mchepp

What is funny is the mountains are the only thing I remember about him. He has some great views from his range, no idea why he spends so much time on our forum posting nonsense. I can't remember where I left my keys, but a beautiful range from 2012, can't forget it.

Be fair, some years he started on the front.

I respect the desire for privacy with the face, but why the mountains in the background of the down the line shot?

Interesting. So if there is no drop area we would need to re-tee?

We battle something different but related. Our 8th tee has a pond that is hidden from the tee. If you've never played there, you'd never know it was there. It is only a few yards off the fairway so it is extremely common to have balls go in there. The argument begins on where to drop. The line I drew here has the ball going in just right of the oak tree there. It is a very common line. However, once the ball goes in there because we couldn't see it go in, we are forced to use the drop area. Recently they have put the drop area almost at the start of the water. It now becomes an impossible shot to the green because of the trees. A drive 5 yards off the fairway is an immediate best case double. If you drop on that corner where the ball went in you can get at most pin positions. Seems the rules are very punishing here because we could not verify where it went in. P.S. I HATE THIS HOLE. (phew, there I feel better after getting that off my chest)

Looks pretty good.

I of course met Dan and interviewed him for the site and even wrote a postmortem. I took an interest because he was playing my club when he got started. I think the delusional aspect of Dan's approach cannot be overlooked. Even in the interview, which had to be only a few months before he quit he was still talking about the PGA Tour. It was clear he was never going to make it. His swing speed was hovering around a hundred (which is 10+mph from where it needed to be), and he had a short game pretty similar to mine. He was basically a decent 6 handicap and was flattening out. He was doomed. Dan started with a pro that gave him horrible advice, it tainted the water, he really never recovered. Going to Chris Como is a big improvement, but he is going to have to block out all the other information out there. That will be his challenge. My advice to Dan when we met was to talk with @iacas and only listen to him. That if he listened to smart people and only those smart people he would have his best chance. Instagram, Twitter, YouTube are all filled with noise, finding signal takes work. I will be following. Mostly because it is interesting science. Especially if he does it properly.

$40 to $150 here in Portland. If you want to pay the big freight you head to Bandon in the summer and pay $250. Most of the really nice courses here are private. Waverley, Portland Golf Club, CECC.

Our regular group is quite big, and a few of them are arseholes. When they are in my group, I often don't enjoy the round. In rare events I will get 3 of them, and frankly the round is typically downright awful. I know the whole play your own game, but they are my teammates in the game, and I really don't like having to root for them. For that I sympathize with the OP. However, in tournaments I feel that often the other people are not on my team and I find I can ignore whatever the heck they are doing. I don't enjoy in a 2 man team game where the other two opponents are bordering on love making with the overly enthusiastic high fives, but once they struggle on a hole or two that seems to go away and I can settle into my round. The best, is when you are playing against someone you enjoy being around. It makes the competition fun. @DaveP043 and I have had some excellent matches in the Newport Cup and I have enjoyed all of them, winning or losing. But playing against someone who is a nice guy and competitive is a blast.

Seeing you perform the drill will be interesting. Swing looks pretty good for all that snow still on the ground.

But then what fun would we have arguing with each other whether our oranges are apples or not. 😁 For example, I don't think Johnny Unitas got to play with under-inflated balls, that was definitely his issue.

But don't you think that today's quarterback has to be more accurate than in Elway's era? I think Elway had a TON of arm strength but was not very accurate. His accuracy problems in my opinion would have held him back in today's game.

Who are you calling old?😁 I am interested in what clubs you collect? For a while I did putters, just liked the way they looked and I could putt with them if I wanted to. But eventually I got married had a kid and had my wife wondering what else we could buy if I sold them. I did irons for a while too. But they can be pricey and I couldn't really use them because the shafts in old clubs can stop working quite as well. Also the lofts are so different now than in the 50's. So I am hoping to live vicariously through your collection. Show us some pictures of your collection.

Fair point. Your question was about how widespread, and I guess my answer is not addressing that. I am answering more of a question about does it affect the outcome (more specifically winning) of the tournament. I think without visual evidence it makes it hard to know how widespread it is. It is hard to call someone out without visual proof. You could bring the other guy in the group over if you are in a 3-some, but they likely are not wanting to be bothered with that to keep their own focus on playing well. Without that kind of evidence it is they said/they said issue.

Yes, point being it isn't even easy to cheat. I think my larger point is that the PGA Tour does not have a cheating problem.

I recently watched the documentary "Icarus". The story starts with a high level amateur cyclist who participates in an race in France without any doping and finishes 14th out of a hundred or so. He states at that time that there is a top 10 and second group and then him. Immediately following he embarks on a strategy of doping to both prove that you can avoid detection and also improve your performance. After going onto a Lance Armstrong like procedure in terms of training and doping, he returns to run the race again. He proceeds to finish 24th. He outlines that it wouldn't matter how much he doped he wasn't going to even win this amateur event let alone a Tour de France. The movie changes to follow a Russian scientist who blows the whistle on the Russian Olympic team, but one of my takeaways is that cheating alone isn't going to make you great. It does shave off margins, and I agree in high level sports those are important, but winning involves multiple factors. I post this to postulate that even Patrick Reed took a bad ruling, he won because of more than just that ruling. I think there is probably a camera on 90% of the shots he takes once he even gets close to contention and because of a few previously bad decisions he is now judged more harshly. He won because he is a very good golfer not because he cheated. BTW, the movie is on Netflix and I highly recommend it.

@Bo the Golfer I don't think you should take what @iacas said negatively. To be fair there is some missing context for his comment regarding swinging out to the right. As a golfer, this theory of swinging out to the right is potentially very damaging. For me personally it has been more than decade of ridding myself of doing "too" much of it. Like anything, if overdone it is damaging and can cause many years of golfing frustration. Ten years later I still struggle with blocks, especially with my driver. Really all built on the concept of swinging out the right. It should also be said, what he is promoting is similar to many very good swings. Lee Trevino for example did what he promotes. Sans the Trevino flair maybe. Do what works for you.

Has to be Rory, right?

Something to note. Shane Ryan the author of the article you linked does not like Patrick Reed. In fact, in my opinion he likes attacking Reed, I think he thinks it makes him popular with the other pros in order to get some points with them. He devotes a decent part of the book attacking him. So we should keep that on background. That said, I think Reed has enjoyed the "bad guy" persona. It seems to motivate him. Whatever works right.

When I moved to the Portland area the next winter we got 12" of snow overnight. I had no snow shovel and was forced to get out with my kids sled. Awful experience. I went out bought this beautiful snow shovel and got myself prepared. This was end of 2015. Haven't touched it since, it is still sitting in the box. Whenever it does snow (anything more than a few inches) I'll be ready. Oh, and I prefer to do it all at once.

Not to mention the excellent play at Ryder Cups which many players say is a high pressure situation also.

If Matt Wolfe had more time to build up a profile or be a guy who made as many big putts to win big events as Tiger has, I think people would watch. Same is true for Kevin Na. I think part of this is how the PGA has promoted them. Tiger was the money maker and the PGA marketing machine built a story around him. And kept hitting the replay button. Once Tiger went away they appeared to have no clear backup strategy. I guess you could argue "young guns", Rickie Fowler, Jordan Speith. Until they stopped playing so good and Tiger came back

Then they can be called Statue of Liberty irons.

That and also how far they hit their persimmon drivers.

Copper "should" have a very soft feel. I wonder how they plan to keep it as Copper though.