GoodGuyGreg45

Their house clubs and upgraded rental sets are probably manufactured by Callaway. They look like Big Bertha 08 irons with Top Golf logos on them. They sell a few gloves, hats and towels from Callaway. Employee appearal features the chevron too, so I'd say they promote them without tying themselves to Callaway perpetually if there ever was a difference in direction.

You could replace your phone or battery with what you would spend on a handheld and then get an app?

I'm a little biased here, but I think #2 did not get enough love. Joking, of course. For how extremely flat the Arid Plains of West Texas are, The Rawls Course has a fair amount of contouring. The first time I played it I could not get over how much different the turf was compared to what I'm used to playing in southeast Texas. The back to back Par 5s to finish are also different. Compared to the other college course I've played in Texas, this one is head and shoulders above in every way. If only I could get back that half of a semester I wasted taking Golf 101 as an elective.

So you just hit a hard 8 or a soft 2 there, Mr. Love III? Agree with this. Those links were probably all within the last week too.

Driver off the tee trying to split the fairway between the right rough and the bunker. If I have 225 or less from the fairway I'd go for it. If I'm outside of 225 or in the bunker I lay up to the 100 yard line trying to hit the right side of that landing area. Appropriate club from there aimed at the middle of the green and hope to have a birdie putt of some sort. We're not even playing the same game then. I wish I could strike the ball well enough to trust a 3W, hybrid, or long iron out of a fairway bunker. Any bit of sand before the ball and its in the creek before the green. For me, the bunker is a factor visually off the tee, and it would penalize me by taking away any choice at going for the green in 2.

I would suggest you choose which ever club will help you achieve your dream faster. By that I mean there are more things to look at than dues, fees, and 18s. Which course has the higher concentration of members that play to a handicap similar to yours and better? The opportunity to compete against quality players cannot be expressed as a dollar value, or maybe it can? Which layout(s) is/are the toughest? Can you usually get a tee time when you want it and how you want it (i.e., just show up in the late afternoon and play 9 and/or play early in the morning and not be forced to use a cart?) I know public courses can get large crowds regularly, especially if they are in superior condition like you described. If one course has already opened to the public, there is no guarantee the other won't in the future. How far away is the club from where you will be living. Gas will add up if one club is 5 minutes away vs. 45 minutes if you expect to be showing up at least 5 times per week. Are you positive the potential new club is all inclusive, uncapped? I will admit that quality practice facilities do make me want to use them more. These are just a few possible questions you may or may not have already answered in regard to your situation. Is a Titleist tour fitting $1000 alone excluding any custom ordered equipment? Unless you're gaming some award winning forged MacGregor blades from the 70s, maybe hold off on that until you put in a full year of full time work and craft a swing that will benefit more from a tour style fitting. Use that money toward quality instruction instead? I do not know your current situation, so these questions are just food for thought. Many may not apply to you. But best of luck on your journey.

If they're traditional plates its more like 500, but they look to be rubber so 265 is what I see. Not that it really matters. The funniest part of it all for me was Rose's photo actually has the screw on bar collars attached.

Have you ever hit a pure shot with a blade? It is close to the best feeling in the world. It is just not worth giving up all the distance on mishits for those few and far between pured shots for most amateurs. Hence the RSi2 and TP trying to combine look, feel, and performance. Blades usually have less offset as well. Personally, I feel I really have to sling the ball to get any shape with a SGI club, say Speedblades, where as a TP MC type of club with less offset allows me I can hit the slight draw and fade.

What would be the tangible consequence for running over the allotted time? Multiple sports have some type of shot clock and teams still regularly accept the penalty for allowing it to expire. I know a good amount of courses in my area are equipping carts with GPS, so maybe you track each groups pace of play through that. If your group takes longer than x amount of time then you're put on some type of blacklist. First offense you cannot play with more than 3 for your next two outings? Second offense you lose the privilege of riding if that is what you prefer or have to play during non peak times, and third offense you are suspended indefinitely? If people choose not to return then the particular course makes a name for themselves as a course not tolerant of slow play. Just like when you head up to the local YMCA and want to play basketball, you usually have the option of playing full court or half court games. Some courses could start branding in such a manner.

I'm legitimately disappointed in this. I live pretty close to this project, and these guys will guaranteed kill the "hustle and bustle free, magical environment" that already exists here. I played the course that existed on the property before they sold it to this group, and I knew that layout could have been exceptional if someone would have invested the time and money. It never really recovered from hurricane damage that happened in the 2000s, so I was excited to hear about the new plans for the course. I was hoping this would be a world renowned, championship caliber golf course carved through the property the best way that Mr. Woods saw fit. I just can't shake the felling that all the development around it will detract from the tranquility that the previous course had and Bluejack could have. Sidenote: The more of Tiger I see off the course, the more I would wager he actually has a close personal relationship with a guy that has matching ties and sweaters for everyday of the week.

I've seen 10 minute back ups, occasionally the 15-20 minute wait, but 40 minutes is unacceptable especially if a starter was present. One thing I've generally observed from groups when there is a back up, large or small, is they do not actively try to eliminate it. I do not think they treat the first tee as they would the other 17 on the course. I've seen plenty of groups leave the putting green and arrive at the first tee right at their 11:00 AM tee time. Once they physically get on the tee box, each guy takes 4-10 practice swings because its the first tee and they want to make sure they are as loose as possible. Then they will look at each other for two minutes trying to decide on who will be the first to play, proceed to take "two off the first tee", run back to the cart to get that second ball, and finally after 7 minutes they are off. These things can add up without really being noticed by many. Its another one of those may be they do not know, or may be they do not care situations, but just because the next group doesn't tee off for 8 minutes doesn't mean you have the tee box for 8 minutes. It means you have 8 minutes to play both your tee shot and approach shot in order to clear the fairway for the next group.

I just started looking to get a SLDR last week. I guess I can wait a while longer for the new year and grab an SLDR when they're $99.99 or be one of the cool kids with my brand new R15. I almost can't believe the R15 will be better than the SLDR. The SLDR lowered my spin numbers from 2950 to 2100 in initial launch monitor testing, so I was hoping I could get more than a yard of roll out of most of my drives. At least my mild, undiagnosed OCD will not be driving my buying decision. I can get the R15 white crown in all of my woods and hybrids unlike the SLDR white crown. As for the Burner, the only good thing I can say about it as of now is I love the color scheme. Other than that it looks like the "graphic T" of golf clubs.

I voted the second option because I do not think many players have ever been shown how to play efficiently. Last weekend I played with some guys I have played with before, but they are not my "regular group". We arrived at the tee box at 11:20. As the marshal was getting all of our names on his player's sheet, I noticed there was not another scheduled tee time until 11:50. On hole #6 a twosome pulled up to the tee box as we were hitting our approach shots to the green. On hole #7 said twosome was in the fairway as we were walking off of the green and another twosome I could see was waiting back on the tee. The slowest player in our group makes maybe the funniest remark I've ever heard him make, "Man, this must be one of those places that really stacks 'em back-to-back-to-back. I bet they send a group off every six or seven minutes." Said course, in fact, schedules tee times every 10 minutes. I couldn't help but think to myself that this guy must be delusional if he thinks its anyone else's fault but ours for the back up on the front nine.

I too had the goal of breaking 85 as my best score previously was an 87. It felt like I blew past my goal when I shot an 80 a few weeks ago. It really does make a difference when you play your second shot from in or near the fairway instead of in the trees or your third from the tee. I focused on putting the ball in play by choking down a bit on the driver to feel more in control from the start of the round. By the 5th hole I had hit every fairway and I started to get the sense that I couldn't miss if I tried. I also stopped worrying about what I "could shoot" (i.e. if I get a few more pars and a bogey I can break 90) during the round and quit adding up my front 9 score at the turn. I did this a dozen or so rounds before I shot 80, so it takes a little time to change the way you think. I wrote my score down for the hole and didn't think about it again after that. These kinds of thoughts really distracted me from the goal of hitting the next shot as best as I can. I would like to add that my putting was not that great on this day either because I missed a few very makeable birdie putts, but two putt pars were happening more than ever. One other minor thing I changed was my strategy on the par 5s. I played them all as three shot holes if I couldn't get it there with anything less than a 4 iron. This eliminated that 3 wood slice that costs three strokes on that one par 5 per round. The result: 3 pars and a birdie. Good luck and don't put to much pressure on yourself to break 85 again immediately after you do it the first time.

I some what agree that playing with similarly skilled players seems like a good idea in theory, but then you would have a foursome of guys newly acquainted to the game paired together. They would never be paired with a more experienced player that could possibly teach them some of the more obvious rules and etiquette that most serious players take for granted. I think they would be oblivious to ready golf in most cases too. Then there is the group of single digit guys breathing down their necks because they are hitting fairways and greens for the most part. Also, whose responsibility is it to tech players that lack basic under standing of rules and etiquette about them? The player(s) that introduced them to the game? Are there widespread seminars on proper golf conduct? There very well might be, but I do not think they are prevalent in my area. While some players care enough to research and learn proper etiquette themselves, I believe this is a minority of all golfers. The group I usually play with is becoming more and more difficult to play with lately as I have really started to focus and play golf seriously. A good day for them would be breaking 100, and there is a 50/50 chance they will duff their tee shot or their second shot. Then they get frustrated, just walk up, take the quickest swing possible, and hit a huge banana slice into the woods. I'm sure most of you have experienced what I'm talking about at least once or twice. This sounds terrible because I'm still a hack in my own right and was right there with them not too long ago.The problem is they have hit 3-4 shots or more before I hit my second, and this can take me out of my rhythm. So basically your question comes down to should I continue to play with these guys that I have fun with out on the course despite our differences on the scorecard, find a new group of guys that I can stand spending 3+ hours with on a weekly basis that are more in line with my playing ability, or allow the course to set me up on a blind date with others that are similar to me in skill? I guess I'll keep playing with my usual group all the while stressing true ready golf to them.

I have been actively trying to replace my putter for the past 4 years or so. I've demoed a majority of brands and styles out there in that time, and I can honestly say I have not found a putter that felt better or produced a better roll than my current putter. I would suggest only purchasing a new putter if you believe it feels better and produces better putts than your current flat stick. I always wanted a Scotty until I actually hit a few of them and realized they were no where near anything I felt comfortable gaming, so don't get caught up in the glamour or prestige associated with a certain brand just look for a putter that performs.

That is how I thought of the Web.com tour initially, but looking at some of the statistics, most notably the Overall Scoring (Actual) stat, there are 22 guys on the Web.com Tour with scoring averages sub-70 but only 9 guys on the PGA Tour. It should be noted the Web guys have about half of the total rounds played and they do not play layouts the like of Pinehurst No. 2 and TPC Sawgrass, but shouldn't higher caliber players be expected to post similar numbers even on tougher courses? In baseball, a AAA position player hitting .320 wouldn't be expected to hit .320 in the majors because he would no longer be facing AAA pitching, but in golf there is no defense but that of the course difficulty. Could it be there is that much difference in the difficulty of the layouts and setups of the events they are playing week in and week on both tours? For example, in 2008 Tiger won the US Open at Torrey Pines at 1 under par, but Torrey Pines yielded a winner (Scott Stallings) of the Farmers Insurance Open at 9 under this year. Is it as simple as the PGA requiring PGA Tour venues to prepare for their tournaments weeks in advance by narrowing the fairways, lengthening the rough, raising the green speeds, etc. whereas the Web.com guys are playing courses in condition similar to how the members play them? Zack Zucher really got me thinking about this today when I saw the he fired an opening round 60 in a Web.com event. I thought if he has the ability to do that he would be able to at least make it to the weekend a majority of the time on TOUR.

Time will tell, but if Holly can hold her own as far as knowledge of the game of football goes, she will do great at Fox if they incorporate her properly in their NFL broadcasts. I agree with others on the front that Fox may not get high marks for their golf coverage which would hurt her brand, but that all is yet to be determined. I think TGC lost with this one though. I liked her as the host of Playing Lessons all though I have to admit I rarely watched it before she joined. It may just be me, but a woman that attractive that could also beat me after giving me 5 shots per side is on another level. She provided much needed "comic relief" (for lack of a better term) on The School of Golf even if some of her responses to Martin's tips were force/scripted. I think she was more than a pretty face because she was well spoken, had a great personality in relation to the others on Morning Drive, and she was not afraid to go back and forth with the guys. Overall, I think she will be missed more than some care to admit or realize so far.

With GC's increased coverage of the developmental tour over the last year or so, it got me wondering what the major and minor differences are between the Web.com Tour and PGA Tour. I have looked for information on the web and on this forum, but haven't seem to find any of the info I was seeking, so if any of y'all can provide some insight that would be greatly appreciated. I have seen some of the guys on the Web.com tour post scores in the low 60s multiple times and the winners of some of their events finish 15+ under par. Do these guys not have the consistency to make it long term on the marquee tour or do they just need to pay their dues by going through the progression the PGA has set out? I know the Web.com tour players are not of the caliber of say the top 50 (i.e., Sergio, Els, Reed, Simpson, Na, etc. that aren't "elite" but seem to be contending more than not), but it seems some of them are indistinguishable from guys 100-150 in the FedEx standings. OR are there major differences in the level of golf courses and set ups that the Web.com tour can secure as venues? Maybe those hole locations throughout the week are cut more in the middle of the green instead of 8 yards from the left and 7 yards from the back that we are used to seeing on the PGA Tour, the length of the overall courses aren't as long, or the overall courses are not even comparable for the two different tours, etc.? I don't expect the Pinehurst No. 2, Oakmont, and Pebble Beach's of the tour to compare with Web.com tour events, but more likeTPC Deer Run, Shell Houston Open venue, and other courses where every year the winner seems to shoot -20 at least.