ozgolfer63

I have a collection of various antique golf clubs that I am trying to estimate a value. I have Chuck Furjanic's price guide book but find most of his price estimates well above what the market ( ebay and auction sites ) show for clubs. Does anybody know of a more recent/accuarte source of pricing antique clubs or do you think the prices being paid currently just reflect a trend in the collecting market at the moment? It seems as if the very rare clubs are still fetching prices similar to Chuck's book and that perhaps the market has changed a lot since his book was last published? Any thoughts?

I dont profess to being a swing guru or have the technical knowledge to critique various golf swings but I'm a little confused as to the mystery surrounding Tiger's supposed poor driving. If he has the best (or one thereof) swing in the modern game for the 13 other clubs then where does it go when he pulls out the driver??? Surely a large part of his probllem has to be his attitude or thought process when he gets the driver out of the bag. As much as we might critiscise JD for his misgivings I dont think anyone can deny him his ability and I would think his insight into the game at the elite level

I dont get the criticism about the course set up, particularly the 17th?? It's a par 3, doesn't that mean you have 3 shots to get the ball into the hole to score par?? Where is it written that your 1st shot must be on the green? Seems to me that these guys only get to play a course set up like this once a year and as a consequence they tend to struggle with it when the pressure builds on Sunday arvo. Give them this type of course set up 4-5 weeks in a row and watch the quality of golf improve and the scores drop well below par.

What is most amusing about this and many other similar situations involving high profile high/achieving people, is the way such people are portrayed as almost being super-human and unaffected by the vices and failings of us mere mortals. Why would Tiger be any more immune to commiting these actions than anyone else? Truth is he's not! The image that is created to suit his business/sporting career may have us believe he is unlike any of us is but, unfortunately for Tiger, Im afraid he's just like anyone of us (golfing ability aside). Maybe he's been reading too much of the publicity/hype that is generated by the "Tiger machine". It is a person's character that determines how he/she behaves in certain situations not there sporting prowess or their level of intelligence or the number of majors they have won. Tiger will learn a very hard lesson from this. Coming back from the loss of your father is one thing, coming back from the emotional nightmare of losing your kids (according to all reports) is a whole new experience and one that he (as a normal everyday dad) may struggle to come to terms with for quite a while. Monty, speaking as a human being who has been through a similar personal breakdown, will have an insight into the anguish and emotions that Tiger will have to work through, regardless of his accomplishments as a professional golfer. By the way Eric I think 6 or 7 European Order of Merit titles may count for something, at least outside of the US anyway! Just a thought

Not bad. Rory Mcilroy? Nick Flannagan (another Aussie won US amateur 2003). If your looking at swings to copy how about Stuart Appleby , does anybody make it look easier?? Dont know why he doesnt win more often, dont think the putter is his favourite club.

In Australia carts are predominantly reserved for senior golfers who are unable to maintain an acceptable pace of play walking. I still play regularly with golfers well into their 70's and 80's who have no problems keeping up walking with a 4 hour round. They might walk a little slower but they tend to be very straight and have very brief (if any) pre shot routines. Many younger players could learn about shot preparation and being ready to play by watching how efficient these senior golfers are rather than copying their favourite PGA pro. However, as more and more resort style courses are being built the use of carts on these "cart only" courses is obviously increasing cart usage over here. Combine that with the trend towards social golf by people with less time available to spend on the course and it seems inevitable that we are heading down the path of the US in terms of carts becoming a regular feature of a round of golf, bit sad really. My experience of "cart golf" is limited with the rounds were no faster than walking but we spent a hell of a lot less time getting to our balls but a hell of a lot more time then waiting to play our next shot.

McIroy has to get past Oosthuizen first who has been playing extremely well on the European tour of late. Enjoy watching it, most of us wont get to see it down here as its only being broadcast on a commercial stations HD network!!!

Possession of a prescription only drug without a prescription is illegal and was when Arnold competed. The contests werent drug tested but that has long been the case in bodybuilding circles. Anabolic steroids are used for the treatment of various medical conditions. There use in sports, particularly where strength and power are key factors is, and has long been, widespread. Their ability to hasten recovery and increase protein anabolism is well documented as is their powerful anti-inflammatory effect. History will show that it was/is the athlete(s) lacking the genetic advantage of there more gifted rival that resorts to using substances such as Steroids, HGH etc to try and gain an advantage. As a consequence we are now in the unfortunate situation of questioning the ability/appearance of the naturally gifted athlete. In my opinion, Tiger is too smart/ethical/principled and has way way too much to lose by taking any artificial substances to aid in his performance or recovery from injury. Drug testing in golf is, unfortunately, a necessary evil in todays sporting contests where such vast amounts of money are on offer.

[QUOTE=Smallville;259692]Thanks. Now I don't have to finish watching. What???? You go to a golf forum website expecting not to stumble across a tour result somewhere? What are the chances, particularly when you look at what this guy has achieved. Looks like a definite case of "golfwebforumitis", (an addiction to golf forums). Isnt this like watching the news and not expecting to hear the result in the sports?? I think we know who has the problem here!!

If I could remember my trigonometry from 30 years ago I would make comment, Im lucky to remember the way to the course these days so Im sure what you have worked out is correct. What I do remember is why I never pursued a career in mathematics!! Do me a favour and work out what h is when d for the 58 wedge is 59mm and 56.5mm for the 52 wedge, Im curious to see what the difference is. Do you think the amount of bounce can influence h? By the way, I have the 58 with I think 12 degrees of bounce that I carry now and use from the sand but I did switch from a 60 with 4 degrees of bounce. Loved the 60 for chipping etc but with the low bounce it was useless for me out of the sand so I had to compromise and go with the 58. Its a great club but when it gets dry over here and the lies get really tight its a pig. Anyway Im due off the 1st in about 5 1/2 hours so Id better get a little sleep. Cheers

Im not sure if we're measuring the same thing? The hypotenuse of the triangle (the clubface) is longer for a 58 than for a 52, thats just the way it is. Dont forget when drawing your triangle the angle your looking at (the club loft) of 60 is not the angle inside the triangle otherwise a lower lofted club would actually have a steeper face and less loft. Its not a theory, get your tape and a matching set of wedges and you'll see for yourself. The anecdotal evidence talks predominantly about flop shots which has nothing to do with the club design. Open the face of your lob wedge, which increases the bounce angle, and you're going to have a hard time making good contact, thats why the lie for these shots is such an important consideration. If there isnt room under the ball to fit the increased bounce then your going to hit it skinny or your going to hit it fat trying to make room under the ball.

Why will a chunked 8 iron ALWAYS be a better shot than a chunked wedge??? If you're talking distance then obviously that is due to the fact that the 8 iron has a higher clubhead speed and lower loft, not rocket science! Apart from that it depends entirely on the siuation. If I'm trying to hit an 8 iron across a water carry and chunk it Im going to be more penalised than if Im trying to hit my lob wedge into a wide open green and chunk it short. Zen, dont confuse yourself with the math, get a tape measure and check and you'll see the 60 wedge clubface is slightly longer than the 52 as its designed to be (as I've already mentioned). Its only small but thats because the differences in lofts you guys are talking about, in reality are only small changes. Did you look at the pictures of the MP57's? Did you count the grooves? Draw the triangles and see it for yourself, the math is not complicated Im not sure how you end up with 15.5mm?? The bottom line is that the wedges sit at the same height and the increase in loft is offset by an increase in clubface size and does not increase the vertical error. This is not my opinion , it IS how these clubs are designed and made, the evidence is a tape measure and a photo away. Anyway, thanks for the discussion Ive enjoyed it even if in the end we agree to disagree! Im off to the Australian PGA next week to watch how its really done. Looking forward to seeing John Daly and the top Aussie guys tear the Coolum course apart. Unfortunately wont get to see many drives it is a very short and tight course and I cant think of any holes, even the par 5's where Daly will need to hit driver.

Why?? Because what you're saying doesnt exist!! Grab a ruler and a piece of paper and let me explain. OK draw 2 right angle triangles with x (vertical axis) of 2" and y (horizontal axis) one triangle at 3" the other at 4". Ok now measure the hypotenuse. This is how these clubs are designed!! The height of x remains constant but as the angle between y and the hypotenuse decreases (going from a 56 to a 60 wedge) the length of the hypotenuse increases. X doesnt change!! The only time it changes is when you open the club face and that is NOT a design feature of these clubs it is the choice of the golfer playing the shot. Dont believe me?? Check out club reviews on this website (Look at the mizuno mp 57 for eg) and compare the number of grooves between the 6 and 9 iron. You'll find the 9 iron has 14 and the 6 iron has 12. Why? Because as the face angle decreases the hypotenuse (clubface) is lengthened to maintain a constant height (x). Thats what Im trying to get across, a 52 wedge and a 60 sit the same height off the ground because the face of the 60 is made longer. I have 52 and 58 series 900 cleveland wedges, the 52 has a 2.5mm (sorry we're metric over here) shorter clubface than the 58, which means that when they are placed on the ground at their correct loft angles they sit at the same height. There is NO less room for vertical error.

Golf is as mechanical as you want to make it. If you go back and read my responses they relate primarily to the point raised that in their opinion, the design of the lob wedge makes it more difficult to hit. This is not a question of swing mechanics but a misunderstanding (IMO) of club design. Obviously an individual's swing idiosyncrasies will determine what he/she ultimately prefers in a particular club. But from a technical viewpoint the ability to consistently strike the centre of the clubface is easiest with the shortest clubs, the wedges. Why? As the shaft length decreases the arc of the swing is reduced and the chance of returning the club to its original position is increased. Get some of those clubface stickers and compare your 3 iron to your wedge and check the dispersion. But wait there's more, as I mentioned earlier as the loft increases in a set of irons so does the size of the clubhead. This is designed to increase the overall size of the sweetspot which maintains the effective/usable size of the sweetspot as the loft of the club increases. The entire point I have been trying to make is that the design of the lob wedge does not make it more difficult to hit, without going into what shots people are attempting and their level of ability or how much they practice etc etc.

Sorry the quote thingy in my last post hasnt worked properly, or what really happened I didnt do it properly . Hmmm, is that what this post is really about??

[QUOTE=Fourputt;232972]You are posting yourself as an 8 handicap. YOU ought to be able to strike the ball pretty consistently. We are talking about guys who play to 15 and up, and those who don't practice this very specialized club. Because of the angle of attack on the ball and the loft of the club, the sweet spot IS effective reduced with a higher lofted club. I'm amazed that a single digit capper can't see that very obvious effect. It's just simple physics. So you are saying that if you only hit 5 out of 8 shots well with a club you wouldn't try to find a better solution? That's only a 62% success rate, which in my mind is terrible. Darn right I'd dump that club in a heartbeat. In fact, I have... it's called my 60° LW... I do just fine now with a 58°, and that appears to be my personal cutoff point. Yours may be different. I said I hit 5 out of 7 good chips and 1 bladed shot. Once again, this wedge debate is really about control of contact and ball flight. And again, the tour average for driving and GIR is around 63% so obviously these guys are not hitting these clubs well (at least in your mind) and should consider an alternative strategy. If I was to drop every club that performed at 62% or lower I wouldnt have a club in the bag and Im pretty sure 99.99% of players of my level and above wouldnt either! I appreciate your decision to drop the lob and go with the 58 but using technical reasoning to explain the difference between a 58 and 60 wedge is stretching it a tad. I am an 8 handicapper who unfortunately doesnt get to practice and who plays 1st group every Saturday (5:30am at the moment, way too early) so I can get home early and spend time with the family. Im often amazed at the level of technical analysis that is spewed forth in these forums from players of all levels to explain/justify/determine what is or isnt the right club to use. My favourite, a bit off the track, using a ball flight launcher monitor thingy to measure spin rates/launch angles/ball speeds to choose a driver!! Whatever happened to going to the range and hitting a few clubs and watching the results??? It's true what they say about this game, the more you know the harder it gets!!

[QUOTE=David in FL;232950] Well David are you going to tell most of the the tour pro's they all need to dump there drivers because the tour average for hitting fairways is only 63.16%?? As a matter of fact the tour average for GIR is only 63.9% I guess that means those pesky irons have got to go as well!! From a purely contact/ball flight point of view, which is really what this entire discussion is about, then I think anyone who can achieve a 70% sucess rate with a club is indeed a PGA Tour calibre player, congratulations.

You cant be serious with these arguments!! So we can all hit our sand wedges (56) without any problems but add 4 degrees of loft and all of a sudden the sweet spot disappears from the clubface?? Hold a lob wedge and a sand wedge (or pitching wedge for that matter) against a golfball and look at the size of the clubhead against the ball. There isnt a smaller area of clubface because as the loft increases so does the size of the clubface and therefore the sweetspot. Not to mention the fact that the chances of making precise contact with the shorter clubs is in large part due to the shorter shaft lengths.

He is, my friends, the real deal and will be the one to legitimately challenge Tiger for golfing dominance in the not to distant future. If not for the fact that our American friends often look no further than the US Tour for the games best players, Rory McIlroy would have been on the radar many many months ago. And you think Anthony Kim is going to be the one to challenge Tiger, ha ha!! Watch this space!!

Hello Fourputt I have no issue with hybrids at all, I carry 3 Callaway heavenwoods (2, 3, 4) luv em. I was trying to make a point regarding "the steep over the top swing" being unsuitable for a lob wedge. I think you'll find that the hybrid has overtaken the lob wedge in the popularity stakes (in the never ending search for distance and accuracy) and unless Im mistaken I'd wager that that "steep over the top swing" that didnt work with your fairway woods is not going to do diddly squat with your hybrid. If you are going to judge the suitability of the lob wedge on the basis of people trying to emulate Phil Mickelson then lets be fair and judge the suitability of the driver for "most" golfers based upon their J B Holmes style mentality.

Maybe I'm missing the point here but I would have thought that any club that can help your short game, particularly within 20-30 metres of the green should be in your bag regardless of your handicap. I have a gap wedge (52) and a sand/lob wedge (58). My lumberjack type swing isnt really a factor in using these clubs because 95% of the time I'm using these clubs from 50m metres or less of the green. These are the clubs that most golfers use the most frequently, albeit not with a full swing. If I hit 5 out of 7 good chips with my lob wedge and then blade a full shot over the back of the green your telling me to dump my lob wedge?? What you should be telling people is to add as many wedges to their bag as they can, get rid of that hybrid you hit once every 3 rounds and stick in another wedge!!

Grass or mats I think it depends on what you're trying to achieve at the range. If you need to work on your ball striking, as in actually contacting the ball solidly then I'd say go for the grass. If you're working on alignment/set-up issues and dont have problems with striking the ball solidly then I prefer the mats. I get a much better sense of aligment from being able to move the entire mat (assuming you are able to) and adjust to a target compared to laying a club on the ground.

Often the surest way to convey misinformation is to tell the strict truth. Mark Twain (1835-1910) U.S. humorist, writer, and lecturer.

Im already there!! Trying to play to an 8 handicap and not being able to putt!! But seriously, what is so technically unique and outstanding about Ben Hogan's swing compared to other greats of the game ala Jones, Snead, Nelson to mention a few. Surely to win as these others have done they must have also been exceptional ball strikers. Was there a secret to his swing or is that part of the legend?

How do we define ballstriking? What is it (not the PGA stat version) and what is it a reflection of? Is it good technique or practice or concentration or a combination of all 3. It is a term that is used a lot in golf but one that is difficult to describe. Why was Hogan such a good "ballstriker"? How important is it in the overall quest to become a good/great golfer? Who are the best ballstrikers of the modern era and how do they rate in terms of success/achievement within the professional game?