Bignose

Oh I know it won't happen. But, I'm just hoping that maybe someone who does complain about the divot hole issue will stop and think about it. And I also agree that if one wants to eliminate the bad breaks from the sport then it is only fair to eliminate the good breaks. That drive that got an extra 100 yard because you hit the cart path -- eliminated. Hitting that tree that kept your ball from going OOB -- nope, you have to take stroke and distance. Hitting the flag stick with a skulled chip -- you should really throw that ball on the other side of the green. It is just human nature to remember the bad breaks more than the good ones, but it really does all even out in the long run.

You don't need to be snarky about it, guys, it's just a difference of opinon (and a small typo, sheesh). I guess my experiences have been different that you guys', but I personally know two people who can't hit a slow pitch softball more than about 10% of the time, and yet can hit some pretty decent shots with a PW well more than half the time. But, it is just an opinion. The whole bloody thing is based on opinions. There's no real need to jump down my throat.

I really do wish someone would take up iacas' challenge (and mine and Fourputt's from this thread's first go-around) and actually step up and unambiguously define what a divot/divot hole is. Basically, you need to be able to discern between the holes made by a club and the holes made by animals, and just nature in general. And the rule has to be completely and totally objective. No "It looks like a divot" because otherwise you open the door to all sorts of abuse -- any non-flat lie could be interpreted as an "old divot". If someone can come up with a clear, concise, easy and objective way to determine what is and isn't a divot, then you might be on to something here. I suspect that the average person, and even the average rules makes of the USGA and R&A;, agrees that it isn't completely fair to end up in someone's old divot hole. But, the rules makers understand further that introducing any ambiguities in the rules blows the door wide open for abuse. Notice how none of the rules have judgment calls in them? The ball is either in a hazard or it isn't, no judgment calls necessary. The ball is either on the green, or it isn't; the ball is either in the hole or it isn't. Etc. etc. So, someone, please step up and come up with a non-judgment call divot hole rule, and maybe we'll get somewhere. Until then, however, the easiest and fairest way to deal with it is to not make any exceptions to the rules for divot holes. Please don't just complain about divot holes without actually thinking about the issue and proposing a fair and objective solution.

iacus, you are missing the point in my first post that at the very beginning golf is an easier sport. The ball is just sitting there. The pitching wedge isn't that long of a club. Compare that with baseball where even if the pitcher is trying to help you hit the ball (like at practice) it is very easy to whiff time and time again. I've seen this several times... People who are all-around good athlethes, people who play soccer, football (American for the international members), run marathons, just don't have the initial skills to hit a thrown ball with a round bat if they haven't done it since childhood or ever before. ("Initial" is carefully chosen, because I have little doubt they'd get better with practice.) And, yes, I'm not saying that these people are expert golfers, but at least they can hit the ball in the general direction of where they are aiming almost every time. Not great, frankly probably not even good, but in the general direction. These same people will strike out swinging time and time again at slow pitch softball. This is what I am talking about -- initial skills taken to play the game. I agree that at the expert/top level of the game, ESPN did not give golf enough credit. But, you take an average person who never golfed before and get them a bucket of range balls and a pitching wedge or 8 iron and let them have at it, and they will hit the ball fairly often and generally in the direction where they aimed it. Give the average person who never played baseball or softball a bat and a fistful of tokens to the batting cage and they'll just flail away time and time again, hitting maybe 10%. Give the average person who never bowled before a ball, and they'll probably get the hang of it pretty quick. Even an absolulte beginner has probably something like a 2-4% chance of rolling a strike. This is why I think that golf is down there with the company it keeps. Golf has a gentle intial learning curve. It gets fairly steep fairly quick, but it's initial learning curve is friendly. It is hitting a still ball with a short stick, and almost anybody can do that.

Maverick, you're comparing hitting a still object sitting on the ground versus hitting a moving obejct with another moving object when the person throwing the ball is intentionally making it as hard as possible to hit that ball. They are completely different. Especially when the pitcher starts learning (intentionally or unintentionally) how to not throw the ball "straight". I put straight in quotes there since no ball is perfectly straight, but not straight in terms of being able to cause the ball to break in directions other than solely due to gravity. I think you are seriously discounting how much harder hitting a moving ball is than hitting a still one. As someone said, table tennis isn't all that easy, especially when you start seeking some good competition. And, sure, skating or snowboarding is just standing on a board, but that isn't that easy of a task, both physically or mentally. Physically because you can't just stand there and ride -- you have to keep your balance in a pretty different situation than normal life. And mentally, because your brain knows that the chance of getting seriously hurt on a skateboard or snowboard is much higher than normal. Sure, golf has its risks, but they are pretty much insignificant compared to the risks of skating or snowboarding. For that matter, there is far more risk in baseball than golf -- a batter and even a fielder is going to get hit by the ball a lot more often than a golfer. Now, if you want to compare slow-pitch softball and golf, I think those are very serious. The pitcher in slow-pitch isn't there so much to try to make the batter miss the ball as he is there to provide balls that can be hit -- that is, not walk the batter. And, the pitches are similar to one another, and not fast enough to really be able to introduce much spin like a baseball, that again, anyone with some decent hand-eye coordination should be able to hit the ball fairly often. But baseball and golf are incomparable in my mind.

The list is obviously a little more slanted toward the casual than the professional level. Because, let's face it, compared to skating or snowboarding or skiing, or even baseball, almost everyone with some semblance of hand-eye coordination can hit a ball sitting still on the ground with a stick. And while it may not be a good hit, at least they hit it. That's more enjoyable than swinging at three thrown baseballs and missing each time, or standing on a surfboard or skateboard and just falling off or yes even not getting the hand of how hard to hit the table tennis ball and constantly having to run after it. Golf is among the simplest in terms of just picking up some equipment somewhere and trying it out and having at least a modicum of success and enjoyment. Before I got serious about my game, I just plain sucked, I have no qualms about admitting that. But, I enjoyed playing those 1 or 2 times a year that I went out, and that was enough. The other sports underneath golf are similar. Take bowling for example. I only bowl once or twice a year, don't have my own shoes or balls or towels or anything. And with rented shoes and an alley ball and the lanes after several hours of league play, I can still roll a 150 most of the time, and hit 200 once in a while after I find my groove again. In terms of just picking up the equipment and going out and having fun, bowling is easier than even golf. Billiards/pool is similar. Go out, have a few beers and put some quarters into the poor table and smack a rack around once in a while. No one I know has their own cue or table or anything, but that doesn't stop us from enjoying ourselves on the pool table and hitting some pretty good shots once in a while. This is how the list is arranged, not in terms of difficulty at the pro/top levels. That would be an interesting discussion. Just to spark some discussion, I'm not sure that the mental game of golf is actually much harder than some other games. Pitching in baseball is largely a product of concentration. And the same sort of things happen: You can hit a good drive in golf, and the ball hits a sprinkler head right in the dead middle of the fairway, the ball takes a large bounce and goes OOB. In baseball, you can make a perfect pitch, get the batter off balance and they just flop their bat out there, and the ball lands between 3 fielders for a single. Both cases perfect execution on the part of the athlete, but just rotten luck. That pitcher has to put that luck out of his mind and concentrate on the next batter, just like the golfer has to concentrate on each shot at hand. A hockey goalie's job is largely about concentration. Same thing for gymnasts, and track and field and ski jumpers and many other sports. Sure, the physical demands are there, but at the top level of the sports the physical differences usually aren't all that big. The concentration levels on executing the task perfectly on time every time is the difference between 1st place and 21st place.

Unfortunately, logic and golf equipment manufacturing don't always go hand-in-hand. Logically, there is no point in having a 43 degree pitching wedge while still keeping a 56 degree sand wedge, as there is a very large gap in those close-to-the-green shots where the true scoring of the game is performed, yet that is all too common today. Logically, a driver is 45" is too long for the average high handicapper -- the same one you bring up in your post -- yet today you'd be hard-pressed to find an off-the-rack driver that is less than 45", and many that are 45 1/2", 46" and even a few that are 46 1/2". Most people would benefit from hitting a shorter driver because of the improved control -- and in fact, the PGA Tour average driver length is less than 45". Logically, all the extra trinkets and gadgets and other silly wastes of money shouldn't sell at all because there is no proof that any of them work. Yet, there are numerous magnetic bracelets and tees that claim you'll gain an extra 10 yards from using them and shoes that claim extra distance and many other things like this in most golf shops around the world. I'm sure that more examples can be made, but I think that my point is clear. Manufacturers only are looking out for their bottom line, and rarely are doing what would really and truly be logically best for the game and their customers. GI irons are made with a large sole because most high handicapper's divots bottom out behind the ball, not in front the ball. Most high handicappers hit the ball fat in some way shape or form. Hence, they need the anti-digger sole. Also, a wider sole allows for more mass to be pushed down and back, helping raise the launch angle of the clubs helping the ball get in the air more. Mass farther down and back also increases the club's MOI and if you put some of that to the sides as well, the club's forgiveness increases, too. Finally, I think that the sole doesn't actually matter too much for the average sweeper -- they are sweeping so the sole-ground interaction isn't significant anyway. I can see how a sweeper may prefer a smaller sole, but I don't think that it is a necessity if you are a sweeper.

Nike Sumo^2 5900 and the Cobra L4V are the ones claiming 5900 g-cm^2, though anything 460 cc in the last 2, 3, 4 years is going to be awfully forgiving. MOI alone is not a perfect measure of forgiveness -- where the mass is distributed is just as important and the number. I can make a driver that has very high MOI but would be neigh on impossible to use -- just put two big lumps of mass one on the bottom right and the other on the top left -- that thing would have a high MOI (lots of mass away from the center of mass) but would be a truly terrible design for forgiveness and ball flight purposes. Also, there is a law of limiting returns in force here. The difference to any human being between an MOI of 5500 and 5900 is negligible. Eeking out every last MOI and remaining conforming really has no actual effect when the club is in our hands. It is done primarily for marketing reasons. Callaway's drivers aren't at 5900, but I guarantee that they are still good drivers. Same for Bridgestone, Srixon, TaylorMade, Mizuno, etc.

I tee it up, but I like to grab a broken tee and use that. Like the others said, all I'm looking for is making a perfect lie using the tee -- the ball sits only the tiniest bit above the grass. And, so long as the ground isn't rock-hard, a broken tee is usually more than sufficient to accomplish this goal.

There are a few good one out there... A Round of Golf with Tommy Armour by Tommy Armour is excellent. Tom Watson's Strategic Golf by Tom Watson (these guys apparently like to put their names in the book titles!) is also pretty darn good. There is one I haven't seen personally, but would be interested to look at is Dave Pelz's Damage Control (see, another guy who put his name in the title). This book is only available from his website, though, not any bookstore I've found. It is an aspect of golf instruction that is poorly represented. With all the books about swing mechanics, short game techniques and putting, and lately a fair number of books on the mental side of the game, the course management sector has been significantly underrepresented. But, the Armour book has really stood the test of time and is still excellent to this day. Well worth your effort to find it. p.s. In terms of finding it, don't overlook how valuable a resource the local library probably is. My local library can get almost any book via interlibrary loan. If the book is in one of the over 19,000 other libraries in their network, the local library can usually get it, and they only ask that I pay $1 to help cover the shipping charges.

While most "players" sets will have PWs around 49,48,47,46-ish, some of these super game improvement clubs today have PWs all the way up to 43 today. Coupled with a 56 degree SW, that's a 13 degree gap! One could reasonably squeeze three gap wedges in there! But, this is the state of modern club manufacturing -- and Richie's points about the separation between them is very valid. g-funk, you probably will want to look up what your PW's loft is and see just how large that gap is. It will in all likelihood be necessary to find a gap wedge around 50 to 52 degrees. That will fill in the gaps in the Pelz system you are trying to use.

Andre, it actually is not the point to make a half-swing to be exactly half the distance of a full swing. In fact, for most people that just won't happen. The only way it will happen is if you are able to accelerate at exactly the same rate over the entire swing. Even the pros don't do that -- see a book like Jorgensen's The Physics of Golf -- he has an acceleration/time graph in there that shows that most people accelerate constantly at first but actually have less acceleration into impact. Not that they are decelerating, but that they aren't accelerating as fast as they were at the beginning of the swing. The point is that you find out what your distances are. Record them and use that record to figure out exactly what swing will get the distance you desire. It doesn't matter if the half-swing distance is more than half of your full shot, less than half, or exactly half... just that you can hit pretty close to the same shot repeatedly.

You get to replace a damaged club with a replacement club, so long as replacing it doesn't cause "undue delay". What is undue delay isn't specificed, but I think that the idea is that you can send someone to get a club from your trunk, or if you are back at the clubhouse at the turn, you can purchase a new one, but you can't call "time out" drive to Golf Galaxy or Edwin Watts and buy a replacement and come back and resume play. The incident with Tiger Woods happened on a Sunday, and usually the Tour Vans and equipment is all packed up Sunday morning before the round starts, otherwise, I think Tiger probably would have sent someone to get a replacement 4 iron. Also, I don't think that you have to replace the club with an "equivalent" club -- if Tiger wanted to put a 9 wood into play instead of a different 4 iron, that would be ok (so long as the new club is conforming, of course).

The lack of smileys makes me think that this wasn't intended to be joke -- but it is a funny statement. You do know that Accushnet (Titleist's parent company) had to pay a settlement to Bridgestone for patent infringement. http://golf-patents.com/2007/10/02/b...t-lawsuit.aspx and that Callaway is suing Accushnet over golf ball patent infringment as well http://golf-patents.com/2008/01/19/c...available.aspx ? That's what makes the quote so funny in that it is indeed patented information, that Titleist used without permission!

Putters come in a wide variety of lofts. A lot of the mallet putters are around 2.5 degrees. Check out a lot of the TaylorMade Rossa line... 2.5 degrees. I don't think that there is any standard at all. There are putters out there with negative loft (see http://www.purestrikegolf.co.uk/about_pro.asp as one example) Another point is that because putting is such a slow motion compared to the full swing, you can manipulate the head much easier with much less chance of ruining the swing. So, if you have a putter that is 4 degrees and you think that is too much, just put the ball farther back in your stance. Hands ahead at impact will equal less loft. Hands behind at impact will equal more loft. Finally, the amount of loft can depend on the type of green. If you are playing on certain strains of Bermuda, the ball will almost always settle into a small depression and the extra loft helps hop the ball up out of that depression. If the green in like most bentgrasses, that isn't as much of an issue. The maintenance of the green comes into play, too -- how recently were they aerated? Are the ball marks fixed well? I think in general too much is made of the loft. Like I said, you can always manipulate the face to pick the loft you want. I think that much more important factors are the type of head, where the shaft connects, the weighting scheme (face-balanced or toe-weighted), total weight, head weight, and counter balancing. Of these, the total weight and head weight I think think are the most important, because to a certain extent the rest are just style. The great unknown is feel, and that is probably the most important and unpredictable. I think that feel is probably the biggest thing because if you feel comfortable over a putt because of the confidence generated in a putter that feels good to you, you will just naturally make more putts.

I think a lot of it also has to do with the magnitude of how much money these makers of the magnetic bracelets are asking for. If it wasn't several hundred dollars -- if it was only $10 or $15 -- I don't think I would care. $10 or $15 for a "good luck charm" seems fine to me. It is just that $250 is not an insignificant amount of money to the vast majority of people. Sure, golfers in general are going to be more affluent and in general $250 to them probably doesn't mean as much to the average person. Nevertheless, that is a lot of money to be spending on something with no proven value. In golf terms, the average golfer is going to get much, much more out of $250 of lessons or range balls than a magnetic bracelet. Even $250 of new wedges or new driver I think may be more worthwhile. What makes me really angry is that the ads for these things attract a segment of the population that probably cannot afford $250. The poor in general tend to be the least educated and they are going to be the most likely to believe the outlandish claims of these manufacturers. This is where the real harm is done -- convincing people to whom $250 is a very significant amount of money to part with it for something completely unproven.

shredfit, that's what I said in this thread. There is no discernible effect over placebo. And, since it is all placebo anyway -- why not buy a piece of costume jewelry? why spend $250 when you can get the exact same placebo effect for $10? No one can deny that placebo effect is very real. There was a fascinating study that was just released this weak about the placebo effect. The researchers make up brochures and pens with the fake drug's logo on it -- to make it look just like the hot new drug. The kicker was that there were two sets of brochures made up, one listing the drug's price at 10 cents a pill, the other listing the drug's price at $2.50 a pill. Both pills were utterly fake -- placebo effect 100% -- but the more expensive pill had a significantly stronger placebo effect. That is, the people who took the pill and were told it cost $2.50 experienced significnatly greater pain relief than the people who took the exact same pill and were told it cost $0.10. Maybe it is the same thing here. People spend $250 on a bracelet and because they spent a lot of money on it, the placebo effect is stronger. But, that doesn't change the fact that it is all placebo effect. There has never been a study that shows that these have any effect above placebo. And, that means it is worthless. The FDA doesn't allow drug companies to sell pills that don't have any effects above placebo -- despite the fact that the placebo effect is quite real and people do get better. A drug is only allowed to be sold if it has a demonstrable effect. And these things should be held to the same standard. Anything would work -- a lucky coin, a favorite ball marker, a certain color tee, a favorite pair of socks, etc. Anything can have the placebo effect if someone wants it to. I just think that it is nuts to spend hundreds of dollars on something that has zero proven benefits.

As a practicing scientist, my hostilities aren't towards the bracelets themselves. It is, however, against the people who are scamming you out of your money. It is, however, against the pitiful school system that rewards rote memorization rather than critical thinking skills. It is, however, against anyone who buys something, seeking a specific result or effect, and doesn't at least do 10 minutes of research to verify that it actually does what it claims. It is just frustrating to see so many non-scientific things out there. From these bracelets to the manufacturers claiming their irons are the best ever because they go 5 yards further than the other brand though that is simply because they strengthened the loft several degrees (Nickent was doing this last year), all the way to the people who take horoscopes seriously and the Head On commercials. I'm really not all that angry about it. It was kind of funny to see a post right after my first one asking "does it work" though. It just goes to show that people just don't actually read the threads, though. There are a lot of people who just read the title and maybe the first 1 or 2 posts, and go from there.

Anders, please don't take this as aggressive, but did you even read my post? Did you even look at the links showing that there is zero scientific evidence that these things work above a placebo effect? Don't waste your money. You can get the exact same placebo effect by buying costume jewelry. Or, if you are insistent on needing magnetics, just go any buy a magnet. Don't waste the hundreds of dollars on these overpriced unscientific unproven items. They are exactly the same as if I told you that I experienced pain relief by massaging marinara sauce into my sore shoulder every day. Are you going to head to the grocery store now? I have the same amount of evidence to back up my marinara sauce story as the magnetic bracelet people -- namely none. If you want me write up a creative little story about the magical healing ions and positive energy flow from marinara sauce, I can. I can use a bunch of large scientific words incorrectly to make me sound smart. Would you buy a car if there was no proof that it worked? (i.e. you see an ad in the paper for a car -- don't you test drive it before you buy?) This is really the same thing -- scientists who have spent their life's work studying different ways to relieve pain and investigating the medicinal properties of different materials have found zero evidence that these things work. Shouldn't you only spend money on things that have at least some proof that they work?

I can't believe this thread has gone on for so long and no one has posted a good refutation of these hunks of junk. There is zero evidence that these things have any effect over placebo. That zero as in zilch, none, nada, not a single piece of objective evidence. For a good review, see this article: http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer...QA/magnet.html Here are two more (one even from a golf newsletter:) http://chicagolandgolf.com/blog1/?p=41 http://csicop.org/si/2006-04/magnet-therapy.html Please take note of the peer reviewed studies. In one, the people reported the exact same percentage of pain relief from the true Q-Ray bracelets and costume jewelry. In another, the people who wore an insole without magnetic properties reported the same relief of heel pain as the ones who did wear a magnetic insole. There is zero scientific evidence. If you want to put your faith in ammagic trinket, just buy the costume jewelry. It will be 1/100th the price. And if you still feel a need to blow $200 or so, send it my way. I'll put it to good use! Or at least go buy a new wedge or a few boxes of balls you've wanted to try -- at least those have some chance of helping your golf game!

I know this thread started over a month ago, but I thought it best to comment on this line right here. Firstly, even the component heads are all going to be +-1 degree or so. That is, a 10.5 could be anywhere between 9.5 and 11.5. This is on contrast to most OEM heads that will say 9.5, and their loft will be between 9.5 and 12 -- they almost never are below their marked loft. However, and this is the big thing, when you order a component head, almost no one would give you a second thought if you asked for a "hand picked" one to be exactly the loft you want. That is, if you want an 11 degree driver head, just ask for a head that has been hand-measured to be exactly 11 degrees. You don't have to waiver between 10.5 and 12 -- you can split the difference with an 11.25 head if you want, or anything in between. Just another perk of going with a component head.

or an open clubface or both. You can't just call it one thing or the other without seeing the swing on tape and/or some impact tape. Every manufacturer claims to make a high spinning balls for wedges and be low-spinning off the driver. The simple truth is that you can't have you cake and eat it too. While there have been great strides in achieving that goal -- the modern multilayer ball really helps -- I don't think that there will ever be that perfect combination. A ball that is high spin with the wedges will still have a higher spin off the driver than a ball that low spin off the driver and have lower spin with the wedges. Like I said, the modern multilayer ball really helps with this. The outer urethane layer is very good at picking up spin from the grooves on the wedges, especially on less than full shots where the grooves are the primary source for the spin. Then, the middle or mantle layer is very good as being low spin -- it is designed to be hard and dense specifically to increase the ball's MOI which helps is resist spinning (just like the large MOI driver heads) and to be squashed against the driver face instead of sliding or rolling on the driver face which also adds spin. But, like I said, I don't think that you can ever have the best of both worlds, because the urethane cover of the ball will be easier to slide along the driver face again contributing to more spin. Nevertheless, we have it better than any golfers ever before us, and I do think that there is room for improvement -- the new Callaway balls have 4 layers as have some Wilson balls for a while now -- I think that this is probably going to be the trend, to add more layers each with specific properties to increase wedge spin and decrease driver spin.

Josh, Excellent review of the Almost Golf Ball (AGB). I think you hit on every single benefit of them. I think that it is only fair to list some of the drawbacks that I've found. Because they are so light, the wind plays with them a lot more than a regular ball would. Slices/hooks will be exaggerated, and while I've never consistently ballooned a real golf ball, into the wind with the AGBs can be hilariously funny -- the ball looks like it is trying to climb a wall sometimes!. So, if it is significantly windy out, you won't get a good judge of the ball flight. They aren't dog proof, and while my dog doesn't get it in her head to chase them very often when she gets one, expect teeth marks. Now, that said, a few teeth marks don't seem to affect performance so it can be kind of a moot point. The biggest one is that, again because they don't have the mass of a regular ball, they won't twist the clubfaces back on off-center hits like a regular ball would. They will still launch almost perfectly, and they won't pick up much spin from the twisting impact. So, you can be fooled somewhat into thinking that your ballstriking is better than it really is. Now, all that said, it actually is exactly what you'd expect from this product. The ball is intentionally made to be lighter than a regular ball, that's a large reason it doesn't fly as far as a regular ball. It is also made to be soft and pliable so it won't break windows. So, I know that you can't have it both ways. I really love practicing with my AGBs, and haven't found a better product. They are leaps and bounds better than a whiffle golf ball or foam ball, and I wouldn't trade them. I highly recommend them personally. But, I did think it was fair to list the negatives to make sure that you completely understand what you are buying.

Unless there is a very strong crosswind, there is no way a club hitting a good ball (no cracks or bits peeling/peeled off) can put both fade and draw spin on a ball. It just doesn't work that way. The spin during the flight does decay, but it doesn't turn over to start spinning the other way. Unless, like I said, there are some massively strong crosswinds. It is much more reasonable to assume that it was some observation errors. Like previous posters have suggested, maybe it was a pull fade. It's not impossible that it was a small local wind, either. Wind sometimes just finds very localized corridors to blow down -- there are a few stretches driving along the Interstate where you will get zero visibility for about 50 feet from the blowing snow. And, it is always in the same spot, so there is obviously some feature in the land that directs the wind to blow right along that particular spot. But, an undamaged ball cannot start drawing then fade without some outside forces acting on it. It is impossible.

Well, slinkee, you already know the answer to this. What good is it performing poor mechanics as fast and as hard as you can? You the results -- banana ball. Learn to do the mechanics of the swing correctly, then you can learn to speed them up.