Jump to content

JessN16

Established Member
  • Posts

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JessN16

  1. Perhaps you'll be open-minded enough to realize that it's acceptable to look at how other people do things to see if they might be building a better mousetrap?... ...or maybe not. I suspect that's mostly due to the fact you don't agree with it. True, although they did spend a century or longer in this country "bifurcating" the races and the sexes. While that's on a completely different plane than a simple equipment rule, it also means the USGA isn't infallible, or opposed to major change if it sees fit or sees that it's necessary. OK. I pin my hopes on this, then, as it seems that at least a significant number of average ams like to use them. Even though I don't, I think it's bully for the ones that can and I'd like to see them be able to keep the things they like. I would hope they would come to my defense if the roles were reversed. If average HI hasn't increased since the 70s, would that also not mean that advancements in balls, driver clubheads, putters and course maintenance also hasn't had any effect? Yet we now have a standard on driver clubheads, and balls are a hot topic. My own opinion on that is that the gains given by equipment, balls and course maintenance have been balanced by a drop in practice (and thus, a drop in the level learned skills overall), although I couldn't say that for sure. That's what's happened in bo....eh, nevermind. Point being, if you're the USGA and you're basing your rule changes for a membership of millions, the vast majority of which aren't pros, you either use the market of greatest impact (the ams) to set your rule changes, or you use a staggered rule system. If the HI hasn't increased in the last 30-40 years, then there's no reason or even justification to break that which is fixed. Oh, really? Shouldn't because you don't think any of them are capable of hitting one, or shouldn't for the reasons that you "don't (want) to be painted with that brush" about? Coffee will be ready in about two minutes, be patient. No, I never thought of that. It never crossed my mind why a Pro-V1x doesn't knock down any more pins than a Noodle, or why I can't seem to properly balance that 16-pound piece of urethane on a tee. And speaking of which, these new drivers dent really easily and mine has developed a terrible vibration. I don't see a ton of them playing to play with any club, except maybe guys who think their average driving distance is an extension of their...kneecap. That was never my point. My point is that there has been a fairly significant amount of rule changes to come down the pike in the recent years, with the USGA chipping away at this or that. So far, nothing they've done has affected me, but what affects me may not affect you or the guy next to you. And that leads me to the following two concluding statements: One, it is much more palatable to any sport, including golf, to set parameters up front rather than let something go one way for a great amount of time and then pull it back. I was out of the game when the driver-size rules were put into place, but I don't recall ever seeing a club larger than 460 cc before. If that's true -- and if the rule was put in as a rule you could work up to rather than one you had to scale back to -- it was done the proper way. When you do that, you give someone a target to hit, the target isn't going to move, and everyone understands the rules of that game upfront. And two, I'm very fond of the saying by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, the one that people erroneously ascribe to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Applied to sports, I may not get a benefit from something that benefits you, but I will defend your right or privilege to use it as if it were me. I'm not being a "conspiracy theorist." I just see the USGA pruning the edges and sooner or later, they may or may not cut my branch. I'd rather they not continue to fiddle with a product I feel is pretty close to flawless -- but at the same time, one without a lot of room to contract before it starts showing flaws. Jess
  2. My experience has been that if it's about Item X today, it tends to grow to Item Y tomorrow. The high-lofted wedges certainly don't do anything for me. One of my regular playing partners, though, who is only a few strokes better than me per round, would be lost without his. If you were to expand it cover chippers, I'd be severely hurt. I use one to do everything from come out of sand to chip to hit runners to punch out of trees to even tee off on short par-3s. The big issue, of course, is if the driver standard ever changed. I suspect the same thing would keep big drivers safe that keeps high-po bowling balls safe -- changing the regs would immediately draw a loud outcry not only from the hackers, but from the companies who have invested so much R&D; in them. I'm not worried about the wedges; I'm worried about what could come later, so I would prefer someone nipped it in the bud now rather than then. Jess
  3. Maybe not, but all the other major participation sports have it to some degree and you could argue that golf does based on its teeing system divided based on handicap. Baseball has no aluminum bats at the top level, basketball a longer three-point line, football changes the goal post widths, etc. In golf, the course the pros play is already unlike the course the daily fee or country club member plays. How far you want to extend those differences is the key, I think. The argument in bowling right now -- which already has different lane oil patterns at the PBA level, and in its "sport-compliant" leagues versus regular league play -- is whether limits on ball technology and friction/oil absorbsion rates are going to make the game too hard for the amateur, especially now that they've become accustomed to having those tools. Where that differs from golf is that these rule changes in golf seem to be aimed at limiting the pros, damn the consequences on those of lower ability, while in bowling it's the opposite (i.e., to cut down on high scores by unskilled players, whereas the pros will still be able to score). And my point is this: There is a point at which limiting the novice or average player's access to good scores becomes bad for business. While those that support making the game as difficult as possible can pat themselves on the back for doing so, I guess, the question becomes, what are they actually proving? Sure, it will separate the wheat from the chaff at the pro level, but it might also cause collateral damage in the ranks of the guys who (a) aren't ever going to be good enough to threaten those players, anyway, and (b) who may leave the sport if the fun quotient goes down. When the USBC (bowling's version of the USGA) first came out with its sport-compliant programs about 10 years ago, it was hailed as a way to challenge people to test themselves on tougher conditions and with fewer tools (in the form of not having a lane oil condition that promoted a big "hooking" ball, thus greater angle on entry into the pins, thus greater pin carry and scoring). The only problem is, no one signed up. This program was voluntary in nature, and sport leagues have only a fraction -- I'd guess around 5-10 percent, tops -- of the participation as amateur leagues. What that has told us is that, while some people enjoy a challenge, far more people want to just have fun. So far, golf hasn't really cut into the "duffer level" yet; the groove law doesn't affect most of us in the least, drivers still forgive our mis-hits and those of us (certainly not me) who can hit high-lofted wedges benefit from being able to get to the green. The question is, where will people no longer tolerate a cut? What's the next one? Force everyone to play blades? Cut driver size back to 300cc or less? Get rid of mallet putters with face inserts? I think you have to consider both the skilled and the unskilled whenever you make a universal change in the game. Failing that, you need to build progression into the equipment rules, which allows the guys who are serious about competition to self-separate from the ones that aren't. Jess
  4. Not to mention if you outlaw chippers you have to outlaw some very old clubs that chippers are built to mimic. It's not exactly new technology there. I've also never quite figure out why anyone would go after the clubs/balls that serve more to bring amateurs into the game. Once you get to the pro level, outlaw whatever you like. At the high-handicap amateur level, the only thing you do by forcing them to play with hard-to-play clubs is either (a) protecting your own advantage or (b) being a rectum. (Not talking about you, Erik) I'm not a good golfer, but I'm a fairly high-level bowler. I play in many handicap tournaments and have been beaten by people not nearly on my skill level. Whose fault was that? My own, for not performing better. We're having this same discussion in the bowling world right now regarding ball tech. Chippers, high-lofted clubs, oversized drivers, etc. -- outlaw whatever you like at the PGA level. At the USGA amateur level -- particularly the casual golf level -- why really get that nitpicky about it? I've had several friends that tried to take golf, struggled badly at it and dropped it. Why make that process harder? And before anyone says, "that's not golf," meaning being allowed to play with such tools ... well, yes it is. It's currently legal. Leave the things that aid the casual golfer alone. Jess
  5. ^^^Winner^^^ ^^^On second thought, just maybe reeeeeeally disturbed.^^^ Jess
  6. There's truth in that about going with an "easy-bogey" strategy sometimes. Over a certain difficulty, I concede bogey to the hole and just try to find a way to get it. And that's a winning strategy most of the time. The problem with this particular course was that it is an old, private course. I play so many different places now I don't really have a "home" course. Like a lot of places this old and private, there's not a big difference between the blue yardages and the whites, which were what we were playing from. A typical hole here has the following yardage breakdown: 400-390-310-300, from blue to white to seniors to ladies. I don't know if that's common elsewhere but you get that a lot in Alabama at older courses. What that means is that the longer holes aren't distance-adjusted properly for mid- to high-handicappers. So there were a lot of cases here where I was playing for bailout on purpose. They have a 220-yard par-3, for instance, nestled against a lake and over sand. I can hit a 3-wood 220 only 1 time out of 10, and with my driver, the lake is in play. So both times I've played it, I've hit short on purpose, chipped up, and two-putted for bogey. As for the "easier" holes, here's what they were like: HDCP 18 (480-yard par 5): 8 There's a big ravine marked as a yellow-stake hazard that crosses the fairway 250 yards off the front of the tee, so that's a layup situation for me. I tried to lay up, ballooned the tee shot up and to the left, and ended up in trees. Took two shots to punch out, then hit a miracle 3-wood shot on my fourth shot to within 20 yards of the green. Fifth shot was a chip shot; hit it too hard, it went past the hole, caught a slope, ran across and off the green. Six on, two-putt for 8. HDCP 17 (300-yard par 4): 4 (with GIR) Really the easiest hole on the course, IMO. I've never played here and not been GIR. HDCP 16 (146-yard par 3): 4 Bad layout here; this is a BLIND PAR-3 HOLE. You tell off uphill, and the green is going back downhill in front of you. You can see the top of the flagstick and that's it; can't see the landing spot. Tee shot came up short of the green in a divot. Tried to pitch out of the divot, chunked it. Chipped to within 3 feet and tapped in for bogey. HDCP 15 (305-yard par 4): 5 Driver 250, had 55 yards left and tried to go for the flag, which was cut hard to the left of the green. Hit a pitching wedge that the wind caught and pushed just left of the green, hit the side of the green, kicked into a bunker. Good sand shot out, lipped out an 8-footer coming back for par, tap in for 5. HDCP 14 (365-yard par 4): 7 I question a lot of the yardages on this course, starting with this one. Absolutely killed a drive that felt like 220-250 (by comparison, the 250 I hit on the hole I just talked about above, felt like I didn't even catch it), but I found myself sitting at 163 away once I landed and checked it with my rangefinder. Stupidly misclubbed on my second shot; should have hit a 4H but decided to go with an 11-wood instead. I hit it about 130 yards into a breeze...literally don't know what I was thinking. Third shot was a knockdown chip that I ran through the green and just off the back -- and into a bunker that's about 3 feet off the back fringe. Mediocre fourth shot out of the sand, and then 3-putted from 40 feet. HDCP 13 (143-yard par 3): 5 Pin was cut tight behind a bunker, so I decided to try just for green center. This was into the wind, so I didn't want to try to over-kill a 7-iron, so I instead hit an 11-wood that I ballooned, had about 20 yards left in. Still looking at the bunker between me and the pin, so I tried to hit a chip/pitch to green center and caught too much of the ball. Three-putted from almost 70 feet out. Jess
  7. I won't be affected much. My effectiveness with wedges stops at my 56-degree, 12-degree bounce MAC sand wedge. I have gone through three lob wedges (two 60s, a 64) with varying degrees of bounce and I've hurt myself more than I've helped myself. In fact, I just pulled my 60 out of my bag so I could carry two drivers. Jess
  8. I typically play in the high 90s-low 100s no matter what the course. But for pretty much my whole golfing life -- and especially in recent years -- I notice I record my best scores on the hardest holes on the course. I shot 100 even today on a course I've now played twice and consider very challenging (lots of holes go uphill to small greens isolated by rough-cut grass rather than fairway grass around them). Here are my scores on the six hardest holes on the course: HDCP 1 (393-yard par 4, uphill): 7 HDCP 2 (420-yard par 4): 5 HDCP 3 (365-yard par 4): 5 HDCP 4 (350-yard par 4, uphill): 4 (with GIR) HDCP 5 (352-yard par 4): 6 HDCP 6 (377-yard par 4, uphill): 3 (with GIR; driver:3H:16-footer for birdie) For those six holes, total par of 24, I shot 30, or 6 over. The two big numbers came because of a OOB tee shot on HDCP 5 hole and two flubbed shots around the green on the hardest hole. Now, for comparison, here are my scores on the six easiest holes: HDCP 18 (480-yard par 5): 8 HDCP 17 (300-yard par 4): 4 (with GIR) HDCP 16 (146-yard par 3): 4 HDCP 15 (305-yard par 4): 5 HDCP 14 (365-yard par 4): 7 HDCP 13 (143-yard par 3): 5 For those six holes, total par of 23, I shot 33, or 10 over. It gets worse for the six in the middle, because on this par-71 course, I was 29 over for the day, meaning I was 13 over on the six middle holes. I can pull any of my last 10 scorecards and the story is the same on virtually all of them. The holes typically marked as the hardest on the course, I score on. The ones that aren't, I don't. Weird. Jess
  9. I hated McFarland--lol. 18 elevated greens were a bit much. There was also a layout issue or two on that course, namely 18 and one other hole where once you were in the fairway, you could see three greens and didn't know which one to hit at. I never played Skypark or whatever they call that one; I did play Spring Creek in Tuscumbia -- what a craphole. You want hot bevcart girls, go to Frank House Memorial down around Birmingham. I haven't played there in probably 10 years but I still remember the talent. PM me if you guys want to get together next week. If I don't hear from someone by Tuesday, I'm going to go with my plan of playing locally Wednesday-Sunday. Jess
  10. If I ain't ridin', I ain't playin'. And I'm just 35. Sure, it would be a health benefit to me to walk it, but I've got two bad knees and if I walk, I won't enjoy my round. The biggest problem for me is, even if I wanted to walk 18 at this point, I probably couldn't -- especially not on a course with any hills at all. Even if I were to take my time, the combination of torquing on my knee coupled with the impacts of the steps would probably cause me to pull up lame about 13-14 holes in. 'Course, I'm much more of a "casual golfer" than a lot of you guys, so for my game, I don't really feel like I'm missing out on much. Jess
  11. You could very well be right. I'm not a good enough golfer to know for sure. If this was a ball question in bowling, I'd be a lot more confident of the test results, as I'm much better in that sport. I just wanted to throw it out there in the spirit of sharing info. Jess
  12. Thanks for your comments! I think I'm going to stick with Volvik for now but if I make a change, it will be to one of the Bridgestones, probably one of the e5/e6 series balls due to cost. Jess
  13. Sounds good to me. I've got some vacation time coming up in second week of December; all I know at this point is that I'm going to play a lot of golf somewhere in Alabama. Have any of you played the public course in Florence that took the place of McFarland Park, up near St. Florian? Just wondering how good/not good it is. Jess
  14. I've played this hole before, and I remember it. Here's how I played it: **SPLASH** Jess
  15. I'm not sure what a "Flyertalker" is. That was a phrase friends and I picked up out of car magazine lingo and have applied it here and there over the years. I still intend to hit old balls, too -- especially on water holes. :) But I'll keep a few new ones in the bag for tournaments, when carry really matters, etc. Jess
  16. To start this post off, I want to explain what I am not: I am not a scientist. I'm not even a great golfer. I'm not a particularly good ball striker. My handicap is somewhere between 20-25. What I am, is a decent driver of the golf ball, and I'm a stat-hound who likes to track every little thing about my game, sometimes just because I can. And I have some free time, and like to share what I learn. So before you jump on me for unscientific results, read the preceding two paragraphs again, and if you want to accept my findings, please do, and if you don't, that's fine as well. When I say "decent driver of the golf ball," I consistently average around 240-260 yards per drive with about 60-70 percent of fairways hit. I drive like a 10-handicapper. I putt like a 10-handicapper. In the middle, I look like Bugs Bunny in the cartoon "The Singing Sword." These tests were done off the tee ONLY. I tested only one kind of ball, the Volvik Crystal. It's a 70-comp ball in the same vein of the Precept Laddie. What I was specifically testing was whether a new ball outperforms a used ball, even those advertised on eBay as "Mint" or "AAAA" or other such marketing blather. In case any of you are wondering how I got this much time to myself, the course is undergoing some renovations, I went during the weekday and at 51 degrees, this qualifies as "cold golf" in the South, especially if the wind is up. I spent five+ hours on the course and never saw another soul. Here's what I got: --- Overall test methodology Weather Conditions: Hit into the wind, with the wind at my back and 90 degrees to the wind direction, both directions. Overall conditions were breezy to windy, steady wind of 10-15 mph with gusts to 20+. Temperature was 51F. Humidity roughly 55%. Skies partly cloudy. Test clubs : Snake Eyes Mamba 2 9.5-degree driver, Aldila Vse60 R-flex shaft, not tipped; and Snake Eyes Viper Tour Black 10-degree driver, UST ProForce XT shaft S-flex, not tipped Test course: Quail Walk Country Club, Wetumpka, Ala. I chose this course because it's virtually completely flat. Grass condition: 328 Bermuda fairways, dormant, average moisture load, average-to-firm ground underneath Distance certification: Bushnell laser rangefinder --- Test batch 1: Used Volvik balls advertised as "mint" from a private seller Summary: I hit six different balls, all appearing as advertised ("mint"), into all wind conditions. I numbered the balls 1-6 so I could track their unique characteristics. What I quickly found was that Ball No. 1 was out of range with its brethren. It was a lot shorter and didn't have the same feel off the clubface. While I hit it straight enough, it didn't have the same pop as the others, nor the same trajectory. The other balls had a higher ball flight and got up more quickly. There was very little difference in performance between Nos. 2-6. Average distance for me was about 234 yards with Nos. 2-6, around 210 for No. 1, over all four wind directions. What surprised me most was the downwind and crosswind tests showed little dispersion. The headwind test was actually pretty good for Nos. 2-6 (around 220), but ball No. 1 dropped all the way to 190(!) with one particularly short hit of less than 180 yards. Longest hit was with Ball No. 5 for 272 downwind. --- Test Batch 2: Used Volvik balls from used-ball seller Knetgolf, advertised as mint Summary: I took five balls out with me out of a purchase of 36. Of the 36, all but two or three justified their "mint" rating in appearance. One in particular looked like it had a suntan, while another had a noticeable ball mark on it ("mint," in Knetgolf's vernacular, shouldn't). I discarded those two and grab-bagged my five, which I numbered 7-11. Overall, the performance of the Knetgolf balls exceeded those bought from the private seller, but the range was wider. I had one ball (No. 9) that had the best performance of any used ball in the test and performance that rivaled a brand-new ball (see below). None was as low as Ball No. 1 from the first set, but there were definite performance steps between all balls; no two gave quite the same performance. All, however, did feel the same off the club, unlike Ball No. 1 from the private seller. Average distance was up to 241. That was a range of around 228 on the low (Ball No. 10) and 254 on the high (Ball No. 9). Again, like the first batch, a tailwind made little difference and the balls just bored straight through a crosswind. Headwinds caused a little ballooning but nothing too terribly bad. --- Test Batch 3: Volvik Crystal Blue, NIB, from private seller on eBay Summary: I used one sleeve of brand-new, never-opened Volvik Crystal Blues (same ball as the Crystal, with just a little blue dye in the cover). And what I got was quite surprising. For starters, the ball flight was noticeably different. These balls took off lower than the used balls, but then rose at the end of their trajectory and bored through the headwind. At this point, I need to explain my club testing method: Every time I switched holes, I hit the Viper Tour Black one time out of the rotation, so every ball was hit at least one time with that club. My Tour Black launches the ball higher than my Mamba 2. In the case of the new balls, however, both clubs were giving a low-then-lifting-high trajectory; it was just that the VTB had a higher initial launch angle. Accuracy was about the same as the others. I averaged around 71 percent fairways hit during the test. Distance? The new balls cruised by the old ones. Average distance for me was almost 262 yards. Best yet, when I really jumped on these, I got results. I had four drives push over the 280 mark, with two of them going 302 and 308, both downwind. But I also hit a 282-yard shot into a crosswind The highest individual lick I had on any of the old balls was a 281-yard downwind strike on Ball No. 9 in the second batch. There was no statistically significant difference between the three new balls (Nos. 12, 13 and 14), which is what one would expect. --- Conclusion For me, new balls make a difference -- a 21-yard difference, at that. Now I'm left to ask why. In science's favor are many things: One, I'm not a robot. My swing is irregular and sometimes, not very good. Two, the new ball test was done last -- after I was a little tired, sure, but also after I was good and warmed up. Three, the new ball test came after about 1-2 hours of good, solid wind whipping across the course, which may have dried things out and led to greater roll. Four, with as much wind as I was feeling at ground level, there's no telling what was going on up there where the balls were flying. The only thing I can say beyond any doubt that was different was the ball flight path of the new balls. Just for kicks, I went back and alternated between new and used for a couple of shots and was able to easily replicate what I'd seen the first time around. The new balls were launching differently and appeared to bore into the air better before eventually lifting. I can find no difference between them other than the color, so I'm at a loss to explain this one. How does this affect me going forward? I'll need to continue to test things more under more variables. I won't stop buying used balls, because the price surely makes them attractive (although I'll do it from Knetgolf, that's for sure, rather than just Joe Seller). As always, your mileage (or yardage) may vary. These results might not hold up with other brands of ball. I would declare, after seeing my results and factoring in the variables of the test, that there's probably a 10-yard difference at least in performance between new and "mint" used balls if you typically average 240-260 on your drives. Jess
  17. Golfsmith/Snake Eyes. That gives you the Viper Tour Black woods and hybrids, plus the wedges. Gives you access to the Golfsmith irons and putters. For that matter, I could just stay with Snake Eyes if you wanted to get technical about Golfsmith and Snake Eyes not being the same company. My current bag reflects this -- all Golfsmith/Snake Eyes right now. Jess
  18. My mind can't figure out how it's possible. I'm specifically referring to the Wilson Zip. And what advantages is this supposed to offer? Jess
  19. Stacey_E, Can you give me the specs on the Wilson Zip ball? Also, can anyone tell me what "zero compression" really means? If the distance between a 70 comp ball (Volvik) and a 0 comp ball is as much as the difference from 90 to 70, I can't imagine how it reacts. I'd love for someone to explain the science behind that one. Jess
  20. Snake Eyes Viper Tour Blacks from Golfsmith. You can get a club kit complete with headcover for about $80/club. For that amount of money, you get adjustable weight ports and one of the most visually appealing, solid-hitting golf clubs I've ever held in my hands. And I've hit just about every company you can name. Jess
  21. Thanks a ton, Stacey_E! That is just what I've been looking for for months. I'm playing mostly the Volvik Crystal ball right now, and from looking at those numbers, there's no reason for me to change. I've never been able to put a lot of spin on the ball due to the way I strike one, and I already get nice height on my drives, so high-spinning balls have never been of particular benefit to me. On that list, the Volvik is only about three yards shorter than the e5+ and the Trispeed, which were the two balls I was considering testing. The Volviks are virtually the same length yet have a lower spin rate, and they're cheaper than anything on that list other than the Laddie. Now I don't need to go hunting for something new. You've just saved me a bunch of cash. Jess
  22. Never thought about the eye-dominance thing, although it's a big deal in my other sport (bowling). I'm right-handed, left-eye dominant. I cannot stand putters with double-bend shafts. Everything has to be either straight-shaft or plumber-pipe shaft for it to work for me. I can't get lined up otherwise. Jess
  23. I'm talking about free. I'm not going to pay for a golf ball selection service. There seem to be some good golf gear review posts on the 'net, but they're erratic and sometimes it's hard to find what I'm looking for. I'm specifically looking for a place to compare certain balls together. I tend to like Bridgestone, Precept and Srixon, but lately I'm hitting Volvik and liking them. However, I don't want to be missing out on something that could help my game and I don't have the funds to just buy a dozen of everything and experiment. I'd specifically like feedback -- and comparison -- between the Bridgestone 330 balls, the e5/e6 series, the Srixon Trispeed and Z-UR balls, and the Volvik Crystal, plus similar offerings from Precept. Jess
  24. I left out what might be a crucial piece of info: I would understand if "playing to the clock" meant a four-hour round. But "proper time" at this particular golf course is something like 4.5 hours or more. If you set the clock that high, heck, anyone can get done inside the clock time. I was raised by my father to let faster groups go through no matter how fast I was going myself, unless there were no open holes in front of me on the course and everyone was waiting. In fact, in this particular round, we had four guys behind us who were all playing like 2.0s and better. Really good golfers and very fast, faster than my group. They caught us twice while we were waiting for the group in front of us and I tried to send them through us, but once they saw what was happening ahead of my group, they declined. Jess
  25. Welcome! Quite a few of us Alabama folk on here. I used to live in Florence, and later in Russellville, but I'm in central Alabama now. Jess
×
×
  • 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...