Trav

On further review, it looks like this may be an April Fool's joke, so - nevermind - sort of. But here's another instance where Tiger willingly accepts the marketing benefits of being held up as a "goodwill ambassador." "Consistent with the program values, these three ambassadors were selected not only for their sporting accomplishments, but also for their behaviour away from the game. They are as much champions in their personal lives as they are in their sports." http://www.ameinfo.com/109786.html To me it's putting on blinders to say that one can accept all the benefits. but none of the implied responsibilites, of being a sports icon, and to not recognize that kids notice and imitate. Of course parents still have the ultimate responsibility, but no parent I know can monitor all the things his kids sees or hears to "correct" all the wrong impressions. What's exasperating to me is that I don't think TW is the sort of person who would defend what he's doing.

Here are a few such times: "President Barack Obama just named Tiger Woods as U.S. Ambassador of Goodwill. A similar position was held by ice skater Michelle Kwan in the Bush Administration. In his new role as U.S. diplomat, Tiger will have responsibility of improving U.S. standing around the world." Of the appointment, Tiger said, "I am deeply honored to serve as U.S. Ambassador of Goodwill and for the President of the United States." http://www.thegolfblog.com/2009/03/p...ods-as-us.html "Providing access to critical developmental programs is a priority for the Tiger Woods Foundation. Youth are encouraged to explore their interests and career aspirations in an inspiring and supportive environment at the Tiger Woods Learning Center. Achieving goals and reaching dreams is the focus of our nationwide character development program. The Foundation is giving youth the skills to lay their own groundwork for the future. We can proudly say that more than 10 million young people have benefited from the Tiger Woods Foundation since its inception in 1996. Through programs and annual events, the Foundation continues to make a difference in the lives of youth around the world. Our programs, initiatives and students continue to grow and exceed expectations every day. What started out with limited access throughout America, now reaches out to young people around the world." http://www.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/what_we_do.php

There can't be 300 million lost balls - that would mean every golfer would have a real handicap at least 10 strokes higher than they do now.

You could be right, as far as I can tell, I haven't grown at all .... I even do this on my drives.

Like everybody here has said, I use a tee. I used to think it was the sign of a poor stroke until I saw a video where Arnie said he always did it. As to specifics, I use a broken tee for iron shots, scavenged from the tee box if possible, or if I have to, break off a good one. A shorter tee allows plenty of ball height (1/4" - any higher and I hit shots off the top of the clubface which obviously reduces distance, just like shots from grass tufts where the ball is sitting up). Also - and maybe this is more psychological then real - there is little resistance when the club strikes the tee - less than you might get from a regular length tee stuck more deeply into the ground, especially since the ball height for an iron is so much less than for a driver and a regular tee would mean more wood in the ground. I think of it as similar in concept to the "frictionless" tees.

I never lost a ball, either. Hit a few that I'm still looking for, but I haven't declared them lost yet.

My hands hurt just reading this, much less thinking about it.

Don't know if this qualifies, but I played this weekend with someone who is around a 5 or 6 and uses a 7-wood.

I use an Orlimar 16 degree, which they (and I) classify as a 4W. The old Orlimars hit as far as a lot of people's drivers (I have periodically tried newer FWs but so far none is as long) and it's easy to get up in the air. I use it mostly on shorter par 4s where a driver gets you into trouble (especially with narrowing fairways) and you still wind up close enough for a wedge or short iron. I was reluctant initially to give up the 3W, but it was only a shot or two per round where it made any difference (and even then I have found there isn't enough of a difference to worry about) and now I would hesitate to return to a 3W. They're real cheap on eBay, so you can try it out without risking much.

Yes, this sounds like it could be the solution. Wait ... I carry my own clubs......

I love the quote from one of their bios: "I had a pretty rare opportunity to putt for a double eagle." Yes, I think that qualifies as a "pretty" rare opportunity.

It can be a fun format. We use it at certain couples events at my club, where it's known by it's better name of "divorce golf."

I should have been clearer - I was referring to the stats, too. I didn't/still haven't watch this video either, although I have sometimes watched them before because I love to listen to Valerie (sp.) even if I can't understand what she is saying.

I started to do a quick list, then as it grew I realized that most cliches bug me, because they are - cliches . Two that really annoy me are referring to clubs as "weapons" and "hitting the big ball before the little one."

He's working as a sideline reporter for the Navy-Rice football game this weekend. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100703664.html

Yes, I know this won't change anyone's mind and we are not suffering from lack of opinions, which I am now contributing to, but I thought this was an interesting assessment: http://www.franklygolf.com/QA_weekly.html

I still use the 905T for the same reason, feel more comfortable with a smaller head. Periodically try the newer clubs (including Titleist), but the larger heads just feel odd to me. Like the YS shafts and honestly, driving distance is as good or better as my friends with comparable games and newer models.

Great video, thanks. Makes it much easier to follow the descriptions.

White paper by Golf ball selector website: http://www.golfballselector.com/howItWorks/scribd.php Bottom line - if (big if) you get highly rated recycled balls, probably no noticeable performance difference.

I have little sense of excitement about the 4 Fedex events right now. I know everyone has their own view of what this should be, but it seems to me they have to decide if this is supposed to be a year-long contest (i.e., reward consistency) or a championship like other pro sports where you have to keep winning to win the whole thing once you get in. To me, each of the 4 events is just another tour event but with a progressively smaller field and it's neither fish nor fowl. I would find it more interesting if (similar in overall concept to what you suggest): (1) they weighted the various season-long tour events for Fedex points (i.e., US Open counts for more than Joe's Gas and BBQ Classic) based on some factor reflecting difficulty, such as an index of field quality and size; (2) select the initial Fedex field based on season-long points to date, as now done; (3) treat each Fedex event as a separate elimination round, either starting from scratch (preferable, to me) or with discounted value for carryover season-long points, so there is real interest in people who manage to stay alive at each round (like NCAA Bball championship, "survive and advance," so there is more competition in the final event; (4) If they want a season-long points championship, then make a separate award for that from the Fedex Trophy, because a person who fails to make the Fedex field can't win it right now, and if the objective is to have a true season-long championship, then it should cover the entire season, not just events January through August - some people get hot at year-end; some choose not to play the later events.

I think it's great that all the other players will be able to watch Tiger or Phil's highlight shots even if they aren't in the final pairing that day.

LCD screens on golf bags: http://www.ubergizmo.com/tags/pro-bag-ads

Foots the bill for caddies meals for an entire event. http://www.pgatour.com/2009/r/09/08/notebook/index.html

Exactly. In fact, this may even help Scott, knowing few will see him.

While I agree with the original poster's overall point that even pro-level players can improve steadily, I suspect he meant one Tour event, not one major, per year. You're right about par possibly winning a US Open, but - (1) in the last 20 years, that has happened only 4 times (in last 30 years, only 5 times, etc.); and (2) the problem with this "mathematical" analysis is - if you are shooting par when everyone else is shooting under par, it's not very likely you still shoot par when no one else can do so - in other words, a par golfer's skills are relative to the rest of the group, and as they do worse, so will he, on average. Personally I prefer to pretend to think I can play with the pros on a hole or two by never putting it to the test.