jasongst

This is just a little tip for those of you who are uncertain about your grip. After struggling to feel confident in my grip I discovered a little tactile clue that really gets me locked in. It's all in the tip of the right ring finger. I've started doing this when I grip the club, and the results are fantastic: Take a proper grip with the left hand (I won't detail it here but be sure the thumb is on top of the shaft, not to the side). Wrap over your right hand (again look elsewhere if you want all the details). Feel the tip of your right ring finger gently touch the side of your left thumb. Step 3 is the key that I was missing. I have found that when I get this correct and then check my Vs (point the club skyward and have a look) that I am consistently where I want to be. This feeling alone is enough to give me enormous confidence in my grip before I hit the ball, and it is translating into much more consistent strikes. There's a possible step 4 as well: Feel the right ring finger gently touch the pad of your right hand. What I end up with most of the time is a tactile triangle: Left thumb, right hand pad, right ring finger. Lately I've been able to take dead aim at my target, and I don't even need a practice swing most of the time. This has resulted in a personal best round of 76 and I fully expect it won't stop there (I was one under par through 12 holes when I started getting nervous, hah!). The grip is not the source of all this improvement of course, but it is a big contributor. By being confident in the grip I am freed to focus on other inconsistencies. Naturally, it may not work if you have overly large or small club grips, but I'm a pretty typical hand/grip size so I bet it will work for a lot of you.

What's fairly low? For you, when teed up for a 3-wood the ball should probably look like it's sitting on the grass. In other words, as low as possible while still using a tee. There are only a few ways to hit the ball high. Hitting slightly above the sweet spot will hit it a little higher, but not a lot (unless you are hitting it on the upswing, which requires a high tee). Hitting it slightly off the crown is a much more common culprit I would think, and to remedy crown hits you push down that tee. The other possibility is that you are not lagging the club head enough, and that your hands are even with or behind the ball at impact. This would just be something you'd have to work on.

Clones are not the way to go. The companies who make them don't need a good reputation for quality; they just piggyback off the reputation of the brands they copy. I'm sure clones do an adequate job of letting you play golf, but you're much better off paying the same low price for used clubs, or for build-to-order clubs that don't have expensive tour sponsorships. If you don't care about golf clubs, then fine, go with clones. But if you care enough to clone an expensive brand, why are you buying clones in the first place? There are plenty of non-clone clubs to be found for the same price. If you're wondering if they perform as well as the brands they are cloning I would say certainly not. I would guess no-name brands would perform much better than the clone brands. No-name brands at least try to focus on function. Clone brands only need to get the look right.

These tees definitely break. They are extremely durable compared to wood, but they break all the time. The typical cause is when they are buried too deep, or when you are playing in cold weather (or both). We have hard soil where I play, so that probably plays a big role too. Personally, I hate the three prongs on the top and wish they worked more like a normal tee. I have always wanted a normal-looking tee that was made from plastic instead of wood. I find them on the course occasionally, but I have no idea where to buy them. I suspect they might be a kids' golf accessory.

Like the other guy said, it depends on your swing and the grass. Unfortunately, the only real way to tell what bounce you need is trial and error. And if you like to tweak your technique then your ideal bounce will continue to change and you'll want a replacement wedge. So the answer is to buy cheap wedges I guess ;) Always remember that you can effectively add bounce by opening the club face a little bit.

It's about how it feels, and it's all just personal preference. Mostly off the putter face, but also off the other clubs. Personally I find very few tangible differences when playing with an expensive ball and playing with a cheap ball. The most noticeable difference to me is the feel off the putter. And it's debatable which feels better. A soft putter face can have a similar effect to hitting a softer golf ball. The real reason to hit a Pro V1 is for high spin. This will help keep the ball from rolling off the back of the green on approach shots, but you typically get more distance from the budget "distance" balls like the Top Flites. Frankly on the courses I play (and most people play) you usually don't need a high-spin ball. Golf ball companies will tell you a completely different story. They'll talk about launch angles, carry, and roll, but I think they are full of it. They sell golf balls; it's their job to think of new and exciting things their ball will do for you, regardless of how true it is. Most claims, even if true, are greatly exaggerated. That said, I play high-spin 3-piece balls. But I buy them used for $4 a dozen. That's what I would recommend for everyone.

Huh?? Why can't you wait 2 weeks until you have $320 to $400? Also, you'll pay way more if you buy single irons as opposed to a set.

If I approached this statistically, I'd have to say my short game shots account for the most total amount of shots lost. However, hitting my approach shot (middle and long irons) into water hazards definitely accounts for most of my blowup high score holes. This, in my opinion, is far more mentally damaging than the slow drain of occasional lost shots off pushed and pulled putts. The driver is not far behind. I've had plenty of blowup holes begin with tee shots into water or O.B.

Sounds pretty weird to me. Although it may turn out to be the best grip ever, more likely it is putting a damper on your game. You could try to go with it and hope things work out for the best, but you'll be in no-man's land. It also might be causing you to change your entire swing to compensate for it. Crazy grips are not unheard of (there's some good players that even play cross-handed), but if you ask anyone for advice they are going to tell you to learn a more conventional grip. That means using the ring and middle fingers of the right hand to help control the club. I copy the grip as described by Hogan in his "Five Lessons" book. He does a great job of detailing the Vardon grip.

About 365 yards with some lovely cart path intervention.

And this is exactly as it should be, I say. I love the idea of rangers speeding groups along and busting jokers who drive their carts up next to the green, but I also loathe the thought of having cranky guys driving around abusing their power. Monitoring groups at the turn and politely asking groups to either speed up or to let people play through, that's what rangers are for. But what I don't want is a ranger who is going to chastise my twosome for playing two golf balls when we are more than keeping up with the foursome in front of us. Also, as a member of a club that's only five minutes from my house, I need some flexibility from the staff. I play solo much of the time, and I will not hesitate to skip multiple holes in order to get around slow foursomes. I certainly don't want some grumpy ranger criticizing me for that either. I guess I'm just wary of the power-hungry ranger who is looking intensely for something to correct you on, even if you are being extremely reasonable. If given a choice between no ranger and an abusive ranger, give me no ranger every time.

While I probably would have followed your advice, it still begs the question, if they didn't want this kind of play, why did they build the green as they did? Why did they choose that pin position? And more importantly, why did they build the course? Was it for tournaments, or was it for normal people to play golf? If the course is for normal people, then an hourglass green is an open invitation to play the ball as you deem necessary, tournament or not. I wouldn't have hit that shot because I'm non-confrontational. But it's the management's fault, and the guy was wrong to chew the OP out.

In addition to what people are saying here, I like to limit my release. This means I need to take an extra strong grip, and the follow through is very stiff and muted. The face is a bit closed at address. The benefit, it seems, is that it's easy to keep the hands in front of the club. I also find that I can hit this shot pretty hard, and it's easy to keep it straight. It's great for hitting a controlled shot into the wind.

Stan doesn't dip his right side during the backswing or the transition, which is the problem I'm describing (poorly, perhaps). He merely pulls his knee around during the downswing. Go to YouTube and search for Stan Utley (apparently this forum blocks YouTube links). The first search result is a video of his pitch.

When you say you don't bend your elbows at all, do you mean at address? Are you flattening your wrists (reaching out with the club head) at address? If so, are you hitting the ball high? If you are flattening your wrists to reach for the ball at address, I would expect that your hands would end up even with the ball at impact instead of in front of the ball (it's hard to tell from the video). That would probably hit the ball higher, which is not always bad, but it also might slow down your club head speed through impact. I don't know for certain that it would result in shorter drives, but I do know that flattening the wrists at address is not typically recommended.

What is your right knee doing during the swing? It should be relatively firm. Slightly bent, and firm. I find that if I allow it to buckle even slightly during the swing that I end up with problems similar to yours. (Your problem could be something else entirely, but this is something to watch out for.)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Many professional instructors look at scoring data and determine that amateurs would benefit most from work on their short game. But I believe these statements to be slightly out of touch with what most new golfers are experiencing. New golfers need techniques that are rewarding both for the score card and for the psyche. You may be the best pitch & putt guy on the course, but if you are hitting tee shots and approach shots into water hazards, then you are probably not enjoying yourself. I know when I was a new golfer I would have vastly preferred scoring double bogey on every single hole to scoring a mixture of singles and doubles mixed in with the occasional PLUS SIX. Not only is a good, repeating swing more rewarding for a new golfer, I also think it requires more attention regardless. In my experience, becoming a decent ball striker requires far more practice than becoming a decent pitch & putt guy. They both require practice, but learning the full golf swing is far more difficult. I feel that if you work primarily on the golf swing, then the short game will gradually improve along with it, if only because you'll be spending so much time around the golf course that you won't be able to help but gain experience with it.

I remember breaking 100 vividly because it was only a few years ago. If you are hooking the ball then my guess, being that you are a new golfer, is that you are using a strong grip. Are you? In that case you might consider switching to a more neutral grip. But in doing so, you might have to re-learn a lot of things in your swing. My advice is to pick a model swing for yourself and go with it. I picked up the Hogan "5 Lessons" book and never looked back. I don't swing exactly as the book describes, but any time I am uncertain about how I want to do something (back swing, grip, etc.) I try to copy what's in that book. If nothing else it keeps you organized and prevents you from going all over the map with your swing techniques. My short game tip, aside from recommending typical practice sessions, is to consider picking up a wedge during a round when you're stuck behind a slow group. If nothing else you'll be able to practice sweeping the grass. If the wait time is especially long you'll be able to actually hit some golf balls at a short target (try landing it on the tee box). Good luck!

That may be the case, but then again if there's no way to get the $10 million besides playing in the tournament, you bet your butt people will be showing. One problem now is this whole drawn-out multi-tournament playoff format. That's a huge commitment for a pro golfer. But one tournament for $10 million? They'd be stupid to miss it! And if you had a tiny field of about 6 players, the purse wouldn't be spread nearly as thin.

OK, maybe that part won't go over so well But they need some reward for being the points leader... maybe pick their starting time and playing partner? (Hah!) The main thing I would like to see is a more limited field (fewer than 10 people). Having 30 people in a final event is too mundane for me.

The FedEx Cup playoffs seem too drawn-out for my tastes. Regardless of how the points system works (do we even need the playoffs?), I think it would be far more interesting TV if there was a much more limited field in the final event. Viewers would actually be able to follow all the players on every hole, and I think there would be a lot more drama. It might look something like this: Make it a short duration event with a limited field, either one or two days, and with maybe the top six FedEx point scorers. 54 holes in total. Two men eliminated after the first 18, two more after 36. Then the final two play 18 holes for the win. Players higher on the points list get a stroke advantage. 2nd and 3rd place get one stroke. 1st place gets two. The final 18 could be either be a continuation of stroke play, or possibly match play. Assuming a two-day event, the first day could be 36 holes with the cuts after each 18, and the second day could be the final 18. If it's a one-day event, just take 4 entrants and play 36 in one day. Thoughts?

Probably Callaway's cheapest clubs though.

On the the contrary, while this site offers good, verbose reviews, they are very much subjective; almost entirely about look and feel. The only objective information is the specs they grab from the manufacturer. (This observation is based on the AP1 review.) And I agree with you about the magazines.

While it is true that our swings will vary, it is also true that we will still have tendencies, and it would be wonderful to be able to narrow our club choices based on objective data that matches our tendencies. Think of a typical club demo session. You hit some clubs, observe the launch monitor, and try to draw conclusions based on limited data and gut feeling. How many clubs did you try? Likely not many. How many shafts? How can you be sure you are swinging like you normally do? How many shots are you even hitting flush? You are spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars on clubs based on a gut feeling; one that may change tomorrow, or one that may be plain wrong. Even if you read a bunch of reviews you are merely making judments based on someone else's experience, someone who probably doesn't swing like you. Science doesn't tell us everything we need to know, but it fills a big void left by our perceptions and our wild guesses. Not only would good scientific data give us a good head start when trying to determine which clubs to look at, it may also give us better insight into how best to utilize the equipment we have. And besides, it's possible that there are some clubs that just perform better in almost every swing. That would be nice to know for once.

I use MAC Burrows wedges because they play nicely and Golfsmith sells them for $20 a pop