M2R

I voted yes because if one of the issues in the trend of declining golfers and rounds played is cost then I see that as a problem. And if speed is related to pace of play then I see that as a problem as well. My perception is that in general, golfer I play with take longer to putt on faster greens. I don't think they need to they just seem to. I think because they feel they have a better chance to make putts on faster, smoother greens, they spend more effort and time. I don't particularly enjoy putting fast greens but I'm not sure how fast 11-12 is. I just know that at some point it starts to become a bit too much but I've only experienced those speeds in tournaments.

All the adjusted scoring averages on the PGA site and the gap to second place - or who is this Luke Donald and did he do anything interesting in 2011? I don't think the actual number means anything since one year could have been abnormally wet for some tournaments or who knows what. Like others have pointed out, in a standard year leading average is in the 69 to 70 range with a large number within a few shots of that. Take 2008, a non-Tiger year, 69.12 and 122 players within 2 strokes. As opposed to 2007 where the gap between Tiger and second place consumes a large chunk of 2 strokes. I highlighted exceptional performances (more than a few tenths gap) and find it interesting relative to some of the questions/thought I have seen here and about. Tiger won hands over fist prior to 2010 but not since, well yea prior to 2010 for long stretches at a time he convincingly and consistently introduced new orifices into the competition, since 2010 just looks like another PGA tour pro (scoring average wise). Ditto Tiger's so called aura and "weak" competition that "folded" at the sight of him pre 2009 and is not scared now. Is Tiger a victim of his own success? Yea I think his performances have been so insanely spectacular at times that it might be natural to jump to the conclusion the competition was weak. A lot of current players grew up watching Tiger and consciously or subconsciously accept what he did as "normal" or the new standard. That represents a paradigm shift that I think will be part of Tiger's legacy. But the result of that paradigm shift is that we have a talent pool of 100 guys?, more?, that can win any time. In addition, on any give week maybe 2 or so will play in freak of the week mode for a week or two then we have a new batch playing freak of the week. I'm not talking about having a good round here and there I'm talking about what I think is at the heart of the Patrick Reed arrogance thread. It's like the old joke, "My brother thinks he is a chicken ... That's terrible can't you get some help for him? ... Yea I suppose but we can really use the eggs". Or "Patrick Reed thinks he is a top 5 player ... that is ridiculous! ... yea I know but it helped him win three times so far". It's not just that the fields are deeper and more talented, add in this freak of the week effect on top of that. But I think overall it is bad for golf. After all that I'm not willing to give the nod to Tiger for 17 over Jack for 20. If the wording was "more difficult" rather than "more impressive" it would be Tiger by a landslide. But for me that number is one of the lesser interesting aspects of Tiger's career anyway. 1980 69.73 .22 1981 69.80 .21 1982 70.21 .12 1983 70.61 .01 1984 70.56 .19 1985 70.36 .08 1986 70.08 .11 1987 70.09 .12 1988 69.38 .08 1989 69.49 .00 1990 69.10 .39 Norman 1991 69.59 .04 1992 69.38 .23 1993 68.90 .21 1994 68.81 .37 Norman 1995 69.06 .53 Norman 1996 69.32 .25 1997 68.98 .12 1998 69.13 .08 1999 68.43 .74 Tiger 2000 67.79 1.46 Tiger 2001 68.81 .25 Tiger 2002 68.56 .91 Tiger 2003 68.41 .24 Tiger 2004 68.84 .14 2005 68.66 .38 Tiger 2006 68.11 .75 Tiger 2007 67.79 1.50 Tiger 2008 69.12 .05 2009 68.05 1.24 Tiger 2010 69.61 .05 2011 68.86 .39 Donald 2012 68.873 .031 2013 68.945 .040

I agree it doesn't make much sense but it was the first time I attempted such an experiment and it made sense to me at the time. If I started over I would do it differently. But there are threads here that specifically state average distances ( Average Distances... How far do you hit each club? and don't lie... ), and people often post citing "average driver distance" numbers ... so? I do think it is to my point though that most people are not lying. Online users posting "my average drive is XYZ" probably do not really mean average or if they do only some restricted kind of average. In the absence of information about the data and how it is used it is just a number without any context. Given some information about the data and how it was processed, it was easy for you to conclude (rightly) that while 197 might be correct it is hardly useful. I also agree that the only club anyone ever asked distance for is driver (I alluded to that). I used to say "I'm not sure, what exactly do you mean?" and 100% of the time the answer would be along the lines of "Well you know, on average how far do you hit driver?". I do not take much responsibility to read minds but it is my fault for not leading with better questions like "You mean under normal conditions what is a good drive for me?".

I would be hard pressed to think anyone I play with lies about their distance. I could be easily convinced that they are delusional. However I regard lying and being self deluded as separate. I conclude deluded as some of my golf partners consistently hit 10-20 yards short on virtually every approach shot, week after week, year after year (except by accident). They must really believe X club goes X yards ... or they are insane ... or both. A few years ago as ~15 index I set about measuring my average drive (any club). Over a full season and when practical, any drive that ended in the fairway on par 4 or 5 holes got measured and recorded. Practical meaning not delaying play and with line of sight. The end result was an average drive of 197 yards total (carry and roll). However, to manipulate and twist that data a bit: best ever single day driving average in "normal" conditions was 259 yards total based on 11 measured drives (nine driver, a 3W, and a 5W) from 212 to 298 yards (212 was driver). Best ever single day average, driver only, 288 yards total based on three drives. The wind was blowing crazy hard that day (but it was cold and raining) and everything missed except those three drives on almost perfectly straight downwind holes. If some stranger I get paired with asks how far I hit driver what would I answer? Irrelevant now anyway as I took the driver out two years ago, issue totally averted. In those two years only one person ever commented that I do not carry a driver and not once has anyone asked how far I hit any club. They only ask "What club did you hit?", that I can handle. I find it much more common for others to measure a drive and tell me.

Ray Romano did something similar, got to play the Monday after the Masters, same pins, same tees. Shot 106 on his first try and 101 the last time he got to try it. Ray claimed to fluctuate between 14 and 17 handicap (index?) for the first run. http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/masters06/news/story?id=2394886 It could be argued that Monday conditions are not valid in this context and I would tend to agree but my counter would be that from year to year Sunday conditions can vary too so ... meh. Plus likely as practically close to the conditions outlined in the OP as I can imagine anyway. In any case I'm accepting it as a valid data point that a hack can get around Augusta in something close to the scores predicted in the chart posted in this thread.

Based on the strength of your recommendation (an admitted Murray fan) decided to see it. Have to agree with the praise comment though. After watching it I read a dozen or so reviews and while a few seemed fine more than a few seemed pretty whacked out to me. +1 I thought it was pretty well done and I liked it.

A 9180S AXIVCore Tour Green? http://www.amazon.com/UST-Mamiya-Proforce-AXIVCore-Green/dp/B0056HOX7I http://www.yourprogolfshop.com/UST_Mamiya_Proforce_AXIVCore_Tour_Green_Woods.html http://clubmaker-online.com/ust.axiv.html Can't vouch for any of these potential sources though since I have never used them.

I think Fiber-X at some point became SK Fiber and they sold a shaft called BM30 Colonial. Of course I don't have any way to know if the Fiber-X Colonial was just renamed BM30 Colonial or totally re-engineered. The BM30 R flex was a 4.5 and the S flex was a 6.0, quite a gap! As for Bill's Z-11s, I would just play with them and see how it goes. Usually within a few round it is pretty clear if it is true Love or DCUWCY.

It seems you may have (inadvertently) reversed the application of rating and slope. A " USGA Course Rating" is the USGA's mark that indicates the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for a scratch golfer under normal course and weather conditions. It is expressed as strokes taken to one decimal place, and is based on yardage and other obstacles to the extent that they affect the scoring ability of a scratch golfer . (See Section 13 .) A " Slope Rating" is the USGA's mark that indicates the measurement of the relative difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers compared to the USGA Course Rating (e.g. , compared to the difficulty of a course for scratch golfers ). A Slope Rating is computed from the difference between the Bogey Rating and the USGA Course Rating . The lowest Slope Rating is 55 and the highest is 155. A golf course of standard playing difficulty has a Slope Rating of 113. I do agree that in theory "That really shouldn't ever happen if the courses are rated correctly." but in practice I think courses sometimes have out of date ratings and slopes because something has changed, but for whatever reason the course didn't get re-rated. Around here the most common thing is a course lets undergrowth and trees grow relatively uncontrolled over the years and starts playing narrower and harder. The opposite is a brand new course that clears out undergrowth and stray trees every year and eventually starts playing much easier than it was initially rated. But eventually courses do get re-rated and back to better numbers but it feels weird thinking last week I posted scores against 70.2/115 and this week I'm posting against 72.2/128 ... I want a refund of all those strokes I lost before the re-rating damn it!

I would choose to play first. Playing down to a two chip size opening on the table, I play my chip in the middle of the two chip size area leaving him with no play on either end. Playing down to a three chip size opening on the table, I play the middle chip size square forcing him to play either end. Leaving me to play the last chip. Playing down to a four (4X1) chip size opening on the table, I play my chip covering the middle two chip sized squares forcing him to play either end. Leaving me to play the last chip. If the table opening is 2X2 then simply play to the very centre. Playing down to a five (5X1) chip size opening on the table, I play my chip in the centre so as to leave two chip sized squares on either side. If my opponent covers two chip size squares, I do the same. If my opponent only covers one chip size square on one side, I do the same on the other side. Either way the end is forced. Regardless of table size the goal will be to play until the remaining open space on the table represents one of the above sizes that can be forced. Basically the idea is that by playing first I secure the advantage of either covering 1, 2 or 4 squares at a time which should give me the advantage. Seems too complicated to be correct though.

Chose "who makes the first move" for the reason EJ said "oh", leaves you are holding all the cards. If it's zero chip size he plays first, if it's two chip size you play first and play the middle to muck each end, if it is three chip size you play first and play the middle forcing him to play either end, other than that play first and when it gets to the last two or three squares make one of those plays.

Hum, from the look in his eyes and the way he is holding his mouth I'm not sure he completely trusts you to pick his golf components - or he is thinking food/sleep, sleep/food ... it could be that too. Congratulations!

It is your solution, just explained in a different way as your explanation confused me ... again but these things happen. In the case of zero tails ends up with two piles with zero heads and one pile has zero coins as well.

Pull coins out of the pile till there are only 99 left, then flip those 99.

In theory, but if a person hasn't practised the technique and/or doesn't understand how to use engine braking effectively, under a stress situation I doubt it would matter. The exception being a car with some kind of computer shifted manual like @hacker101 has in the BMWs. In that case the computer knows how to engine brake and won't panic, just hammer the paddles (or whatever type selector), the computer won't shift down till it is safe (for the engine) to do so. However, most cars here since sometime in the 90s have redundant braking systems so to experience complete brake failure, while possible, would be highly unlikely. But again the problem is similar to above in that many people don't understand (or know) how the system works (can't really practice this though) so in a stress situation with limited time sometimes people don't realize they still have brakes and claim to have experienced "complete brake failure" - which is ironically partially true. From my experience when one system fails the pedal will go what feels like all the way to the floor with no pressure then engage the backup system. At that point press the pedal progressively harder, and the car will stop. It won't stop fast because only half the brakes are working and likely with little or no power assist ... which is a good thing because the brakes will either be split diagonally front to back or either both front or both back, none of those configurations is too "stable" in a panic situation.

I can drive a stick shifted manual transmission, both synchronous (on the left, normal clutch shifted) and non-synchronous (on the right, typically clutch not used, or floating gears). It seems like drivers education companies report everything from 0 to 15% of students request to be taught in cars with manual transmissions, possibly depending on where the companies are located. Likely most anyone over 50 knows how to drive a stick shift manual transmission. New car sales with manual transmissions are reported being from around 3% to over 5% depending on who is reporting it. So even if there are 25% that know how I would guess that only 10-15% actually do now days, totally just guessing though. I wonder how SMG, SMT, DCT type transmissions (electrohydraulic shift manual transmissions) are classified. In the context of this discussion those types don't count since they are computer shifted but they are manual transmissions.

I think Bowmore Legend is a good starter scotch. Around here it is $23-30 depending on when and where.

88

Just to clarify the first line in my other post concerning bounces and breaks was more about Zach Johnson holing out on the 18th for par. Breaks and bounces don't have to be your own, ask Greg Norman. I don't think there is any analysis or explanation, stuff happens. But in the prime Tiger days I would not have been at all surprised for the Northwestern Mutual to end with Zach making GIR par and Tiger holing the bunker shot for a win, now it seems the tables are turned. My second line about "loss of mastery in the most critical situations" was about Tiger's final putt, and the other similar situations that seem to form a pattern. At first I just thought no problem Tiger just needs time to work it out. That might still be exactly right, however it is starting to look like a real situation to me and why I think it is so compelling to see how he will respond.

My interpretation is we are seeing Tiger begin the mature phase of his career. I remember Jack (I think it was Jack) saying that as he got older the putts on the edges drop less often and bounces and breaks did not go his way as often so it just gets harder and harder to win. I think it is compelling stuff to watch. Seems like not very long ago some were prognosticating the demise of Tiger so it was good stuff watching him climb back to #1. I'm very interested to see how he reacts to this seeming "loss of mastery in the most critical situations". Thing is this idea may only exist in my mind, to Tiger it may not even exist, who can know the mind of another?

Happy to contribute to this project as I really respect how much the owner and staff provide to the community here, and on a selfish note the book will help me post lower scores.

My gut feeling is that as well but I can't clearly articulate why like you did. When I saw that line about putting being relatively more important for pros, I immediately thought maybe something with the study protocols or interpretation of the data was somehow a bit off. At first glance it looked like it might be because everything was referenced off Am1 performance, then maybe because pros play so much harder courses. But in the end I just gave up and called it strange. I'm not discounting your explanation, I just have some questions that will take more thought on my part, or I'll just forget about it after a while

Or like Zach Johnson said after the Northwestern Mutual WC win "It's better to be lucky than good but nothing beats good and lucky!" OK that might not be EXACTLY what he said, maybe it was something like "I feel very fortunate and somewhat lucky,"

Totally agree with everything you wrote here. I just found that one item interesting and was trying to keep my comment apples to apples.