Piz

Bobby Jones wrote that there were two ways a fellow could approach the game of golf: either casually or seriously. While he felt both were legitimate; he cautioned against combining the two. Especially, as he put it, in "hanging the ambition of the latter on the labours of the former". I cannot think of a better way to say that. Golf as Zen penance has limited appeal and most of us manage to reconcile the two strains.

"Moving forward" is a euphemism for "umm...". Back in the day; the first two letters in the English alphabet were A, and umm, B. These days the letters are A, and moving forward, B. We could, perhaps, agree to abbreviate the term...then again maybe not.

"...exercise in futility" means, as DavePo43 pointed out, a situation in which dropping, dropping again, then placing is two steps too many. If the ball is just going to roll right back into the pond, or briar patch, why go thru the motions? As for playing out of turn...who draws lots?

Pressure decreases where velocity increases. For a ball to curve right it must be rotating (as observed from above) in a clockwise direction. Think Ping-Pong; the ball is much lighter but the principle is the same. You are hitting a cut. Take a tip from Bobby Jones and try hitting the ball where you are afraid it will go. Set up straight down the pipeline and aim for the right edge of the fairway. When you can rope it out of bounds right...you'll have cured your slice. Then you can start working on that pesky block...

For example: I and my fellow competitors, for practical reasons, often play out of order. We take relief from dangerous life forms not specifically mentioned by the Lords on High. We do not drop the ball, when taking relief, if it is certain to be an exercise in futility. We adhere to the rules, for the most part, but practical necessity demands that we diverge, on occasion, from the straight and hallowed. Any thoughts on the matter?

I can relate. I won't but I can. The shoulder is where about ninety million muscles meet for coffee and to exchange information. When you gradually stop moving as much; moving a lot can suddenly be a problem. Have I mentioned Amway products? Just kidding...unless you have something seriously wrong; the solution is to very gradually attempt to extend your range of motion. I bet there is something that is really hard to do. That will most likely be the result of something else. Track it down to whatever it is. Yoga-type ----works for that.

Ice tills hay: If you did not perform an action consistent with those known to cause ball movement; then the movement of the ball can ought be solely attributed to actions "pear-formed" by yew. I'd rather be presumed innocent until proven guilty (I was framed!) than presumed guilty until agreed upon as innocent.

The shanks are the crazy, former, girlfriend you hadn't thought of until...son of Habbib...there she is...it cannot be anyone else...how is it that our paths have crossed again? DO NOT WORRY!...She will go away again...if you don't try to explain why that would be a good idea. It has nothing to do with anything and the sooner you stop trying to insist that it does the sooner you won't remember why the subject came up in the first place. Alternatively, you could sacrifice your first born...which opens up a whole new can of worms...

$500 is a fortune. Check out the gear that was top-of-the-pops 3 or 4 years ago. Check out the stuff that was the ------ 6 or 8 years ago. There is tons of good stuff out there and lots of information to help you decide. Besides, it's cool to do a bit of digging and come up with something on your own.

1. Yes. 2.No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. No. 7. Yes. 8. No. No wins 2 and 1.

Golf clubs are not expensive. I put together a complete set, bag included, for 35 dollars. There are millions of unloved clubs out there that can be had nearly for the asking. That is especially true for incomplete sets. Most thrift stores (Goodwill, etc...) charge no more than 2 or 3 dollars a club, if that. I bought a Dynacraft 3 wood, 5 wood, and 7 wood for 1 dollar each. The irons (5-pw) are 431 stainless, cavity-backed, and cost 1.91 each + tax. The sand wedge and putter I got for free. They all needed a brush-up; and I re-gripped the woods myself at a cost of just over two dollars a club. I'm not saying that you cannot or should not play with a couple clubs; that is how many of us got started - just that you can put together a very good set of clubs for very little money.

There is no requirement that you carry a hybrid. I carry a 22* Cleveland that I have complete confidence in. It is the only club of its type to earn that distinction. It fits into my set between the 4 iron and 5 wood. I have tried many others and found no joy; I can hit a good shot but not consistently enough. That, I think, is the crux of the issue. There are plenty of clubs out there that work just fine at the driving range - where you hit shot after shot with the same club and find a groove. Finding a club that syncs with the weight progression, length, lie, and flex characteristics of your iron set is much more complicated than sequencing letters and numbers. It is "ironic"...that in order for a club to be easier to hit than an iron...it has to feel just like one.

My 22 degree Cleveland Hi-bore hybrid. Other than that...the vise bolted to the work bench. My dad bought the thing in the late 40's - early 50's? It has been there my entire life and I'll be 60 in August.

You might want to try hitting fades with your draw-bias driver. Each minute on the clock is 6 degrees. Set the face at 12:02 (open 12 degrees) and make a normal pass. That will give you some idea of how biased your biased driver is...and a basis for comparison with other clubs. If you can fade a draw-bias driver; your game is not dependent on a game-improvement club. Plus...it's fun to see what you can do with what you have.

I wish I'd known that a good golf swing was fluid and graceful. I used to swing at the ball instead of thru it and it took me years to sort the meaning of that phrase. The "aha!" moment , for me, was when I substituted the word "turn" for the word "swing". No amount of "swinging thru the ball" accomplishes the same effect as "turning thru the ball" does. My instructors meant well; but I never interpreted "swing" to mean "turn".

I believe, strongly, that if there is nothing "wrong" with your swing it isn't yours. At some point, if you are truly to develop a swing, your swing has to diverge from whatever template, or templates, are serving as its base. I am all for understanding the dynamics/physics of motion; but ten years of coaching pitchers taught me this: If pitcher A would need a new skeleton to throw like pitcher B - there is no point in insisting that he do this or not do that. I'll wager there isn't a golfer in the hall of fame that doesn't do something that somebody teaches people never to do. Flying elbow, anyone?

I started hovering because Jack Nicklaus mentioned it in Golf my Way. That was back in the 1900's when a smile was not just something you wore; it could also be put on a golf ball. Things were tougher back then...a lot tougher; but we were smarter and better looking. Then the moxie ran out. No one knew exactly what it was and, before long, neither did anyone else. Now where was I? Oh right! Jack Nicklaus! Fat Jack we used to call him...not to his face...never met the man...but he was a chunky fellow...hit golf balls into next week...married a nice lookin' blond gal...Barbara, I think...high school sweethearts they say...or maybe they met in college...don't rightly know...

Hey guy! You are large. Large enough that the club should orbit around you. Check out a long gone British golfer and instructor named Ernest Jones. He was a scratch golfer before losing the lower half of his right leg in World War 1. It was getting back to scratch, on one leg, that gave him his particular insight: that all sorts of people, with missing or damaged parts, could play golf just fine. It wasn't what their bodies were doing - it was what the golf club was doing. If the golf club does the right thing (and it is pretty obvious when it does not) the body will FOLLOW! You do not have to stress your joints to play golf...let Mr. golf club show you the way. His book is called Swing the Clubhead; but it could just as easily been called Follow the Clubhead. There are some pretty good you tube videos about Mr. Jones methods. My favorite features a nice lady explaining that our bodies do whatever a knife and fork require. Trust me...it makes perfect sense.

Archery is a good egg sample. So is throwing a baseball, shooting a clay target, draining a three, going top shelf, or wadding up a paper napkin and banking it, deftly, off the side of the refrigerator and into the waste basket. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of golf is getting over how easy it is: it is easy to miss; but no easier than it is not to.

When you approach a ball in the pine straw, or thick grass, you know it is a precarious situation and you proceed accordingly. It is annoying should your approach cause the ball to move; but not unusual or unexpected. The same could not be said when the ball is "resting" on the green.

I say there should be a rule for the putting surface and another rule for everywhere else. The current rule makes sense tee to green but none whatsoever once you get there. I live in northeast Georgia and a ball sitting on a bed of pine straw is not so much resting as waiting. The green is a different story. If you don't touch the ball, and it moves, you are not responsible. A ball hanging in the parsley...you brush the leafy fronds...costs you a stroke; because that is the rule. Why insist on applying the same rule to wildly different situations? We already have a specific set of rules applicable only on the putting surface. What's one more?

Man...talk about morphic resonance! A friend of mine pointed out the arm-parallel-to-the-ground thing to me a week ago. I was taking the club much farther back than I thought I was and then (my brain rapidly calculating) slowing down into impact. A great technique if you find yourself in thick rough a foot and a half from the cup; but seldom indicated otherwise. I would like to add one suggestion: a very narrow stance takes off a few yards and is handy on severely sloped lies as well. Just ask Ernest Jones.

The late, great, Moe Norman used to shaft his clubs extra long so he could grip down. He thought it gave him more control of the club. There is no reason to think that it couldn't...and counterbalance is the concept behind back-weighting. There is also an advantage when the ball is below your feet. Instead of crouching, or taking a wider stance, you just grip the club a bit higher. Moe liked large grips; but someone with small hands might actually prefer gripping down...and may have developed the habit when younger.

About a year ago I stopped thinking about putting and started thinking about holing the putt. I was on an extended bum streak where I'd think "right edge" and roll it right by the cup...on the right edge. It dawned on me (i.e. penetrated the concrete) that I was compensating twice...that I should, instead, just roll the ball into the cup...NOT OVER THE RIGHT EDGE! The end result is that I make more putts, take less time, and don't worry about it.

I am nearly 60 and beat to carp by a lifetime of sports and carpentry work. If I don't warm up I can barely move...so I take easy swings with a 7 iron until I am making a complete motion. Then I hit one good hybrid, one good 3 wood, and a few 30 to 40 yard pitches. Time permitting I will hit 8 from the practice bunker: 4 with a 54 and 4 with a 58...just to see who wants to get in the game. That's it. The only thing I take seriously is getting loose.