Jump to content


Forum Leader
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Pretzel

  1. As far as profanity goes, I don't care at all if pros swear or otherwise vocally vent their frustration. That said, the issue here is less about profanity in general and more about the specific word used. 

    There are definitely a lot of better words and choice phrases Justin Thomas could have used. Maybe next time do a throwback to an old classic that was much less controversial instead.


    • Funny 1
  2. 47 minutes ago, ChetlovesMer said:

    Would you rather drive the cart?


    Would you rather be a passenger in the cart?

    I'd rather drive, just because I like putting the cart/my bag quite close to my golf ball and when others drive they usually park much further away. It's honestly good etiquette that people do this, I just like having everything right next to my ball so I can range, grab a club, and be in position already for the start of my routine without any extra walking.

    Usually my cart or bag is only around 3 feet away from the ball, on the right hand side. You can actually see the shadow of the golf cart in my profile picture from the Newport Cup, just barely cropped out. Here's the original showing where I like to park a cart, give or take a foot closer or further. When walking I just stand next to the ball and set the bag down, so it ends up closer than that.

  3. 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.

    • Thanks 1
  4. 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.

  5. 22 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

    Ive mentioned it many times. Conservation and course variety. Bigger courses suck more resources from the environment. Also, great courses have been phased out because they become obsolete because of distance. This has been going on for a long time, so I'm not saying its bryson or anyone else. 

    You completely ignored the list of facts I presented:

    1. Short courses can still be plenty difficult to play for long hitters
    2. Longer hitters will always have an advantage over shorter hitters 
      1. This holds true even if the driving distance for everyone is made shorter, longer hitters will still have shorter and easier approach shots
    3. 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
      1. 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

    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.

  6. 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

    1. Short courses can still be plenty difficult to play for long hitters
    2. Longer hitters will always have an advantage over shorter hitters 
      1. This holds true even if the driving distance for everyone is made shorter, longer hitters will still have shorter and easier approach shots
    3. 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
      1. 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.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
  7. On 9/25/2020 at 8:54 PM, saevel25 said:

    I am 99% sure I gained 30 lbs of flab in that sort of timeframe. I got down to 198 lbs and went back up to 230-ish because I got tired of eating 1500 calories a day. 

    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.

  8. 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.

  9. On 9/18/2020 at 10:58 AM, WillieT said:

    Would you rather #29....Play only a total of five (5) clubs (incl putter) in the bag, the strongest being no more than 15* (i.e. 3w) and the weakest no more than 60* (LW) and lowering your avg score by five (5) strokes OR keeping your bag as is with the current number of clubs and your avg score lowers by two (2) strokes.  Also if you choose the former - what would be the clubs of choice?  

    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.

  10. On 9/8/2020 at 3:09 PM, iacas said:

    Yeah but at the same time it’s easier to shoot 73 on a 74.2 course sometimes than 68 on a 69.1 course.

    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.

    • Thanks 1
  11. 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.

  12. 18 hours ago, KoHo said:

    I'm shootin at the hip here so bear with me. Try this:

    Set up a pc in your house to be a proxy server for all of your wifi traffic.

    Install a web debugging proxy tool like fiddler on that pc.

    Create a Root CA cert from the web debug tool and install it on your phone so the wifi https traffic can be decrypted.

    Set up the web debugging tool to capture/filter only traffic from the gamegolf app on your phone.

    Open up the gamegolf app on your phone and see what the traffic looks like in the debug tool.

    Maybe delete the cached gamegolf data from your phone and see what happens when it repopulates.

    Export all of that data and look for patterns so you can write a script that parses the data and organizes it for you. 

    Bingo Bango you're GG data is ready to be served...

    After reading this again it seems "Not gonna happen" is a better answer...

    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.

    • Like 2
  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. 2 minutes ago, Double Mocha Man said:

    What is your secret?

    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.

    • Thanks 1
  16. 16 hours ago, boogielicious said:

    Not the kind you use!😜

    Bryson must be a silicon-based lifeform. Cold, calculating, and now feeding off the computers and data to grow stronger.

    He honestly looks like a teenager who suddenly hit puberty while working on a farm. Went from a beanpole to beefy in six months or less, and the scenario I described is the only other place I've seen such dramatic transformations occur. It's funny to picture Bryson out in a field stacking bales into the haywagon either way.

    • Thanks 1
  17. 40 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

    I have a question about PCC that I couldn't find in the manual itself. Here's the situation: my men's club typically doesn't post scores to GHIN until a few days after a tournament. What impact would this have on PCC? I know that individuals should post their scores on the same day they played to make sure the PCC calculation is accurate. I'd imagine that a group of 40+ scores would be the same way. In fact, given that's so many scores, my impression is that it is very important to have any tournament scores posted the same day.

    I want to make sure I understand this before I raise it as an issue. Posting these scores on the same day can take a lot of work from the club.

    When the club posts the scores, do they post them with the correct date in the past or do they post them with the current date?

    Posting usually gives you the options of choosing the date the round was played, and so long as the date of the round is correctly selected it should not affect PCC modifications. It will certainly delay any PCC modifications since the data needed to make a modification is missing for several days, but from what I've seen it seems the PCC may take several days to appear anyways because of delayed score posting from individuals that always happens regardless.

    If asking a question to GHIN, it would probably be best to ask how many times/how often is PCC for a given date updated. If it updates only once at the end of the day then the PCC for your tournaments would not take into account performance during the tournament and only performance from players before/after the tournament group. If it updates several times up to a week after the date, which would make the most sense because many golfers don't post the same day they play already, then the PCC would still be eventually corrected based on your tournament scores.

  18. 9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

    Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems like a small tool mostly made of steel should last almost a lifetime? I have a pocket knife that’s 45yrs old...just saying.

    I was a little surprised myself, but it appears as though the prongs are separate pieces to the base they attach into. Instead of just casting it all as a single piece they cast it as 4 separate pieces (3 prongs and 1 center hub). The part that failed was the bond holding one of the prongs to the center hub.

    • Like 1
  19. Just as an update to my earlier review, my Fusion 2.5 finally broke today after nearly 2.5 years of hard use. One of the side prongs fell out. That said, it lasted quite some time and I did like it enough that I'll probably be buying another one soon enough. It really does work better for getting your mark ironed out flat.

    • Like 1
  20. My experience with the pro is off to a great start so far - only 3 of the 14 tags seemed to have arrived with enough battery charge to pair with the app and update the firmware. Another 4 had enough battery charge to pair, but less than the 10% required to update their firmware.

    I'll try again in the daylight today, however, as I did notice that no tags at all would pair until I moved into a differently lit area. Apparently they weren't kidding about requiring a well-lit area for the process, because this is the worst experience I've ever had with any variety of bluetooth pairing. If these do indeed all have dead batteries I'll just go ahead and return the Pro to buy either the Live version or just switch to Arccos.

  21. For the last 4 years I've played a set of Mizuno MP4 blades, and before that I had the Ping S55's (a CB blade of sorts). Currently I'd say I'm not playing consistently enough to avoid hurting myself by using the MP4's, but I think just about anyone would be well-suited playing a set of clubs similar to the S55's. They were forgiving enough that larger mishits aren't disastrous, but they do provide noticeably more control and consistency than any of the SGI offerings.

    That said, after playing blades for a while there are only three types of mis-hits that I feel blades actually punish any more than CB, GI, or SGI irons do. The first, and biggest difference to me, is when you hit it fat. GI and SGI irons protect you from hitting it fat because they skid or bounce off the turf quite a bit, while blades and CB irons can dig deeper into the turf. The trade-off there is that it sucks to use a GI or SGI club when the ball is sitting in a dip or a divot. The second mishit punished more heavily by blades is toe strikes, just because most blade designs have very little mass and weight out near the toe. CB, GI, and SGI irons at least have perimeter weighting that makes these misses slightly less penal. The final shot I feel blades punish more heavily than other designs is catching the ball too high on the face. The "bouncy" face designs for GI and SGI irons mean you'll retain more ball speed there, and because the CB lacks a large mass behind the sweet spot there isn't as big a difference when you catch the ball a little higher. Blades just have nothing behind the ball high up on the face and it's particularly noticeable once you get too far above the sweet spot.

    For other shots, including small misses as shown in this data and especially thin or heel misses, the only difference I've found between blades and the rest is how good or bad it feels. Blades can really hurt to hit thin on a cold day, but that thin miss will perform about the same as a less painful thin miss using a SGI club. Heel misses are similar for all the clubs since they've all got some weight and mass over there and any twisting that perimeter weighting could alleviate is minimal since you're closer to the axis of rotation there than a toe miss would be. Heel misses can sometimes be a lot worse for GI and SGI irons because of the offset, which makes it easier/more likely that you get a shank instead of just a heel mishit. 

    I don't think most golfers would be well-suited by playing MB blades, but I do think most golfers would be best suited by playing something similar to the old S55 irons or their modern equivalents. They provide increased consistency compared to GI/SGI irons while being a bit more comfortable to mishit and mitigating the effects of 2/3 scenarios where a blade punishes you more than other irons. You will still be punished more for fat shots than if you had a GI/SGI iron, but on all other types of mishits you'd be hard pressed to find a measurable and substantial difference. The only people who I believe can truly benefit from GI/SGI irons are the very infrequent or very new golfers who are far more likely to hit the ball fat and who have swings inconsistent enough for any difference in the club's consistency to be meaningless.

    • Thanks 2
    • Informative 1
  • 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...