Rexx

Ehhh... how far are you willing to take that argument? Jorts and a wife beater okay? Just underwear? Anything more than "birthday suit" and you're "projecting your personal opinion of style with no performance-related justification".

I think you're doing something wrong if you get just as sweaty playing golf as you do playing tennis/basketball, although I'm not sure which side is the problem. Pros should wear long pants. They're just walking a few miles in comfy shoes with breaks every couple hundred yards. The professionalism outweighs the slight bit of discomfort long pants might add in hot weather.

Just wanted to post to say how cool it was to see a true before & after swing change -- I know it's a couple of years between videos, but still. Most of the time, when golfers try to make changes, they only achieve maybe 20% of what is actually needed, but you show real improvement. However, that Roy McAvoy finish may need work.

"My Hokies"? I guess you decided on VT then? If so, congrats! Great school! Anyways, hinging your wrists isn't a bad thing. Looking at it from the address position, the left wrist will hinge vertically and the right wrist will hinge/fold horizontally during the backswing. The right wrist folding horizontally (and staying like that through impact) gets your hands ahead of the ball at impact and helps to move the swing's bottom in front of the ball. For the left wrist hinging vertically, I have a theory that I've never really seen (so I may be off on this one). You hinge the left wrist because it moves the mass of the club over your body, allowing you to rotate quicker on the downswing -- notice how difficult to swing the club if the left wrist never hinges. It's kind of like an ice skater pulling their arms in to spin faster. You unhinge the left wrist on the downswing to get the clubhead back out on the arc that will strike the ball. The clubhead picks up speed simply due to being on a greater arc while rotational speed remains close to the same. The problem (among other things) is that you still roll the forearms/wrists clockwise during the backswing. It's like your setting it up so that the left wrist's hinge and unhinge happen on the arc that the clubhead will be travelling on, instead of more perpendicular to it (save for the right wrist folding), which can seem counter-intuitive. Sorry if this is confusing, but I don't know how else to explain it. For you, you're going to want to feel like backhanding the ball with the left wrist from start to finish, keeping the feeling that the left wrist is pointing at (or even ahead of) the ball anytime the hands are at or below the waist. When you roll your forearms, it will immediately point the back of the left hand behind the ball.

Greg Norman was well-known for hitting a high dead straight shot. While pros usually have a preference, I think most golfers underestimate just how gentle of a curve most pros' shots really are. The ball is hit farther and in the air so long that it's more like the ball is drifting in a particular direction rather than curving.

Really? The 2006 U.S. Open at Winged Foot -- fairly historic event in golf lore. The funny thing is, everyone talks about Mickelson screwing up, but little is said about Monty. He also finished a shot back of Ogilvy (winner). However, he too ended with a double bogey (6), but he did it from the middle of fairway (somewhere around 170 yards iirc).

Probably a bit uncouth, but a little spit polish + tee to clean out grooves (wiping "excess" on ground) when needed is about all the love the clubs get from me.

Not gonna lie, playing tree-lined/wooded courses with high handicappers can kind of suck. I don't want to have to look for golf balls and/or wait on every hole. Almost anything else (e.g. taking a shot or two more per hole) is fine.

Playing the back nine... oh... golf slang... nevermind.

Don't roll the forearms/wrists on the backswing (see how the clubhead is far inside early). Keep the clubface and back of the right hand more perpendicular to the arc of your swing, except for the opening of the clubface from folding your left wrist back on itself. Then, maintain that left wrist hinge through the swing. It will probably feel more restrictive and less powerful, but it should force you to use the rotation of your shoulders and hips to generate power.

4:21? Maybe 4:20?

While the right wrist doesn't provide "power" in the sense of increased clubhead speed, keeping it hinged through impact (as Zeph points out) will deloft the club and generally increase the chances of making solid, consistent contact, and thus, more distance.

I don't think you have to worry about Wells TOO much this week. Hightower is the most likely to start and get 65-70% of the carries. Wells is probably not in game shape yet, because of the knee surgery. I do think Wells will be the better back in Arizona by the second half of the year, but not this weekend. For Fred Taylor... it's tough to figure out the NE running game. In week #1, he got 14 carries vs. BJGE's 5. In week #2, he got 5 (vs. 10 for BJGE). On a more positive note, Buffalo is a better pass than run defense, and if NE gets up big early (like they did against Cin in week #1), then there will be more carries to go around. However, I think the answer is Hightower vs Oakland's poor run defense.

I think you're talking about rhythm. For example, in a golf swing, if it takes 2 seconds to complete your backswing and 1 second to complete your downswing, you have a 2/1 ratio (which is your rhythm) and a total time of 3 seconds (your tempo). You can increase the tempo and keep the same rhythm by cutting each time in half: 1 second backswing, .5 second downswing. For pros, an average rhythm is about 3/1, but the tempos will differ from player to player. If you want to develop proper rhythm, you could count in your head (or get a nice metronome app for your phone) and pick a tempo you're comfortable with and aim for that same 3/1 ratio. For most amateurs, their downswing is actually too slow in relation to the backswing. Generally, they don't have a smooth transition from backswing to downswing and end up "wasting time" at the top of their backswing. You'll find that you have to start your downswing sooner than you're used to -- usually this means the hips and legs start moving forward before the arms have stopped swinging, else you're going to feel rushed getting the club back down by the fourth beat. If you look up Tour Tempo, there's a whole product being sold for this.

Did I say anything about Foley's comments? No. Please put the straw man away. Telling the truth does not equal professionalism. Throwing your fellow golfers "under the bus" does not equal professionalism, especially when they have done nothing more than say they are no longer working with Mike & Andy. He could have said that a lot of people have had success with S&T.; That he wouldn't be where he is without it. That the man leading the tour in GIRs is using S&T.; That they teach more golfers on tour than anyone. Etc. Charlie was never specifically asked about Baddeley and Weir. Therefore, I find it unwarranted and unprofessional to bring them into the conversation in such a bad light. He jumped the gun on the question being asked of him, as if he was just looking for a reason to go on a rant. And you know my reference to being "objective" had nothing to do with Baddeley and Weir's success/failure with S&T;, but the 'enthusiastic support' that Wi's comments were met with on this forum. Stating facts does not equal professionalism. Obviously, we have different standards of what that word means, so I guess we'll just have to disagree about it. But there are more proper ways to speak about fellow professionals who are struggling. When most professionals speak of Tiger they say something like, "He's got a lot on his mind and he's understandably been struggling with his game a bit. Given time, he'll get it turned around and probably resume his position as the best player in the world." It's not, "Maybe Tiger should just go back to sleeping around... that's obviously when he was at his best." I find both of these lines from the article unprofessional: "He won three times with Andy and Mike, and also took him to inside top 20 in the world. And if that's not good enough for Aaron, well, it is what it is." "If you look at -- they're not here this week, so maybe they should be working with Andy and Mike." C'mon, surely you can do better than that. Hard to take someone's (Charlie's) arguments seriously if he's gonna resort to those tactics. You want to argue "facts" and then play these psychological games. And if you want to know why I don't find all the viewpoints objective, it's for defending stuff like this. I've seen your posts about other subjects... there's no way you would defend this behavior if it wasn't about S&T.; No, he wasn't. He was being asked about how long he has been with S&T; and then cut off the interviewer. The interviewer did preface the question with the fact that some people (unnamed) have left S&T;, but we don't know the intentions of the interviewer after that. Not that you're necessarily directing this at me, but I have never defended Foley's comments. And I'm not sure anyone on this board ever has, but I don't read every single post. The subject is Charlie's comments, and that's what we're discussing. He may have had valid points, but they were clouded by his delivery.

You can never go wrong with Trevino Quotes .

The comments about Baddeley and Weir were unwarranted and unprofessional -- if I had a "friend" like that... And refusing to say Foley's name is childish. He had a chance to show some class and composure (like Andy and Mike have done so far), but decided they needed 'protection' instead of support. Some of you are not looking at this objectively.

Is it a work phone (i.e. is work paying for the phone?)? Is part of your responsibilities to be on-call? What does your boss think your responsibilities are in regards to off-hours? You can certainly turn off and ignore the phone, but depending on circumstances, your future at the company may be affected -- not saying you'll be fired, but pay raises and promotions could be affected -- unless you find out these answers.

Ahhh... I see now. You aren't condoning slow play, you're blaming slow play on amateurs emulating the pros. Why didn't you just say so? I assume then the comment that "Thats probably one of the reasons why they are good!" was tongue-in-cheek, no? Because if not, you've given amateurs a reason to take as long as pros. I do think it's understandable for the pros to be slightly slower than amateurs when playing a shot, but no way to the extent that they actually are. Folks like Sabbatini, Daly, Cabrera, Fowler, Johnson, etc. should be closer to the norm. The reason they should be slower is that every yard matters to them, because they are that accurate. Our shot dispersion is just not close enough that 1, 2 or even 5 yards probably matters much. Our ability to read a 25 foot putt is so (relatively) bad that being off a couple inches in break is as likely to help as is to hinder when we misjudge the speed or mishit the putt by 3 feet. But let's be honest, courses want faster pace of play for monetary reasons: quicker pace = more golfers = more $$$$. Some golfers want a faster pace of play because that's their personality. They aren't rushing, that's just how they're wired. Then, there are golfers wired the opposite way. It's like people that drive (autos) at different speeds, except that there are no passing lanes on the golf course... or there's that mom driving a mini-van at the front of a long line of cars.

Not sure if OP is joking or not, but two reasons the pros take a while: - The pros are playing for something meaningful, we're not. - The conditions (distance, wind, break, etc) actually affect their results. For most amateurs, approximations done quickly are more than sufficient as the odds of executing the exact desired shot is low anyways -- a misread putt is probably as likely to help as hurt. Not sure how being duped into buying equipment by advertisers fits into this, though.

A few things: 1. Without exact scoring and roster rules, it's tough to give advice. But assuming "standard" peformance-based scoring and roster (plus a non-auction league)... 2. Your order is generally out of whack. Here's a quick summary of how you should draft: a. Defense should be picked second to last, Kicker should be picked last. Don't get backups for either position. Really, you should pick your D and K on a week-to-week basis. Basically, pick the D that is going against a rookie QB (or the Lions) -- rack up those turnovers and sacks. And pick a K on a team expected to win that week. Stats have shown that Ks on the winning teams score an average of 3 points more than a K on a losing team. b. Load up on RBs and WRs. Simply put, they are your lifeblood. Between injuries and trade bait, they are what is going to win your league (especially RBs). c. Unless you happen to get Tom Brady when he throws for 50 TDs, QBs tend to go higher than they should. There just isn't enough difference between Brees and say, Eli Manning, to make taking Brees in the first round when you can get E. Manning in the 8th (maybe later). However, I am a fan of grabbing 2 QBs in the mid-rounds for injury reasons and playing the matchups. d. Ditto TEs. There are plenty of good TEs to be found in later rounds. And you only need one of them (don't get a backup). 3. Just follow the cheat sheets from ESPN or wherever... you shouldn't get TOO far off course. If you look at the Top 200 rankings, you'll probably see a lot of what I said above is true. 4. Unless you get real lucky or you're playing with a bunch of noobs (or idiots), this year is going to be a learning experience.

You are almost always paying a higher interest rate for a "no cost" loan than with a "normal" loan OR the lender simply rolled the various fees into the loan amount. Either way, they're getting their money -- there's no free lunch.

So why not just skip around them? Get ahead and then play 2 balls on "similar" remaining hole(s) to the one(s) you skipped. Yeah, you'd like to play them all legitimately, but that's the choice, I guess.

I just have some FootJoy rain gloves, so I doubt they're anything special. But, I can't tell much difference between the rain gloves and my usual gloves, so feel hasn't been much of an issue. The handkerchief might help in those situations where I don't wear a glove (usually just chips and putts).

Buy rain gloves. They work well.