Jump to content

JoePete

Established Member
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by JoePete

  1. Thanks for defining his short-hand. Yes, I agree that will result in a draw. The point I raised, has to deal with what happens at impact on any draw, fade, low shot, high shot, etc. between the ball and the clubface. In order to vary the corresponding spin, you are changing where the clubhead meets the ball. On just this point alone, I return to my statement to the original poster - that feel of where you are hitting the ball becomes integral to developing the muscle memory that allows you to practice and hit these shots consistently. This is why some folks, who have the skill, time to practic
  2. I will just offer some points of reference: Google "presumptive fallacy" - any time someone starts "as you know" "as we all know" etc. it engenders a logical fallacy. As to our differing definitions of mis-hits - it is again employing the presumptive fallacy to say "nobody" uses my terminology. Moreover whether I say intentional mishit, and you say draw, does it really matter? As far as "center of gravity projecting through the club face" thing, I think I politely asked you to clarify a rather vague reference; Your response of my not being "cut out to discuss this" is, agai
  3. I agree the design of a clubhead has no bearing on the physics. However, it can have a bearing on someone learning how to use those physics. We are not Iron Byron. If I am trying to get a sense of what I have to do with my swing to draw a ball 10, 20, and 30 yards, the feedback off the clubface (i.e. feel) is important to my being able to dial in those differences. "If you hit a shot, center contact, with a face 2* right, path 4* right," Two degrees open to swing path, which is already four degrees open to target? and that is supposed to draw the ball? You have to have explain your s
  4. Quote: You are only dealing with half the equation. The sweet spot (center of percussion) is only half the issue. It depends where on the ball you hit (left or right of vertical axis). Ultimately what you are trying to do is impart a predictable degree of spin on the ball. Now if you prefer to change your swing path to a degree where you hit the ball flush (i.e. on the sweet spot) just the right amount left or right of the ball's axis, fine. But you can also maintain a consistent swingpath, and instead opt for an open or closed clubface. If the clubface is open or closed, you are in f
  5. Allow me to clarify: I was responding @mvmac 's statement "As you know and as we've said before GI irons are no more difficult to "shape" when hit on the sweet spot than the most blade-like of clubs ." I'll skip over the presumptive nature of the statement and point out that "when hit on the sweet spot" is passive - we don't know what or who is doing the hitting. If you are are talking a machine, then yes, there is no difference in shot shaping capability, as the design of the club head is largely irrelevant. However, if you are talking a human being, the feedba
  6. Good points. He dislodged something that he believes could physically interfere with his swing - a mental distraction only because of its potential for physical interference.
  7. I am not so sure. If you look at 13-2/23 - just shaking water off the leaves on a tree can be a penalty. Note especially the use of the word "distraction," which to me implies the USGA recognizes that even if an improvement is made mostly for mental benefit, it could be a rule violation. Of course where do you draw the line? If there is a divot off to the side and you replace it because it was annoying you, is that a rule violation? Hardly, but again, the rule of thumb I was always given is save any course care until after you play your shot. 13-2/23 Shaking Water from Tree Branch In
  8. Yes and no. If you consider feel an important component of practicing and shaping a shot, a typical blade offers slight more feedback than something oversized and perimeter weighted. Part of this also depends on how you shape those shots etc. A draw, a fade, a low shot, etc. is technically a mishit when you compare the angle of the clubface to swingpath and target line; they are slight "mishits." It is not about the executing the shot you have, but how you practiced it. On a machine, it doesn't matter. But in the hands of person trying to create a certain amount of muscle memory, the slight di
  9. My comment was mostly in reference to the original post and trying to understand why typically it is not a penalty if you fix a ball mark in the area where, although it is in your line of play, you would not intentionally hit your ball in that manner (you're not trying skull the ball 150 yards, but even if you do and it hits the repaired area it is not a penalty). Similarly, with D13-2/24 it is a penalty to improve your lie (e.g. breaking branches, even accidentally on a practice swing while preparing on a line of play). Just because you then change your mind, it doesn't change the penalty or
  10. I think this is one of the areas of the rules where intent is critical. It is interesting that the Rules of Golf do inject intent into the rules (definition of a stroke is best example, accidentally hitting the ball is not a stroke per se - it is a penalty and you have to replace). If the affected repair is in the player's intended line of play, then it is a violation. If it ends up being accidental (he tops the ball) no penalty. If after making the repair, the player changes his mind about line of play, it is a penalty because it has now become the intended line of play. While other sports ha
  11. No penalty, but he should be assessed one round of drinks for foolishness. Generally reserve such course care for after you play a stroke to avoid even the appearance of improving your line of play. What would make this more interesting is say he topped his fairway shot. Still, I'd say no penalty, but it might up the assessment to two rounds of drinks.
  12. The problem for most brands is that they are bought and sold by parent companies, which most often, have little understanding of quality golf equipment. That's how you see Dunlop, Spalding, Ram and others rise and fall. Even Titleist, while its ball line has always been strong has seen fluctuations in its equipment. I think the major distinguishing factor when comparing low and high end isn't research and development - Sorry golf equipment has not changed that much (even though it seems like it has) and if there was ever some break through that did make a change, the USGA would be all over it.
  13. There is only one statement of the many that I have heard or read about becoming a single-digit handicapper (i.e. breaking 80) that I have ever seen proven true: Ben Hogan's claim that reading his book (Five Lessons Modern Fundamentals of Golf) and practice will get you there. That's not to say the book has any secret, but it does give you some decent fundamentals and perhaps just as important, reading anything about Hogan will give you an appreciation for practice. But to the core question of game improvement vs muscle back blades, I know plenty of single-digits who play cavity back/ga
  14. I just came across this post after noticing a thread asking for the last thing you bought. By "new" Jones bags, I assume you mean their bringing back the old design? About 15 years ago, I had my clubs swiped out of my car. The biggest disappointment wasn't losing my sticks (time for new ones anyway) it was losing the Jones bag I had because they weren't making them any more. Seriously, the golf industry had gone nuts making bags that had more zippers than a Michael Jackson wardrobe. For all purposes you couldn't even find a decent carry bag. Even the "lightweight" ones that had the flimsy fadi
  15. I am not sure I follow the distinction between spine angle and "your inclination to the ground" (inclination of what part of the body?), but in any case, I think many golfers who lack good posture at address benefit from the thought of sticking out your butt. Of course, doing it too much isn't good either and can lead to back issues (What's often referred to as "S" posture these days). If you want the prototypical posture (actually prototypical anything really) look at Adam Scott. Maintaining that lean - whether we call it spine angle or something else - during the swing becomes a lot easier i
  16. Sure, shaft could explain some of that. Also the nature of the driver and hybrid heads can contribute to a higher ball flight. It is not just the loft of the clubhead. Your local pro or decent clubfitter can test and tweak what you have in a half or hour or less. The advantage of going to your pro is that he of she might be able to pick up on other things too.
  17. Technically it is possible to swap out a ball during a round if it is deemed "unfit for play." While mere cosmetic issues don't make a ball unfit, and your fellow competitor or marker must agree a ball is unfit, it's a bit of hard prove one way or the other. I mean if someone in your group says "Oh yeah, this is out of round," it is a bit hard to fight them on that. Especially in a casual round, are you going to hold up the course while you get out a ring and start analyzing things? Even in a tournament, it just becomes a distraction either way. That's why pros just swap balls on the tee every
  18. There's nothing that says you can't have different swings for different clubs, but it does make things a lot harder. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some fixes that you can make up at set up, and the variance in angle of attack might reflect some work you need to do on how you turn - but don't discount the value of setup on such things. Getting your body in the right position to start facilitates a good turn. A half hour with a decent pro and some video might address a lot. You might also be dealing with some club fitting issues (another issue your local pro might catch). If your driver s
  19. A half hour with a pro might help a lot here, but the key is you want to maintain a consistent spine angle from address through impact. Sticking your butt out might help you not only get to a good angle at address but also lock it in throughout. I would say any time you have doubts about address, balance, etc. a few minutes with a decent pro and some video will be a huge benefit. It is hard thing to get right by just relying on your own feel and guess work.
  20. Maybe an issue is that you think it is one or the other? While there might be slight setp changes with the driver, I think most ascribe to a philosophy that one swing works for all clubs. One of the issues with today's drivers is that given their clubhead size, sometimes it can be hard to develop consistency (you don't have that consistent feedback off the clubface). Do you have a 2-iron still (or heck a nice small head persimmon driver would be great) that you take the range. Try that. Develop some consistency and then see what happens when you move to the driver.
  21. I am considering a Kohler trip. Thanks for a lot of good info. Just wondering how much of a crap shoot the weather can be in, say, early to mid-May? Or put another way, when might be the ideal time of year?
  22. Yes, there can be measured physical aspects - like coefficient of restitution - however, I would maintain much greater factors to length off the tee are club length and loft. Bear in mind, that a persimmon clubhead does not result in the meeting of ball and solid wood - the persimmon has inserts of any number of materials - including titanium. Now, yes, club manufacturers enhanced these properties in modern clubfaces by making them so thin that there can be a "trampoline effect." But before looking at the minor things, look at the more obvious characteristics - longer clubs, less loft, but hig
  23. I think such assessments more reflect what today's players are accustomed to. They have grown up with composite shafts and oversized heads. Yes, there are physical distinctions between clubs of yesteryear and today, but if you were to do this experiment in reverse, take a good player accustomed to playing persimmon and stick a modern driver in his or her hands, not only wouldn't they have some immediate improvement, but they likely would drive the ball worse given their unfamiliarity with the new clubs. Perhaps this is a typo (or I am misreading) but the "sweetspot," aka center of per
  24. Given that the ball flies much farther today (especially compared to balatas) and that clubs are jacked up a full four degrees (if not more) than the clubs of a couple of decades ago, in theory, most golfers are playing shorter courses compared to their counterparts in the 1970s or 80s without going to forward tees. I don't think the issue with pace of play has to do with the length of the course as much as the inexperience of today's golfer vs. that of a few decades ago. To that, blame rising cost of the game and the disappearance of caddie programs.
  25. Maybe I am missing the intended sarcasm? The point of sports is they teach cooperation - not just at a team level but at the individual level of having mind and body work together. In my experience, golf teaches this very well. Unfortunately, we have become so obsessed with outcomes in our society we have completely lost appreciation for the process. Whether you are talking standardized testing, investments, or the way youth sports are structured and taught today, we have no interest in the struggle, only the result. Golf may in fact be the last remaining activity where how you do somet
×
×
  • 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...