Tee2Trees

Wilson broke the mold with their Di9 irons. http://www.wilson.com/dyn/golf/ws_specs/usa/di9.asp Comes with a 42.5 degree PW, so they offered 2 gap wedges to fill the gap -- a 46 degree A and a 49.5 degree G (notice this still leaves a big loft gap unless you use a 54 degree SW). Also, the shafts are longer than standard by at least 0.5". So basically, it's a mis-numbered set of irons that have upright lie angles.

Three characteristics seem to define GI irons vs players irons: - Large face/sweet spot - Wide sole - Offset I happen to be with you in thinking that none of these features should preclude a player from being able to draw or fade the ball. The ball flight laws tell us that path vs face angle determine the curvature, period. None of the above characteristics should affect one's ability to control face angle vs path. The other end of "working the ball" involves flighting it high or low. Yes, wide-soled clubs want to go high, but still, this isn't anything that can't be accounted for. Ball position plus shaft lean will determine the launch angle for any club. The annals of history are littered with players that got down to single-digit handicap using GI irons, then made the switch to "player's" irons and ceased to improve (or maybe got worse) from there. Lee Westwood is a prime example. While every manufacturer offers a variety of irons along the GI spectrum, where the club industry lets us down is in providing GI wedge selections. You have to either be lucky enough to locate the G,S, and L wedges that go with your GI iron set (and pay a fortune for them), or play non-offset blades for this difficult-to-master range of clubs. The sole exception seems to be the Ping Eye reissue wedges, which came about as a response to the number of pros and better players snapping up the vintage sticks out of complete sets when they could find them.

They teased the datalogging driver a while back, maybe it's finally ready. I would prefer to use a separate SS radar but I suppose it would be cool to DL the speed/path/angle numbers from your round when you get home.

I bet you can find a Dunlop for way less (haha j/k). Get the Bio Cell+ it's $100 better than the other two.

My home course is 6366 from the "tips" which includes a couple of super long 210-ish par 3's. Works out great for me now and I suspect will be still playable into old age. A lot of short par 4's but they keep the par 5's honest (500+ yds uphill).

The first one on their list: GOLF PRIDE CP2 WRAP/CP2 PRO Is a gold medal recipient. I recently had my driver gripped with the CP2 Wrap. I can normally pretty much get along with anything, and this is supposed to combine soft feel with durability and features some kind of low-torque technology (control-core). It was absolutely horrendous (for me)! The rubber formulation they chose allows a lot of twisting in the right hand, almost as though the grip is on loose. Scary lack of control. I think they thought they had found something something really soft that wouldn't wear out so quickly, discovered the twisting issue, then added "control-core" to sort it out but couldn't do anything about the twisting down lower. A complete whiff by Golf Pride. I blew it off with compressed air and put on a $6 Lamkin Crossline Ace 3Gen myself (the gray one), which leaves absolutely nothing to be desired. So I saved the CP2 Wrap intact, but can't think of anything I would ever want to use it on. Of course a true objective review here would have helped the reader, as I'm sure one swing from a pro could have identified this serious flaw for anyone who ever swings hard. I don't know if the same issue applies to the CP2 Pro, but I suspect it does not. For me it was only one club, but I was pretty disappointed with the result of my "expensive grip" experiment when I could have tried a Super Tack or anything else for that matter instead.

I want to win a Callaway Big Bertha Driver Martin Kaymer -10 Patrick Reed -10 Eric Compton -10

People who are struggling to pick up the game don't card whether the final score on the cards reads 100 or 150. It's about hitting solid, memorable golf shots. Tee it forward is good in that it gives the geezers a better chance at having a short iron into the green after a good drive, but for the rest of us it just takes the fun out of it because a good drive is "rewarded" with something less then a full shot of any kind into the green. And with the advent of the 460cc driver, most beginners have a better chance at successfully bombing that club into the fairway than they do with a small-headed hybrid.

You might benefit from a flatter lie angle. Players commonly spec the wedges flatter to prevent digging, as it helps to keep the heel out of the turf. It can also encourage you stand a little further from the ball which will flatten your swing plane.

Thanks for your inputs. Perhaps I should have made my case in one of the Taylormade "hack golf initiative" threads (assuming there is one). I think people would get most of the benefit TMAG was going for without the need for introducing special clubs and a 15" hole, just upsize the ball! Personally, I'm fine with the challenges the game presents on its own, but many of the issues newbies face could be mitigated with the option of playing a bigger ball. It must be discouraging for someone to play an entire round without experiencing the feel of hitting even one solid iron shot (I've seen it happen out there!) which certainly limits the growth of the game.

About two minutes to the clubhouse if I walk, four if I drive. Happens to be across the street and a bike path from my house.

Tell me if you've experienced this commonly deflating experience on the course: new to golf or fresh off of an extended layoff, the golfer finds himself out on the course just trying to keep pace and not embarrass himself. As the round progresses, confidence builds until finally a perfect drive is piped down the middle setting up a reasonably short approach to the green. Brimming with excitement and suddenly sure of swing, the golfer proceeds to chunk the next shot taking out turf that begins a full two inches behind the ball, sending it no further than his divot. At this moment he says to himself "Maybe I'm just not cut out for this sport". I know the oversize ball was introduced in the 80s/90s with the Top-Flite Magna, but I think the general concept faded out without enough research or a general consumer understanding of what the technology is supposed to achieve. Most importantly the "oversize" Magna was only 1.71" in diameter compared to the minimum allowable (or standard) size of 1.68". Here is a proposal for a Maximum Game Improvement technology with corresponding attributes: Anti-Hack golf ball having a diameter of about 1.88 inches. Players with different levels of skill could fit into different ball size categories ranging from slightly oversize to way oversize. Pros: - USGA legal having standard weight through optimized materials. - Higher MOI promoting reduced sidespin/backspin - Easier to see and easier to FIND - Center of Gravity when resting on turf could be as much as one groove higher off the iron, resulting in solid shots that can be executed without requiring perfect turf interaction. Similar to the benefits of low-profile woods, but without the risk of pop-ups. Cons: - Loss of distance off long clubs - Loss of "bite" off short clubs - Lower likelihood of falling into the cup for center-line putts traveling too fast - ??? The optimal player to fit into this technology is one we are all familiar with: Distance to burn with a tendency to overswing, thus resulting in poor ballstriking off the turf and massive directional misses off the tee (Hey, I resemble that remark!). I think it could be more successful than the Magna ball ever was if the consumer understands that they are giving up distance and spin as part of the deal, and most importantly, sees an obvious and tangible difference compared to a conventional ball. This would be mostly borne out with the ability to think "sweep" with the irons and produce good shots that feel solid without necessitating perfect placement of the "bottom" of the swing arc. In short, play like every shot is sitting on a tee! With mass adoption, suddenly more benefits to the game appear. Courses are no longer rendered "too short" by high-COR drivers and graphite shafts. Fairways are perhaps no longer littered with evidence of 3 chunked shots laying side-by-side courtesy of the "mulligan" crew. What say you?

Adam Scott -5 Jason Dufner -5 Francesco Molinari -4

Let's just say I was being generous for the both of them. Hopefully he doesn't respond by lavishing his riches on some random 10 thinking it will get him a lifelong commitment.

If you are a "5" and your girlfriend is a "9" then the relationship is always going to be a distraction. It's a lot of maintenance and worry to keep that going whether he consciously realizes it or not.

Came across this post today in a web search. Just want to bump this for posterity and nominate it for best post ever.

I would be in good shape if there was a booby prize. Reed, DJ, Dufner ...all missed cuts.

I used one for a little while. May sound ridiculous but I found the neutral setting had it wanting to go left and the open setting had me losing it to the right. I needed finer resolution that the "simple" 3-position adapter that the AFT provides.

I've tried dozens of recent releases and the best for me was the RBZ Tour. I think it is more forgiving than the standard RBZ and I like the deeper face. 9 degree, stock shaft, one notch closed (+). Kind of spinny but it keeps me in the fairway.

Well today I spent $2 at the golf store. Had them bend my Ping G2 HL 3 iron 1.5* strong (to 19.5). Going to try the driving iron thing when it warms up. Was at 205 yards with this club, hoping for 10 more.

I think the tears had to do with him having a great Sunday, overtaking the lead, but then nearly losing it due to a series of bad breaks, e.g.: hitting the small tree on his pitch-out on 16, the "smoked" 5i tee shot on 17 coming up oddly short, the sand save that hit the pin dead center and bounced out, and his approach on 18 going unusually long. And in spite of all that he leaves himself a short putt on 18 to win and chokes on it with a nervous push, all under the watchful eye of Arnold Palmer himself surrounded the entire gallery. Johnny Miller said it himself, he walked off 18 with the lead but unable to hold his head up after that putt. He won only because the big names absolutely gave it to him. Would have been a much better moment for him if he finished strong. Ah well, still a cool million dollar purse.

No one seems to have the ID on his most interesting club in the bag: the driving iron. Johnny Miller mentioned that he had a specially-made driving iron and when the chips were down there was Every, normally a short hitter, bombing his iron off the tee 250+. I would guess it was the X Utility Prototype Iron in place of that 5 wood, and it looked the part on TV, but what length/loft?

Only one 'trapper picked Adam Scott to win the Masters, and with a -6 finish at that. But consider: #2 in the world (behind the injured TW), defending at his favorite tournament, and in his last year to putt with the cheat-stick. Hmmm...

If I wanted to help out anyone that has yet to enter I would make a list of all the guys who will automatically go as wasted picks for the 2 and 3 slots, and then a list of all the scores that will become wasted picks for the rest. Then I would point out that Tiger Woods is going to announce his withdrawal from the tournament as soon as Nike gives him the go-ahead.

No mention of MOI but apparently it reduces tendon fatigue. Yeah, this cavity-back tech is probably about as equally valid.