the steam train

Troll. Massive Troll, seriously, this guy lives under a bridge and won't let anyone cross it. He guards it with his 1 iron.

I bought a set of mp-33's to practice with, thinking that a club with more feedback would help me reinforce the feeling of good contact and improve my ball striking. They ended up making it into the bag because I just like them so much better, my r7's feel clumsy by comparison. I find that the only miss I give anything up on is catching it thick, the turf interaction isn't exactly forgiving.

Dew is a natural occurrence, but I'm quite sure drawing a line in the dirt to aid in your alignment would be against the rules of golf and dirt is a natural occurrence too. So I'm quite happy so say that if someone intentionally drew a line in the morning dew they would fall afoul of the rules, if by chance the dew created a pattern that was useful to your eye then so be it.

I have a Taylormade Rescue 17 degree 2 hybrid, shafted with a Aldila Voodoo XSV8. It plays slightly too long for my liking (about 2 inches longer than my 3 iron) and is just a little uncomfortable, so I want to have it cut down a little. I know I could just adjust the lie angle, but I figure changing the length comes with the added benefit of better yardage gaps. I know shortening the shaft will have some effect on its playing characteristics, but my question is, what are these effects going to be?

Thanks, that is the sort of thing I was looking for. Its interesting though that no one from an academic sphere seems to have done anything on this, there are plenty of papers on the biomechanics of the golf swing or the aerodynamics of the golf ball. Yet there is nothing on the fact that conventional golf instruction has entailed a flawed understanding of physics for countless years.

I can't find it online so I was hoping someone on here could tell me. Does the current PGA manual endorse the "old" ball flight laws or has it been updated. If it hasn't, can anyone point me to any published material, preferably in print, which outlines the correct ball flight laws? I'm aware of the stuff published on this site and it has been of great use to me, but for my current purposes I need something a little different, an article published in a sports science journal or something similar would be great. Thanks in advance.

I'll start by saying that I am in complete agreement with the fundemental contention of iacas's original post, logically there should be no difference between the distance a draw and a fade produce. The ball doesn't know which way its spinning, however I find that while this does put certain misconceptions to rest, it also raises further questions. This thread has already recongnized that a draw does go farther in reality, but what I want to know is why. What differences are there in the lauch conditions for a ball hit with a fade and a ball hit with a draw, that result in more than a change in trajectory simply to either the left or right? Maybe it calls for another thread or maybe it can be answered here, but working from the assumption that spin is inherently neutral, what are the differences between a draw and a fade? I am interested to see what this forum has to say on the subject, as greater understanding of these things has only ever helped my game. The clubface angle and swing path threads caused a significant improvement in my ball control, through what was essentially an academic excercise. So what is the lesson that can be learnt here?

After reading this thread I feel as though I'm part of an overwhelming minority. But didn't Hogan once famously say to Moe Norman "Every time you hit it dead straight its an accident"? A perfectly straight shot is much harder for me to execute than a fade or a draw, or depending on how badly I miss it, a slice or a hook. On every single full swing shot I try and work the ball either right or left. That way I can take the miss on which ever side is worse trouble out of play and increase my margin for error. As a slightly worse than bogey golfer I don't feel like I'm engaging in "internet bragging" either, its just how I go about attempting to conquer my own deficiency, which is what I think us bogey golfers are trying to do whenever we play. Regardless of wether we try and work the ball or not.

Personally, I always find it pretty hard to argue with results. But the golf addict in me really does enjoy swing analysis, so why shouldn't we listen to Peter Kostis? You never would have started this thread if you didnt want to tell us... :)