DaveLeeNC

FWIW, the greens on No. 2 in 2005 were just fine a few days after the 2005 US Open. I believe that the issue here is that if you push these greens to 13-14 on the stimp, they are mostly "unapproachable". I don't know about 1999. dave

I took another spin at this just for grins. Another stat that I generate from the data that I collect is "up/downs with par putting". I look at all the shots that are not on the green but are within x yards of the pin. If the next shot is not on the green then it is a 0% up/down. If it is (for example) on the green and 6' from the pin I look at my putting table which says that I should average 1.6 strokes to hole out. That converts to a 40% up/down. If I am within 5' my table says 1.5 so that is a 50% up/down. Within 3' says 1.1 so that is 90% up/down, etc. I normally use 35 yards as my "up/down limit" (all shots from off the green but 35 or less yards from the pin are calculated). I changed that to 65 yards and did the following. 1) I treated my "full shot game" measurement as completely characterized by "Error at par" 2) I treated my "short game measurement" as completely characterized by my "Net Putting" and "Up/down with Par Putting" parameter (with the 65 yard limit). The nice thing here is that these two numbers have no cross correlation so they can be directly combined (sum of squares). So my Full Shot Game correlation with "Scores against par" is the same as before (0.67) My Short Game correlation with "Scores against par" comes out to 0.65. So basically my data indicates that the short game (as I defined it) and the long game (as I defined it) are equally important. FWIW. dave ps. For those of you who are not experienced with correlation factors, here is an interesting exericize. Assume that we have 3 numbers A which is a random number between 1 and 100 B which is a random number between 1 and 100 (independent of A) C which is the sum of A and B The correlation between A and C will be a tad over 0.7 The correlation between B and C will be a tad over 0.7 The correlation between A and B will be 0 In this particular case the correlation between A/C (squared) plus the correlation between B/C (squared) will be 1.0

Tim Herron in shorts comes to mind. dave

FWIW, I have noticed in my own putting data that I putt short putts measureably better when they are second putts (typically a par putt for a pro) vs. first putts (typically a birdie putt for a pro). I assume that this is because I have additional information about speed and break on second putts. I wonder how much this might affect the referenced data. dave

I have some data relevant to this conversation. I use my own "home-brewed" stats system (MS Access based) and this doesn't represent all the stats that I generate. But I have listed some of the ones that fit in this conversation. First a couple of definitions. Error at Par - how far you are from the pin after 1 stroke on a par 3, 2 on a par 4, and 3 on a par 5. This is independent of position (20 yards from the pin on the green or in a bunker - it is just 20 yards) Net Putting - I have a table that defines how many strokes I think that I should average to hole out from every distance from 1' to 99'. 1' and 2' is 1.0 (I should make all my 1 and 2 footers). 3' is 1.1. 5' is 1.5 (I should make half my 5 footers - no 3 putts). 20' is 2.0. 50' is 2.25, etc. So two putting from 50' is 0.25 strokes "under par". 3 putting from 50' is 0.75 strokes "over par". What I have is roughly 325 rounds in my database where my index varied between a low of 3.7 and a high of 7.5. What I have done is to find the correlation coefficient between a bunch of parameters and the resulting score vs. par. A correlation of 1.0 means that the two parameters are perfectly correlated (if you know one you know the other). A correlation coefficient of 0 means that there is no correlation. I expressed all correlations as positive numbers just for convenience, even though some of the correlations are negative - for example the higher the GIR's the lower the Score Vs. Par. All that said, here are the correlations of "Score Vs. Par" against .. Number of Putts - .50 Net Putting - .56 Number of 3 putts - .37 Lag Putting Error - .22 Driving Distance - .21 GIR's - .59 Error at Par - .67 Fairways - .29 UpDowns - .43 Number of Birdies - .48 Birdie Opportunities - .47 (birdie putts of 15' or less) Number of Double Bogeys or worse - .62 When I look at this data I come to the conclusion that it is all important. Driving distance and accuracy clearly being the least important of the measured parameters. The correlation with number of double bogeys was interesting as I only average 1.13 doubles per round in this data (I am a pretty steady golfer and gnerally play from the middle rather than back tees). Still interesting. I would also conclude from this that the Net Putting measure that I use is somewhat better than number of putts. And the Error at Par measure is somewhat better than GIR's. FWIW. dave

The cost of local golf play is kind of a local thing. But from an equipment perspective, you need to go the used route. Stuff is WAY cheaper used. ebay, the various 'for sale' forums on boards like this, Play it Again Sports, some amazing finds show up occasionally at Salvation Army type stores, etc. Good luck. dave

I haven't read Zen Golf (maybe I should - I am not a pariticularly good putter). However I am pretty confident of two related things. 1) The mechanics that "I just use" in throwing a ball underhanded to someone is "naturally correct". Just focus on doing it and it will mostly do well. 2) The mechanics that "I just use" when putting (or hitting a full shot for that matter) is not "naturally correct". Just focusing on doing it will not generate anything close to good results. What generates good results is not what is natural (for me, anyway). Maybe I am wrong in my own perceptions of myself, or maybe I am somewhat unique in this regard. But it seems to me that there is some significance to this "perceived fact". dave ps. I have done extensive work with both arc strokes and more "straight back/straight through" type strokes. It doesn't seem to have a big effect on my 'observation of myself'.

FWIW, a soft feel on a full shot is different than a soft feel on a 'low clubhead speed' shot (putt, chip, etc). One doesn't necessarily imply the other. dave

Two balls that I really liked but quit playing because they were no longer made ... Strata Tour Ultimate (despite a cover with the durability of wet tissue paper) Callaway HX Red (the Blue was a great ball around the greens but I found it a bit short off the tee) dave

If you really were coming into the ball with an angle of attack of -22 degrees, you probably wouldn't even be seeing the ball get off the ground. 5 degrees positive angle of attack would be really good - level can be very workable and very slightly negative is not a killer (but also not optimum). IIRC, Tiger hits his driver with a slightly negative angle of attack. dave

I would not focusing specifically on "hitting down on the ball". Instead I would focus on - forward shaft lean at impact - bottoming out your swing infront of the ball (for shots not hit off a tee) Bobby Clampett's book The Impact Zone might be helpful here. dave

if the bottom of your swing is at or ahead of the ball and your shaft is verticle (or better) forward at impact, it isn't a big deal (IMHO). dave ps. Despite what you might think it is possible to hit down on the ball with a shaft that 'leans backward' at impact. That is not a good solution - take it from experience

Based on what I saw in 2005, most of the conditioning issues seem manageable to me. In particular the vast majority of the spectator traffic is through the pinestraw. The fairway crossings will be mostly a mess, but that is true on Sundays no matter what you do. A course like No. 2 typically sees maybe 160 golfers/day so the 'load' created by 4 days of tournament play really isn't huge. Practice days are a bigger impact. IMHO what this really does is limit what the USGA can do to course conditions in the first week. They regularly dry out a course close to death for the weekend. They will have to be very cautious in 2014. I assume that they will widen the fairways a tad for the ladies (converting 1st cut to fairway should not be a big deal). And they will also I assume cut down the rough an inch or so - also relatively easy as bermuda is really tolerant of all kinds of mistreatment once the weather turns hot (and it gets watered). dave

I'm not sure exactly what "scooping" is in your swing. But what is critical is to create (with shots not hit off a tee) ... 1) an angle of attack that is level or downward 2) a shaft angle at impact that is verticle or (better) forward leaning Anything else (for shots not hit off a tee) leaves you absolutely no margin for error. Downward is far less important than "not upward". dave

If you went to a lighter shaft and weighted the club back to where the swingweight was originally, you would probably end up with a shaft that was 20-40 grams lighter than before. But you would only have to add somewhere in the 5-10 grams of weight to the clubhead (rough approximation) to get back to the original swingweight. Constant swingweight is not magic or a firm requirement. But it is not a bad idea either. The "latest" in club matching is "MOI matching" which is different than swingweight matching. A google search on that term should yield way more than you are willing to wade through. dave

More than you probably want to know http://www.tutelman.com/golf/design/swingwt1.php In brief swingweight is a common way to measure the "feel" of a golf club. In principle a number of golf clubs of differing length and weight would all "feel the same when swung" if they all had the same swingweight. The concept is simple. Imagine trying to balance a golf club at a point that is 14" from the grip end of the club (grip end sticking out 14" to the right and clubhead end sticking out however many inches to the left of the balance point). Obviously the clubhead end is the heaviest and the club will not balance. Swingweight is simply a measure of how hard you have to push on the grip end to make it balance. D2 is a common swingweight. Next higher is D3, D4, .... Down the scale is D1, D0, C9, C8 ... One unit of swingweight (say D2 to D3) is not much. Tape a dime to the clubhead end of your 5i and its swingweight will go up around 1 point. Very few golfers can detect a change of less than 2-3 swingweight points. Back to your question if you put a lighter shaft into your irons, their swingweight would go down - maybe 2 to 4 SW points, depending on how light the new shaft and how heavy the old one was. To get back to the same swingweight you would typically add enough weight to the clubhead to get back to where you were. dave

Most golfers will find that lighter shafts (at roughly the same swingweight for the total club) will work slightly better for them (of course golf has virtually no universal truths). Big/strong players with aggressive swings sometimes do better with heavier shafts as they tend to lose control otherwise. You'll probably do better with lighter shafts but I was be much more cautious with less swingweight (might require a bit of weight to be added to the clubhead). dave

Given the stated intent, there is no rules issue with what happened. I assume that this wasn't caught on camera anywhere - that right? dave

Since Paula is right-handed, doesn't this decision get referred to the 1st base umpire dave

According to "rumors on the range" and local scuttlebutt, the Women's US Open will be held the week after the Men's US Open at Pinehurst No. 2 in 2014. I have not yet heard any official announcements, but my sources are typically reliable. It actually makes a lot of sense because you only have to do one set-up (you just can't believe the infrastructure that accompanies a major golf tourney), and the course disruption extends well before and after the event. I assume that the ladies will play the 'blue tees', or maybe even Donald Ross orginal tees which were 6900 yards, IIRC. Should be interesting. dave

Here is a different perspective - what didn't work (or at least hasn't worked for me so far). Background - I played a lot of golf as a teen, less in college, not much more after entering the work force, got married and quit playing in 1977 (courses were crowded on the weekends and 5 1/2 hour rounds got intolerable). I started playing again regularly (and playing a lot) when I retired in 2003 (now 60 years old). I was fortunate to be able to retire early - and not be broke after the 2008 financial debacle. I now play 2x per week and practice for a couple hours the other 4 days (I save one 'golf free day' for my wife). I was probably an 8 or 9 (had I kept a handicap as a kid/young adult when I played/practiced less). My index each summer will usually dip down to the 4's (or high 3's on occasion), but it won't stay there reliably. A fair observation would be that I really have never broken through the 4-5 barrier. Putting is the number one problem for me. And I do practice my putting (and my short game). Quite frankly for many years practicing putting (for me) seemed like "practicing flipping coins" (where the goal is to flip as many heads as possible). Practice didn't seem to help, although I kept it up. I've taken lessons and made changes before. Right now I have made what I would view as 'extreme changes' - we'll see if it really matters. I've been here before so I'm not claiming or predicting any kind of success, but have some optimism that I didn't have before. Next would be distance - it is hardly impossible, but it is hard to play to a 2 or 3 index when 250 (with roll) is a big drive (not huge, but very good). But I'd take better putting instead of 25 yards any day. I've been asked before if more play and less practice would help me. I honestly don't believe that to be the case (could be wrong, of course). But I honestly don't like playing even 2 days in a row (I can feel things start to go off kilter and the 2nd day will almost always be worse than the first). This may not be normal, but I believe that it is true for me. dave

Here is a plumb-bogging like methodology that I believe would be workable (and prove-ably workable). The basic assumption is that plumb-bobbing can be used to determine the slope that you are standing on by .. 1) Take a truly verticle position at a point. Standing on one foot (with the other on top of your foot) with both arms outstretched staight (holding a vertically hanging putter) would do the trick, I think. 2) Line up the vertically hanging putter with something (taking care to use your 'lead eye'). 3) Then take a 2 foot step to the right with the "top foot" (if the right is the "top foot" in step #1) 4) Take a 2 foot step to the left with the bottom foot (see previously assumption) 5) If you are standing on level ground the verticle putter will still be lined up with whatever in step #2. Otherwise the slope that you are standing on is shown by how the putter appeared to move. Now I do believe that the slope around the cup is the most important slope to read. So to apply the above to an actual putting scenario. 1) Stand on one foot on top of the cup with both arms outstretched .... OK - I guess I need to think about this some more dave

I can see plumb bobbing (I don't do it) actually doing two useful things. 1) If your putter will hang straight down it and you can stand perpendicular to the ground (that you are standing on), it should be able to tell you the slope of the ground that you are standing on. 2) If you get down low and your putter shaft is verticle, then the edge of the cup (when viewed from close to the ground) and the shaft will form a right angle if the ground is flat. In theory it could reveal a slope left or right. I've never seen anyone claim that they do this, but (in principle) I can see this working (and this would be more useful than knowing the slope that you are standing on I'd think). Maybe seeing a verticle line hanging across/around the cup helps people see things. God knows I'd do it if it was helpful in reading short putts (my putting nemesis). dave

A ball only carrying 5 yards - VERY tough to get to "check up". It is more about trajectory for that kind of shot. How far does your ball roll if it carries 5 yards? If you were saying that a ball struck with a SW or LW that carried maybe 15 yards was rolling "forever past the hole" it would be a different story. But 5 yards - something seems odd here. For me if I hit a LW 5 yards it might roll out 2-3 yards. If I hit a 9i 5 yards it might roll out 8-10 yards. If I opened the face of a LW a whole bunch (and didn't skull the damned thing) it would not go more than maybe 1 yard, although that isn't a shot that I ever recall playing or practicing. dave

Been a while since I read the book, but ... I am going to assume that when you swing right now you are mentally 'aiming at the ball'. By this I mean that the ball is what you look at, focus on, and think about hitting. This is just like the rim when shooting a free throw in basketball or the bullseye in archery. IF this makes absolutely no sense to you in the context of a golf swing, I'm not sure that I would suggest that you implement the 'aiming point'. You really need to swing through the ball, not at the ball (and I will admit to not knowing exactly what that means, but I believe it to be true). If the previous paragraph makes no sense then you probably already swing 'through the ball' and the aiming point might be counter-productive. But if not... don't focus/etc on the ball but on a place a couple inches in front of (and a tad below) the ball when you swing. dave