Hardspoon

It's just random chance. Most likely, you're not doing anything different at all. Your first shots and your second shots are just as likely to be good, or bad...you just remember those times when the second one is perfect! If your first swing led to a good result, you're probably not dropping another ball - so you don't get to experience those times when your first shot would be great and your second one would be crap. That's a good thing, though, because it makes the solution easier: don't worry about any potential subtle differences between the first and second swings (tension, pressure, grip strength, etc.)...just work on your swing. As you get better, those first shots will be better and better.

I think it's going to be fun to watch, just because it's so different. I do feel like luck will be a bigger factor with that much roll-out, which is a good and a bad thing.

Haha. Welcome to TST! Good to see more Western PA folks represented here.

I will second this. You can get quality balls from big-name manufacturers for about $.50/each.

Good round today; shot a 90 on a difficult course (135 slope) that I hadn't played before: http://www.gamegolf.com/player/Hardspoon/round/2283625 I putted really well today. Actually no three putts (!) - although that was due in part to a lot of near-misses on greens; I putted from the fringe at least four times. Hole 16 was a fun hole, and also pretty indicative of my game these days: You can't see much of the fairway from the tee, so it's blind and you have to trust that you can aim MUCH further right than you think. I hit a great drive...and then chunk the wedge 50 yards. Whomp, whomp.

Funny occurrence today: my GG tag fell of my putter during the round, so I threw it in my bag after I finished playing. I guess I forgot to turn off the GG device. It recorded a "round" where I shot 1,144 (1140 over par!) with 1,144 putts. Basically, you can follow the trail as it recorded shots during the entire drive home: It's neat that they kind of correlate to speed, also - you could tell when we were on the highway versus sitting at traffic lights. I tried to sign the round, just to see what the Strokes Gained stats ended up looking like...but it didn't work. Still pretty amusing.

Sure. But it eliminates some variables, right? If you align the putter on your target line, your eyes will always be on the target line as well. Anyway, my initial question was poorly worded. By “alignment”, I meant the ONLY alignment of the head/eyes with the putter head (since that’s how they use the word in their promo material). My question, which you’ve answered, was whether head alignment is actually the issue leading to poor setup.

Sure, most have trouble aligning their putter with the target line...but this wouldn’t really help with that. It’d only help get your head in the same position, relative to the ball, every time.

http://www.golf.com/equipment/2018/07/10/odyssey-unveils-red-ball-putter-scope-improve-alignment This sounds/looks really gimmicky...but...it actually makes sense, as a perfect solution to consistent alignment. My only question: other than for really high handicappers, is consistent alignment on putts actually a typical problem?

FORE!!!! 😉 What did you think of the course? It's less than an hour from my house, but I've never ventured out in that direction.

Dude, WTF, this is an online forum...you're not supposed to agree with people, or change your opinion when presented with new facts. 😉

Based on the available information on the GG website, it generates "plays like" numbers based on real-time wind data and on slope (uphill/downhill). It should also take into account the altitude of the course, so if you're playing a round in Denver it will automatically calculate your distance gain. I'm not saying it's worth it (I for one wouldn't pay for it, although I'll probably try the free trial out of curiosity)...but it's definitely going to be capable of providing better information than you'd get even if you know your distances very well...and better information than you could get from even a slope-equipped rangefinder.

I mis-understood at first... but reading the thread, I realized you meant "a theory that higher handicap players are almost more likely to get a hole-in-one on balls hit close to the hole"...so I voted "yes". I definitely think that if you took some number of shots heading exactly towards the hole, half on a high trajectory and half rolling, more of the rolling balls will end up going in. I don't the difference is great enough to explain the perceived variance though; I think that is simply a result of there being more poorer players than good ones (as @colin007 mentioned), and the effect of remembering when a terrible golfer has one but not when someone you'd expect to does. For example, I know another high handicapper like me who I remember has a HIO, because I remember the story...but, thinking right now of the four best golfers I know, I couldn't tell you whether three of them have one or not.

From Deadspin's comments section: I chuckled.

Awful. For better or worse, the kind of person who becomes a TV announcer (for any sport, really) is the kind of person who fills "dead air" with their words...whether or not they have anything intelligent to say. At least the Rules Official new instantly it was a penalty.