Jump to content

mp33 man

Established Member
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by mp33 man

  1. That had nothing to do with the definition of a swing.  It only addressed the issue of the rough no longer being a factor in the pro game unless it was cut to more than typical US Open height.  Note the comments from the last few US Opens prior to the groove change.  The rough was getting so bad that no club was capable of escaping from it.  By making that small change in the groove allowance they were able to set up courses which allowed the players to play golf again.  This is just silly.  My swing is the same with my Callaway Diablo Edge as it was 23 years ago with my TM Tour driver, despite the fact the the TM was probably less than half the displacement.   The only difference with a hybrid is that it doesn't require the same perfection of swing that my 3I required, and the same basic adjustment was possible with a 7W, so that argument is shot down before it begins.   At this point in time it's just sour grapes to start trying to compare equipment evolution to a change in the traditional stroke.  All of the clubs you mention require that the stroke be made with the club held freely in the hands.  All the new rule is doing is maintaining this consistency through the putter.

    Your swing may be the same but simple logic would tell you that a driver with sweetspot the size of quarter (rather than that of a dime) is easier to hit. You just applied the same rational to hitting a hybrid as opposed to a 3i. The statement was made that anchoring can eliminate the mental part of the game, I don't know about you but Ive NEVER played a sport that was more mentally challenging than golf (unless we're considering chess a sport) and whether your hands are swinging freely or not you still must read the break and speed of the putt... an anchored putter does not help with that. I also think that its just as much "sour grapes" for guys that don't anchor to whine and bitch about guys that do. If its such a freaking advantage then do it yourself. I don't remember Justin Leonard complaining about the need to outlaw metal or titanium drivers/woods, he wanted to continue to hit wooden clubs so because he liked the way they felt so he kept on hitting them.

  2. Go to a golf shop and the vast majority of sets you will see are 4-PW or 4-GW.  Yes, you can order a 3-PW set still but the 3-iron is a dead club because most people cant hit it.  In the case of SGI clubs, what set has a 3-iron?  Every one Ive seen has a 3-hybrid, not a 3-iron.

    I realize that its not really the popular view on this thread but I kinda have to agree with GG. While I think calling the 3i a dead club may be a little harsh I will agree that a lot of pros don't even bother with a three iron anymore. I myself have grown to love my 4 hybrid, 3 hybrid and my 2 hybrid. I'm able to work them high or low, left or right or any other way that I desire. On the other hand I have a set of McGregor mt pro-c (3i-PW) that I play, ironically, when I'm not playing as well and not making as good a contact as I should, when I do play this set I remove my hybrids and play the 4i and 3i and they are plenty easy to hit. I do get a little more yardage out of my hybrids, but I think that has to do with the shafts that are in them. All that being said if I were you I would go to Golfsmith and try to find a 3i if that is what you prefer.

  3. My personal gauge is that, to be keeping up with the group in front, you should at least be teeing off before they have completed the hole (unless it's a par 3).  Ideally you would be ready to tee off by the time they clear the fairway, but sometimes on any given hole things can happen to affect that.   I'm particularly sensitive to pace of play lately because I've had some really crappy experiences.  This weekend I got really frustrated during my round of 18+9(replay) and during my round of 18 on Memorial Day.  The reason isn't simply because it was slow, but because of why.  At one point on both courses I could see that the course really was NOT that packed, but that there was one group with 2+ holes clear in front of them and then several groups between them and myself.  When I realized that I was pissed.  One group jamming up an entire f**kin course.   I wonder what a marshal is realistically going to do in that situation?  You can urge them to play faster, but if they can't speed it up, then what?

    I just had one of these moments on the highway, lady trying to text and drive while driving 55mph in a 70 and in the left lane :)

  4. Most of the rangers at the courses that I play are either paid, or receive unlimited free golf for themselves and up to 3 guests and discounts on all food, beverages, equipment and accessories sold in the pro-shop. However, I guess I still just don't get the need for confrontation in this case. If I were the target of an angry ranger, I would still be respectful and keep doing what I am doing so long as I know that I am definitely not the cause of any problems. I would acknowledge the ranger and feel out the situation and just take a common sense look around me. Once the round is over, I may say something or have a quick discussion with him and his tone will then determine the outcome of the conversation and how I escalate it if necessary. I'm just not going to get pissed off during my round though, especially if I know I did nothing wrong. PS: You left out quite a bit of detail from your original post, which raised a lot of "ifs" and questions. As a result, it wouldn't be hard to read your last line and assume that you were out of line since you didn't really say the ranger was condescending or having that "I run this!" ego about him. Next time, just laugh it off and do your best and give him a "Yes sir. No problem!". At least then you can laugh about it and continue having fun, rather than risk making an awkward scene and something escalating from nothing, or something not worth your time. If that is not good enough for him, wait until after your round and talk to him, or management if you think you can't get through to him.

    Sorry for not elaborating further but I felt as though I was already being long winded. I was very polite until he followed to the next tee and watched us play the next hole (tapping his toe and literally looking at his watch, at one point he even clapped his hands like you would a dog). Don't get me wrong I usually don't usually get upset with course marshals in fact I generally like the rangers that I come into contact with. I often play with two of the rangers at the course where I play most often. And as far as etiquette goes, I was taught by my grandpa who always stessed the importance of treating your fellow golfers, course management and especially the course itself with the upmost respect but when I'm not treated with the same respect I tend to get a little pissy.

    • Upvote 1
  5. There are far too many IFs left over to give a simple and straight answer. But, since the OP did admit they were playing behind schedule, or "slower than typical pace of a foursome", the ranger/marshal was doing their job. Maybe they were doing it too well and coming off annoying, or "by the book d-bag", but he was in the right if there are no event-altering details left out by the OP. On top of that, to have an altercation with a marshal where you're flipping him off in the end leads me to believe that you're leaving something out that you did wrong. I have never once in my life met a marshal/ranger that would go out of their way to be an ass without you provoking the behavior from them.  I have met rangers who take their job far too seriously and are out of line to an extent, but never did it even come near the point of me yelling at them or causing a scene. By out of line to an extent , I mean with comments they make and odd behavior. Such as driving over to me when I accidentally land my ball on an opposite green (happened to me 2 weeks ago..  embarrassing as hell) and yelling "Hey! You can't play that off of the green!" - as I am walking to my ball with no club in hand and shouting back "Oh, really!? When the hell did that change??" while I'm laughing in disbelief.

    There are less retiree marshals in Ohio I guess because I've run into a few. And just because I said "i won't repeat what I said" doesn't mean that I yelled at him, I did however let him know that I was less than happy and as he drove away he was running his mouth which is why he was flipped off.

  6. IF in fact the marshal told them they were holding up play and IF in fact they were keeping up with the group ahead of them, then the marshal was out of line.

    When the ranger told us that we were holding up play I informed him that we were in fact being held up by the group in front of us he responded by saying that the next group was on 15 (to quote my brother in law "condescendingly").

  7. Because the group in front of you is also behind pace. Although if the OP finished 18 holes in 3 hours 30 minutes and was told they were 30 minutes behind pace, something is off here. I find it hard to believe the pace of play for the course is only 3 hours.

    I apologize, I just read my post. The course is a par 65 (I shot a 70, I played well and made a lot of putts). Our tee time was 9:37, we started at 9:33 and we finished at 1:06. If I did the math correctly that's 3 hrs and 33 min. I agree that 3 hrs seems really fast which is why I was so pissed. I would be happy to give the name of the course but I don't think that would be allowed.

  8. I played a 3 1/2 hour round (par 70) on Monday and my group of three was told by the ranger, aka huge douchebag, that my group was a half hour behind the pace for a "normal foursome". I want to kinda set the stage so that everyone can see how objective "slow play" is. U showed up at the course with my threesome (myself, my brother-in-law who has just started playing and his girlfriend who is a good golfer) fourty five minutes before our tee time so that we could all three split a small bag of balls and putt a little before our round. Fifteen minutes before our tee time and the "douchebag" wanders up to tell us that if we don't start than he will give our time to the next group, to which I responded no problem we can wait. Ten minutes later we started our round (five minutes early) and started to play at what I thought was a decent pace. At the third hole I happened to look up at the gps and I noticed that there was a clock that showed time elapsed and whether or not you were behind the pace. The clock said that we were 8 min behind pace so I told them that we should pick up the pace (I just assumed that I had lost track of how long we were taking). On the 9th hole, which was a par five, I waited for 7 min while the group in front of me played "army golf" before finally deciding to hit a hybrid just to keep pace. On the 10th hole "douchebag" rides up to tell us that "we were behind and that we were holding up play". He then followed us up to the 11th tee and watched us play the entire hole, including putting out. The 11th is a par three and we played it in four minutes. DOUCHBAG. I won't repeat what I told him after that hole but it ended with him driving off while I flipped him off.
  9. The USGA and R&A; have never intended to prohibit the gradual evolution of equipment in the game.  The first clubs were crafted by the players themselves.  So you're suggesting that you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you can make your own clubs? Cavity back irons, 460cc drivers, and hybrids all have one thing in common:  they still require the player to do exactly what he has been doing since golf was created.  So long as the skills required to play the game are retained in the golfer and not the equipment, I see nothing wrong with gradual evolution.  It's when you completely eliminate an area (like the mental game) that you're making a mistake.  You'll also notice that since the advent of cavity backs, metal woods/hybrids that the combined scoring averages for golfers hasn't changed.  Seems to me this is evidence that the equipment isn't evolving too fast.  And before you make an argument about the length of drives these days, I think the USGA's own data shows that's more about swing speed than driver size or ball dynamics.

    1) I never said anything about not being allowed to play, I was making the point that by the this rational (if you can't hit a standard length putter then you need to practice more) if you can't hit a blade then you should also practice more. 2) Hitting a 460cc driver is not the same swing required to hit a wooden driver. 3) Hitting a hybrid sure as hell isn't the same as trying to hit a 3 iron. 4) Your not really trying to argue that an anchored putter eliminates the mental aspect of the game are you? Do you really think that the guys on tour are mentally weaker if they use an anchored putter? If so than I challenge you to read some of the putts that they have to read, hit some of the greens that they have to hit and get up and down from some of the places that they have to. 5) Please note that I never said anything about long drives, I did however say "keeping a Persimon in the fairway" is more difficult. I think that driving distance is more about the evolution of the golf swing than equipment.

  10. Whether or not players are comfortable with something or whether they like something is really no basis for allowing something to continue.  I'm sure quite a few players would be more comfortable with a golf ball that is guaranteed to go straight for 300 yards even on a mishit.  I know I'd play a lot better if I could wear some kind of wrist brace to make sure my left wrist is flat at impact.  The point is, golf is about overcoming the obstacles and challenges of the game.  It's not about changing things so everyone is comfortable with their game.  If you have a problem with the yips because you're not as able to overcome your nerves as your opponent is, you SHOULDN'T be comfortable with your game.  You need to master that area of the game just as your opponent did.  There are no shortcuts to good golf, and there shouldn't be.  That's what makes it a worthwhile experience. You say they're making people change their game but, in fact, those people who use an anchored stroke have changed something that many feel is fundamental to the game: the definition of a stroke. As for the "make everything" comment, I seriously doubt you meant to put that in quotes because I haven't heard those words from anyone who knows what they're talking about.  The ONLY thing I've heard was that some people have the opinion that anchored putting eliminates the "yips", and for golfers who have a problem with the "yips" (and ONLY for those golfers) anchored putting provides an advantage over traditional putting styles.  Golfers who don't suffer from that problem probably wouldn't benefit from the anchored style.  That's why it's rare that you see anyone go to the anchored style unless they already have a problem with their putting.  You don't fix what's already working.  If you want to improve, you practice more often. Golf has challenges that are necessary for it to be Golf.  One of these is the challenge of overcoming the mental obstacles.  Those who think that the mental obstacles aren't necessary probably have no appreciation for the 17th at Sawgrass.  Golf needs holes like that to challenge not only the swing, but the mind.  And golf needs the "yips".  Removing them from the game (or eliminating them with an anchored stroke) to me is no different than building a golf course with no hazards or rough, and making all the greens perfectly flat with pins dead-center on each one.  If you need the game to be easier, take some lessons and hit the range.  Golf wasn't created by soccer moms who want to make sure everyone gets to play and everyone gets a trophy at the end of the day.  There are winners and there are losers in golf.  And if you work hard enough at your game, the reward is you might get to be a winner.  There's no reward in taking shortcuts.  If that's what folks want, they can save a lot of time and money.  Sell the clubs.  Use some of the money to buy a bunch of golf trophies and put them on their mantle.

    Thanks for proving my point for me. If you can't hit a blade then you simply need to practice more... If you can't keep a persimon in the fairway then you need to practice more... You do realize that this is the point you just made? right?

  11. I don't understand that one. He's able to swing a driver and any other club in the bag at 70-100+ mph, but can't make a small putting motion? Sounds like bullshit.

    As someone with a bad back I will agree with Clark. While I have no problem hitting a bucket of balls at the when I go to the putting green my back is killing me within ten min of my first putt... its a completely different posture from a full swing. In an attempt to fix the problem I've straightened my back and keep my arms straighter in my putting stance. While this helps with my back pain it certainly doesn't fix it. All that being said I don't use an anchored putter and never will but I think that its a stupid argument to say that it helps you make putts, i've made the argument before that if we are are going to outlaw something that "helps you make putts" than should we not also outlaw drivers that help you hit fairways? Or cavity back irons that help that ball get up in the air and give a tighter shot dispersion? Or mallet putters that give you more solid contact anywhere on the face? And don't get me started on the advancements in ball technology... The list can go on and on. Its a stupid rule change and it shouldn't have even been addressed.

  12. I've never been a huge fan of hitting on the range.  I learned to play on the course.  I have always been a very fast player, possibly a little too fast.  I would routinely walk 2:15 18 hole rounds when I first started, shooting anywhere between 90 and 110 per round.  Now I play to about just under 3 hours solo.  shooting 80-low 90s.  I range maybe 2 or 3 times a year if that.  I am much more a fan of getting into situations on the course and using those as practice.  Continually hitting ball after ball into an open field never seemed to do anything for me.  I get much more frustrated with players that are slow because they are bad, than players that are good but slow.  Watching someone hit grass burner after grass burner at a slow crawl is the worse.  I have no problem with a 1 minute pre shot routine that results in a 270 yard fairway splitter.

    Have you ever seen those bright colored flags out in that "open field"? those are targets...(my driving range actually put Obama and Romney's faces out there this last election) maybe aiming at those helps you pinpoint your yardages? I think that there was a thread about this called "are you practicing correctly?" Most times its easier and cheaper for me to go to the range and when I get done hitting ball after ball I simply play my favorite course by hitting the shots necessary for each hole. I remember reading somewhere that Hogan liked doing this on the range as well and I think he did rather well for himself. I also remember reading an interview of I think it was Tiger who said that one of most important aspects of your game is knowing the exact of each of your irons.

  13. Today I headed to the course late afternoon, usually dead after 3. I pull into the lot and see 2 guys and a woman changing shoes as I unload my bag and change shoes. I didn't want to get stuck behind a group, was there to get in and out quick so I kept an eye on them. Next thing I see is all three of them reach into the bed of a truck and remove 3 sealed boxes of starter sets, they unpacked it right there in the lot. I have no idea if they are brand new to the game but I practically ran to the clubhouse to get out in front of them. But that's exactly what they did, head for the range.

    This literally made me spit coffee out of my mouth...

  14. Right, but 4 hours by yourself is telling me that you take your time. By yourself early morning shouldn't take you more than 3, 3 1/2 at the most. I don't know if you've ever seen the commercial about not having room in your bag for meetings, deadlines or conference calls... that is kinda how I see a round of golf( an opportunity to forget about work and the hustle and bussle of life). I tend to walk most courses and that takes a little bit of time and it also gives me the time to enjoy the course (and cool down between bad swings so that one bad swing doesn't turn into two bad swings). That doesn't mean that I try to take along time it just means that I don't jog to my next shot.
  15. You "still" finish in under 5 hours? That's too long bro.

    Hence the disclaimer "depending on who I'm playing with". If I'm playing with a client or my boss, 4 1/2 to 5 hrs...on a early morning with friends or alone, 4 hrs.

  16. My grandpa used to say that bad players or walkers don't cause slow play, slow players cause slow play. [quote name="johnclayton1982" url="/t/67013/is-slow-play-ever-justifiable/30#post_844589"]Slow play can't be criticize without an objective standard.  Nobody thinks they are slow (or at least the vast, vast minority of slow players *actually think of themselves* as slow players).  The guy who you think is the slowest player at your club playing five hour rounds is reading this right now, nodding, remembering the time he got stuck behind a six hour guy and thinking "man, I hate slow players too." Thats the problem with these threads.  Without the course telling you what "slow play" is, everyone just posts up that they hate slow play while nobody thinks "I'm a slow player".  Its not objective - its subjective.  Thats why the duty is on the course to either post what is considered a fast round or shut it.  There is a 9-hole by my in-laws i play during thinksgiving. It has a sign posted telling people they shouldn't take more than 1 hour to play the nine (its very easy, 5 par 3s).  If they didn't have a sign, and i took an hour and a half, am i playing slow?  Who knows! Either the course has posted a time-for-round limit or it hasn't.  If it hasn't, tell them they should.  If you play on a course without rules regarding pace of play, don't complain.  All you're doing is projecting your opinion of "slow" on everyone else, none of whom there is ever any hope of getting to agree with you that they are in fact slow.  IN other words, if they pay the $60 they get to play the round they want unless the club has posted otherwise - there is no universal "slow round" absent a clear rule. [/quote] As far as admitting being a slow player, I am a slow player and I've been called a slow player but i still finish a round (18 holes) in under five hours (depending on who I'm playing with).
  17. No. Somebody that bad needs to hit the shot, pick the ball up and put it in their pocket, carry it up to where a good shot would have gone, and try it again. Then repeat above...And spend a lot more time at a practice range. When my wife first started playing she wasn't much better than what you described and that's what we always had her do, and nobody waited on us.

    I couldn't agree more, this is how my brother in law and I play. I hit a drive, he hits a drive and I his is awful then we ride up to my ball where he takes a drop and so on and so forth...

  18. I don't doubt that one bit.  I actually kinda like the odds of golf club vs. knife, unless the guy wielding the knife is really skilled with it.  When you think about it, a golf club is kind of a blunt weapon combined with a bladed weapon.  Could undoubtedly do some serious damage.

    I like my chances against anyone but Chuck Norris...

  19. On top of this, McIlroy is gonna lose the points he won for his 2011 US Open win soon. While because Tiger gained pretty much no points in 2011, nothing's stopping him from stretching his lead further.

    You say that as if Rory will never win another tournament. Were we not just having this conversation about TW "being back". Have we not learned our lesson about this? Good golfers win tourneys and who is to say that he won't win a few times before the US Open.

  20. Just to clarify the terminology: Every Christian is a "born again" Christian. The "born again" refers to the spiritual rebirth associated with becoming a Christian. (The exception is Catholicism, in which you're born again as a result of baptism - but the point is, the "born again" label has nothing to do with how likely they are to give you the "Accept Christ or burn in hell" speech.) The people who are in your face about going to hell would be an example of extremism, and I share your disdain for that. But that's not what Ernst did.

    I think that is what I was saying it just wasn't understood. Thanks

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...