Pretzel

The only time you "need" to buy a new putter is if the face or face insert becomes damaged or worn enough to cause issues when putting with a reasonably repeatable putting stroke. No matter how old a putter is, they don't wear out in the same way the face of a driver or the grooves on irons/wedges might and the only issues are usually caused by intentional/unintentional damage to the face (most often from bag chatter if you don't use a headcover) or softer inserts wearing down over time (which has been noted to happen in both PING and Odyssey insert putters, but over the course of 100,000+ putts rolled with the same putter consistently from the same spot on the clubface). Buying a new putter that properly fits your eye for easy alignment and properly matches your putting stroke in terms of toe hang can be an immediate boon however, if you current putter is a poor fit in either of those categories.

Bryson made it to the final day's competitions in the round of 16. Competition starts at 6:45PM ET this evening, and concludes sometime tonight, so it ought to be interesting to follow how he does in the head to head matchups. Kudos to Bryson for his pledge to return all of his winnings in the competition back into the prize pool for other competitors. Even winning the entire event the cash value would be relatively meaningless to him, but for the guys who only do long drive it makes a lot bigger difference.

I've taken it several times throughout high school and college for various classes, and always gotten either ENTJ or INTJ with about equal frequency. The last three have always remained the same each time I took it, just the introverted vs extroverted that would flip occasionally. I believe that likely depends on how busy I was at the time of taking the test, with the extroverted result happening when I'm less busy/stressed and introverted result happening when I'm more busy/stressed. Mostly a matter of whether I feel like I have enough free time to enjoy spending with others or if I'm busy enough that it feels like an obligation that's getting in the way of things that need doing.

Yes, Verstappen was alongside for turn 2 and he was on the inside. Per the rules, Hamilton was required to leave space on the inside for Verstappen. Any other interpretation is wildly inaccurate with regards to both the written rules and previous rulings that show you can squeeze a racer alongside off the outside of the track on corner exit, but you cannot squeeze a racer alongside off the inside of the track on corner entry.

Yeah, Max could have taken the escape road. Thing was, Hamilton was giving Max space until it was too late for Max to take the escape road. Then Hamilton suddenly closed the door. The driver on the inside of a corner has the right to run all the way to the outside of the track on corner exit if they are still ahead by corner exit. This is why passing on the outside is so risky, because the driver on the inside is not required to leave you space on the outside of the track unless you (the passing car) are ahead. The problem here is that Lewis was no longer the car on the inside. In the second corner of the chicane he was the car on the outside, which always have to leave space on the inside of the corner for a passing vehicle that is substantially alongside. You are allowed to squeeze somebody on the outside off the track at corner exit, provided they are not ahead of you. You are not allowed to squeeze somebody on the inside off the track at corner entry so long as they are significantly alongside you. This is one of those instances where the rules are ambiguous, because the exit of one corner is also the entry of a second corner. The rules say Hamilton would be allowed to squeeze Verstappen off on the outside exiting turn 1, because Verstappen was not ahead, except Hamilton is not allowed to squeeze Verstappen on the inside for the entry of turn 2 because Verstappen is significantly alongside. I would say if Hamilton had not left room from the start, he would be clearly in the right for this incident. He would have politely but firmly closed the door on Verstappen by squeezing to the outside before it became impossible to escape leading up to turn 2. The main issue here is that Hamilton left it open for Verstappen to be alongside, and only squeezed Verstappen as they were entering turn 2. This meant Verstappen committed to driving alongside on the inside line to turn 2, and had nowhere to escape when Hamilton turned in to squeeze Verstappen clearly on the entry to turn 2 rather than the exit of turn 1.

Yeah, until the end of 2023.

Lewis is 36 years old now, the 2nd oldest on the grid for next year after Kimi leaves behind only Fernando Alonso. There are certainly questions as to how much longer he intends to race beyond the end of his current contract, if he intends to race beyond that contract at all, so it's only natural to take your most promising talent and let them learn from one of the greatest of all time so they're ready to pick up the reins afterwards. I will admit that I selfishly hope to see fireworks within the team with George putting up a good fight against Lewis ala Nico Rosberg, but I know that's not the healthiest team environment and unlikely given George's past willingness to sacrifice his own results if it improves the overall team outcome.

This is what makes the biggest difference for me when I haven't been out playing as often as I'd like to. Proper course management eliminates blowup holes because I'm accounting for the increased likelihood of specific mistakes that would otherwise dramatically inflate my score.

For lift, clean, and place are people thinking that golfers are picking their ball up out of the rough, cleaning it, and then placing the ball in a perfect lie on top of the rough? That's the only thing I can think of when people talk about "teeing the ball up", because lift, clean, and place only applies to fairway (or better) lies and I don't think many people understand how tightly mown most PGA Tour tournament courses are in the fairway. Most PGA tournaments have fairways cut as tight, or tighter, than most courses cut their fringe (assuming they have a different mowing height for fringe between fairway and green height). There's virtually nothing there to tee the ball up on, it just means that players are hitting a clean golf ball from the fairway rather than a potentially muddy ball from the fairway. If anything, on the subject of Bryson DeChambeau and his bulking specifically (which this topic is about), you would expect lift, clean, and place to help minimize the advantages he gained in distance. Players who hit it shorter but prioritize fairway hits gain an advantage, if Bryson misses the fairway he can't clean his ball and loses that benefit. It's not much, but it increases the benefit of the fairway slightly and narrows the strokes gained gap between "long and in the wrong" and "shorter and in the fairway" as a result. The effects would be so small as to be virtually immeasurable, since lift, clean, and place doesn't actually provide substantial benefit other than avoiding random mudballs, but if there is any effect it would be helpful to the Bryson "issue" that this topic was made to discuss.

Crazy how much even a little stubble can change the whole shape of your face.

Here's another couple images that help show the effects going from 2,500 RPM to 5,500 RPM (again, a very large change) on a tee shot would have for an average amateur golfer with 130mph ball speed and a larger 10 degree spin axis: Just like the groove rule changes, amateur golfers would see more of a negative affect than professionals. Professionals can better control their swing to reduce spin, so they would lose less distance, and their spin axis is not tilted as dramatically. Amateurs can't control their swing to easily produce less spin, and the larger spin axis will create a larger difference in curvature for higher spinrates. Distance is also at a premium to amateurs, because they already have less of it so any reduction becomes more important. Phil's proposed solution is all of the things that he says he hates in a rule change - ineffective, and disproportionately hurts amateurs compared to professionals. By contrast, reducing driver length would affect very few amateurs who play off-the-rack 45-46" drivers compared to the pros who tweak driver shaft length to a much greater degree. That's not to say I'm in favor of reducing the maximum shaft length, since I don't believe distance is even a problem (everybody plays the same course with the same rules for equipment, who cares if scores are lower), but it is to say that reducing the maximum driver length would more appropriately target professional golfers compared to amateurs.

Regarding liquid-core golf ball physics, Phil is incorrect but I'll leave that in a spoiler because it is mostly irrelevant to the core idea he presented Shifting the weight of the golf ball to the center would potentially serve to increase the overall spinrates of the golf ball simply by decreasing the golf ball's moment of inertia, and thus making it easier to change its spinrate, but the only thing that would change is causing an increase in the spinrate of the golf ball. The spin axis of the golf ball will remain unaffected, because that is solely determined based on the geometric relationship between loft, face angle, and club path. The main issue with what Phile is trying to argue here is that spinrate has very little to do with how much a ball will curve - that's governed primarily by the spin axis. More or less spin with the same spin axis will have very little effect on the measured curvature of a golf ball, because most reasonable spin axis values (ball not dramatically hooking or slicing) are 10% or less. Going from 2500 RPM to 5500 RPM, which is MASSIVE on a tee shot, will produce the following curvatures with a 5% spin axis and PGA Tour-level ball speeds (180 MPH): The difference is so tiny you have to zoom in REALLY close to even see the grey line that shows the path of the 2500 RPM tee shot, because they both curved very nearly the same distance off line. Also notice that other little thing there? Phil won't be hitting the same bombs when the spinrate goes up, it will have the same net effect on distance as rolling back the ball (for distance) or cutting down driver length would - players of all skill levels will hit the ball shorter than they used to. The whole point of Phil's suggestion was to make it harder without making players hit it shorter, and yet his proposed solution will both not make it harder AND will make all players hit the ball shorter.

This makes sense to me, at least intuitively. If a low handicap player has a stroke and distance penalty on a hole, such as hitting OB or not finding a ball in the cabbage, then it doesn't matter if they make par, bogey, or even worse than that on their second ball. They can play aggressively for a birdie on the second ball which would mitigate the damage to only 1 stroke lost, but if they make another mistake while trying to make birdie it doesn't cost them anything because a par on the second ball is the worst that would ever be recorded on the scorecard (a net double bogey). If a high handicap player has a similar stroke and distance penalty on a hole, they're less likely to hit the net double bogey cap because they can still make a double bogey on their second ball before reaching the cap. Even a 36 handicap golfer will make pars or bogeys with greater frequency than most low handicap golfers will make a birdie. Mistakes are outside of the norm for a low handicap golfer, so there is less margin between their best possible score (played a hole perfectly) and the worst allowable score (double bogey, which could happen just from a single mistake). Mistakes are expected for higher handicap golfers, giving them more room to recover without compounding their errors and hitting the net double bogey threshold.

Pretty sure this just means you need to go get yourself a Scotty, Bettinardi, or custom-fitted Edel. Expensive putters are the only solution, right? On a serious note, I would recommend that you at least do a basic putter fitting to find what style of putterhead you can aim most correctly and consistently. I know the Edel fittings are more in-depth and include different types of alignment markings as well, but for most people the shape of the head and the type of shaft neck will make the biggest differences.

The fastest greens I've ever played in my life had a legitimate stimp rating of 12.5, and I've only encountered greens that actually stimped 12 or higher about three times in my life. I've played lots of courses and tournaments where the head pro claimed that the greens were a 12 though. It's a point of pride for many golf courses to claim their greens are faster than they really are, because it makes their course sound better or fancier in some way. Very few golf courses actually know the true stimp rating of their greens other than somebody's wild guess or an incorrectly measured value because somebody wasn't properly trained. Like @iacas said, most golfers would consider greens rolling at a 10 to be fast. My favorite course, in part because of the quality of their greens, targets a daily green speed of 10.5 (measured after each cutting with a stimp meter, and on multiple greens across the course) and are the fastest greens around by a decent margin. Anything at an 11 or above is faster than 95% of golfers have ever putted on and would be described as "like linoleum" by most. 12 and above you start to have difficulty replacing your ball at its mark unless you're on the flattest portion of the green, which is an exceedingly rare experience. Yes though, faster greens are "easier" in that you'll make more putts because for a green to roll that fast it has to also roll true - bumps and other irregularities in the putting surface will slow it down quickly. They're definitely intimidating at first to most golfers, but with some extra time spent adjusting most golfers will putt just fine or better than usual on them because of that (and the smaller swing = smaller errors).

They have tees rated all the way down to 62.4/98 for men and 63.3/107 for ladies. The "standard" ladies tees (reds) are rated 66.9/114 at 4,801 yards and the "standard" men's tees (blues) are rated at 68.3/121 from 6,141 yards. From there they have 3 options for longer tees (gold, black, and tour), one option in between (white), and one option shorter (green). It's a difficult course, but it's completely fair to the golfer. You have options to make the course much safer, but the safe option makes the course play longer. Conversely you have options to make the course play much shorter, but those options expose you to a lot more risk (water hazard, native grasses, and deep pot bunkers). The course can play as long as 7,991 yards or as short as 4,157 yards, it is by far the most versatile course I have ever played. If the forced carries on some holes are too long for you to make, you are playing from the wrong tee boxes. They have 7 different tee boxes with an additional 5 USGA rated teebox blends, for a total of 12 different options so they quite literally have options for every golfer out there. The reason the course is so long and difficult from the hardest rated teeboxes is because it was specifically designed to host PGA/LPGA tournaments, but they did a fantastic job of making a design that works and is fun to play for golfers of all skill levels. It's legitimately my favorite course of all time because they just got it so perfect with the risk-reward aspects on so many different holes. From the same tee boxes I can play a course with generous fairways and very little risk, but plays every inch of 8,000 yards or even longer in practice, or I can play a course that feels 500 yards shorter than the scorecard number but has hazards present every step of the way. I've been fortunate enough to play there around a dozen times so far and I've played the course differently each time just because it presents so many options to the player. BACK ON TOPIC Course difficulty is primarily related to the course rating, but slightly impacted by the slope for a higher handicap golfer. Even for high handicap golfers, however, course rating has a larger impact than slope. By definition, the slope rating has to change by 5.381 points to create a difficulty difference equivalent to just 1 point of course rating (for men, anyways) - slope is calculated by multiplying the difference between scratch and bogey rating by 5.381 for men (or 4.240 for women). This means that courses rated 71/120, 72/115, and 73/110 would all be nearly identical in difficulty to a bogey golfer. If those 3 courses were all Par-72 then the middle course would be dead average difficulty (course rating = par with slope of nearly 114), the first course would be slightly easier for scratch golfers than bogey golfers, and the last course slightly easier for bogey golfers than scratch golfers. Slope is a very useful tool for handicapping purposes, but it's also very misunderstood by the general public. Higher slope courses aren't necessarily harder, they're just easier for a scratch golfer than they are for a bogey golfer. A course can be easy but still have a very high slope rating because bogey golfers can't tear up an easy course in the same way a scratch golfer might. Similarly a hard course might have a low slope rating because it's difficult in ways that specifically target the scratch golfer. A great example of this is hazard or obstacles placed that specifically limit the distance advantage a scratch golfer might otherwise have, like narrow fairways in the landing zone for scratch golfers or hazards/obstacles that prevent a scratch golfer from hitting their tee shot any longer than the average bogey golfer. Those courses are no harder than usual for a bogey golfer because the obstacles and hazards never come into play for them, but they're very much in play for a scratch golfer and requires them to either take greater risks or sacrifice their distance advantage. In summary, the best way to think of course rating and slope is as follows: Course Rating: A general measure of a golf course's difficulty. Tracks with higher course ratings are more difficult than courses with lower ratings for golfers of any skill level. Slope A general measure of who the golf course is most difficult for. Tracks with higher slope ratings are more difficult for bogey golfers, while courses with lower ratings are more difficult for scratch golfers.

That's a very abnormally high slope rating, at least compared to the majority of even difficult courses. For reference, the maximum possible slope is 155. If I had to guess I'd assume that while it's not a long course, it probably has lots of forced carries longer than what the average bogey golfer is expected to hit the ball that would raise the course's bogey rating (in addition to heavily penalizing misses and having small greens). The hardest course I've played is TPC Colorado, which has a course rating and slope of 77.2/138 from the tips. From the Gold tees for ladies it is rated 78.6/151, with the slope being so high specifically because of forced carries and the "average" bogey lady golfer used for slope calculations not hitting it far enough to really handle that (plus it's still 6,875 yards from the Golds, very long for ladies). How difficult a golf course is will be reflected in the course rating, not the slope. A hard course has a higher course rating, with very hard courses having a course rating 3+ strokes higher than par. The slope rating doesn't tell you how hard a golf course is, it just tells you how much easier the course is for a scratch golfer than a bogey golfer. A par 72 course with a 63/150 rating would still be an easy course, it just would be more difficult for bogey golfers than it would be for scratch golfers (scratch golfers would be expected to shoot more than 18 strokes better than a bogey golfer there). Similarly a course with a 77/90 rating would not be an easy course, it's just that you'd expect the difference between a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer to be less than 18 strokes.

The ace wins, but really they lose when you consider the cost of drinks compared to the small amount won for closest in two!

I'm really interested and excited to see reviews of this when it finally makes it to market. I can see it either being a big step forwards for affordable home simulators and personal launch monitors, or a complete waste of money. It all hinges on how accurate the measurements/calculations are in real-world testing. If it actually is able to accurately report all of that data it would be revolutionary, considering the other devices capable of giving the same information cost a minimum of $2,000 (if you can find them anywhere). The key is that it needs to be accurate, and I'm not convinced their stated error ranges are accurate enough (as @iacas mentioned with the club path thing). There's also a matter of not knowing whether the advertised error numbers are conservative (larger than seen in average real-world use), true to life, or generous estimations only achieved in lab settings. If it works as well as advertised I'll probably finally invest in a personal launch monitor, because it would be the first sub-$1,000 or even just sub-$2,000+ option to combine simulator capabilities with a portable launch monitor. I'm going to have to wait and see more data on actual performance of the device first, however, but in the meantime I'm cautiously optimistic. I nearly bought a simulator setup last winter, but the distance limitations of Mevo+ and the hassle of optical systems are what held me back.

I can shape the ball both directions, and for years I used to primarily hit a draw. Now since seriously getting back into golf I've been mostly playing one course that is decidedly shaped for a right-handed golfer's fade, so I play a fade as my standard shot nowadays. I'm no tour pro, but in 95% or more of scenarios I want the ball to curve to the right from where I start it. The only time I specifically try to hit a draw is if it's the only option available to me (such as when I hit it into the trees and the angle dictates a right to left curve). It's hard enough to get the ball to fade every time, trying to hit the same shape of shot, much less making things even more difficult by changing yet another variable from swing to swing (intended shot shape). The thing that I believe helps is that, unless I'm trying to hit a complete slice or a ripping hook, I make the same swing for a draw as I do a fade. I try to change as few variables as possible, for the sake of consistency, and that means the same swing for both. It still has an in-to-out path relative to the alignment of my feet, but I have changed my setup to a more open stance (compared to when I used to predominantly hit a draw) while leaving the face square to my intended target line. When I need to hit a draw I still leave the face aligned with my intended target line, then close my stance slightly back to where it used to be (nearly square). Face angle always points towards my starting line, swing path always goes in-to-out, only thing that changes is my feet - at least that's the goal anyways.

It was appealed by my course's handicap chairman to the CGA, and the CGA said, "Sucks to be you, don't care, get stuffed." About what I expected given previous interactions I've had with that group in the past, they tend to have quite the overinflated opinion of themselves without actually doing anything. They don't even organize their own CGA tournaments in the majority of cases, just slap their name on them. An unfortunate side-effect, but at the very least there are going to be relatively few folks in my situation. It also won't affect you if you just don't play badly, so I just need to get better is all!

The only thing I dislike about the new handicap system is that it no longer discards scores that are multiple years old. I re-joined a club for handicap purposes last August (2020), and hadn't had any posted rounds since 2017. After more than 2 years I was supposed to receive a fresh number and start, at least according to how things previously worked, but instead I was immediately given a handicap index of +1.2 which has remained as my "Low HI" until sometime next September when it finally cycles out of the system. It's not an issue of the soft cap for me, because I'm currently playing just better than that soft cap. It's primarily an issue because the statewide inter-club match play competition uses your low HI instead of your current HI, so I'm effectively boned there because my low HI is from four years ago. Won my first (and only) match I played in it by sheer luck (my opponent caught a case of the shanks on the back 9), but I'm having to sit out the rest of the season because it has me playing off a +3 course handicap for most of the inter-club venues.

Considering that low-handicap players are already at a base disadvantage in net competitions it would make total sense for the USGA and other governing bodies to try to protect them somewhat. Low handicap golfers have much less variability in their scores than high handicap golfers. Those with a high handicap are much more likely to shoot a net -5 than those with a low handicap. The odds of a 5.9 handicap golfer or less shooting a tournament score with a net differential of -5 is 1 in 379. The odds of a 13-21.9 handicapper shooting that same -5 net differential score is more than double, at only 1 in 174. The odds of a 31 handicap or greater shooting a comparable net score is as high as 1 in 35. In net competition low handicap golfers are at a severe disadvantage, being more than 10x less likely to post an exceptionally good score (such as what would be required to win such a competition) as compared to high handicap golfers.

Perez is driving REALLY well the last couple weeks, it's exciting to see two teams that both have two cars legitimately contending almost every week. Much better than 1 team that dominates and 1 car from a single team that might contend a couple times a season.

Here's several technical directives in a row aimed directly at Red Bull, and yet curiously the incredibly flexible Mercedes front wings that have been protested since race 1 remain ignored by the FIA... I'm honestly pretty sick and tired of the FIA at this point, because it's become increasingly clear that they heavily favor Mercedes. The entire transition to turbo-hybrid V6 engines was primarily at the behest of Mercedes, who had already been developing similar systems and had an experience advantage. Despite introducing incredibly complex new engines, the FIA also made sure to add a token system that limited development and fixes for these complex systems to help ensure the team with the most experience (Mercedes) kept a large advantage. Mercedes was given secret tire tests using current-year chassis in an era where test time is severely limited or banned entirely. In 2017 Ferrari started to burn oil in the same way Mercedes had since the start of the turbo-hybrids, and the limit was reduced for every team besides Mercedes (0.9l/100km for other teams, 1.2l/100km for Mercedes) because Mercedes fitted their last engines early, ran a lap to make the engines "officially used", and then continued using their old engines again until it was time to switch for real. In 2018 the FIA made last-minute tire changes that were requested by Mercedes for multiple races, because the team had difficulty with the standard spec of tire. In 2020 they were allowed to continue to use DAS for the remainder of the season, despite banning it for future seasons and making it impossible for other teams to implement based on both cost caps and chassis homologation regulations. Now these sudden changes once Mercedes finally has a legitimate competitor. It's such a departure from the past where the FIA worked to keep the teams more evenly matched with regulations that targeted top teams rather than their competition. No kind of targeted regulation is fair to any of the competitors in the sport, but at least when they were aimed at the dominant team it meant that snooze-fests with one team winning everything for nearly a decade never happened. Now the FIA is hell-bent on keeping Mercedes as the only team capable of winning a WDC/WCC for the foreseeable future.