, then he dropped back into the pack after that.

There's no reason why you can't do both, train for MMA style fighting and still golf. I used to do a lot of weight lifting and do some boxing exercises like jumping rope, hitting a speed bag and heavy bag. It never bothered my golfing. In fact, it made my swing feel better. It felt more automatic and effortless. Look at hockey players. They're the best conditioned team sport athletes and they do weight training too. Some of them even do some boxing. And yet they make the best golfers overall out of any team sports. I would just stay away from doing a really heavy workout the day before you go golfing. You don't want to go to the course feeling too stiff and sore.

There's no reason to use your driver on the course if you have no confidence in it and slice it badly. But do yourself a favor and do whatever you have to do to learn how to hit it. That 30-40 yard difference between the 3 wood and driver is huge, a 3-4 club difference. Like Sandy Trap posted, take a lesson for the driver only. You might be able to straighten it out with one lesson, and then spending time on the range to hone it. Two things that I think are a problem for golfers who can't hit the driver straight is length of the shaft and over swinging with it. Learn how to swing the driver with a nice smooth tempo, and think about cutting the shaft down to 43 inches. You'd be surprised what a difference it makes to shorten the shaft to the same length a lot of Pro's use.

It's not the suicides that will bring down football, it will be all of the lawsuits in the NFL and NCAA over concussions and other injuries that might bring down the game. How much money will colleges be willing to pay out in settlements before they decide they can't afford it anymore and close down their programs. 98 of the top 120 schools that receive the most money from TV contracts have athletic programs that operate in the red. They piss that money away on bloated salaries for coaches and administrators and also on facilities that are state of the art and not really needed. If colleges start dropping their football programs that will directly affect the NFL too. And then you have the moron fans that complain about penalties designed to protect the QB's and Wide Receivers when they are in the act of throwing or catching the ball and are completely defenseless. They aren't stopping them from being hit, they're just saying you can't hit them in the head in that situation. Geez, even in boxing the referee jumps in and stops the fight when one boxer can't defend themselves anymore and they're taking huge blows to the head. And then you have the poor defensive players crying about the rule. But you don't here them crying about the rules that protect their legs from being cut out from underneath them and maybe tearing their knee up. Very hypocritical. I still hear guys like Dan Hampton, who is on the local NBC station on Sunday nights after the Bears game, complaining about all the dirty offensive lineman blocking him at the knees and causing him to have something like 15 surgeries. But then he jumps all over the rule about no contact to the head of receivers and QB's when they are defenseless and he implies it's a sissy rule. The lawsuits might do football in. Not eliminate it but knock it way down in status compared to other sports. And you might have the best athletes looking for other sports or careers where their brains aren't turned into Swiss cheese by the time they're in their 40's and 50's. Also, one poster made a comment that High Schools and Colleges get better helmets than the NFL. I don't know which is true, but I read an article saying the complete opposite. They interviewed some people that worked at Riddell and they said the High Schools get recycled/rebuilt helmets from the NFL that are sold as new. They said there's no quality control over them and a lot of the helmets aren't up to standards like they should be. There are more and more concussions in High School football too.

I like Kevin Na and I sympathize with his problem. I also think the so called "fans" heckling him should be banned from attending any pro tournaments. If Kevin played in a regular foursome, he wouldn't hold anyone up because of the great shots he hits. I agree with another poster that a lot of slow play comes from guys spraying the ball around and insisting on taking 5 minutes to look for every ball they hit into the woods. I also think Brandel Chamblee was spot on for criticizing Na. Chamblee played professional golf and won a tournament. He knows what it's like to play on tour and what it takes to win. He was only saying what a lot of other golfers feel about playing with Na. It does affect the other guys Na plays with and the groups behind him. The other golfers gripe about and make comments like "You drew the short straw today" when they are playing with Na. Na knows this and admits it too. He knows it drives his playing partners crazy. And Chamblee is not responsible for the hecklers. There's always a certain amount of idiots at sporting events. Na knows he has to do something about it but there's such a mental block there it's hard to change.

The smaller head of a blade iron has a different COG and MOI as related to the shaft as the axis compared to cavity backed and larger club heads. The lower the MOI with the shaft as the axis and the closer the COG to the shaft, there's a tendency to close the club face through impact. And the opposite is true. The higher the MOI with the shaft as the axis and the further the COG is from the shaft there's a tendency to leave the club face open at impact. Cast clubs are made very well now a days and they are very workable. But the smaller blades are easier for some people to work the ball. I've always been a straight ball hitter. I could also hit a fade when I want to but I could never hit a draw consistent enough to use it much. I bought a mixed set of Titleist CB and MB 712's over the winter. When I first started practicing with them, I was hitting a draw and also a hook some of the time. After looking for reasons for this, I found the information I posted above on the golf section on about.com. At least for me, and I'm sure there must be others, the smaller head of the blade makes it easier for me to work the ball. I weakened my grip a little to hit it straight and I can also hit a draw or a fade when I want to. It still needs a lot of work, I can't work it like a pro of course, but I'm getting much better at doing it.

Even though a lot of guys bash Haney on here, he's one of the best instructors around. He's been rated one of the top 25 instructors by Golf Digest since 1983. He has his own way of teaching though and I don't think everyone can relate to it. That's just his way of teaching slicers to start hitting the ball with a draw. He's had great success teaching that way, so it works. Besides teaching over 200 pros in his career, he was also the NCAA Division 1 Golf Coach of the year in 1998. Tiger Woods had a much higher rate of winning tournaments, 35%, with Haney as his swing coach than before, 27%, and whatever it would work out to be with Sean Foley. Paradox wrote: Can you not teach someone to throw a baseball right handed until they've thrown one left handed? Can you not teach someone how to write left handed if they haven't written with their right first? To me, it sounds like "hey instructors...use this line on your students and you'll be able to charge for a few more lessons!" Your analogy makes no sense at all. Haney isn't teaching right handed golfers to play golf left handed. He's teaching them to hook and then draw the ball.

If it's a new course and you'll be playing it again take notes on it. You say you like hitting certain distances so check that area of the fairways and make sure they're level and not an uneven lie. It's always better to shoot from an even lie. And when you're on the green take a good look back at the fairway. You may see something from that different perspective that would make you approach the green differently.

A knockoff is a club that looks very similar but has a different name on it. A counterfeit club is a copy, complete with the name and logos of the real club they are imitating. Your best bet is to go to a golf shop where you can try a new driver and take it to the range and see how you hit it. Knockoffs are not a bad way to go if money is tight. After I had been golfing 5-6 years I wanted new clubs but didn't want to spend the money on a new set of Pings so I bought knockoffs from Golf Works and assembled a set myself. They were called Tournament Model III. I still have them although I don't use them. They worked great as far as I was concerned, no problems with them. When it comes to counterfeits though it's hard to say what quality they are. Either try a new driver that you can take to the range or maybe have someone you know that's a good golfer try the driver out you have and see what he says about it.

I don't think it's "all about the long ball". Approach shots and the short game, especially putting are very important. But if you want to get to a single digit handicap or scratch you have to be able to hit it long. And the old saying "You drive for show and putt for the dough" is bs in my opinion. Getting off the tee with decent length is just as important as any other part of the game. Even Harry Vardon, in his book "The Complete Golfer", written around 100 years ago, stressed the importance of driving the ball with decent length. In fact he wrote that's the first part of the game a beginner should learn. The USGA describes a scratch golfer as someone who can average 250 yards off the tee and reach a 470 yard par 4 in two shots. If you want to be a good golfer, you have to hit it far. And I also think anyone should be able to drive the ball around 250 yards unless a physical problem is holding them back. Although there are times where laying up is the smart play, laying up all the time is no fun at all.

I played golf from 1981 to 1998 when I had to quit for medical reasons. Didn't think I would ever golf again so I completely cut myself off from golf. Started golfing again last year which I'm limited in what I can do, but the 13 years I didn't play or follow golf felt more like being transported 100 years into the future with all the changes to the equipment. The 460cc drivers, changes in lofts to irons, the designs in the cavity backs of irons, hybrids, laser range finders, GPS and whatever else. Last year I used my old set of clubs, the Tommy Armour Silver Scots, circa 1991. I bought new clubs this year, a mixed set of Titleist CB 712 and MB 712. My 20 year old son started golfing with me last year so I gave him the Silver Scots, which I think are still excellent clubs. I checked the lofts between the two sets and they are nearly identical, which surprised me. I agree with another poster on here who said they should just start stamping the loft on the irons. I think it's ridiculous with how much the lofts have changed with some manufacturers. Taylormade makes excellent clubs but they seem to be at the forefront of changing the lofts, which I think is pretty cheesy. Anyhow, here's the lofts: Tommy Armour Silver Scots (1991): 3i-21° , 4i-24° , 5i-28° , 6i-32° , 7i-36° , 8i-40° , 9i-44° , PW-48° Titleist CB & MB 712: 3i-21° , 4i-24° , 5i-27° , 6i-31° , 7i-35° , 8i-39° , 9i-43° , PW-47°

The course they played on would have a lot to do with it. The easier the course, the closer the scores would be but then it wouldn't be giving a true indication of how much better the tour pro is. It would just show they both could shoot a great score on an easy course. Golf is different than other sports because you play against the course and then compare scores. If you wanted to compare two NBA teams where they couldn't play head to head, you wouldn't get a true measure of each team if they both played against a high school team and compared the scores. They would both dominate the HS team and win a blow out. If you wanted a true measure you would have them both play against the best team in the NBA and then compare what they did. That's the same reason a football player can dominate in college, win the Heisman and be a bust in the NFL. He can dominate lesser competition but can't play with the toughest competition in the world. If you wanted a true measure between a scratch golfer and a tour pro they would have to play on a long tough course. That's where you would see a 15 stroke difference.

And Van de Velde was good enough to nearly win a major except for a brain malfunction. 18 might be a tad high, but it's very close to what Tiger, Larry Nelson and Tom Coyne said. Tiger saying a 10 handicap couldn't break 100 on an U.S. open course means there's about a 30 stroke difference between them and about a 15 stroke difference between scratch. I'm quoting three tour players and a guy who tried getting into Q school as a scratch. They know a lot more than you or me on the difference. Unless you played on tour you don't really know. There can a be a difference between one scratch golfer and another. Butch Harmon said there's the scratch golfer who plays his home course all the time and a scratch golfer who competes and plays different courses with the latter being much better. Lee Trevino said if a golfer can play the 5 toughest courses in his area, with his right foot hanging off the back of the furthest tee box, and if he could shoot 68 or better, he MIGHT have a chance of making the tour. That's a lot better than scratch. I'm giving opinions of people who should know. I've never read or heard anyone with credibility, like a pro golfer or top instructor, saying there's only a few strokes difference between a scratch amateur and a tour pro. I don't think the equipment would make a difference either, it's the swing and short game. They had the Big Bertha, The Whale, Ping irons and other very good equipment 20 years ago. The PGA are the best golfers in the world. They are much better than a scratch golfer. That's comparable to during the football season where there's always some idiot in the media who says the #1 team in the NCAA could beat the worst team in the NFL. I laugh every time I hear that. The third stringers from the worst team in the NFL would blow out the #1 college team, it wouldn't be close. We're talking about the best 120 golfers in the world compared to thousands and thousands of scratch amateurs who are very good in their own right, but not comparable to the elite.

The tour pro would win and it would be by 10 strokes or more. The equipment from 20 years ago is not that outdated. A touring pro is about 15 strokes better than a scratch golfer. I was looking for quotes about the difference, besides Tiger saying a 10 handicap wouldn't break 100 on an U.S. Open course. Larry Nelson said in an interview with Golf Digest,around 10-12 years ago, that there's about a 15 stroke difference between a scratch amateur and a touring pro. I also found that there was a guy who played hockey for the French Olympic Team who tore up his ankle and couldn't play anymore. He went golfing with a friend and shot in the 70's his first time. He said that hitting a golf ball was a lot like a slapshot. He became a scratch golfer pretty fast. He mentioned to his friend, Jean Van de Velde, that he wanted to turn pro. Van de Velde told him not to quit his day job and that there's about an 18 stroke difference between a tour pro and scratch golfer. And then there's Tom Coyne, author of Paper Tiger, who got down to a +.4 handicap and said there's a huge difference between a scratch golfer and a tour pro. I think it's reasonable to say there's easily a 10-15 stroke difference between the two and the equipment won't make any difference. Some of the top pro golfers have been capable of hitting 300+ yards for a long, long time. Jack Nicklaus won the long drive competition held between the pros with a 340 yard drive back in the early 60's. Arnold Palmer could hit 300+ when he wanted to. Someone mentioned Bobby Jones hitting 300 yards. Harry Vardon could hit his longest drives around 280 yards and his buddy, Ted Ray, could hit 300 yard drives and this was with hickory shafts and the first wound balls made. Golf was played differently until Tiger changed things. It wasn't that they couldn't hit it long, it's that the game was about control, shaping shots and keeping the ball in play. I'm just trying to point out the scratch golfer wouldn't necessarily have a length advantage over a tour pro using 20 year old equipment. The swing is more important. The tour pros iron shots and short game would be much, much better than the scratch golfer.

If you read what Bubba says, he said his dad claims to have taught him to golf like it's an inside joke that he didn't, like they're kidding about it. Bubba was recruited and given a scholarship to Georgia in his junior year after already becoming a junior college All-American at Faulkner Community College. Bubba was already shooting under par as a teenager and used to play against adults, even people he knew like teachers and whatever, and used to trounce them regularly. He already had his swing by the time he was playing in high school. Any tweaking he may have had from his coaches is not the same thing as taking lessons. If a coach had personally worked with him, they would have changed his swing right away. And Hogan never took lessons from Demaret or Penick. Taking advice from someone once you're already a pro is not the same as taking lessons. Hogan learned how to golf on his own and he learned a completely new swing on his own after he recovered from the accident he was in. He's famous for that and the countless hours he spent practicing to hone his swing. That's the way almost all professional golfers learned the game way back when. Most started out as caddies and learned by imitating the golfers they looped for and then trial and error to see what worked for them. Instructors and coaching started getting bigger in the 1950's and after but there still were some golfers who learned on their own. Bubbas not walking a fine line of anything. Do you really think a coach taught him the swing he's got? Do you think he's lying about never taking a lesson? Bubba's swing is probably about 90% self taught with some tweaking by some coaches along the way. I'm sure Bubba would give credit to someone if it was due, or if he didn't, I'd bet someone would come forward and say "Hey wait a minute, I taught Bubba how to golf".

I don't know if you were replying directly to logjam or me too but I wanted to reply to you anyway. Swing like Bubba? Where's that coming from? I never mention that and neither does logjam. We were both saying some people think Bubba had coaching along the way and I don't believe he did. I'm sure his coaches in high school and college tried to help him some with general instruction but he never had any personal instruction. The tone of this thread was that Bubba had to have coaching somewhere along the way and that he couldn't have learned the game entirely by himself. I don't know what it's like to be on a golf team in college, but I see some high school teams practicing where I go to practice and it's the players hitting balls and one or two guys walking up and down and just giving some general instruction like "Stand more erect" or "You're going to far past parallel on your backswing". If that's the kind of coaching Bubba received, I think Bubba is right to say he never had any lessons. Besides, Bubba seems like a genuine guy to me where if someone helped him out a lot when he was learning he would acknowledge them. Bubba learned on his own and that's a tried and true method. I don't think most people can learn that way, but that's the way so many great golfers learned in the past. Seve Ballesteros is a good example. He learned the game on his own with that 3 iron, hitting every kind of shot imaginable with it and no instruction. And Bubba learned when he got a golf club when he was 6 years old and started hitting all kinds of crazy shots around his house with a wiffle ball. Again, I think most people benefit from instruction and flight monitors and high speed video. But I also think the game is getting too scientific and a lot of people would benefit from learning what makes their unique swing work and how to figure some things out on their own.

I don't know why some people have a hard time digesting that Bubba is a self taught golfer. He has flat out said he's never had a lesson or ever watched video of his swing. He doesn't need Trackman, high speed video or any of those other things that so many of today's golfers think will lead them to be better golfers. He learned the game the same way golfers like Ben Hogan, Sam Snead and other golfers back to Harry Vardon and beyond learned how to play, by trial and error, and a great understanding of their own unique swing. I guess you can say it can still be done. Bubba went to Milton High School and played on the golf team there with Heath Slocum and Boo Weekley. I'm sure the three of them were very competitive with each other in a friendly way and that probably helped them a lot. Bubba didn't go straight to the University of Georgia. He went to Faulkner State Community College for two years where he was a junior college All-American. He then went to U of G and his first year there he helped them win the SEC title. I doubt he got much help at all while attending Faulkner or the U of G. It doesn't seem feasible that anyone would mess with his swing at the U of G. They brought him in there because he was already a great golfer and he didn't spend much time there at all, two seasons. I don't think everyone should follow what Bubba did. Most people need someone watching them and helping them. But Bubba proved it can still be done. I think golf has gotten way to scientific for a lot of people when, in my opinion, the game is still best played by feel. There was such a contrast at this years Masters between Tiger and Bubba. Bubba with his self taught swing and Tiger who has been coached the past year and a half by a guy who tries very hard to appear like a genius and has a scientific view of golf. Several knowledgeable people have said that Tiger at the Masters had the worst swing they ever saw on an elite golfer and he should just start swinging away instead of putting so much concentration into getting his swing broken down into parts and trying to get each part right.

As far as thinking that anyone can become a professional or world class at something if they practice for 10,000 hours, it's not true. I just finished reading the book The Talent Code, and nowhere in the book does it say that. All it says is that 10,000 hours of deep practice is something that these world class performing people have in common. There are a lot of other factors that go into that. One thing is called "The Rage to Master". Another thing is having a "Master Coach". Dan doesn't look like he has either of these things going for him. He looks like he's enjoying himself getting attention and becoming a minor celebrity. He doesn't have the "rage to master" golf. Tiger has it of course. His father instilled it in him at a very young age. I think the fact Earl was Special Forces was a big reason Tiger got such great training. If it's one thing the Armed Forces does right is training. They train people fast and that training stays with them practically forever. And Earl went through some of the toughest training there is. He knew how to apply that training to Tiger. I disagree, and so does that book, that there's a natural born anything. Especially for golf. It doesn't take strength, speed or any skills out of the ordinary. It takes a lot of practice and doing things the right way. If Earl Woods had been a truck driver or an accountant or whatever, Tiger would just be Eldrick and not a professional golfer. Someone brought up that Tiger could shoot whatever score he shot at 8 years old as proof he was a natural, ignoring the fact that by that age he already had around 7 years of of deep practice and training. Anyway, getting back to the "rage to master", Greg Norman is another good example of it. When he decided he wanted to be the best golfer in the world, his training went like this. He arrived at the course before sunup and did his stretching. Then he played and practiced til dark. Then he hit the gym and after that swam laps in the pool. The next morning he was back before sunup doing it over and over again. That's what it takes to become the best at something. Dan doesn't look motivated enough to practice and train like that. He might become a scratch golfer which is very good, but there's a huge difference between a scratch golfer and a professional. I've read quite a few comments by pro golfers and others who know, like Larry Nelson said in an interview with Golf Digest, that there's about a 15 stroke difference between an amateur who is scratch and a pro and if Dan becomes scratch, it's still a long way from becoming a pro. As far as someone being a natural golfer, I'll end with these two quotes: You must work very hard to become a natural golfer. - Gary Player There is no such thing as a natural touch. Touch is something you create by hitting millions of golf balls. - Lee Trevino

There's 3 things almost every guy will exaggerate, how much he can bench press, how much tail he gets and how far he can drive a golf ball. This thread was just asking for some controversy and accusations of exaggerating. Fortunately, I've never had to lie about any of those three things. I can drive a golf ball 300 yards with my putter, I warm up with 300 lbs. to bench press, and I've had more women than Wilt Chamberlain.