• Announcements

    • iacas

      Introducing TST "Clubs!"   08/28/2017

      No, we're not getting into the equipment business, but we do have "clubs" here on TST now. Groups. Check them out here:

Pretzel

Forum Leader
  • Content count

    2,681
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Pretzel last won the day on May 15

Pretzel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

406 One of the All-Time Greats

2 Followers

About Pretzel

  • Rank
    Number Cruncher
  • Birthday 04/03/1998

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Colorado

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    +1.1
  • Handedness
    Righty
  • GAME Golf Username

Recent Profile Visitors

4,091 profile views
  1. No "full" shots inside ~150 yards

    I started doing this when my wedges and short irons started to have excessive backspin. If I make full swings with wedges I can end up sucking the ball back off the green, while my partial swings usually drop and stop right about where they land. The impetus for the change, for me, was when I spun 5 shots in a round off the front of the green because I was going all out on my wedges. Now I like to make what feels like a 3/4 swing to me (I know it's honestly closer to full, but it's a feeling) and send my wedges in a bit lower to avoid that. It also is easier to control, so win-win in my book. If I wanted to I could be hitting my 60* 120 yards, my 56* 135, and my 52* 145 (at altitude anyways), but I don't need to and it hurts more than it helps. Taking 20 yards off each of those clubs makes then easier to hit in tight and keeps my spinrate from going crazy.
  2. @Jack Watson, I think you know as well as I that the USA Today article is garbage in terms of saying pros want to play full tournaments with hickory. In fact, one of the first quotes in the video was, "Wouldn't want to play them from the tees we play nowadays". The the most praise they got was that the person "enjoyed the hit" or that it felt soft, but the soft wasn't necessarily good considering one of the pros likened it to "a bar of soap". In other words, the old equipment is garbage (crap) by comparison. It's the same as if you compared a Ford Pinto to a modern Ford Focus: the Pinto is crap by comparison (though there are a few who have a nostalgic infatuation with the older one). My point is that what you think, "They should have enough pride to actually want to do this," has absolutely no bearing on reality. The pros have nothing to gain from playing this event, besides maybe to blow off some steam as a joke. It certainly wouldn't count towards the FedEx cup and they'd have to devote extra time to practice with equipment that, quite frankly, no longer is relevant or matters anywhere outside of a history museum. I'd be willing to bet $100 that a survey of all pros on tour would show more against such an event than in favor of it. I understand that you very much want to see the event happen, but you should also be able to understand the reasons why such an event would never happen and why a majority of the golfers would be against it.
  3. If it's not crap, by comparison, why are more players not using it today? They already do that. It happens every week during tournaments, with bigger tournaments 4 times a year to add in more pressure. Using different equipment just for the sake of using old equipment is for nostalgic purposes only. So you're saying it takes no skill and is boring to hit the ball very far? Tell me, what's your average driving distance and how often do you hit the fairway with these balls that are hard to even curve?
  4. You're not really thinking logically about this. It makes zero sense for the top players of today to pick up and practice with vintage gear. It would be like if an R&D engineer decided that for 3 weeks out of the year he was going to only design and prototype using steam power. It's not only unproductive, but is in fact counterproductive. You have to remember, golf is still a job for these folks, even though to us it's a game. You're also forgetting that many professional golfers are pretty darn superstitious, or otherwise worried about "messing up their game". It's the reason that pros like Bubba Watson played the same irons for 4-5 generations (he liked the s59's) and refuse to switch for so long. Other pros, like Dufner (played the '09 ProV1 until 2015 I believe) are the same way about a golf ball. Do you really think you can convince all of those guys to just give up the equipment they're so accustomed to and play with what is, unquestioningly, crap when compared to what they're used to? I highly doubt you'll convince them to make a change like that, only to switch back to their equipment again later just because so many pros are very particular about their equipment and don't like to swap. It would not be a pride thing because the pride comes from winning "real" tournaments played with modern equipment. Not sure what your age is, but speaking as someone who is of a similar age to many of the guys on tour the old clubs and balls are not much more than a novelty to hit on the range or for a couple of holes once or twice. It holds no nostalgic sway for most golfers under the age of 30.
  5. Think of it this way: Have 90% of the young guys on tour nowadays played full rounds with vintage gear? The answer is, most likely, no. These guys don't want to have to swap all their equipment out and practice with a second set of clubs and a different golf ball for 3 tournaments a year. Those 3 tournaments would be crapfests, played in only by guys desperate to make enough money to keep their tour card, because nobody else would find it worth it to waste their time on something that can't be applied to a majority of golf tournaments.
  6. I'd be inclined to believe that all three players are jealous of the technological advancements that are allowing modern players to smash their records. They've got a bit of a conflict of interest in terms of what rules modern pros should abide by. "If I didn't get these longer golf balls when I played, why should you?"
  7. The points distribution makes sense, it'll make sure that those East of the Mississippi can still dream of a final day comeback the night before. The challenge balls will be an interesting exercise in strategy, thinking about where people are least likely to make par.
  8. Newport Cup

    There's no such thing, slacks and denim all the way!
  9. Newport Cup

    Tuesday was nice, I was able to drive with my top down again after the cold passed.
  10. Low Handicappers in NET Tournaments

    In fact, that difference in consistency between the players is the very basis of my argument. High handicappers have more variety in their scores, both high AND low compared to their average, meaning a net competition is more likely to be won by someone with a high handicap.
  11. Low Handicappers in NET Tournaments

    Sorry about that, my mistake. I agree that in a match play scenario the low handicapper is more likely to win.
  12. Low Handicappers in NET Tournaments

    The math says this statement is wrong, and it's not really something to be debated because numbers don't lie. You will win more often in net competitions than you will lose, when compared to a low handicap golfer.
  13. Funny/Bizarre Internet Stuff

    That video is priceless
  14. My comparison is more about how the game is played differently, not how the competition gets larger and faster. Athletes like Vince Young, for example, are a prime example of someone who had an exemplary college career and then couldn't adapt to the completely different game of the NFL. In college football a quarterback is expected to be able to move and run when needed, whereas in the NFL they're far more often expected to be able to sit in the pocket and keep watching for an open pass. This leads to some otherwise great athletes being unable to "step up" into the role of an NFL quarterback compared to their college successes. Matt Leinart, David Carr, JaMarcus Russell, and Tim Teebow are all good examples of great athletes who just couldn't adapt because the game in the NFL is fundamentally different from college football. This is a well said, and conveys what I was trying to get across. Think of it this way: You oftentimes will see college golfers compete, and finish well, in PGA Tour tournaments. Despite her lack of success on the men's tour, Michelle Wie was still able to make the cut and place in a PGA Tour tournament. In how many other sports can either of those things happen? This is why I think the rules and the equipment should stay the same at all levels of competition for golf.
  15. I think this is part of what makes golf unique and why I enjoy playing it more than the other sports. It has a single unified set of rules, and EVERYBODY - from the best in the world to the worst - is on a level playing field if they follow the rules that apply to them (because the rules apply to everyone). When you watch golf, you can watch the U.S. Amateur, the U.S. Open, or go to the course and watch the club championship, and you know that all of them are playing the same game. College football is a quite different game from professional football, in the same way that high school football is equally different from college football. While that can be nice in that it provides variety, it means you have to learn more and more rules to keep up with the action and understand what is happening. You also have the game played very differently at the different levels as a result, where you often go for it on 4th down in college but almost never see it in the NFL. In high school you rarely see passes that are more than a simple screen or buttonhook route, and the running game dominates (even though the stereotype is of the quarterback being the star in high school, they rarely do much). I like golf because you can make direct comparisons across all levels of competition. It lets you accurately compare yourself to any other golfer out there, because neither of them will have any advantage granted to them by the rules that the other doesn't also posses. I know that if I shoot 75 on the same course Jordan Spieth or Dustin Johnson shot 63 at, I was 12 strokes worse without needing to factor in the opponent they played or the rules they played under. When you watch college golf you don't have to wonder, "Will they be able to adjust to the PGA Tour? What about the rule where they need to have both feet outside the hazard inside of just one?" You can make a fair comparison if you just watch them play on a course that the pros played. This is something I really like about the game.