mad max

A few years ago I used to play with all irons. I didn't even carry a driver. For the past few years I carried a driver and the rest were iron. i would experiment with hybrids but never hit them well. I recently added a 3 wood to the bag and I hit it O.K. but I only use it about once a round. What are the lofts of your woods and hybrids? I haven't seen woods or hybrids that high ever.

Well what about me, I have never stored my clubs in the trunk of a car. I know this because I don't have a car. My 9 iron became loose, it never came of the shaft but I could rotate it about 40 degrees. I didn't use it for the rest of the round and when I got home I worked out the head and sanded it up and reattached it and never had any problems. This was a mizuno mp 57 so it wasn't a wall mart club. I could see you making the connection if 3 or 4 of you club heads came loose but you can't make an assumption based on one club and what a club fitter told you. Did you have any problems with the other clubs in your set after this? If it was caused by heat damage I would think that the epoxy on some of the other clubs might have been weakened as well. I would also think that your 3 or 4 iron would have broken first because there is more stress on those clubs due to a longer shaft and higher club head speed even if you don't hit them as often. It is fine with me if you would rather be safe than sorry and not store your clubs in the car but to think that because of one club becoming detached that you can say with authority that keeping your clubs in the trunk of a car will cause damage is misleading. If storing clubs in a hot trunk caused the club head to come off when it was attached properly there would be a lot more club heads coming off. I could see that if the club was not installed properly that the heat could exacerbate the situation but I don't think that the heat caused the situation.

Skepticism of the outlandish claims by one guy or that 25 year old clubs can perform close to or as well as modern clubs for some golfers? They couldn't be that out of date if profesional golfers used them to circumvent the new grove rule.

I think you have to go a little higher than 350 more like 450 but I wouldn't consider 270 unreasonably short I would count 270 as a par 4.

I don't get all the hate on here about the ping eye2's. When I first got these clubs I played a round with them I played about the same but some of my distances were off. Is it just because some guy made some ridiculous claims about them on the forum?

I have a set of the copper eye2's. I think they are great looking clubs. I would put them up on a wall to display but I don't have the room. My clubs are in good condition, if they were modern clubs I would say that they would be rated as being in good condition but for being over 20 years old I would say they are in excellent condition. They don't look like the got much use at all, because all the shaft bands are intact. I also like that all the serial number match and they are only a 4 diget number so I would imagine that they were an early set.

9 because it would crack me up to find your golf ball in a hazard.

I think the mods should merge every thread on The Sand Trap into this one.

Post of the day

One more option comes to mind you can also declare an unplayable lie and hit from where you hit your last shot with a one stroke penalty. I.E you hit your second shot over the green into trouble where you cant get out without getting closer to the hole, or you hit into deep into trouble where dropping 2 club lengths doesn't help you, you count your second shot take a penalty stoke 3 then you are hitting 4 from where you hit your second.

You don't have to take a full swing. If you don't carry a full set of 14 clubs you could add a 7 iron from goodwill or some other place that has cheap clubs and use that club when you don't want to damage a club.

You paying?

I take what I said back. I have been stuck around 18 for about 10 years and even my good rounds have some ugly numbers and I am inconsistent. I once shot 83 at a course and then less than a week later I shot 113 at the same course. My apologies.

Sorry like someone else said not trying to bust your chops but are you sure your handicap is accurate? An 11.4 that has never shot 4 over on 9 at a course the play frequently? That does not sound right. Like I said above I was even after 11 and I am 17.4 but I do have some really bad holes.

I know the course are set up different but the rules are the same so I though,t what rules are different besides what could be constructed as a league rule such as a penalty for slow play. Is he the golf czar for the manufactures? I think this is a silly idea, I carry 12 clubs and have spent a lot of money trying to find my 13th and 14th club but I can't find anything that I hit consistently and some of my clubs I hit less than once per round.

Like the OP I have yet to shoot a 79. The fist time I played with a new set of clubs I was even after 11 holes on a par 68. I usually try not to think about score but when you are as bad as I am in is hard not to know you are at even par. I then proceeded to shoot 15 over on the last 7 holes for a nice 83. The worst part was I went out as a single and got paired with two attractive sisters that were about my age that were obviously interested in golf, they both shot about 100 and knew and played by the rules. One was married but the other was single. If I had not had those 7 terrible holes I would have a hot girlfriend that golfs and be a scratch player because I would have had so much confidence in my new clubs.

I understand that a ruling has been made but I don't get it. If the principal of equity caused the ruling to be made why wouldn't the most equitable decision be made. I understand that the ball could have ended up anywhere but most likely the ball would trickle into the bunker and come to rest against the rake so the ball would have most likely ended up rolling forward to a spot where it would stay. I just don't understand why if they were willing to modify a rule where you could drop out of a bunker in line with the hole why they wouldn't make a decision that was more likely to result in the ball being in a similar position if the rake was not there in the first place. This would also help avoid confusion because some people thought that you could take an unplayable out of a bunker. I am not trying to be argumentative just bored and waiting for the weekend. I was also curious as to how these decisions are made. Thanks to all that have responded to a question that probably will never come up.

The question was worded " Which factors have the biggest influence on break, list in order:" My understanding of break is how much the ball moves left or right and a putt straight uphill will not move at all left or right. If the question was what has the biggest influence on a putt I could maybe agree but break is dependent of the angle of slope and slope amount. I got a 60 by the way and I am a terrible putter. I average 35 putts with only 4.5 GIR.

I understand but if the decision is based upon 1-4 1-4. Points Not Covered By Rules If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules , the decision should be made in accordance with equity. I think a more equitable choice would be to let the ball come to rest after placing it if their is no where to place the ball where it would not be closer to the hole. I realize this is going to be a rare situation but in my opinion this would closest to what would have occurred if there was no rake in the first place. I am not trying to rewrite the rules but I am curious as to why they made the decision the way they did. I actual would have less of a problem with it if they didn't make the exception that you could drop the ball out of the bunker instead of making you go back to where you played your previous shot. It just seems to me they are already altering the rules by allowing you to drop outside a bunker so why not make the ruling be more in line with what would have happened had the rake not been there.

This post by Johanna explains the thought behind leaving rakes outside bunkers.

I guess it is covered by 1-4. Points Not Covered By Rules If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules , the decision should be made in accordance with equity. If that is the case I would think MEfree has a point that the ball would most likely have ended up where it rolled to after placing it.

I am confused is this just a special case for when a ball is up against a rake because I thought you had to drop in the bunker if you were in the bunker. This is from the USGA rule book: All defined terms are in italics and are listed alphabetically in the Definitions section. The player may deem his ball unplayable at any place on the course , except when the ball is in a water hazard . The player is the sole judge as to whether his ball is unplayable. If the player deems his ball to be unplayable, he must, under penalty of one stroke : a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5 ); or b. Drop a ball behind the point where the ball lay, keeping that point directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind that point the ball may be dropped; or c. Drop a ball within two club-lengths of the spot where the ball lay, but not nearer the hole . If the unplayable ball is in a bunker , the player may proceed under Clause a, b or c. If he elects to proceed under Clause b or c, a ball must be dropped in the bunker . When proceeding under this Rule, the player may lift and clean his ball or substitute a ball.

Thanks Zeg. I know I am being annoying but but if the same thing happens in a hazard I asume that you would place the ball in the hazard no closer to the hole? Some courses in my area leave the rake in the bunker. Would you still be able to clean the ball? Thanks.

I am curious what the rule would be if the ball was on a steep slope that you could not have the ball stay on.

Has anyone else played these recently. I would like a comparison between the penta tp and the penta tp5. I am almost out of the tp which I like so I am trying to decide between the old penta to save a few dollars and the tp5. Thanks.