rebby

After reading through this entire thread and thinking on it for the last day or so, I can honestly say that I wouldn't change a single rule. Sure, there are rules that need minor tweaking or clarifications but that's what the Decisions already do. Additionally, the rules are revised every four years (hopefully clarifying things and taking into account the last 4 years of decisions, at least I believe that is the intent of the revisions). Let's not forget, there is always the option of calling in a rules official when a rule is in doubt. When calling in an official is not an option the solution is simple, hole out with multiple balls, obtain a ruling after the fact (that is how most small tournaments and the MNHSL accounted for rule questions during the course of play) and, once a ruling has been agreed upon with an official, sign your card and turn it in. Anyway, I digress... on to a few specifics that I've come up with. Remember [url=http://www.pgatour.com/2011/r/05/02/rule-simpson.ap/index.html]Webb Simpson[/url]? He was the one penalized in May when his ball moved while addressing it on the green. This resulted in a 1 stroke penalty and, ultimately, Bubba Watson ended up winning in a playoff. The USGA appears to agree with Webb that this is a bad rule (see the linked article, O'Toole even states that a change in this rule could come as early as the 2012 revision). Personally, I disagree that even this rule should be changed. Changing the rule creates a grey area. Did the ball move because of the conditions or because of the manner that the player addressed the ball? When playing in conditions like that, when greens are fast and hard, players should adapt and "address" the ball accordingly (don't ground your club and you haven't officially "addressed" the ball, problem solved). Take, for example, the [url=http://davidhbarrett.com/golf/golf/personalities/618/hogan-s-miracle-at-merion-the-truth-behind-the-myths-2-2/]1950 US Open[/url]. Hogan managed to avoid a penalty under this exact rule by adapting his game to the conditions. Personally, I do not believe that this is a rule that needs to be, or should be, changed. Or, how about another blunder, the [url=http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/pgachampionship10/news/story?id=5466521]2010 PGA Championship[/url]? Should we allow one to ground their club in a hazard? Obviously not. Grounding one's club in a hazard is an obvious means to test the conditions. Had Dustin Johnson actually read the local rules sheet before the tournament started, I bet that this would have been a non-issue. He would have likely error-ed on the side of caution and not grounded that club. Not being able to ground your club in a hazard is a good rule and it should remain intact. In fact, here's some unpopular opinion I'm sure, I'd take it one step further and do away with rakes and favorable bunker conditions altogether. Hitting your ball into a "sand trap" is no longer much of a penalty. In some cases, your odds of getting up and down out of a modern bunker are better than your odds of getting up and down from thick green side rough. Henry Fownes was on to something with his [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakmont_Country_Club]furrowed bunker rakes at Oakmont[/url]. Too bad that it didn't stick. Maybe eliminate a penalty that a lot of weekend golfers HATE; stroke and distance? This comes up primarily with balls out of bounds and lost balls. Most weekend guys that I know will instead drop a ball in the vicinity of their lost ball or roughly where their first went out of bounds. Some will take a 2-stroke penalty (thus hitting 4 if it was their tee ball that was lost), others take only a 1-stroke penalty stating that it shouldn't be any worse than hitting a ball in the water. Others won't take a penalty at all, after all losing a ball was penalty enough or such and such a group must have hit my ball instead... Whatever. For those of you who would eliminate this penalty from the game I ask you; what is a fair alternative? If I hit my ball off the course and into somebody's kitchen window, what's a fair penalty? If I hit my ball so deep into the woods or long grass that it can't be found, what's a fair penalty? Stroke and distance is pretty fair if you ask me. Sure, there are times when I've sailed a ball deep into the fairway only to find that my ball is nowhere in sight when I get there, that's a bad break and you can't go altering major rules to account for that "once a year" situation (that could be solved by golfers properly identifying and only playing their own ball). I think that the rules of golf have evolved quite well. Rules that were bad or are no longer applicable, have been removed (for example; In the past you couldn't mark your ball on the green which could effectively stymie your competitor [the 1913 US Open is a pretty famous example of this rule, Vardon effectively stymied Ouimet at one point during the playoff]. The rule was, and still is, just fine for match play but, for stoke play, it's unquestionably unfair and has thus been changed.). The evolution of these rules over time has resulted in a very solid rulebook with few, if any, holes that need addressing. If you like, we could discuss specific equipment and technology rules. I'm sure that would spark a debate on all sides.

I strongly prefer playing [url=http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/46774/sandbagging-is-there-such-a-thing/18#post_606706]straight up[/url]. Net golf just [url=http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/38762/unpopular-opinion-i-m-sure-i-hate-net-golf]isn't for me[/url].

5 gr grip = 1 swing weight point Thus, by adding 15g to your grip, your SW will go down roughly 3 points. If you were at D2 before, you'll be at C9 now. Hard to say if it will make a difference to you or not. Depends on how much you can feel the difference and if the feel throws you off one way or another. Quite honestly, the vast majority of golfers don't notice a 3 point difference in SW. For some though, the difference in feel is substantial.

I thought that it was time to update my WITB for 2011. Although not much has changed, I have made a few additions. I currently have 2 bags; my primary "gamer" bag and a secondary bag of "backups". I seldom game my "backups" which is a real shame, it would be nice to replace them with another set of 1957's... I also have a few clubs that, depending on course/conditions/etc, I will rotate in from time to time. Anyway, first my [b]primary bag:[/b] Driver: Callaway 9.5' FT Tour w/Diamana WB 73 S, D3, 44.5" Fairway Wood: Titleist 13' 909F3 D3 w/Matrix Ozik Code 8 S, D3, 43" Irons: Miura 1957 Limited Edition "baby blade" 2, 4-PW Wedges: Miura 52/7, 56/9 & 60/7 Putter: Scotty Cameron Newport Button Back, 33", 360g (rwb) Bag: 2011 Titleist 14-way My [b]backups:[/b] Driver: Callaway 9.5' FT Tour w/Diamana WB 73 S, D3, 44.25" Fairway Wood: Titleist 15' 909F3 D3 w/Matrix Ozik Code 8 S, D3, 43" Irons: Miura Tournament Blade, 3-PW Wedges: Scratch Tour Department 52 SND, 56 SFU & 60 EGG Putter: Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport, 33", 360g (rwb) Bag: 2009 PING Hoofer My [b]extras:[/b] Fairway Wood: Titleist 18' 909F3 D3 w/Matrix Ozik Code 8 S, D3, 42.5" Irons: Miura 1957 Limited Edition "baby blade" 3-iron Putter: Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport, 33", 360g (purple) Putter: Scotty Cameron Studio Select Newport, 33", 360g (red) Putter: Scotty Cameron TeI3 Newport, 33", 360g Putter: Scotty Cameron AOP Newport, 33", 360g Putter: Scotty Cameron Button Back Newport, 34", 350g My primary driver is a Callaway FT Tour with a spine aligned Diamana WhiteBoard 73 in S flex tipped about 1/4". The driver swings at 44.5" and is weighted at D3 via a little hot melt. This driver is gripped with a Golf Pride Tour Velvet Cord w/a single wrap of tape. My backup driver is virtually identical to my "gamer". Same shaft (spine aligned & tipped about 1/4"), same swingweight. Swings at 44.25" and is gripped with a black/purple Golf Pride Multi-Compound. The fairway woods have all been custom built as well starting with stock clubs from Titleist. Shafts have been spine aligned and play just a tad stiffer than "stock S-flex" (like my drivers, tipped about 1/4"). The swingweights are set to D3 (hot melt when needed). They are all gripped with Golf Pride Tour Velvet Cords. My primary irons & wedges were also custom built. Both my 57' & 62' wedges feature custom C grinds. Specs of my primary irons & wedges are as follows; [code] Club Loft Bounce Lie Length Swingweight Shaft 2 19* -1* 59* 39.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 3 22* 1* 59* 39" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 4 25* 4* 60* 38.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 5 28* 6* 61* 38" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 6 32* 6* 62* 37.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 7 36* 6* 62.5* 37" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 8 40* 7* 63* 36.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 9 44* 9* 63.5* 36" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge P 48* 8* 64* 35.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge 52 52* 7* 64* 35.5" D4 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge 57 57* 10* 64* 35.25" D5 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge (bent 56/9 w/C grind) 62 62* 9* 64* 35.25" D6 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge (bent 60/7 w/C grind) Grips - Golf Pride Tour Velvet Cord, Logo Down, .580, 1 tape wrap[/code] As you might expect, my backups were custom built as well. Specs are as follows (virtually identical to my 1957's); [code] Club Loft Bounce Lie Length Swingweight Shaft 3 22* 1* 59* 39" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 4 25* 4* 60* 38.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 5 28* 6* 61* 38" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 6 32* 6* 62* 37.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 7 36* 6* 62.5* 37" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 8 40* 7* 63* 36.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 9 44* 9* 63.5* 36" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge P 48* 8* 64* 35.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge 52 52* 64* 35.5" D4 S300 (SND) 57 56* 64* 35.25" D5 S300 (SFU) 62 60* 64* 35.25" D6 S300 (EGG) Grips - Golf Pride Tour Velvet Cord, Logo Down, .580, 1 tape wrap[/code] All of my Miura irons/wedges contain conforming grooves. My Scratch wedges, on the other hand, are non-conforming. My putters are all Scotty Cameron Newports and I've got a multitude of (very similar) choices. To start things off, I have 3 Studio Select Newports all 33" with 20g weights and Cameron cord grips (one red, 2 black). One has the stock paint theme and the other two have been tweaked slightly as shown in the pics. The red/white/blue putter has just those "cherry" dots changed, stock paint otherwise. My black/purple one has been changed as shown and has had the paint stripped from the sole. I also have a pair of Newport Button Backs. The one with the polished insert has been shortened to 33" and sports 20g weights and a black Cameron cord grip and red/white/blue paint. The other one is bone stock, plays to 34" and has the factory 15g weights and the leather stitchback grip and headcover. To round out my flatsticks, I also have a Cameron AOP (Art of Putting) Newport and a Sole-Stamp TeI3. Both of these sticks have had the stock shafts swapped out with new ones and now play to the 360g/33" configuration that I prefer. I swapped out the shafts (and weighted via tungsten powder) so that I could return them to stock when/if I decide to in the future. My primary gamer, as in 90%+ of my rounds, is my red/white/blue Button Back and it lives under the blue Odyssey headcover that you see in the pics. I strongly prefer this headcover due to it's slim size and magnetic closure (if only I could find one in black). My "backup" is my red/white/blue Newport. I just had my AOP and TeI3 modified to fit me better though so that slot in my bag just might be up for grabs. As noted in my signature, I use all of this gear to smack around either a TaylorMade Penta TP or a Bridgestone B330-S. At the moment I'm very happy with both of my bags. Although, I would like to make a few changes (wouldn't we all); 1 - I'd really LOVE to swap out my TB heads for some CC 1957 heads. This would allow me to put my bags in a regular rotation. I strongly prefer the 1957's and would love to "standardize" on them for my irons. 2 - I'd like to replace my Scratch wedges with something that has CC grooves. I've been debating over going with a 53'/58' setup to open another slot at the top of my bag. I'm not sure that I want to do this though since I've very comfortable with my 52'/57'/62' setup. 3 - I'd like to get my hands on another TeI3, preferably another sole-stamp, in rough shape that I can send out for a deep milling. I think that this would be the ultimate in a soft feeling putter. Enough rambling, on to some pictures... Putters... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb1.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb2.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb3.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb4.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb10.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb12.jpg[/img] Miura 1957 & TB 3-irons... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb5.jpg[/img] Miura 1957 & TB 7-irons... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb6.jpg[/img] My gamers... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb8.jpg[/img] My backups... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201105/witb11.jpg[/img] [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201008/witb-10.jpg[/img] Scratch wedges... [img]https://rebby.com/tmp/WITB-201008/witb-9.jpg[/img] Well, that's my current WITB... Thanks for checking it out.

When I gamed an Imix driver, I was going to have the tip pulled, shaft spined and then reinstalled. It turned out that my Whiteboard was already aligned just fine using the stock "chevron" location so I let it be. Have you checked the orientation of your shaft as it sits right now?

Easy fix. Quit giving strokes either way. Play straight up.

Ah, slight misunderstanding. I was taking the average net score of ALL scores, not just those used for team scoring. That's what made my results so alarming. The "sandbagging" was very obvious when you looked at the numbers. It was usually the same guys every week. Much of this was suspected among the members, it just took a little long term analysis to prove it. I remember one guy specifically, his worst round that entire year (including some really bad weather conditions) was a net 33, his best round was a net 26, his average was 30. Once we established the "league handicap" system, his average net score bubbled up to 35 (right on pace with the majority of the others). Handicaps are intended to level the playing field. It's unfortunate that, in some cases, it does just the opposite.

Almost forgot... I voted "Too High" because of what I observed years ago. When I was a kid at my club I used to do all the scoring for the Tuesday and Wednesday night leagues. The leagues were team based stroke play events. There were 8 or so members per team and the low 5 scores (net) would count for the team's weekly total. A team would earn a given amount of points based on where they placed relative to the other teams in a given week. At the end of the season, the teams would be ranked and play head to head (similar to a match play bracket) until a winner was determined. Anyway, while doing the scoring I noticed an obscene number of +3 or +4 or better low net scores. For example, the front 9 was rated 34.2 and EVERY week I'd be punching in 30's, 28's and even the occasional 26. A team that shot all 33's (net) would rank at the very bottom any given week. This made ZERO sense to me. Based on the handicap calculations the average net score should have been more like 35 or 36 not, 31 or 32. At the end of the first season took all the numbers that I'd gathered for the year and calculated "league handicaps." I used the exact same formula used for their official handicaps but in my calculations, I only used league rounds. The vast majority of players had "league handicaps" that were well below their official handicap, some had a delta as great as 10 strokes. As you might expect, the teams with the biggest discrepancy between official and league handicaps were the teams that won year in, year out. I showed this to the club pro and we made a few changes. The next year we started publishing the "league handicap" on every scoring sheet right next to the player's name and their official handicap. As you might guess, EVERYBODY asked what this number was, "that's your handicap calculation when we only take league rounds into account." You can imagine the uproar from some of the members. Here it was, their "sandbagging" clearly stated where everybody could see it, even posted on the bulletin board. To make matters worse, these numbers were even color coded (if the delta between 9-hole handicaps were greater than 1 stroke, the number would be blue or red). After a few weeks you started to see these numbers normalize a little bit. All of a sudden guys who were 15's for the last 10 years were playing to an 11. Their "improvement" was impeccable. The following year the league voted to use a hybrid handicap depending on the week of play. Week 1 was 100% official handicap. Week 2 was a 90/10 official/league calculation. Week 3, 80/20, and so on until the number reached 95% league and 5% official. For the first year in league history, the playoffs were highly contested and very dramatic. In a few cases, playoffs were even utilized and the winning margin was decreased a significant amount. In short, it was a lot of fun and guys were actually pressured to play well from week to week. The way that a league should be. Sure, this is only a sample set of one club. A sampling of roughly 500 golfers but it's telling nonetheless.

I'd rather not have a handicap. In fact, I've ranted about this in the past. The only reason that I even keep a handicap is because it's required for so many events. Low net scores mean nothing to me. It's all about the gross score. I strongly prefer events where you just go out, play golf, post a score and that's what determines the result.

I don't know that you'll be able to get that info from the USGA. Last I heard, they kept their test results under lock & key mainly due to the fact that they don't want to get into the "advertising" market. It's a slippery slope when you start publishing any test data from their perspective. For example, what's the longest ball/driver as tested by the USGA? How about the ball that spins the most off a wedge, yet the least off a driver? The USGA has a great deal of this data but releasing it would be asking for an implosion. You might have far better luck finding independent test data. Check with individual manufactures or magazines. You'll very likely find more published material from them.

That's how I would go about it as well. Once you find a feel that you like, stick with it and have the rest of the clubs gripped in he same manner.

EpiPen. A few years back I got stung by a wasp. It nearly killed me. 3 hospitalizations and 2 surgeries later and I don't screw around anymore. The EpiPen goes with me everywhere I go. If I ever get stung again, I'll be rushing to the ER straight away.

Do the converse next time you play, hit the front tees. That can be a lot of fun as well.

I've had a lot of problems w/FW woods over the years as well. I'd hit high hooks with all them, to the point that I carried a driver/2-iron combo for a great number of years. Then I made a swing change a few years ago and that was the ticket. Since then, I've been very successful with FW woods. My suggestion would be to see a good pro and see what you're doing that's causing the hook. If you're lucky, a minor tweak will be all that's needed. Once you're able to hit a FW consistently, get fit. Having the right FW wood made a pretty big difference in my long game. It was well worth the trouble I went though to be able to game one. Having another option (other than a driver and 2-iron) has proven to be a nice advantage off the tee.

Here they are, finally. My Miura Tournament Blades. Set is 3-PW and like new. I gamed these for about a month last summer and decided to give the baby blades a try. After gaming the baby blades, these have just sit in my office and served as my backups. I'd like to get another set of baby blades to fill this role (and, thus, rotate them from time to time) but in order to do so, I need to sell these first. Specifications on these irons are as follows; iron loft bnce lie length swingwgt shaft 3 22* 1* 59* 39" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 4 25* 4* 60* 38.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 5 28* 6* 61* 38" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 6 32* 6* 62* 37.5" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 7 36* 6* 62.5* 37" D2 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 8 40* 7* 63* 36.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin Hard-Stepped 1x 9 44* 9* 63.5* 36" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge P 48* 8* 64* 35.5" D3 S400 Sensicore Satin 36.5" Tour Wedge Grips - Golf Pride Tour Velvet Cord, Logo Down, .580, 1 tape wrap As I mentioned before, these were gamed for about a month. There is some bag chatter but it's pretty minimal. It's about as close as you can get to a new set of irons when buying used. As you'd expect, the grips are like new as well. I'm asking $1000 (net) OBO for these irons. "Net" meaning that the buyer pays all fees associated with payment (if applicable). The $1000 includes shipping but (optional) insurance is up to the buyer. The only trade that I'm interested in at the moment would be for a like set of Miura 1957's. Please don't bother with any low ball offers. I just put my one year-old son through his first of many open heart surgeries and, due to incoming bills, my golf budget is limited. In fact, I'm pushing the issue the way it is but I've been fortunate and have been able to pick up quite a few extra consulting hours over the past few months. This work has no indication of slowing down at the moment and, if I can get my asking price on these, moving to a set of 1957's should be doable. Here are some pics of the irons... Please let me know if you'd like any additional pics. https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6029.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6031.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6032.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6033.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6034.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6035.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6036.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6037.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6038.JPG https://rebby.com/tmp/TB/IMG_6039.JPG

1. No cell phones on the course, even for texting. I disagree 100%. I have a lot going on in my life. Golf is my hobby and needs to be secondary to my family. If my wife needs to contact me about something, at any time, she knows how to get a hold of me. Having a phone on me, that I'm willing to use when REQUIRED, is a much preferred alternative to having her call the proshop and send somebody out in a cart to find me. 2. No hats on backwards. Was this supposed to be some sort of backdoor rip on Fowler? 3. No women before 10 a.m. on weekends. Whoa there!!! How about no old people before 10am on weekends, or nobody with a handicap worse than 10, or nobody who owns a dog? Give me a break. What is the "basis" for this rule? What is one solving by implementing something so absurd? 4. No collarless shirts. A dress code item I guess. Personally, I don't care either way but fully understand if some clubs want to implement a rule like this. However, I believe that the dress code should fit the course. While this rule is fine for an upscale establishment, it's pretty absurd for a $25/round muni. 5. No denim. See my comments for rule #4 (which would also apply to #2, I suppose). Again, I have no problem with a dress code (for the most part) but the code should fit the establishment. 6. Hats off indoors. Indoors where? The dining room or the pro shop? I have no problem with hats indoors. In a very large way, hats have become part of golf attire. Golfers are expected to wear hats and there should be no problem with a golfer grabbing a sleeve of balls or a Coke from the pro shop while donning a Titleist lid. 7. Jackets and ties in the dining room. This, once again, goes back to my comments about dress code. Once again, I don't have an issue with how a given club wants to run it's establishment. Chances are however, that I'm not going to a dining room that enforces a rule like this at a GOLF COURSE. IMHO, acceptable golf attire should be acceptable at all club facilities, hat included. 8. Guests can’t purchase in the pro shop; must go on member’s account. Alright, a business owner can refuse to do business with whoever he'd like. I'd rather see a "rule" that states members get such and such a discount, blah, blah. That's what my club does, 15% across the board discount for all members, non-members pay full price. It's a nice break for members and adds additional incentive to purchasing a membership. 9. No pull carts. I'd rather see a rule that says no motorized carts. Remember what a golf course was like before they were littered with cart paths, hundreds of little rope fences, signs and damage caused by carts? I do. Alas, motorized carts have become part of the game of golf and they are a great benefit to a lot of golfers (ex: my dad has 2 hip replacements and knee, he would be unable to golf without a motorized cart) so I'd never even attempt to push a "rule" like that. Seriously though, what's the issue with a pull cart? Do we need to further disincentivize people when it comes to exercise? 10. No cargos shorts or pants. Talk about a dress code Nazi. Dang, people, where what's acceptable for the club that you play at and leave it at that. There's nothing wrong with wearing cargo pants and a flannel shirt at Billy Bob's Golf & Bar over on RR #23. However, that same attire just might not be acceptable at Minneapolis Golf & Country Club. No big deal!

I usually do some pretty extensive ball tests and, for my game, the Penta came out as the best ball for me, even over the 2009 Pro V1/V1x. I have not yet had time to put the 2011 Pro V1/V1x through the paces though so I can't comment on that specific version or how it compares to the Penta. Versus the 2009 version though. I hit the Penta a few yards further than both the V1 and V1x. Spin into the green was very similar but the Penta spun slightly less than the V1 and slightly more than the V1x. Not a lot of difference though. I was still hitting the drop and stop type of shots that I prefer. Durability was roughly the same for me as well. I tend to shred covers pretty bad, always have, and neither of the Pro V offerings or the Penta changed that (making the change to CC grooves helped this a bit though). The biggest difference for me was performance in the wind. The Penta was quite a bit more steady in heavy winds, especially off the tee. The Penta had a better feel as well. I like soft and the Penta delivers. It's not quite as soft as the old Tour Balata but it's as close as a modern ball has ever been. I'm looking forward to giving the 2011 Pro V1/V1x a try though. Who knows, maybe it will replace the Penta as my daily gamer? Then again, I did just stock up on the Penta due to their "buy 2, get 1 free" promotion.

I'm a big fan of the Titleist script.

I don't mind having a cover on my putter at all. In fact, I prefer it. I keep my putter in one of the top slots of my bag w/my woods so a cover on the putter helps protect not only the putter but the shafts on my woods and my long/mid irons as well. I don't see it as a hassle either. The cover slips on/off easily and quickly. I do prefer a smaller cover though. I don't like the huge putter covers that take up a ton of room unnecessarily. A perfect example of this are Cameron covers. I have a bunch of them just laying around the house because I don't like having them in my bag. Not only do they take up a lot more room than they need to but the Velcro drives me nuts too. More often than not, I carry one of my Newports under an Odyssey headcover. I know, blasphemy!

I buy and play with the tools that work for me. I have zero brand loyalty and will game whatever works best for me regardless of what's stamped on the sole plate. That said, I do have brands that I attempt to avoid just due to personal preference. For example, I'm not a very big fan of TaylorMade, never have been and, thus, I tend to avoid TM products. However, even though I do not prefer TM, I have gamed a TM driver in the past and I now game a TM ball, go figure. Generally, my bag consists of at least some uniformity. My irons tend to match my wedges and, occasionally, my fairway woods will match my driver. That's not a hard and fast rule though. Take now for example, I'm gaming a Callaway driver w/a Diamana shaft and a Titleist FW wood w/a Matrix shaft. That just happens to be a combo that works for me best (at the moment). Personally, I think that people who are brand loyal (and not compensated for that loyalty) are really selling themselves short. This comes with an obvious disclaimer of course; if somebody "tried it all" and everything from a single brand happens to work best for them, great, you can't go wrong w/that.

Another link that may be of some help. At least it details a few differences. http://golf.about.com/od/equipment/a/titleist-pro-v1-pro-v1x-golf-balls-2011.htm

You should be alright w/those brass brushes. I used them for quite a number of years. I find w/the Frogger brush though, the nylon bristles are good enough to get the job done so I no longer use brass bristles on my clubs.

When I order my clubs I just include my preferred grip as part of my order. Problem solved. :-)

I started playing when I was a little kid. In fact, I have a scorecard somewhere from the first time that I (knowingly) broke 100 on 9 holes. Yes, 9 holes. I was elated when I first broke 60 (again, 9 holes) and again at 50 and so on. Then came the conquest of beating my dad (a solid 8 capper at the time). Fast forward to junior high and I would routinely medal in my school matches shooting scores anywhere from 38 to 42 (9 hole, par 36 matches). I even managed to break 80 at Hazeltine National when I was in 8th grade (albeit, we didn't play the tournament tees). During my freshman year of high school I was able to snag the 5th or 6th spot on our varsity team for the majority of the season. This took an average in the 70's. IIRC, I ended that year averaging around 78 in our various matches. I ended up graduating from high school with a handicap around 3. Made it past the local qualifier for the state tournament but was unable to compete (long story). Going to the collage was the best thing that I ever did for my golf game. I was able to devote some serious time to practice and really matured mentally. Before I knew it I had a +1 handicap. The next summer I kept improving and so on. 3 years out of high school I was a solid and consistent +3 and got as low as a +3.8. I still have that GHIN card in my desk drawer and it includes some seriously low numbers. I never did break 60 but I did get as low as 62 more than once and even pulled off a 28 on a single 9 from time to time (I remember one round specifically, almost every shot. I was in a handicapped match play event and holed out on the last hole for a 29 from ~100y. I was certain that we were headed to a playoff. Then my competitor sunk a 20 footer for his par and won the match 1 up shooting a 53. This round was part of the reason for [url=http://thesandtrap.com/forum/thread/38762/unpopular-opinion-i-m-sure-i-hate-net-golf]my rant[/url] about net golf.). I got married later that fall... now I'm a solid 1 striving to get back to the + side of things. My goal is to get back to a +2 and be able to compete, I mean seriously compete, in some of the bigger state tournaments (like the MN Amateur and MN Open) that I neglected to play when I was at the peak of my game. Once I get back to a +2 I'm sure that my goals will be amended to get even better but, for now, striving for that little + sign in my handicap has been motivation enough to work on my game. Unlike Nyper I've never had an ace or an albatross. Although, I did get a 1 on my scorecard during junior league on a 230y par 4 once. It's not a real ace though since there was a temporary green in play that day and the "hole" was a stick in the ground with a 6" diameter circle around it.

I spent a great many years carrying on 12 clubs; - Driver - 2-9, PW, SW - Putter When I was a junior in HS, I added a LW (13 total clubs); - Driver - 2-9, PW, SW, LW - Putter Several years later, I added a GW to close the gap, go figure, between my PW (135y) and SW (110y, 14 total clubs); - Driver - 2-9, PW, GW, SW, LW - Putter Now, I generally stick w/14-clubs but have added a few options at the "top" of my bag depending on the course, conditions, etc. Generally, my bag consists of; - Driver - 3-wood (13') - 2, 4-9, PW, GW, SW, LW - Putter I also have a 15' 3-wood, 18' 5-wood and 3-iron that will get swapped in/out from time to time. I've been known to drop the driver and carry a 3-wood/5-wood combo instead. Could I go back to 12 clubs? Sure. Do I want to? Not really. I've really become accustomed to my 4 wedge setup and would have a hard time dropping any of the 4, even if I tweaked the lofts to even the gaps. On the other end of the bag, I finally found a FW wood that I really like and I've grown pretty dependent upon it. Although that probably has as much to do w/liking my FW woods as it does with the fact that I don't practice as much as I used to and, as a result, don't have the consistency and confidence w/my driver that I once had. I always get a kick out of the number of clubs some of the "old timers" carried. IIRC, at one point the PGA rule was 16 clubs. Players were forced to drop 2 clubs for the US Open since the USGA rule was 14 clubs. Many players were penalized/DQ'd for carrying too many clubs at the USGA events. Others got creative with what the pulled from their bag (ex: Hogan didn't carry a 7-iron at the 1950 US Open stating something along the lines of, "there are no 7-iron shots at Merion" opting instead to carry his 1-iron that he hit into the green on the 72nd hole, now one of the most famous shots in all of golf). The number of clubs that one carries in a given round is actually a somewhat fascinating subject in a geeky sort of way. Dave Pelz, along w/many sports psychologists, are big advocates for carrying fewer clubs, especially for beginners (Pelz wants more wedges, yet fewer irons, go figure). Their argument usually centers around the fact that, for a majority of golfers, there really isn't that much difference between a 7-iron and an 8-iron. Combine that with the fact that most golfers are short w/the approach shots, and it starts to make sense to only carry even or odd numbered irons (ex: if you're between a 7 and 9, hit the 7 instead of an 8 and, chances are, you won't be short). Additionally, it removes some of the confusion and "brain clutter" with club selection, less choices == less options. This can be a pretty big deal for a beginner. It's also a good leaning tool since you need to be more creative with your shots. I get a kick out of the "limited club" type events. They're always a lot of fun and I find myself hitting quite a few creative shots during these events, shots that I wouldn't normally put into play. It's a good opportunity to practice specialty shots and have a little fun. It also forces you to think a bit more. For example; w/160y into a green, I'd normally hit an 8 iron but I've only got a 7 and 9, I need to assess the shot a little differently. Where, exactly, is the trouble? I'm I better off long or short? Will a high/spinning 7-iron be a better shot than a low/releasing 9-iron???