Jump to content

Pretzel

Forum Leader
  • Content Count

    3,240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Pretzel last won the day on April 9 2019

Pretzel had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

651 One of the All-Time Greats

3 Followers

About Pretzel

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

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Colorado

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    N/A
  • Handedness
    Righty
  • GAME Golf Username
    Pretzel

Recent Profile Visitors

9,236 profile views
  1. Grip size has more to do with personal preference and the size of your hands than anything else. I like the MCC Plus 4's because I already used to add extra wraps of tape under my grips anyways. I didn't necessarily notice a performance difference between normal and thicker grips (my extra tape or the Plus 4's), it was just more comfortable for me to grip and swing. I don't say that to discount your experience, because comfort and confidence can make a big difference in your game even if nothing else has changed. I just think that a lot of the marketing claims for the Plus 4 grips, such as lighter grip pressure and a more relaxed release of the club, are just that - marketing claims. I think a lot of people would like or potentially even prefer a slightly larger grip like the Plus 4 provides, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it would necessarily help people's golf games outside of the placebo affect. That said, definitely try out different grip sizes to see what you personally prefer. I know I like slightly bigger grips, but I know others who prefer standard or undersized grips. What feels best changes from person to person.
  2. It's weird having The Masters this late in the year, but man am I excited to see how it turns out. I imagine the course might be in a different condition than usual, but it's still just such a unique event. This is one tournament where I'll miss the usual crowds, since the crowds at Augusta aren't the ones shouting about mashed potatoes.
  3. You completely ignored the list of facts I presented: Name a single course that has been phased out because of distance instead of because it's too small of a venue to host the circus that is the PGA Tour. I'd be willing to wager money you can't, because they don't exist. I don't mean to come across too confrontational here, I'm just trying to point out that driving distance has nothing to do with courses being phased out and the physical length of a course has nothing to do with whether it can be used for a PGA Tour event or not. Course length is not a valid argument for rolling back the distance of the ball or equipment, because it's a non-issue. It literally doesn't matter in the slightest, short courses can be played just fine by long hitters without being "ruined" and can still be as or more challenging than long courses.
  4. Regardless of the effect that an equipment bifurcation would have on the golfing population, the more important question is getting overlooked here by @Bonvivant and others recently. Why do you feel that a specific distance for a tee shot is too long? It's a fact that golfers who hit the ball longer have an advantage over golfers who hit the ball shorter. This has always been true, the greats of the past like Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer were great in large part because they could hit the ball further than other players on the course. Arnold Palmer's entire reputation was built on hitting the ball hard! Rolling the golf ball back won't change the fact that some players hit the ball further than others. It also won't change that fact that player who hit it further will score better than players who hit it a shorter distance. There will still be long hitters and short hitters, and the long hitters will always perform better on average. Why does it matter to you if the long hitters are driving the ball 330 yards instead of 280 yards? You can play any golf course in the world, including a par 3 course, even if your tee shots go 330 yards. The length of the course is not the only thing that makes golf difficult, and short courses are still more than capable of being played by modern professionals. Merion Golf Club was criticized because it was "too short" to be a worthy U.S. Open challenge, and the winning score there was still as high as it's ever been since 2007 (+1). Erin Hills played at an average length of 7,805.75 yards and it wasn't considered a hard course, with the winner matching the U.S. Open scoring record at -16. The reason many short courses can no longer be played has nothing to do with the difficulty of the track, and everything to do with the production circus that goes along with the PGA Tour. You can't fit the entire broadcast setup and tens of thousands of spectators if the course doesn't have space on the property to locate it all. Short courses can still have space for this, but long courses naturally are built on larger tracts of land which makes it less of a challenge. Here are the facts, things that with never change and can be proved with hard data Short courses can still be plenty difficult to play for long hitters Longer hitters will always have an advantage over shorter hitters This holds true even if the driving distance for everyone is made shorter, longer hitters will still have shorter and easier approach shots The winning final score of a tournament doesn't matter and cannot be effectively compared to previous years or eras, even at the same course, because playing conditions will never be the same between years and eras The only effective comparison is deviation of the winner's score from the mean score in the tournament, which compensates for differing conditions and has decreased over the years as fields get better Given these facts, why do you care if the long hitters bomb the ball 330 or 250? It doesn't make any difference - the long hitters will still have an advantage and any short courses that have been dropped from the calendar will never come back because their land-area is too small to support PGA Tour events. I cannot find a logical reason to arbitrarily limit driving distance, because changing the driving distance doesn't change any of the "problems" that people think it will magically solve. Short courses that have been eliminated from the calendar will not return, and short-hitting players will never have an advantage over their longer driving counterparts.
  5. I know I've done something similar, last year from September to December I went from 170lbs to 200lbs because I wasn't exercising or paying attention to my food and beverage intake during my final semester of college. With junk food and soda during the week, and beer on the weekends, I figured out I was averaging somewhere between 4,000-5,000 calories per day during that period. Going back to a normal food intake was quite the adjustment afterwards, but was much easier if I simply didn't buy any snack foods since I have a bad habit of mindlessly eating while doing something else. 40 pounds in DeChambeau's timeframe isn't at all unrealistic in terms of gaining flab, but if he ate enough and worked out he could definitely gain muscle and a fair amount of body fat to go with it.
  6. One question I might have is how long do steroids remain testable in your system? Do they linger for weeks or even a month like marijuana, or are they something that exits your system in a day or two like some other drugs? If it's the latter, then it could be entirely possible to bulk up with the help of steroids for a couple months while the PGA is on a break and almost certainly not drug testing, then just focus on trying to keep the gains you made when the season begins again. I'm not entirely familiar with how the specific muscle activation training he's done works, but hard workouts 7 days a week without any days of rest is hard on a body. Certain substances can definitely help to shorten your recovery time and make such a schedule more feasible and sustainable.
  7. Obviously I'd take the former since I'd have an average score three shots lower than in the latter scenario, but I think that's not quite what you meant. Here's a more specific rendering of what I think you meant: Would you rather #29.5 - Play with only 5 clubs (including putter), between 15* and 60* of loft, and remove 5 strokes at the end of your round OR play with all of your usual 14 clubs and remove 2 strokes at the end of your round. In this scenario I would still go with the former option, at least at most courses. I'd take my putter, 60* wedge (110yd max), PW(150yd max), 7i(200yd max) and 3-wood. Realistically most of my approach shots on an average course would be in the 100-200 yard range, and this setup would give me the best gapping for those approach shots. My "105%" lob wedge goes 110, while my 3/4 pitching wedge goes 120. My "105%" pitching wedge is 150, but the 3/4 7-iron is 160. Super long par 4's could give me a bit of an issue, and I might need 3-shots to reach longer par 5's, but I don't believe I'd lose 3 shots per round or more on average compared to having a full set of clubs in my bag. 3 shots per round is a big difference to overcome, and if you have practiced your partial swings and know their distances you shouldn't be losing that many shots per round by using partial swings more often.
  8. I do hope it changes golf for the better, in terms of helping put to bed many of golf's little idioms that turned out to be lies once we had access to the relevant data. I really appreciate how Bryson has fully embraced the statistics to optimize his golf game. So many players, including a lot of tour professionals, ignore the basic facts that show you're better off hitting an approach from closer to the hole even if it means using a partial swing or hitting from the rough. Conditions at courses like Winged Foot with monstrous rough are outliers, because most of the time the rough isn't that big of a problem and even at Winged Foot it still wasn't always or even often worth the difference in approach shot distance. If you're strong enough to hit the ball 320+ off the tee, you're strong enough to also hit the ball out of the rough without an issue other than reduced backspin. Tiger Woods was the catalyst that pushed professional golfers to truly be strong and fit athletes, because he showed what kind of difference it can make. I'm hoping that DeChambeau can be the catalyst that pushes professional golfers to utilize data to optimize their strategy, rather than relying as heavily on gut feelings and tradition. The only disappointing thing is that I saw him removing flagsticks for his putts all week, but I don't know if the US Open used flagsticks with a high enough COR to make flagstick in or out a better play with regards to the statistics. All of this critical thinking is good for the game of golf though, rather than bad. People asked the same thing about Tiger, if it was bad that golfers would now need to hit the gym and bomb their drives to keep up, and I think the changes Tiger inspired has given us some great players and tournaments in the years since his debut. I believe the same will be said about Bryson if he managed to spark a trend of golfers analyzing their game to play optimally.
  9. I would strongly agree with this statement. When I was playing my best I would generally shoot par +/- 2 shots at just about any of the courses I went to. My really good rounds would be a 69 on a 72-74 rated course, and my really good rounds would still be about a 69 on a 69-71 rated course. It's because I wasn't the kind of golfer who made many birdies when I played. I might have one or two a round, but the only time I ever made birdies was when I hit a particularly good approach shot. I wouldn't ever make birdies from a chip in, and I definitely was below-average in my make percentage beyond 10 feet meaning I never got a "surprise" birdie that good/great putters might expect once or twice a round. Tour players make 30.1% of putts from 10-15 feet, 18.3% of putts from 15-20 feet, and 12.47% from 20-25 feet. My make percentage from 20 feet might have been 5% on a good day. That's not to say that putting is important compared to other parts of the game, since it's much less valuable than approach or tee shots in most cases, but it does go to show how different strengths and weaknesses can affect your handicap. Course handicap ratings are very heavily affected by distance, and I happened to be a long hitter. Long course had high ratings but didn't bother me too much because I hit the ball plenty far enough to manage and still get my one or two birdies a round when I hit a particularly good approach shot. I just couldn't capitalize on the opportunities presented to me by short courses where my approach shots are 100 yards or less, because I still didn't hit my approach shots close enough (on average) to be able to make more than my usual one or two birdies from one or two particularly good approach shots. Nowadays I'm a member at a fairly easy-rated par 68 course, but the course doesn't necessarily suit my game. It has no par 5's for me to take advantage of, and it is very narrow with thick trees making it more difficult for me to take full advantage of my length off the tee. It's a very fun course though, and one I grew up learning to golf at, so I just accept that my handicap will go up compared to if I was a member at a more difficult course. On the plus side, it does mean I'm in a good position for playing away matches with the men's club and in playing more there I've learned to sharpen my putting and partial swings that I never paid much attention to in the past.
  10. I wonder how many of them are golfers like me, where they currently have a + index primarily because it's been a while since they last played and they haven't posted enough new rounds to fix that? Prior to this summer I hadn't actually posted a round since 2017, but now that I'm free from college I've started again and the results are ugly.
  11. I've been enjoying the new PGA 2K21 game. It's been many years since a decent golf game was released that you could play on a computer.
  12. All of that, and you'll still probably fail because odds are good that the app encrypts its data before sending it to the server. Game Golf had a huge data breech in May of 2019 when someone discovered their entire database was unsecured and available for anyone to access, and shortly afterwards security in the app and web-interface was substantially increased.
  13. Personally I think dress codes are entirely unnecessary. Golf as a sport is struggling heavily, and adding restrictions to access the game will only make things worse. When I go out to play golf, I'm usually wearing jeans and either a t-shirt or a polo shirt, depending on if I came straight from work or not. I know I would golf a lot less if I had to go change my pants before I could play, and it's ridiculous to claim that a properly-fitted pair of jeans is lowbrow or unsuited to golf when dark wash jeans are as standard a piece of business attire as slacks. Contrary to popular opinion they don't restrict your movement, though they are generally better-suited to more temperate climates than hot ones. The thing is though, clothes are a meaningless barrier to entry that keeps people out because they perceive the sport as stuffy and restrictive. Let people play wearing whatever they want, because as long as they're clothed it doesn't affect you in any way at all. If you take offense to someone who wears comfortable clothes that fit them (I'm not referring to people who wear clothes that are falling off or significantly too small), then the problem lies with you rather than them. I've played golf everywhere between shirtless with swim trunks and bundled in three layers while its snowing - it really doesn't make a difference unless you're so wrapped up in yourself that you can't stand to be within a quarter mile of someone wearing normal clothing. Judge people based on their on-course etiquette, not based on their clothing. If they play at a reasonable pace and have the common courtesy expected of golfers (quiet while others are hitting, yelling fore, taking care of the course) then the clothing doesn't matter. Anyone who claims otherwise is creating a problem out of nothing, because the actions of the golfer have done nothing to affect you in any way.
  14. My advice is to trash it. I tried it, expecting the troubles to be a hassle but not too bad once you got the pairing done. Well, I never could get the pairing done. I spent about 4 hours trying, but I never could get all the tags to pair. It's just an absolutely garbage system, in every possibly way.
  15. Testing, either in sufficient or terribly inadequate numbers, combined with strong intervention policies that heavily restrict people who have known exposure to the virus. If you have enough tests you can trace cases early on and attempt to strangle the infection before it can take root on a wider scale. If you don't test much then it's impossible to report new cases because you never know they happened. Either way testing doesn't mean anything unless you are able to isolate everyone who has been exposed for 14 days without them returning to public. Expecting people to self-quarantine without any consequences for failure to do so is like expecting a toddler to stay out of the cookie jar when you don't punish them for sneaking cookies in the first place - individuals with strong morals won't have any issues complying but many others will fail to do so deliberately or by accident. It also helps that 64% of the population is rural, compared to only 23% of the US population. It means most people are social distancing whether they intend to or not, and eases the burden of testing for confirmed cases/tracking exposure to confirmed cases because there are fewer areas and fewer people in which the virus can rapidly spread.
×
×
  • 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...