JoePete

I suppose the issue is can a foursome act like a competition committee (and absent a competition, a normal golf or green committee) in instituting certain local rules that are discretionary under Appendix 1. For casual golf, I like your thinking. A foursome is its own competition and should be able to impose its own local rules. That said, in anything more formal, for a foursome to assume such a role is disregarding the definition and authority of the "committee" (even if know no one knows who they are). That's where I think you run into Rule 1-3.

I remember when it happened - as someone else noted the fellow competitor was Ben Crane - being a little taken aback, but no I have no issue with it, and I think both Sabbitini and Crane apologized for the moment. The one thing that has been thrown out, and I would love to see it come back, is letting groups behind play through. There is nothing wrong with making your round last six hours if you let everyone else play at their pace. Your day may be disrupted as you continually wave people through, but so be it. How applicable is that to a tournament? I recall it happens. I still think the TOUR needs to address this more than player on player - that is just putting fellow golfers into a tough spot.

My feeling on this is the PGA TOUR sets its own parameters - hey why can't these guys wear shorts? Pace of Play is one of them and it is within the USGA rules (Rule 6-7) that penalties can be enforced. Like all matters of golf, there is a common shared etiquette. People think golf is an individual sport, I say it is actually the largest team sport - what you do on the course can directly impact someone else's enjoyment hours later (pace of play) or even days later (care of the course). The issue is that in almost all regards, golfers, especially on the TOUR, are self policing, and pace of play is hard thing to self police. I don't have a problem with one pro speaking to another in a round, but I really think the tournament officials need to take the lead and get consistent on this. In regard to #2, Rory Sabbatini did that a couple of years ago, and I think some saw it as bad taste. He basically finished out the hole, while his fellow competitor dawdled somewhere. If I recall correctly, though, his fellow competitor said he had no issue with it; he had run into trouble, they were on the clock, Sabbatini did what he had to. Overall though, it's nice to keep things cordial. You are talking top competitors on a sport that awards money almost entirely on performance, and yet these folks call penalites on themselves and routinely set the benchmark for sportsmanship.

In a past career, I had a job in the golf industry, and got some insight into some pretty objective ball testing - but keep in mind this is about 20 years old. Even then, the discrepancy in distance was not that great (and we had balatas included in that testing). Given the USGA distance standard, it is pretty crowded near the ceiling. To give some idea as to the gap between balls, air temperature difference appeared to be a more consistent factor than manufacturer - hey there may be some benefit to that noon tee time vs. being first out in the morning! Again this is dated by a couple of decades, but I can only assume the difference between first and last has gotten tighter in terms of distance. That said, sure grab a sleeve of whatever seemed to flying for you. See if they are consistent. Assuming you didn't have one "hot" ball that snuck by quality control (and it is in fact a USGA conforming ball), maybe its characteristics just fit your swing. I also am assuming no flyer lies involved in these numbers and you know the yardages to be correct.

Congrats on the new hip. Shame on you for such a loaded questions ;-) I have long held that carts have killed golf. Their one redeeming value, Gary L, probably can speak to is they allow people who might otherwise be unable to play to continue to get out there. But for able-bodied golfers, it is a moral imperative to walk if you are able. Why? Care of the course. The compaction from the weight of cart (not to mention the two grown men in them) is significant, especially around high-traffic areas. Care of the course II: The damage from spinning or sliding wheels can take months to heal. Carts very rarely speed play. Sure the 14 mph or so they go is faster than walking. However, they have to criss cross the fairway as two players play from one cart (that's not even address cart-path only). Further, at the two points where play is most delayed - tees and greens where golfers are at a stand still - carts and their paths are at the farthest distance; whatever a cart gains in terms of pace of play, it usually gives away at these moments. Yardages. As you walk to a ball you can spot yardages and other factors that impact your next shot and are ready to hit once you get there. In cart you fly over (sometimes literally) that stuff and get out there with every yardage gadget in the world - trying to figure is it 137 or 139? Just hit the ball. Walking is healthy. While that is good on its own, a little strength and stamina in your legs is good for your swing. Walking also makes it easier for you to help your fellow players. A stray shot into the woods, you line it up and walk right to it. In a cart you lose your frame of reference. The most important reason, however, carts killed caddies. Nothing was better for the game than caddie programs - the best way of breeding the next generation of knowledgeable golfers who could get themselves around a course. Instead we replaced this valuable feeder program with motorized couches for fat guys who treat a round of golf like a bachelor party. .... in my humble opinion ....

I like this interpretation of things, but I do find it probably in conflict with 1 - 3: Agreement to waive the rules. This thinking though does help greatly with addressing so many issues. Unless you are in a tournament with a declared committee, why can't a foursome be its own committee, look at a situation and quickly render a logical conclusion. The problem is at most courses you do have a committee (e.g. Green Committee or Golf Committee) who is charged with making local rules. But, very rarely are such local rules complete or well communicated. If it is a match, the technically easy way of dealing with this - concede the hole - offer it up to the golf gods as penance for the sin of putting the ball on another hole. Or, if you are not comfortable playing a ball from a location, and there is no relief, declare it unplayable (Rule 28) and take your stroke penalty (again offer it up to the golf gods, they will repay you). Technically if there is doubt as to whether you might have relief, play two balls - one assuming there is relief and the second under the premise of an unplayable. If you aren't granted relief, that would at least guard you against playing from the wrong position (Rule 20), which would be a two-stroke penalty (or possibly dq) vs. the one stroke you ate for unplayable. I don't think you can have one ball assume both roles (e.g. say you only took a club length relief and assume if it is not relief I will just call it unplayable); there is a decision that says if you declare a ball unplayable and BEFORE playing your next shot, you discover it is a ground under repair, then you can proceed under relief. Once you hit the ball (under Rule 28) without clarifying you are proceeding under relief from ground under repair, you are stuck with the unplayable. In the grand scheme of things, if you were the group in front of me, I would rather the four of you to assume the role of committee, quickly say "sure go ahead, save the course and take relief," and keep things moving. That one stroke probably matter won't much in whatever match you are playing. But everyone else one the course will appreciate your prudence.

Listen to the pro you are paying. By in large, most high handicappers stand too far away from the ball - at least in the U.S. Influence of Little League and adult softball on the golf swing I think. Baseball swing you extend the arms out from the body. Golf swing you keep the arms (at least the upper arms) a lot more connected to your upper body to keep on plane. The other issue you might be confronting is that when you move in closer, you really need to clear those hips on the downswing. If you have been an upper body swinger, it might take a little adjusting, but stick with it. You probably feel like you are going to shank everything, right? Stick with it, and remember get those hips through first. I have seen guys, as a drill for getting a good turn through the ball, almost stand right on top of the ball and be able to hit square shots.

I agree those are Titliest from the early 1970s (best guess). Looks laminated rather than persimmon. Fits with what I recall of them.

Start with a local pro and map out a plan. There may also be some physical issues you have to confront in regard to mobility; you might have to factor in some moderate physical conditioning (depending on your starting point). It is hard to say how long it will take, but you don't get there without some focused practice. Nearly anyone can get to be a 10 based just on practice, which leads to consistency - even a bad swing that repeats will get you around nearly any course. The question is how to get below a 10, and that's where you need not just any swing, but a fundamentally sound swing, and increasingly, you have to plug short game holes in your game. In theory, you could do it in a few months, but rather than setting a number target like that, I say find a pro you like, and just work on making each round better than the previous.

Callaway bought Hogan and killed the club line a few years back. Probably the right thing to do. Callaway does have an "Apex" line but no Hogan name on it. MacGregor, Lynx and Snake Eyes - the fact that MacGregor is even mentioned with those other two says a lot. Wilson is a good prediction (honestly I thought they were already dead). Ram is another one - the fate of the company ebbed and flowed with its ownership, but it is definitely at an ebb now.

Height is only one factor that might push you toward longer than standard irons. A more critical measure, which probably was done, is wrist to floor length. I just point to it because it is common error in fitting. On a SW it won't be noticeable. Keep in mind, there is no standard for flex. A stiff for one OEM may be regular for another. The only way to really know is to measure. On a wedge, the inconsistency won't matter that much. As opening up the face, etc. Yeah, that's they way it has been done since the days of Old Tom Morris. However, that is for chipping around the green. On longer shots, don't be messing with the face of the club. All distance control is is shortening the backswing - just like you do on a short putt vs. a long one. You still turn through the ball fully. Control distance with the length of your swing.

Quote: I would call this being "over-fit" Anyone remember the days where beginner sets where just the odd numbered clubs? How many people started with a set like that and eventually (maybe even quickly) became very good? Heck, you have the examples of guys like Trevino, Ballesteros, and Chi-Chi learning with one club. Part of that was in those days clubs were all standard with regular flex. There just weren't that many options, which was fine. Now, you can have anything you want done to a set even though most should have very little done. Basically in this tech and spec age we have much more opportunity to screw things up.

(1) Check Dean Knuth's site (he is the guy that came up with the idea of slope) - www.popeofslope.com. But the idea of slope is that it recognizes that difficulty does not apply evenly across all golfers. A good example, say a course has a lot of forced carries of 200 yards off the tee. For the scratch golfer, these are manageable (almost negligible). For the bogey or worse golfer who can't carry the ball 200 yards, it's going to be a very long day. While technically the range of slope is 55 (easiest) to 155 (hardest), the average (neutral) slope is considered 113. Hence to calculate a course handicap for a set of tees, take your handicap index, multiply by slope, and divide by 113. (2) The back tees will have a higher course and slope rating. It's possible that your 95 from the back tees will yield the same differential (your score minus course rating x slope/113) as that 89 from regular tees. (3) Stroke holes are determined by the club in question. They are a measure of those holes where the bogey golfer most likely needs a stroke to equal a scratch golfer. They are not necessarily a ranking of difficulty. A good example, a 470 yard par 4 will be hard for everybody (most might get bogeys) whereas a 440-yard par 4 creates much more of a separation from the good golfer (who will get on in two and have a shot at par) and a poorer one (who might need three to get on). (4) Your first concern should be to play the tees appropriate for your game. The general assumptions in handicapping and course ratings are that scratch golfers hit the ball farther than bogey golfers. It seems a simplification, but the numbers hold up mostly because the caveat it isn't how far you hit, it is how far you hit it straight! Generally if you are a high handicapper, consider playing the forward tees. Once you get to be a bogey golfer or so, move to regular tees. Single digit, now go to the back tees. But as more direct answer to your question, mathematically, all things being equal (i.e. if you can hit the ball 250 or more off the tee and 220 or more from the fairway), playing the back tees will give you more opportunity to lower your handicap. However, not only is it a bit masochistic, but if you are playing from tees that are too hard for you, you will probably take a lot longer to get around the course. Think of your fellow golfers before your handicap in that regard.

Generally, when I have been fitted, it is has been at a local club with the club pro, who, thankfully is much more a golfer than a club engineer. He understands the numbers, can explain them, but also puts them in perspective - generally his first question is "how did that feel?" before looking at the data. One of the impressive things is he can tell a miss without even looking at the data (i.e. "you got under that." Sure enough, look at the screen, and the data says so). I have never found these monitors to mimic on-course performance. That is not to say there isn't value here, but I think we (and certainly store salespeople) get too obsessed with the numbers. You shouldn't be looking for the absolute, but the relative. One club vs. another, even then, are you putting identical swings on both? A good pro also can explain why one might be different from the other in real terms (that loft is stronger, that shaft is softer) and not the marketing mumbo-jumbo (they coat the clubface with DoDecaHrydralize 15!) But let's just say these monitors were completely accurate. Wouldn't you still have reservations putting full trust in them considering you are indoors, hitting off a plastic mat, on a completely flat lie? For what it is worth, I will also admit that you can drown me in great numbers, but if a club looks ugly, I don't want to be staring at it the next time I am trying to hit a ball. Really, the difference in performance so much among equipment? Or does it come down to preference - what makes us feel the most confident?

But maybe your pro recognized the irrelevance of these things to you and nearly every golfer. While the clubmaker in us might be curious about these issues, I can see them as detracting from the clubswinger in all of us. I think that fits with the theme of this thread. The quality of equipment today is far better than what it used to be, but scores aren't plummetting - certainly for the average golfer. So sure, we can be fit for our equipment, and that can give us a boost in confidence or avoid some oddities in our set, but what your pro may have been trying to do is to keep you focused on the things that can improve your game rather than the minutiae of club dynamics.

With little doubt if we put as much money and effort into lesson, we would get better bang for the buck. The golf industry certainly benefits from the impression of "technology." I think what you will find is that greatest equipment improvement over the past several decades has been in regard to the ball. It is a little longer, but more important the quality is far better. It was not unusual 30 years ago to find one or two balls in a dozen that were out of balance or round. Today quality control is far better. As to the idea of fitting, I think we get too obsessed with swing parameters equalling a club of X characteristics. I think often that is secondary to the issue of achieving consistency (swing weight and flex) of all the clubs in a set. Ironically, you find a lot of places ignore this. Someone goes in to buy a driver. Sure they put them on a monitor get some specs and all, but never ask or measure anything about the rest of their set.

Well you have probably covered a lot in what you have read. My understanding is that the primary advantage can be getting your hands in front of the ball. Generally a good thing for your swing. Back to that in a moment. I know some make note that offset moves center of gravity back slightly (as compared to the shaftline). The claim is this slight move helps get the clubhead to square at impact (for someone who slices). It stands that such a phenomenon might also push the clubhead past square for someone. I wouldn't get too carried away with this, though. You are talking a minor change in center of gravity. Odds are variances in shaft flex in your set would have more impact than such a slight change, but I will defer to anyone who can illustrate the math. Hands in front of the ball is a good image, you want to be hitting down and through the ball and not scooping at it. While offsets help groove that image in your head, they only gets your hands in front by essentially moving the clubhead back. It's a bit like having one of those circus mirrors that make you look thin in your workout room; it provides a good image, but it may mislead you into thinking you are doing something you aren't. Are offsets the cause of your occasional hook? You should talk to your pro, but I would doubt your equipment issues are so severe that they are the major cause whatever problem you have.

You can also try Golf Laboratories in California http://www.golflabs.com They have been around for a while. Most of what they have done is club and ball testing, but I am willing to bet they have a set up for putters as well.

Don't confuse the Course/Slope Rating process with the stroke-hole ranking. The course rating is administered by your regional association under the guidelines of the USGA and yields the course and slope ratings for each set of tees. The stroke hole ranking is up to each course/club. There are some prudent guidelines, the main one being that the top stroke hole is not the most difficult but rather the one where it is most likely the bogey golfer needs a stroke to equal the scratch golfer. A good example, something like a 470 yard par 4 that almost everyone bogeys may be four or five on the ranking since it is hard on everybody. Whereas something like 440 yard par 4 may be the top stroke hole because the scratch golfer always gets on in two but the bogey golfer needs three shots to get on. Another guideline is you hardly ever want a par 3 to be highly ranked as it is a one shot hole for nearly everybody. This is why clubs use actual data, to see where that gap between good players and average ones most likely occur.

I think you hit the nail on the head though. My advice, buy a sleeve of NXT Tour S but also maybe a couple other brands, grab you putter and putt them. There is so much emphasis in the ball market on distance that we tend to forget how much of the game is 50 yards in. These days the balls are so adaptable for each swing, it's not like the old days of something was either a spin ball or a distance ball. At the least, narrow your choices down given short game feel and then maybe look at long-game attributes.

I have to second the advice of going to a local PGA professional who isn't affiliated with any chain or brand. These folks not only know equipment but they also know the swing. Price wise, I have never found the discount stores to be all that discounted. I would point out that a lot of the misinformation and hyperbole starts with the manufacturers. Up until about 30 years ago, the golf industry was fairly cordial and most sales were made through pro shops. Then things got commercialized (upstart OEMs, big stores, Internet), and let's face it, golfers are a gullible bunch. We'll try anything to shave a stroke off the handicap. We also tend to be too proud to admit when we got had ("yeah, check out the new ball I am playing. It has a titanium core! Only $250 a dozen!"). More or less the rules of the industry changed to where if someone was pitching a gimmick, everyone had to or they would lose too much market share. It is no surprise that some of the best clubmakers of the 60s and 70s disappeared during the 90s and 00s - MacGregor, Hogan, Wilson to name some - because they were late jumping on the bandwagons and got gobbled up. Sure, often there may be an ounce of truth in some statement - two identical club shapes, forged might feel a little better than cast - but it is buried under a pound of hyperbole and misdirection. Concerned about feel? Hey rather than spending a boat load on clubs, why not play a slightly softer ball for the exact same price? These stores can be a bit like watching a political convention - there is substance there, but you have to block out an avalanche of BS to hear it.

I would add that the key issue is ensuring the consistency of your set. When you buy a used set, it is like buying a used car. You don't know the history and what the previous owner may have done to repair or customize it. Especially when you start mixing in new clubs (even just new irons with new woods, but nowadays, we add in several other specials - wedges, hybrids, driving irons, etc.), you end up with clubs of varying dynamics. That is where a good clubfitter can help you get those club's consistent across the board. Sure, in that process is also fitting the clubs to you, but I think we tend to "overfit" ourselves. If for some reason we fall outside "standard" parameters, you have to ask "is it because I am physically unique or is it because of something I do setup or swing wise." It doesn't do much good, for example, to get adjusted for lie angle if your posture is terrible.

If you are talking blades, you might be referring to Palmer Standards - circa 70s and 80s? They had a pretty good reputation. I believe for at least a brief period, Palmer had his name on clubs made by Sears, but eventually joined up with First Flight to make "Palmer" clubs. At some point, I believe Arnold Palmer Golf essentially took over First Flight. Not sure about the exact timeline, but by early 1980s, Palmer was producing a "Peerless" line of clubs, cavity backs (maybe they had a blade version) with persimmon woods.

Agreed. You can have 100 courses all of the same effective length and no two will have same course rating. Maybe what people are seeing here is a hint of the detail of the formula and the enthusiasm with which a couple of golf-nut raters dig into it. One of the subjective aspects of the system, for example, is rating a green surface - is it moderately contoured or highly contoured. While there are guidelines, this is a good example of something that may be different when you walk a course vs. actually playing it. Sometimes you don't recognize the severity of the break or by the same token, it looks worse than it is. The ensuing bar bill from a handful of golfers trying to decide how to categorize one or two greens on a course can be staggering (experience speaking here) even though its mathematical impact is negligible. Of course if you add up a lot of those "negligibles," you have something measurable. A fascinating aspect of the system and something that speaks to "difficulty is not entirely yardage" is that despite general consensus that everyone is hitting the ball farther today, the course rating system hasn't been substantially modified since the early 1990s. The USGA still defines a scratch golfer as someone who drives the ball 250 yards and hits 220 from the fairway - if we are to believe the golf industry, not to mention 19th hole boasts, modest numbers. You would think with a longer ball and supposedly better technology, handicaps would be dropping in the face of an antiquated formula. Yet, handicaps haven't plummeted. Why? Well that can be another staggering 19th hole bar bill, but it speaks to the original post. Actual scores are not always indicative of a course's true difficulty.

Oakmont is a good example, the short tees (white) are about 6200, 72.4 course rating and a 130 slope - numbers not too far off from the original post (6,200, 70.8, 121, I misread the first time around - thought the rating was 72). The USGA formula starts by computing effective length of a course (accounting for things like roll, altitude, prevailing wind), dividing that by 220 and then adding 40.9 - hence a course that plays to 6200 yards, off the bat, starts at a course rating of 69. Then based on the obstacles/attributes found on each hole, that value can go up or down. So even in a case like the white tees at Oakmont, about 69 strokes of the course rating is yardage and about 3 strokes of it is the difficulty on the holes. You used to be able to get from the USGA its Course Rating System Manual (not to be confused with its Handicap Manual) and workbooks used by the regional associations. Some regional associations have put up PDFs of the documents (Google "usga course rating system fsga.org" if you really want a copy). In terms of volunteer opportunities, if you can get on a course rating team with your regional association, it is a pretty good gig. Golf wise, it can also be eye opening.