Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Pretzel last won the day on April 9 2019

Pretzel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

608 One of the All-Time Greats


About Pretzel

  • Rank
    Needs to golf more
  • Birthday 04/03/1998

Personal Information

  • Your Location

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness
  • GAME Golf Username

Recent Profile Visitors

8,261 profile views
  1. The temporary fix is to move the ball further back in your stance. A more permanent fix could be to work hard on weight transfer during the swing, but that may not even be your issue. It's impossible to know why you hit it fat unless you show us video of your swing. That said, there is something you can do to help understand when you're hitting the ball fat off a mat. Go to a hardware store and buy a chalk line. Use this to snap a line of chalk on the mat, and place your golf balls so that they sit just a fraction of an inch in front of the chalk line. Hit the ball. If you see the chalk line disappear, you know your club hit the ground too early because only your club can scrape the chalk off (the ball is in front of it, remember?). Seeing it distort a little bit is expected just from the air your club is pushing around, but the chalk completely scraping off (and chalk on your club) is a dead giveaway of a fat hit on a mat.
  2. Do you have any photos of the irons to share? It's impossible to say much without seeing what the clubs themselves look like.
  3. Exactly what I meant. Most golfers play a majority of their rounds at a single course, which means their handicaps are built primarily off of scores from that one course. Those who are members at a course (for a men's club or a course membership) are especially likely to play that course more often than any others. It's almost certainly either confusion about average scores vs handicaps or it's a group of golfers who think they're better than they are. I've fallen into that trap before, it's easy to remember the good rounds and think that's the kind of golf you play on average. It's particularly easy to remember good rounds at other courses, because they stand out from just another round at the course you play most. This could lead golfers to thinking they're better at playing other courses compared to playing their home course.
  4. This is likely just because most people don't truly understand how the handicap system works. Your average score will be higher than the course rating plus your handicap index, because it's calculated from your best 10 scores. Outliers are exponentially more likely to be high scores rather than exceptionally low scores, which drags your average score higher than your index. Your index will be lower than even your median score, because it's actually slightly lower than the mean of your best 10 while the median would be your 10th best. Besides that, if you all play your home course regularly your handicap will be generated primarily from scores at that home course anyways. If the scores truly were consistently higher than handicaps would suggest, then your handicaps would simply rise to match the scores posted. The only time you'd ever potentially see a difference is if your handicap was created using scores from other courses, because if you primarily play a single course your handicap will stabilize towards the scores you achieve at that course. That said, as mentioned by others the ratings are strongly influenced by distance (too strongly, in my opinion). My handicap, when I last carried one, was lower than you might have guessed based on my scores simply because it was created in large part by playing courses that were in the 7,300-7,400 yard range. I didn't actually shoot under par often at all, but when shooting even par gives you a differential of between +2 and +3.5 you don't have to shoot under par to get a low handicap. I just had some personal thing where if I played shorter courses my scores would still be between one under and five over, so it's not like I was shooting 63's at easy courses ever.
  5. I'd definitely rather play, but I would hope I could at least warm up with a bucket of balls before the round and a couple chips or putts to check green speed. Not that I always do those things on my own depending on time, but it would stink to have to get a cold start to every round I play.
  6. I'd take option 1, ten out of ten times. The distance I hit the ball is much more consistent than my aim from left to right, and the same is true for at least most of the better golfers (and I'd wager most "normal" amateurs as well). For my 7-iron the vast majority of my shots will fly between 196-203 yards, with only outliers going further or shorter (mostly knockdown shots or punch shots going shorter, only severe wind conditions going further). The same trend applies to my other irons, where there's a clear "average" distance and then you can see most others being shorter (knockdowns and punch shots) with only a couple going further. The only place where it's not clear from my GameGolf data is in the wedges, simply because I don't make full swings with my wedges often enough to create a strong average distance (I almost always do knockdown shots with my wedges). That said, the margin for error of being only 2.5 yards left or right is very tiny. It's incredibly difficult to get the face angle that precise at 200 yards away, or even 100 yards away for that matter.
  7. On anything inside 3 feet I just stand over the ball or line to get an idea of which direction it's sloping, then give the ball a confident roll towards the hole now that the flagstick can stay in the hole. If it slopes slightly right, then I aim left edge. If it slopes slightly left, then I aim right edge. If it feels flat, then I aim for the center of the pin. If the green is breaking enough to have an obvious slope to it (without any optical illusions, that is) then I don't even bother measuring the slope with my feet and I just make the same assertive stroke aimed just outside the edge. Analyzing a 2-4 foot putt for 30+ seconds won't do you any good when the margin for error is huge now that the pin can stay in the hole. Just get an idea of the direction if it seems pretty flat, and otherwise aim at or just outside the edge. Since we can keep the pin in roll it with enough speed to go 3 feet past the hole and in the worst case where you whiffed the read the completely wrong way you can watch the ball as it rolls past to get a perfect read for the comebacker (hasn't happened to me yet, with good pace and a close putt it's REALLY hard to miss at least catching a piece of the hole). Practice your putting so you can consistently hit the starting line you're aiming for, and then just nail that starting line with less concern about speed when you roll those short putts on the course. If you have trouble with your starting line, find a straight 6-10' putt on the practice green and snap down a chalk line so you can start the ball at the same place each time and easily see if you're missing the starting line. If you are then you need to practice to be more consistent with the starting line, if you're rolling it on top of the chalk into the hole every time then your starting lines are good. Just don't overthink it, it's only a 2 foot putt. Pick center cup, left edge, or right edge based on what your feet say and stuff it into the flagstick.
  8. At first I was thinking golf clubs, but then I realized clothing would be more valuable because good blue jeans are too darn expensive. If I got them for free I wouldn't have to worry too much either about which jeans are my "work jeans" and which are my "nice jeans", plus I could just toss them in the washer and dryer whenever I wanted without a care in the world. With those things in mind I'd probably be replacing my sets of jeans 2-5x in a year which would add up to $800-2,000 just in blue jeans, not counting shirts, jackets, and other clothing items. I probably go through 10-15 shirts a year that get either holes or permanent stains from the various work I do while wearing them, plus 1-2 hoodies and my jackets never seem to last more than 1-2 years before the zippers are toast. For golf clubs realistically I'd get a new set of irons and wedges each year, but the issue is that I'd ideally like to have clubs from multiple manufacturers. Titleist would be the best brand for me using all of their clubs, but I'm partial to Mizuno irons and PING woods/drivers as it stand now anyways. Even still I'd be looking at a $1,200 iron set, $500 in wedges, and $500 in drivers per year or so just because replacing multiple times per year would be a hassle. If resale is allowed, though, then clothing becomes even more valuable. I'd just never wear anything I got from the manufacturer since the expensive stuff isn't what I generally would want to wear anyways.
  9. I'd go with course. I would enjoy the chance to play with a group of players like Tiger, Koepka, and Johnson (either one), but realistically I know that the experience would probably be a bit awkward. The odds of ending up at an extremely nice course are slim (since there are so few), so you'd most likely be playing a standard municipal course that makes up the majority of golf options in the US. At least the odds are in your favor of not having to play a completely garbage course. While it would be great fun to watch them tear up the course, I picture the experience realistically being somewhat awkward. You don't know them, they don't know you, but they do know each other so you'd probably feel a little like an outsider. Even just inserting your favorite player or two in a group with 2-3 of your buddies would have the same issue of there being a bridge between the pros and the joes simply based off who already knows who. Besides that, and most importantly, the opportunity to play with some of your favorite pros exists outside of this scenario. Every PGA tournament has a pro-am and you can usually just purchase a slot into it. You don't get to pick your pro but if you go with something like the Tournament of Champions pro-am you're pretty much guaranteed to get someone popular. It's expensive, yes, but it's an experience that money can buy (at least at a price point most people could realistically save over several years for a once in a lifetime event). What money can't buy is the opportunity to play some of the most exclusive courses in the world, at least not the kind of money that most people will ever possess. For Augusta specifically you either need the talent to play in the Masters or you need to be someone incredibly rich and/or influential (or know a member, someone who is incredibly rich and/or influential and could probably get you on at many other exclusive courses anyways). Employees do get the opportunity to play at Augusta National, if I'm not mistaken, but that would be something where you literally change the course of your whole life hoping to get to play at one golf course by working to get hired there - not the best move. I know Cypress Point is supposed to be harder to play than Augusta, but it doesn't have the same gravitas IMO.
  10. For me the answer is, hands down, the every putt inside 10 feet. I would virtually never fail to get up and down, making bogies much more difficult to come by, and I would make substantially more birdies. My tee shots are already a strength of my game and I rarely lose strokes off the tee (and often gain them), so the advantage I realistically gain from that is minimal at best. Making every putt inside 10 feet would save me a minimum of 2-3 strokes every round and more likely an average of 5-6 strokes per round.
  11. You don't get to pick and choose which scientific research you want to be true or not based on if it fits your personal opinion. The research definitively shows that there are physical changes in the structure of the brain when exposed to marijuana during development. There is currently no research on the long term effects of the changes in the brain from marijuana, because the ability to research marijuana legally (or at least in a legal grey area) hasn't been around anywhere near long enough to make those kinds of conclusions. It's like vaping in that we know it causes changes in the short term but we don't know what it will do in the long run yet.
  12. Good to know. My experience as a kid (8-10) when a trio of clinics were opened up near my parents' was that I had to go to the pediatricians rather than the GP's, and then after I turned 18 I was transferred to the GP's. Must have been clinic rules rather than general practices.
  13. My primary issue with it, personally, is that it is proven to change the brain chemistry of those who use it during the period in which their brain is still developing. This is all people under the age of 25 or so, which is a group that also includes most people who use marijuana heavily and regularly. The population that uses it the most is the same group that has their physical development altered by its use. If there were no permanent physical side-effects like that I wouldn't have any reservations at all. Even with those observed results I believe in legalization, but personally I avoid its use because I fall into the category of people whose brain development would be permanently altered. I believe those who decide to blindly believe there are no consequences to marijuana use despite evidence to the contrary are making unwise decisions. It's your choice if you want to permanently alter the structure of your brain. That doesn't mean it's a smart choice to make.
  14. The ball itself would serve to indicate a line though, which is prohibited for physical objects on the green even if they are removed before the stroke is made. I was mainly just providing an argument outside of the more obvious rule 1.2 answer if the committee for some reason didn't believe that to be an egregious breech of conduct worthy of a DQ, they could still apply a lesser penalty without having had to specifically mention that action in their own code of conduct with its own penalty.
  15. I numbered your points to make them easier to discuss in my post here, with my responses to each being similarly numbered. I fully agree with this, just because something is legal doesn't mean that private organizations should be required to allow employees to do that. It's perfectly legal for someone to get blackout drunk at a company party and jump off a roof, and it should remain perfectly legal for the company to discipline or fire that employee even though their actions weren't illegal. This is also true - once the acceptable limit for the substance is set (even if that limit is 0) it must be applied consistently across the board with anyone exceeding that limit receiving the same punishment. Grey areas will inevitably lead to crowd favorites getting light punishments, if any, and lesser known players receiving unfairly harsh penalties in comparison. It may not start that way, but its undeniable that suspension of crowd favorites like Tiger Woods would hurt revenue and the PGA Commissioner has a responsibility to protect the organization (which includes their financials). My only question on this is whether or not the PGA Tour allows TUEs for medical marijuana. I wouldn't be surprised if they prohibited them simply because of the fact that they are illegal on a federal level (could be seen as the organization endorsing federally illegal activities). This seemed a bit odd to me as well, either he's still seeing his pediatrician or he was somehow seeing a general practitioner since he was five (GP's often don't even take new patients below 16ish, much less actual children that are 5) WADA guidelines do show that marijuana is considered a performance enhancing drug, but honestly I think what is/isn't performance enhancing varies so much on a sport to sport basis that it's difficult to compile a universal list for all sports without overreach. In golf a wide variety can be performance enhancing since it's a game of physique and handling mental pressure, but something like a beta blocker would actively harm those competing in track/field events and anabolic steroids would do nothing or potentially even harm people in events like shotgun sports. I think the primary argument here should just be that the calming effects of cannabinoids can be a competitive advantage. It's a good question, and I would honestly like to see more research in the area of CBD vs CBD+THC. CBD would likely be an easier argument for a TUE because it is legal on the federal level, and if it can achieve the same outcomes it would provide less of a potential for an advantage over medical marijuana (you can't be stoned during your round to relieve pressure when using CBD). Any TUE granted for medical marijuana would almost certainly require an explanation of why CBD alone would be insufficient, such as having research data or a personal trial run of CBD to back up that argument.
  • 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...