B-Con

[edit] Realized there was way more of this thread than I'd seen, read more of it, no longer sure of my position, but can't delete post.

For a while I had gotten obsessed with practicing my irons. I wanted to hit GIRs so badly, and I worked on my short and mid irons like there was no tomorrow. For a while I spent pretty much my entire full-swing time on them. Unfortunately, though, it doesn't matter how good your irons are (mine still aren't very good), you don't hit GIRs from the trees. I got more comfortable with my irons (and made reasonable progress, they were the weakest part of my game), but my game from the teebox went to crap as I made swing adjustments for my irons and spent very little time practicing my longer clubs. I had a couple of rounds were I would've been better using a 7-iron from the teebox than my woods. I was looking at my past scores and I noticed that the seemingly most closely correlated factor to lower scores was fairways hit. Balls that go into the rough or the trees can turn an average difficulty hole into a fight to save bogey, and it's hard to play even bogey golf when half the time you're getting up and down for it. The games I hit fairways are the games I have fewer blow-up holes and hit more GIR, and those are the games I have more pars and lower scores. Even if your irons are crap, it's not too hard to hit them to within 30 yards of green if you have a clean look at the green from the fairway. If you can always do that, a chip/pitch and two putt will grind out bogeys all day. I've become somewhat convinced that over-bogey games (for me) can be blamed on bad driving. I'm comfortable with my wedges, so if I can get my irons in the air I should be able to shoot par from the fairway. The problem then becomes getting to the fairway. I remember two games. One where I felt I played pretty good and shot 89. Another were I felt like I played like crap and I shot an 89. The game where I felt like I played great I was hitting great recovery shots and hitting good irons. But my driving was all over the place and my great shots were usually recovery shots that just barely got to where a mediocre shot off a good drive would've gone. I felt like I worked hard to break 90. The game where I felt like I played badly I'd hit fairways all day long, but struggled with my irons and some of my putting. I was shocked and almost felt guilty that I'd broken 90. I no longer think that practicing driving is overrated. I won't practice it 1/2 of the full swing time, but I think it deserves 1/4-ish of my time.

I like the Taylormade Burner Tours. At $22/dozen, they're the best band/buck ratio ATM. An underrated ball, IMO. [quote name="Mr. Desmond" url="/t/58800/best-27-or-less-ball#post_722065"]Hmmm, [URL=http://www.gppgolf.com]www.gppgolf.com[/URL] has/had the Callaway HEX Chrome at 27.99 per dz plus shipping. Order 4-5 doz and that allocated shipping costs is worth it. [/quote] That's a pretty good deal. I'd like to try them first, though, before I commit to that many. But they're on my "to try" list.

By some freak of luck, 92. I had a miserable 48 on the front 9 and I was duffing my way around the course, throwing away every chance at GIR and performing poorly off the tee. Somehow I managed to put together a back 9 that included a few pars and a birdie on 17. I barely escaped with a 92. I really need to get back to practicing consistently.

Man... I was hoping that he pulled out his wedge to chip over the divot. :-P

Today's imponderable: If the Troll Party actually elected politicians to office, would we be able to tell a difference?

Regarding the Phil / Tiger pairing on Thursday, someone at CBS [url=http://www.cbssports.com/golf/blog/eye-on-golf/19302043/lefty-tiger-grouping-latest-showdown-between-games-most-successful-active-major-champs]compiled a list[/url] of their scores when playing together. It's a tie if compared round by round, but I think the total strokes edge goes to Woods (wasn't willing to manually check).

1) Westwood at -2 2) Donald at -2 2) Kuchar at -2

Huh, where did I say that? Elsewhere I said: [quote=B-Con][...]require collared shirts and no jeans or cut-offs. Those are somewhat bland standards.[/quote] So... not sure where you got that. The "dress up" guidelines tend to be the "must wear slacks" types. I mentioned both ends of the dress code spectrum in my post, not just the stereotypical one.

I keep telling you, if you want to do well in the straw polls you have to cater to the troll demographic.

Given that there were about 200 more posts, my guess is "a lot". :-D

I think that most of the conversation (at least, the parts I read) is missing the point. There are two sets of categories that people fall into: 1) It's obvious that some people prefer to dress up/nice. It feels good to them, makes them feel better about themselves, or something of that sort. 2) It's obvious that some people do not care for dressing up. It feels uncomfortable, too conformist, or something of that sort. A) It's obvious that some people prefer that those around them dress up. B) It's obvious that some people don't care how those around them dress. People in the category 1 and category A generally like dress codes, those in 2 and B generally don't. Different people have different strengths of their preferences. Given that different people care for different environments, they will then pursue them. People who enjoy dressing up and being around those who do will tend to find each other and associate. Obviously, they will make rules that you have to dress up to associate. There's nothing wrong with that, it makes perfect sense and people do it for all kinds of different clubs. People who don't care for that requirement won't pursue clubs for it, but at some point they may want/need to end up in such clubs for other reasons, and then will generally be annoyed by the restrictions. Unfortunately for them, that's tough, because you have to take the club goods with the club rules. As for which clubs are dress-up and which aren't (or are less so), the market tends to dictate that. Most public courses catering to the middle class just require collared shirts and no jeans or cut-offs. Those are somewhat bland standards. Some courses go much above, some go much below, as the demand dictates. But on both ends of the spectrum they know they're standards will cater to a certain set of clients, and one end tends to bring more money. Also, in general, money tends to follow exclusivity. People who want to form "dress up" clubs will have to sponsor it. They will likely charge more money and in turn keep their club properties in nicer condition, since we've already established that they like their environment to look nice. People will pay more for a semi-exclusive or "nice" club than for a restriction-free or "not nice" club. Money will tend to flow toward one end of that spectrum. (Never mind that those with more money tend to favor one one side of the spectrum to begin with.) The key to whether dress codes are "good" is entirely dependent on the market demand. If they're providing what is desired, then it's "good". The atmosphere of the past regarding the game is just that, the past atmosphere. It isn't a part of the actual game itself. Although the people who prefer to reference that past are welcome to make that association, it isn't a hard rule. People who don't care for dress looks need to get over the fact that some do and need to not belittle them for having an arbitrary personal preference. Those who do care need to acknowledge that it isn't a higher calling and get over the fact that some people don't care. Just find like-minded people and play there. You get to choose the people and accept the course that comes with it, or the course and the people that come with it. Hopefully, both will be to your liking, but you're not guaranteed of that. That's how the free market works.

I had thought that the players themselves weren't allowed to use phones during the round, but I don't know where that thought came from.

I'd like a free one (Large). :-)

Don't underestimate the damage to the turf we hackers can accidentally do. I've taken my fair share of unintentional divots with the driver. :doh:

Bag of tees, a dozen yellow Srizon Q-Stars, and a plastic hand-shaped glove holder. I'm curious to see how yellow balls work for me, although I don't have high hopes, it's worth trying. And after I wash my glove I figured it would be help it dry faster if I can keep it open and the material apart from each other. We'll see if it was worth the $4.

I heartily vote that we start using the term "flop-in". :-D

I've stared teeing it a bit higher. I tee the ball such that it's slightly under half above the clubface. No particular reason other than that it seems to psychologically leave me at a bit more ease.

[url=http://www.barryrhodes.com/2009/10/ryo-ishikawas-ball-stolen.html]This blog post explains this exact issue[/url]. It walks through the rules involved and uses an actual example that happened on the Tour. The example was one very similar to Shorty's reply. Short story is: You get a free drop. This is one of the (few) times where misfortune isn't your problem. The core spirit of the golf rules is well known: "You should play the ball as it lies." However, there is a complementary rule of spirit as well, namely: "You are entitled to play the ball as it lies." Both of these are key to to the concept of "equity". You should not get anything you did not earn, but you should not lose anything you did earn. The rules try to spell out how to play the game with equity, and I get the impression that, for the large part, they're basically just trying to give explicit boundaries for those two ideas. But if for some reason they don't cover a situation clearly or you simply don't know how they cover a situation, try to proceed in equity using those two spirits. In your case, you fairly put the ball somewhere and it was interfered with by something non-golf play and non-course related. You are entitled to play from where you played the ball to. [edit] And pay Shorty no mind. You got a concrete answer to a legit question. Let the silly exchange drop. :-)

But the wording of "putts never break uphill" might be interpreted by some to mean the first question if they mistakenly believe that the question is asking about a putt that is uphill, not the break direction. I made that mistake, and clearly that was the source of Zeph's confusion earlier. Someone else in this thread made that mistake too. I think the question's wording throws some people off. The wording is correct, but that hasn't prevented confusion. Although it is clear what the meaning is once you understand it being a bit more explicit might help. Maybe something like "the direction putts break is never uphill". Anyway, fun quiz. And I didn't know before that the grass grain generally grows downhill. :-)

I would like a Large for free. :-)

Some of the questions are confusing. [quote]Q.7) It is a good rule of thumb that putts always break towards water. [/quote] "Good rule of thumb" and "always"? Which one is it? Are we answering that it's a good to consider that putts tend to break toward water [i]or[/i] it's a fact that they always break toward water? The explanation is odd: [quote]Putts break downhill, not necessarily towards water. [/quote] Well, yes, we don't think that water has a magical ball-attraction property (although it seems to sometimes :-P ), but the reason we use water is to get an idea of where downhill is. The rule of thumb that is popular that the green generally slopes downhill to the water. The point of the question may have been to differentiate "towards the water" and "downhill", and needs to be more clear. [quote]Q.9) Plumb-bobbing tells you how much the putt breaks. [/quote] The idea is to compare the slope of the green against a truly vertical reference point. The only thing it tells you for certain is which way the break is, but it does give you an idea of how much that slope is. The question needs to say something to the effect of "exactly how much the putt breaks". Unless the point is that plumb-bobbing doesn't even help estimating the amount of slope at all...? [quote]Q.11) Putts never break uphill. [/quote] What's uphill? The putt or the break direction? The perfect parsing associates "uphill" with "break" (which is what was intended, based on the answer), but one could be confused (as I was) and think that the putt itself is uphill. (And uphill putts obviously can break.) [quote]Q.13) A long putt will always break more than a short putt. [/quote] Are the putts on the same line? If so, is it single breaking? Does the obvious situation of a 30 foot straight putt vs a 5 foot heavily breaking putt apply? It's not clear how we're supposed to compare the two putts. It kind of sounds like we're supposed to compare to related putts, one is just longer than the other, but I don't think that's the case.

I had a really, really, really bad slice for a while. I could hit my 3-wood 180 yards with a 90 yard slice. (On our smallish netted driving range, I could slice from the left all the way to the right side on a bad day.) I used to cherish the super rare occasion I got to play from my own fairway. But now I occasionally struggle with it an unintended fade, and on a bad day an actual slice, but it's rare. My misses are more likely to be hooks. For me, it involved raising my arms, pulling my right elbow off of my body to try to "hit" with it from behind, and turning very flat. My first move on the downswing would get my hands way above plane and then I'd have to tug them down through the rest of the swing to get to a decent impact position. I say "tug" because that's really what it was. It was far from a power move, more like a weak pushing move. I hated to use my lower body because it felt unnecessarily complicated (how wrong), and I would lock my waist down to be still during the swing, forcing my shoulders to rotate very flat. Combined with I was miles off plane. And my rogue right elbow would effectively cause the "mid point" or bottom of the swing to be naturally farther back. I had basically no chance of not slicing, looking back. I was a poster child for how to slice. Now I hit much harder with a lot less effort because I'm not fighting physics every step of the way.

I had a few good recovery shots, but the best shot had to have been a recovery pitch on the par-3 5th. The left of the green is lined with trees and, as usual, I pulled my shot into them. I had no good look anywhere. I could chip left along the tree line and give myself a half-decent chip onto the green from 25 feet, or I could chip straight and get back into the "fairway" about 40 feet from the green. Or I could pitch between two trees that stood about 15 feet in front of me. They started together at the bottom and gradually separated. At about 10 feet high they were maybe two feet apart, at 20 feet high they were about four feet apart. It was definitely a risky shot, but I decided to go for it. It was probably the most likely way to save bogey. I took my gap wedge and took care lining up my pitch. I took a few practice swings to ensure I was on line with the target. Then I hit it. Dead between the trees, perfect height, perfect line. Unfortunately, the branches were low hanging so any ball that got high would get knocked down. And mine did. It was knocked down just a couple feet before the green. But a decent chip on and I putted to save bogey. I don't usually go for the risky shots, and I wasn't even hitting the ball well that day so I didn't have the excuse of "feeling in the groove", but I saw that opening and I knew that I could do it, and for some reason I really wanted to. Maybe following Phil at the Byron last week effected me. :-P

I had a roller-coaster of a round. Haven't been able to practice in a couple weeks, so I felt a bit rusty. I had, more or less, a really bad ball-striking day. Irons and woods were just bad. But my hybrids and wedges were awesome. The hybrids: * A power-fade hybrid that went about 230 linear yards. I was on the right edge of the rough with a tree blocking my path. I put the ball right past the tree with enough fade to keep it in the fairway. It hit and rolled up to the green, but unfortunately found the bunker. * A hard drawing hybrid that also must've run a total of 230-ish yards. A crappy drive hit a tree and came back. I took a drop from the cart path and put the hybrid up short of the green, and rolled it right over the back. * Another recovery hybrid on a par 5 where my tee shot went right on a dogleg left. Another power fade got the ball out of the trees and way up the fairway to PW distance. The wedges: * Two 20 foot chips that were left a couple inches from the hole. * A terrific recovery from the trees on a par 3. I had two crappy bail-out options, or the chance to thread the ball between two trees to aim at the green. I put the ball perfectly where I wanted it and managed to save bogey. * Another approach shot got went too far and got dumped behind a tree. I could either hit a really low running iron and hope I avoided the sandtrap, or open it up and try to flop it over the tree. I had a really fluffed up lie, so I decided to flop it. I put it right over the tree. * A par-4 rescue shot didn't go so well and ended up in a tree line. I had to take a 5-iron and hit a low runner up to around the green. It took off on the right line, low, when down into a bank that guarded the green, hit the edge, popped up and onto the green, and then rolled to 12 feet of the pin. That was what I wanted to happen, but the fact that it did was mostly luck. A lot of fun shots, but they usually were just making up for terrible ones. I think my final score was 16 over after 13 holes. Was probably hacking my way to a mid 90s score when daylight ran out.