Pretzel

Best part about this pit stop is that they did more than the pit stops in the videos above. Not only did they change the tires, they also adjusted the front wing at the same time on both sides. All in under 2 seconds still.

If it was about skill, and if the green reading books made bad putters better than they otherwise would perform, we'd see the worst putters on tour being closer to the best putters because there is less of a skill gap between the two. Instead we see that the gap between the best and the worst at putting has only grown larger since the widespread introduction of green reading books. This means they have not had any measurable impact on a player's ability to putt well, because it isn't allowing the worst putters on tour to keep up with the best like you would see if some part of the game took less skill suddenly. I ignored the skill issue because claiming it's a matter of skill is patently ridiculous, and provably false. They can say whatever they like, doesn't mean a word of it is true.

I'm fairly sure this would go over about like a lead balloon, if only because then players are going to be motivated to start pacing off every single short game shot around the green instead of just looking at the pre-measured distances on their yardage book. If pace of play enforcement remains unchanged, as awful as it currently is, this would only make for even slower rounds on the tour. At its core, this seems to be a pace of play issue rather than an issue of making the game "too easy". People may say it's about the game being "too easy", but the data doesn't actually show putting to be any easier today than it was decades ago. Median SG putting on the tour this year is +0.030, and the median SG putting in 2004 (the first year it was tracked) was 0.028. Top SG putting this year is 0.990 and top SG putting in '04 was 0.853, in '05 it was 0.939. The only place there is any difference is in the very best putters on the tour, but even then it's relatively minimal. 2021 sees 15 golfers with SG putting values 0.6 or higher, while 2004 saw 13 golfers with SG putting values 0.5 or higher. That said, the worst putters in 2021 are much worse than the worst of 2004, with -1.326 SG in 2021 and -0.871 in 2004. In 2004 only 9 players were -0.5 strokes or worse, and in 2021 there are 25 players losing more than 0.5 strokes per round from putting alone! That 0.1 strokes per round difference may seem large considering the tight scoring averages, but it's no different than what you see for every other SG stat - the best players today are better than the best players of 2004 and the worst players are worse in 2021 than in 2004 while the average stays the same (because SG is a metric compared relative to the field, after all). There is a bigger difference between the best and worst players in every category nowadays than there used to be, if the game was easier you would see that gap between best and worst shrink instead of grow. The game is clearly more difficult now on tour than it used to be, and the data is unanimous in highlighting this. With that in mind, here's what I'd propose instead: Enforce the pace of play rules more strictly - it's literally that simple. Forget about the Observation List BS, and just start enforcing pace of play for every single player on the course. Quit using unreliable officials with stopwatches, and just use the far more reliable ShotLink to measure each player with less manpower required. 40 seconds to hit every shot for every player, 10 extra seconds for the first player to hit. One bad time is a warning, further bad times are a one stroke penalty. Because enforcement is both more widespread and more strict, make the warnings reset after each round so that a player gets one warning per round instead of one warning per tournament. Better yet, use a small portion of the advertising dollars to create a second pot of money alongside the new popularity contest. Rank players based on a weighted scale of scoring average and number of pace warnings, call it "player efficiency" or something, and award money to the top-10 finishers. If the Tour shows it's serious about pace of play by putting their money where their mouth is and players will start to listen. Until then it's all bark, no bite, and slow play will happen regardless of players using green books or other charts and data.

I know I've definitely been conning myself recently into thinking I was better at most everything than I actually am. I had a fantastically lucky spring, with a several month long streak of good scores including the best of my life (a 6-under 62). In that time I got lazy and complacent - I had stopped practicing as much on the full-swing and wedges, and I was no longer focusing on the improvements that needed to be made to both my swing and my golf game. Much of this was from me getting distracted by putting, despite that already being a strength of mine, due to an opportunity to work directly with the creator of an excellent new device. I'm putting better than I ever have right now, but the truth is that it doesn't matter unless you're giving yourself birdie opportunities. In my last 5 outings I've averaged only 26.8 putts per round, but I've also averaged only 7.4 GIR and my wedges and short game have seen massive backsliding as well. I was previously gaining strokes to scratch on my approach shots, and in the last 5 I lost an average of 2.06 per round. Short game I previously averaged 1.69 strokes lost to scratch per round, the last five rounds I've lost more than 4 strokes per round on average. Even tee shots I've gone backwards from gaining 3.98 strokes per round to only gaining about 2 strokes per round. My putting, meanwhile, improved from +1.1 strokes gained to about +2 strokes gained. It's been fun learning a bunch about putting, including getting a look "behind the scenes" at what specific elements of putting mechanics contribute to overall consistency, but in my deep dive into the putting world I've neglected the other 95% of the golf course. My last 5 scores have clearly shown this, with an average differential of 6.98 after trending downwards for so long. It's time to fix my practice schedules and priorities if I want to even just keep my handicap low enough for the U.S. Amateur qualifier event in July, much less avoid embarrassing myself while I'm there!

Titleist blades designed for Adam Scott, up to the 718MB line, actually had more offset than the Titleist CB irons. It was only with their newer 620MB that they finally made their blades into a "low offset" design. Blades do have offset, it's just generally designed to be less obvious and to be less than most GI/SGI irons. Clubs with truly zero offset will actually look quite strange to most people's eyes because they are so uncommon. With the slight bulge on the leading edge of most irons, since it's not a straight line, it makes a true zero offset iron look like it actually has onset in most cases. By comparison, below are some photos of some blades with traditional/standard designs below (620MB, P7TW, MP-20):

I refill my water bottles, take a leak, and potentially grab a hot dog/burger/crackers that are ready to go at the turn to take with me. Waiting and allowing groups behind you to play through while you eat only slows down the course for everybody. You are leaving the tee box open, but the group behind you cannot actually use that until they get there. There is no gap between the group behind you and the group 2 spots behind you. If you try to fit in between those two groups, there is no gap for you to fit into and you will slow down the entire course. If you specifically have separate front and back nine tee times, with time allotted for a break between nines, then it is acceptable. Outside of that, food or other items at the turn are grab and go only.

I truly have no issues with the swing, and I don't think it's a bad option for golfers struggling with traditional swings or beginners who are looking for an "easier" start. It's essentially just the golf version of a baseball swing where you start with the club behind your head, then swing at the ball. It's definitely easier to grasp quickly than a normal swing, and for people with limited hip/shoulder mobility it would likely be more comfortable than a traditional swing as well. My issues are primarily just the outlandish and outright false claims. It's like the "vaccines cause autism" mentality, but applied to golf.

900 horsepower and 3,400 pounds still pales in comparison to 1,000+ horsepower and 1,600 pounds. Power to weight ratio is still more than 2x in the favor of the Formula 1 car, with an F1 car having much more flexible aero packages for reduced drag (on ovals) or increased downforce (on road courses). Even swiss-cheesing the NASCAR chassis to save 1,000 pounds doesn't put it in the same class as an F1 car, but that's perfectly okay. They're different cars for different purposes.

Yes, a shallow swing with no spin at all, yet a higher dynamic loft. I'd be willing to bet Jim has never used a launch monitor before, he's probably allergic to the facts they deliver.

#2 for me. Every brand has some sort of Anser/Newport/Newport2 style putter in their repertoire, but some brands have drivers that work much better/worse for me than others. I'd love to keep my current putter (or a Circle T version of it), but honestly I'd be just fine switching to another brand's near-identical model. The same can't be said for the big stick, just because there's more performance difference between brands and models there and different brands/models will fit different swings better or worse. I like my putter, but not that much. I've kept my putters for a long time over the years not because I disliked other putters, but because they're all so similar it's not like I would get any improvement by going to something else. I know that I properly aim a Newport/Newport 2 style putter and the amount of toe hang that comes from a plumber's neck fits my putting stroke nicely, so beyond that anything else is just for looks/feel with no actual measurable improvements.

I'd also wager that an F1 car would quite thoroughly thrash a NASCAR Cup car on any track in the world. Without restrictor plates the NASCAR Cup cars are limited to 670 horsepower. F1 cars peak out at over 1,000 horsepower. The minimum weight for a NASCAR Cup car is 3,400 pounds, while F1 cars weigh only 1,631 pounds. That's nearly twice the power in half the weight, not even counting the grippier tires, additional downforce, and stronger brakes.

If you are still looking for playing partners, or if someone currently lined up isn't able to make it, I would love to have the chance to join you for your round! Feel free to shoot me a message if you want to get to know me a bit more, or if you have any questions/details that need to be reviewed.

I am really enjoying that this season there is some legitimate competition to Mercedes. It's clear that both Verstappen is incredibly talented and the Red Bull is incredibly difficult to drive well, but at least this year there is somebody besides Hamilton/Bottas who is legitimately competing for wins each week and the overall title. I'll readily admit I'm not much of a Lewis Hamilton fan simply because it gets boring watching the same guy win for so long, but I'm really enjoying seeing him get the chance to properly display his talent again in a way that hasn't really happened since 2018. Wire-to-wire victories are impressive, of course, but admittedly not much fun to watch especially when nobody else even has a chance. Seeing him race on more equal footing is fantastic because it gives better perspective on just how good he really is as a driver. That said, I'm still strongly anticipating next season's regulation changes. I was so disappointed when they were postponed another year, but now that more teams have long-term certainty (McLaren, Aston Martin, Red Bull/Alpha Tauri, Williams, basically everybody other than Haas is in their best financial position ever compared to the last 3-5 years) it will be even better since hopefully we aren't at risk of seeing teams bail entirely if they don't have a good design philosophy from the get-go. If the increased ground effect helps cars follow and race one another, as predicted by simulations, it will be fantastic even if the pecking order largely remains the same (unlikely).

I know I definitely used to fall into this trap more than I do now, but even today I still can find myself sliding into the same habit. Show up early for your round, hit the range, and try to find which feel I need to use that day to hit the shots I want to hit. Most rounds used a different feeling than the one before it, and if that feeling stopped working I'd try to correct something mid-round based on how I had been hitting it up to then. Last fall and this year in particular I've tried to focus much more on long-term improvement and consistency. I have something I've chosen to work on, and until I really nail it down I continue working on that item even if there are other problems. Focusing much more on the swing than on the result, and trusting that the results will come with time and repetition. When I started playing seriously again last year I quickly hit the max-up limit for my handicap index with my old technique of bouncing around, occasionally scoring well but only once in a blue moon when I managed to guess all the right feelings correctly that day. After changing my process I've steadily, and legitimately, improved from the limited maximum by nearly 2 strokes and from my "real" handicap at the time by at least 3 strokes. I still have a lot of work to go, but it's been very satisfying because by focusing on the process rather than the results I've ended up being much more consistent in the long run with less variability between rounds. It's paid off both in terms of long-term results and winnings from the men's club along the way!

Depending on your phone, you may have the ability to also set a delay on the start of recording from when you hit the record button (like the timers on actual cameras, some phones have that built into their camera app as well). Otherwise you would likely also be fine asking someone else on the range to help you take a quick video, so long as they're not actively working on something and aren't the earbuds-in super focused type. If they're just finishing up, just arriving, or taking a bit of a break I've had luck asking somebody nearby if they could help me take a quick video so I can better see what I'm doing (ymmv depending on area and who specifically is around).

The biggest improvement in my golf game happened when I played 18-54 holes every day (plus warm-up and practice) and took 2-3 lessons a month one summer in high school, thanks to free golf from working at a course. Dropped my handicap from right about a 5 to my all-time lowest of a +2.7. As far as specific improvements go, that summer I primarily improved my tee shots and ballstriking. My "big miss" with the irons/wedges went from something I chunked/bladed 20 yards short or long, to something I hit two grooves low on the face that carried a little shorter/longer and curved a little more with extra spin. Lowest Score Wins was first published that year and I really put into practice a lot of important items from that book, specifically with regards to putting practice and understanding my shot zones/shot cones off the tee. Instead of trying to tweak the shot I hit off the tee to perfectly match every hole, I started hitting the shot I was most consistent with every time I could even if it wasn't the perfect shape for the hole, because I hit that shot better and it gave me better end results more often than the "ideal shot". I actually have had times where I putted better, or had a sharper short game, than that summer. Heck, right now I'm putting better than I ever have previously (0.52 strokes gained per round compared to scratch from putting alone) and I'm sitting at a 2.2 handicap currently, whereas at my best I was regularly losing a few tenths while putting compared to a scratch baseline. The biggest differences in golf will come from your tee shots and your approaches, even if the faster improvement might be seen in putting and short game (because those two items are easier/quicker to improve than full-swing performance).

I have to wonder if this is particularly true though, simply because when Tiger burst onto the scene the new trend in course design and renovation was to "Tiger-proof" your golf course by making it longer, but more importantly by making it very narrow and penal specifically in the areas where longer hitters put their tee shots. Bunkers were added, the rough was grown out, fairways were pinched down to a narrower waist ~300 yards out from the teebox. Was Tiger truly less accurate than Jack, or is it partially because the courses were modified specifically to make things more narrow and difficult for golfers who hit the ball as far as Tiger? I personally believe Jack was still a bit more consistent off the tee, with Tiger Woods off the tee being best compared to Arnold Palmer ("Hit it hard, go find it, and hit it hard again"). I think it's an interesting and important discussion though, because only one of these two golfers was so influential that virtually every important golf course around the world was modified specifically to be made harder for that one golfer. Nobody talked about "Jack-proofing" a golf course, he won but wasn't so much better than everyone else as to be specifically thought about when designing a new or revised golf course.

I had the most bizarre day of golf last Thursday afternoon, not at my home course but noteworthy in a birdie thread nonetheless. I hit 13 greens in regulation that day, including one GUR where I reached a par 5 in two. On the front 9 I hit all 9 GIR, and only 4/9 on the back. My AVERAGE proximity to the hole that day, for GIR/GUR, was only 14.54 feet from the hole. I had 3 different birdie putts inside 10 feet. I missed all three of those birdie putts, along with another 8 birdie putts (the longest being from only 29 feet away). It was very strange because it was probably one of the best ballstriking days I've ever had, in that I had 12 different <20 foot birdie putts, and yet I made only 2 of them with none of the ones inside 10 feet being holed (including 2 different four footers). It would be interesting to go back through my scorecards/MyRoundPro records and see how many of my tracked home course birdies were lucky putts vs how many were from good approach shots. Off the top of my head I know hole 17 was a lucky 35 foot putt, but most of the others that I can specifically remember have just been a good approach shot (inside 15 feet) followed by a reasonable putt.

I've been in a scenario similar before, except I was the player who went over the time and it was an assistant coach who found my first ball as I was addressing my provisional. Yeah, it really sucks to find the first ball after it's already been declared lost. Knowing that you could have avoided the two strokes if you'd just looked "right over there" instead, but the ball was lost and now at least you aren't out the $4 of a nice ball (assuming you pay for balls, I know many high school/college golfers don't during school tournaments). There was no discussion or arguments on the course, I just told him to toss me the ball and continued to play my provisional, but after the round he pulled me aside to tell me I should have just played the original ball since it was found before I hit the provisional. In all honesty I probably would've scored worse from the position of the original ball (deep in a bush requiring a drop that still would leave me in a bad position), and the ball was already lost. A lost ball stays lost, and if you find it after it's no different than coming out of the woods with an extra couple balls left by earlier golfers. I've also had the coach/caddy of another player in summer tournaments try to twist the rules against me as some kind of "gotcha!" at the scoring tent (where he wasn't even supposed to be allowed) over an event that happened very early in the round. I had pointed out to his player that you can't play from inside of an ESA like you can with other lateral hazards, and apparently that upset him when the player agreed with me rather than him so he claimed I looked too long somewhere on the front 9 for my ball. I hadn't looked for that long, I found it before the other players even started playing their golf balls, but he got himself worked up enough that I just withdrew and left without signing my scorecard or dealing with any of that hassle. This was a guy who made a big deal on the first tee (and multiple other times throughout the round) about being a PGA Professional and that we should all listen to his advice (against the rules) because he was a pro. Those incidents, among others I've encountered along the way, have led me to believe that the people who want to bend the rules are most often the people not actually playing in the event itself, but those who are "indirectly participating" as a caddy/coach/etc. There are no consequences for them directly, if caught the blame lands on the player, but if their players do well they can take the credit. They also usually know enough about the rules to be dangerous, either from intentional or unintentional misinterpretation.

This right here is the heart of the discussion, and I'm not sure that I agree with this statement that muscle back irons necessarily add struggle to a golfer's game (at least at a certain point). Game Improvement and Super Game Improvement irons certainly are more forgiving on most shots hit fat or in wet turf conditions simply because they don't dig into the ground the same way a thin muscle back does. Beyond that, however, the data and testing (in the original video and in others) seems to show that forgiveness in an iron is a very overrated concept for players who can get the ball off the ground with that iron in the first place. SGI irons do definitely help with launch angle, and for somebody who regularly misses fat or who plays with soft turf conditions regularly they can provide a benefit. For people whose miss is thin/who play on firm turf, or for those who are at least generally getting the ball in the air every time, the SGI/GI style irons aren't helping you with anything and in fact can even be hurting your dispersion. That may not be the general 30+ handicap golfer you were referring to, but it does encompass most of the golfers 20 handicap and below. I switched to playing MB-style irons 4 years ago after doing a lot of my own testing (100+ shots on simulators and 10+ rounds of golf using both my forgiving irons and 2 sets of blades side by side) and noticing that the horizontal and distance dispersions were tighter, even when you leave miss-hits in the dataset (and believe me, I can still miss-hit some irons surprisingly badly). I picked up those two sets of blades used for only around $200-300 apiece, and that was for 2 year old clubs in great condition (older models go for even cheaper). I think a lot of golfers would be surprised if they did a similar experiment with some used blades compared to their current clubs, especially if they have access to a launch monitor anywhere nearby to book an hour or two on several different occasions to get hard numerical data for their comparisons alongside their on-course data just hitting two balls for every iron shot.

Usually they keep them at a reasonable pace, somewhere around a 10-11 in pace depending on how recently it's been mowed or how dry/windy it is that day. That day they were slow, however, because they had aerated too early when the grass was still dormant and were trying to promote a faster recovery once it started growing again. They also had ruined their mower reels with oversanded greens because of that, along with 3/4 of the maintenance staff dying/retiring at the start of March, so now they're finally starting to get everything back going again maintenance-wise. They actually have members of the men's club out there on the mowers now, just to keep the course in good enough shape, with a new reel for the greens. They're not cutting them as short as before, at least until they have a dedicated super and crew, but they're back to rolling 8-9 or so. The new reel and the finally recovered greens does mean they're rolling very smooth at least, which is the most important part, and they're good and firm again like usual. Just yesterday, 5-12, I got another two new birdies! A long 32 footer dropped on 17, and I was only a few inches away from a hole in one to finish on 18. Played poorly overall that day (+4, 72), but finishing up with a pair of birdies back to back makes you forget about all the bad that happened earlier in the round!

My short game is the biggest weakness in my golf game, but identifying the weakness doesn't mean it's a mental issue and neither does chipping well on a practice green but not on the course. The most likely problem is that when practicing chipping you're giving yourself ideal lies and easier shots to practice than you end up encountering out on the course. Every time I go to the golf course I see people around the chipping green who prop every ball up in the rough, roll it out of deep spots, and never put the ball right up against the collar. On the course your ball is more likely than not to settle into the little dips and depressions because those are the localized low points, and balls that roll and stop against the collar of the rough are far more common than the dozens of shots people practice with the ball propped up perfectly 3-6" into the rough. Everybody chips to the hole in the middle or far side of the green instead of the one short-sided to them. For bunker shots they always have the ball in a perfect lie on top of freshly raked sand, pitch shots are from the pristine areas of fairway instead of in a dry spot, previously existing pitch mark, or other challenging scenario. I don't know what exactly your short game practice routine looks like @RandyBobbitt, but if you really are that good in practice and that bad on the course it's more likely to be an issue of unrealistic practice than an issue with a mental block. An easy way to get more realistic scenarios when practicing is to bring at least 1 golf ball with you for every hole on the practice green. Throw them all out there into the same general area, and hit them from exactly where they end up. Don't adjust the lie, and hit one or more balls to each hole on the green from every spot you choose to practice from. Make sure you're actually practicing for realistic scenarios, instead of just the perfect ones with easy hole locations.

Last Saturday I got to add two new birdies to the list in the latest men's club tournament, which was a nice plus since they also both won me some skins! Holes 1 and 12 were the new ones, and hole 1 was the best start I've ever had to a tournament with my approach leaving just a 8 inch or so tap in! On Wednesday I had my best ever overall day off the tee with +5.35 strokes gained driving (compared to the MyRoundPro scratch golfer baseline), but unfortunately no new birdies. I've finally been able to nail down some improved consistency in my drives, which has made a huge difference recently and hopefully will help me finish off the last of the par 4's with number 17 soon. Beyond that I just have 3 of the par 3's remaining so far - #9, #14, and #18.

This is almost definitely what this plan is - use some of the money the Tour earns from TV broadcasts or other media and distribute it based on which players are influencing the value of the Tour's brand the most. The PGA Tour doesn't have team owners getting a cut of the media money (based on both performance and popularity, in many cases) like most other sports, so this seems like a nice way of doing the same thing for golfers who play an individual sport and would otherwise miss out on that opportunity. PGA players already engage in a popularity contest, because the more popular you are the more you earn from sponsorships - regardless of on-course performance. Sponsorships are where many, if not most, players earn the bulk of their income. This popularity prize isn't going to change any of that, it just seems like a way for the Tour to recognize the effect a player's personal brand has on the value and income of the organization as a whole. Certainly a more data-driven and scientific way of rewarding people than the backroom deals distributing media money in other sports. I'm all in favor of this as long as it doesn't turn into American Idol-style voting on a weekly, monthly, or even yearly basis. That's just feels cheap/cheesy and not truly representative of the value any particular player is providing to the organization as a whole. That said, I would ideally like to see everybody on Tour being ranked and paid rather than just the top 10, even if it means a slightly smaller cut for the players at the very top. Could just treat it like a $40 million tournament purse for your payouts, big money for winning/top-3 and progressive prizes from there. Then even the mid-level and smaller name pros are recognized for their contributions instead of only the top 10, because they still provide value to the Tour.

Keep all the memories without creating new ones for two reasons. The more serious reason is that my Grandpa got me into golf early, when I was 3, and I grew up playing the game with him. He doesn't golf anymore and I have a lot of good memories of us together, so I'd hate to lose it. The more important reason is that if I can't create any new golf memories I can guarantee I'll have forgotten about my bogies, doubles, and triples by the time I get to the next teebox. I might need those little prayer beads to keep count for scoring, or just use my shot tracking device for scoring, but just think of all the advantages! Being a stupid monkey is easier when you can't remember how much you sucked during the swing change process, you're never rattled by had holes, and you can honestly say you have no idea why this new set of clubs turned up on your doorstep!