Baog

My point is that the player should be free to decide for himself where to search. I agree that he can't take a time-out to hit the provisional or ex post facto change his definition of the likely area. DaveP043 seemed to be saying that there was something wrong with making a second provisional stroke before spending the entire 5 minutes searching in an area Dave thought it was actually unlikely to be.

There is no arbiter of liklihood except the player himself. If the player sincerely believes it's likely that the ball is by the green, how can you penalize him for choosing to search in a given place? The penalty for searching in the wrong place is not finding one's ball; that's why there is no need for an impartial decision on whether the search area is "likely". In this case it rolled 200 yards on 50% of his tee shots on that hole that day so how can you say unequivocally that it's "NOT likely?" No one is trying to cheat by looking for their ball in a wrong area simply so they can make an extra stroke with their provisional before it's in play.

I think I've done that at various times in the past, but only when I was trying to make sure my left arm was as straight as possible. I didn't think about it as an effort to get wider. Thanks again for your help.

Finally got the chance to film another range session. I think I've improved the right arm position significantly but now I notice that my head is moving quite a bit on the backswing. I can fix that sway if I think about it but it's so ingrained that whenever I'm working on something else, it creeps back in. I've also been able to shorten my swing a bit. Again, I have to think about it some. It doesn't come naturally to me to be "driving" the swing with my shoulders instead of my arms. These two things are probably plenty but on the off chance I get them worked out, is there anything else that I should work on?

I don't get the nomination of a team either but the voting doesn't surprise me. Royals fans are rabid internet voters. At one time, all 8 regular Royals players were leading the all-star vote. Spieth's accomplishments this year, while impressive because he is young, don't match the overwhelming dominance of many of the other individuals' listed.

And Hogan was a true lefty that played right handed. I play different sports with different hands (tennis, billiards, and archery left; throwing, batting, and golf right). It sounds like your daughter may be the same way. If you can't tell which suits her best, I think starting right handed would be advisable since it will be much easier for her to find equipment.

I think the USGA (and R&A) are taking the view that a handicap system is designed to promote fair competition. It's not primarily a status symbol or personal measuring stick. There are any number of ways to monitor your own progress other than an official handicap. Folks play differently when they're with other people. I don't mean following the rules; I mean there are pressures and rhythms involved with competition and play in groups that are not present in a solo round. Since handicaps are primarily for use in group competition, they should reflect the ability of the golfer when playing in a group.

Good point.

I agree with this. I also agree that the rules are written in a way that is not any more ambiguous than necessary. Nevertheless, the terminology and phrasing is often awkward, for historical reasons, and a complete rewrite would make it easier to understand for folks new to the game. The nuance may take just as long to grasp fully but one could get the gist of the rules more easily if they were redone. I'm under no illusion that this will ever happen.

Without spending much time, the defined terms are the most obvious change that I'd make if I were starting over. Although we all know what "loose impediment" means because we've been playing for a long time, "debris" would be a more straightforward word for it. Likewise, "through the green" could be "the course, other than greens, tees, and hazards." These are just the ones that come to mind right away. People that have been playing by the rules for long enough to use these terms know what they mean, but the time to learn it would be shorter if the terminology weren't so archaic.

I agree. I believe the folks that are insisting that the rule book is not hard to understand are forgetting that they have years of experience reading and interpreting the rulebook. I agree that the rulebook is just about as unambiguous as it can be but that is not the same thing as being simple or easy to understand. If we were starting from scratch, many of the rules could be made easier to read without making them less precise. However, there are decades of rulings and decisions based on the old language, so it makes good sense not to undertake a wholesale revision of the wording. This is a common issue with statutory interpretation in the legal world too.

I have what I call my 3.5 iron. It's a 3 iron head on a 5 iron shaft. I had to add about 15 grams of lead tape to the head to get the swingweight right but it's easier to make good contact than a 4 iron and goes just a little farther for me than the 4 iron. It fills the gap between my 5 iron and 5 wood. I'll probably end up replacing it with a proper hybrid at some point though.

If you put masking tape around the shaft where you will cut it, it won't splinter when cut with a hacksaw.

I'm 5'6". I play a 44.5" driver which is 1/2" shorter than it's standard length. If you believe your driver is too long, I would recommend playing a round or two with tape over the last 1/2" of the shaft to remind you to choke up. If you like it, cut off the 1/2". If you feel like the club is too light as a result, add 3-5 grams of lead tape to the head (anywhere on the bottom, it doesn't really matter). If you like the weight of it then but don't like the look of the lead tape, you can probably find a pro-shop that will hot melt it for you with the same weight of hot melt. Go slow on the cutting, 1/2" at a time. Grips are cheaper than shafts.

I voted for accuracy with the thought that greater accuracy would be a benefit on 100% of shots. 10% more distance is not a benefit on an 8' putt. Does it make a difference to the analysis that 10% greater accuracy would also help around the green? Maybe the distance advantage is so overwhelming that it's still the clearly correct choice.

Definition (a) is correct: second = time second / moment.

I think it would change things--not dramatically but noticeably. A particularly hilly or high altitude course would potentially give the fittest players an added advantage. Players would have a harder time in wet conditions because they'd have to carry their own water logged gear. I recognize that this would add elements to the game that aren't traditionally "golf" but I would be interested to see it and it might create some separation to the huge collection of really good players that now exists. Then why not let them use carts and range finders? If we were just interested in seeing them hit the best golf shots possible, we would allow it. It just so happens that we've drawn the line at no to carts and no to electronic distance measuring but yes to caddies--mostly for tradition's sake, I think. I wish the line had been drawn at no caddies either.

I'm not sure MLB, where they still use wooden bats, is the best analogy for your point. The PGA tour doesn't allow golf carts or range finders, so why would it be fundamentally different to disallow caddies? I'd be interested in seeing how the pros do carrying their own clubs but I also like to watch them playing their best on the back nine of a four day tournament.

I don't think there would be a drop-off for most of the younger players. Many players on mini tours do not have caddies; those that do have caddies are usually using girlfriends or family members. Also, many of the players played in college, where there are no caddies.

The gist of Wishon's comments are that if you sole your driver at address, you are only adjusting the face angle, not the loft (N.B., this does change the effective loft). If you hover your driver, aligning the face with your target, then you can adjust loft but not face angle. You can't change both independent of each other with an adjustable hosel. I think it has the potential to be useful under either style of address because both loft and face angle are important factors in ball flight.

Even in casual rounds, and especially if it's with golfers you don't know well, before you pick a ball up for someone you should ask if they want to putt it out. Conceded tap-ins can speed up play but some people (like me) want to putt anything over a few inches so that they can be sure their score reflects their play (I'm quite capable of missing a two footer).

Thats too bad. I think Brian Phillips is my favorite essay writer alive and I would never have heard of him without Grantland.

Did he serve himself by reporting a disqualifying violation after otherwise making the cut? Why would it matter why he says he did it?

My distances are similar to yours but with slightly weaker lofts. I play a 47* PW, 53* Gap (52* bent), a 59* SW (56* bent and the trailing edge of bounce is ground down), and a 64* LW cut down to 34". To me, the trajectory and turf interactions are much more important than loft for my SW and LW. I rarely make a full swing with the SW and never with the 64*. Since the distance varies so much depending on contact and lie I'm much more likely to hit a terrible shot on a big swing than I am with a shorter swing on a lower lofted club.