uglande

I have watched them both, and while I understand why people would want to say it's Jack (he was the undisputed "best-ever" for more than three decades), I don't see how anyone can say that Tiger is not the best. Tiger has exceeded every achievement Jack reached at a similar point in his career, and Tiger has done things that Jack never did (winning the Master's by 12 strokes, the U.S. Open by 15 and the British Open by 8). Jack had an uncanny ability to find a way to get the "W". Well, Tiger has that, too, but he also has the ability to blow the best fields in golf completely out of the water. The argument about changes in equipment is a complete red herring and I really wish people would stop using it. Of course it is a different era, but the question is who is better relative to his peers. The fact that Tiger uses a 460cc titatanium driver isn't relevent to this debate because everyone Tiger is playing against is using the same technology. The only issue left to settle is whether -- and let's be honest, WHEN -- Tiger is going to break Jack's record for total wins (73, second only to Sam Sneed) and total majors. I think Tiger will break Jack's win total within the next two years. He's only 8 wins away. And I think he'll pass Jack's major total in the next 3 years--more than a decade earlier than when Jack got his 18th. I think Tiger will finish his career with more than 100 tour wins (about 125 worldwide) and 22-25 majors. He just needs to say healthy.

I tried it for a session last fall and had some success on the range -- nice, crisp contact with the irons. But, as others have pointed out, the mis-hits multiply as the clubs get longer. I have tried S & T a few times on the range this year and have had almost no luck with it. I got into a bit of a rhythm during one session, but even then I was hitting the ball 10-15 yards shorter with that method. I've given up on it.

It seems like the researcher needs to define "amateur." I would think that for someone who is a 20+ handicap, long-game improvement would be most critical because they are more susceptible to hitting OB and into trees and hazards. So, for a high handicapper, the shots from 100+ yards present the most risk of being score-killers. But if you are talking about the difference between a pro and a 6-handicapper, then it's a different story, I would think. Single-digit handicappers would more quickly narrow the gap between themselves and the pros by focusing on their short games. I also agree with the earlier posts suggesting that a high handicapper should still focus more on the short game because that is where they will see the fastest improvement. It doesn't take any athletic prowess to learn how to chip with proper technique or to develop a reasonably good feel for putting. Those things can be learned much more readily than how to hit a driver 300 yards down the middle with a slight draw.

The two most important things, IMO, are to: (1) Focus on the smallest possible target and keep that mental picture in your head (instead of the trees, bunkers, etc.) (2) Be TOTALLY COMMITTED to the shot by the time you step into the ball to take your stance. The point of a pre-shot routine, I believe, is not mechanical as much as it is mental, so it's important that the rhythm of your routine helps you to focus on your target and clear your head of everything else.

Sounds like you are stuck in the dreaded cycle of hitting bad shots, then beating yourself up, then hitting more bad shots. My advice is to go play your next round (maybe by yourself, or at least without your friends) after promising yourself you will do two things: (1) Don't worry about where any shot goes. Just take a nice smooth swing and forget about the results for 18 holes. And certainly forget about your score. Tense muscles are the cause of most bad shots. When we quit on our swing, or flip our wrists on chips or yip our putts, it's all because of tension. If you play with fear or anger, your muscles tighten and you have no chance. The problem is, fear and anger lead to bad shots, which lead to more anger and fear, and the cycle doesn't end until your round is over or you throw your clubs in the pond. So just let go of all the smothering perfectionism and play loosely and without any concern about where the ball is going, where it just went, or how many shots it took you to put it in the hole. (2) UNDERREACT to every bad shot. No swearing. No slamming clubs. If you hit a bad shot, just laugh it off and go hit the next one. There are some golfers who can swear and throw clubs (Tiger, Stadler) and can put it behind them before they hit their next shot. But for the rest of us, the anger lingers and clouds everything we do after that. Let it go for a whole round. You'll play better.

All of the arguments about the ball and club technology are completely irrelevant in this debate. Jack played with persimmon woods and a wound ball, but so did everyone he played against. Tiger is playing with a three-piece ball and a 460cc driver, but so is everyone he is playing against. (In fact, Woods was one of the last of the top players to embrace the new technology. He still plays with blades and he used a steel driver shaft until about five years ago.) When all is said and done, Tiger will retire with at least 25 majors and easily 100 PGA Tour wins and closer to 150 wins worldwide. If you still think Jack is the greatest, that's fine. Make your case. But leave out the bogus technology arguments.

Please, lord, let Poulter be paired with Tiger at the WGC Match Play, and in the opening round of the U.S. Open at Torry Pines (we know they won't be paried together in the final round), and in the singles matches of the Ryder Cup. Can you say, 9 and 8?

It's all about what you hit the best, and that usually means the club you can swing most confidently. A 3i is obviously harder to swing, but I think most people's problems with long irons are psychological. If they employed the same swing with their 3i that they use with their 8i, they would notice only a slight dropoff -- say 10-15 percent -- in their accuracy. But with the 3i in their hands, they start focusing on that slight decrease in the margin of error, they end up swinging fearfully instead of confidently, and all of a sudden that 10-15 percent becomes 40-50 percent. Then the next time they pick up the club, they start focusing on that 40-50 percent and it becomes 60-70 percent. And the next day they are at Golf Galaxy buying a new hybrid. I still think hybrids are great clubs for most people, but the perception that they are night-and-day better than long irons is a little more perception than reality. Swing away, Erik!

Could you tell us why you chose the S58s over the i10s? (BTW, my signature says I play the i10s but I haven't put the order in yet. I'm still considering the S58s).

Slight correcttion on swingweights on the i10: The 3-9 irons in the i10 line all start at D0. The PW and UW are D2. The AWT shaft does get lighter (descending from the 6 or 7 iron down to the 3, getting progressively lighter), but the difference is very slight (5 grams or so) and it does not affect swingweight. The total clubweight is marginally lighter, but the balance of that weight stays constant from 3i-9i.

Anyone tried Taylor's new Burner XD irons? Do you know if Taylor is planning another iron set in the Burner line (e.g., Burner TP)?

I've had the X-20 Tour irons for a couple of months now. Hit them a lot on the range and played a few rounds. They are very nice irons, terrific feel, none of the clunky gadgetry of the game-improvement irons, workable, confidence-inspiring. My only complaint is that, for me, they are about 1/2 a club shorter than my previous Hogan Apex Plus irons. But this doesn't bother me a bit. I hit them so much straighter, and with just as much spin and control, that the (slight) loss of distance is really inconsequential. I waffled for months between the X-20 Tour and the TM R7 TP, and I just liked the feel and forgiveness of the Callaways better. And this is from someone who has for 20 years REFUSED to buy Callaway irons. I am very happy with these. (By the way, I bought them with the dynamic gold sl S300shafts, not the project x shafts).

I have the VS Proto (stiff) in both my fairway wood and my driver. The shaft is absolutely perfect for my 3-wood, but I find the driver shaft to be a little too whippy. The ball spins too much and has a balooning trajectory. So, my experience is that I need a stiff flex with the 75 g fairway wood and maybe an x flex with the 65 g driver shaft.

Everything I have heard about them suggests that they are not a good choice for a 12 handicapper. I would stick with the TMs -- a little more forgiving but still do everything you ask of them, especially if your game keeps improving. I chose the X-20 Tour over the TMs but it was a close call. The X-Forged irons have smaller heads, are more intimidating at set up, and less accommodating on less-than-perfect swings.

X20 tours are awesome...just be careful with the project x shafts. They frequency out very stiff! We put a set on our machine and while the CPM spread was not that far apart between the irons, they came out at a XXX flex!!!! I had heard that before from other people as well, so I went with the Dynamic Gold SL shaft, which I've been playing the past year or so. I like the lighter shaft, because my clubs are an inch long and can feel heavy. I haven't received my X-20 Tours yet (still on order), so I'm not sure how that shaft matches up with that club head, but I'll let you know when I get them.

I have been agonizing about whether to get the Taylor R7 TPs or the Callaway X-20 TOURs. I like the blade-like look at address with the R7s and they are very solid irons, but I am putting in an order for the Callaways. I have never owned Callaway irons before, but I really like the X-20 Tour model. They look sharp, they're not as clunky as previous versions, they have minimal offset and they are incredibly forgiving. I feel very confident with them at address. I just don't feel like I can miss the sweetspot. All Callaway clubs are forgiving (except maybe the new X-Forged), but I have shied away from them because they had too many game-improvement bells and whistles and just didn't seem like clubs I could control. I don't feel that way at all about the X-Tours. I have hit them and the R7s and like the X-Tours better. I didn't want to. I really wanted to like the R7s. I am used to playing muscle-backs, so I was wary of making the leap to a club that has such a pronounced cavity. But the proof is in the pudding. I just hit these better. That's something we all have to keep in mind when buying golf equipment. The only thing that matters is whether the clubs will increase your chances of getting the ball into the hole quicker.

It got a good plug from TST and a friend of mine said he tried it out at the merchandise show and was blown away. Tour Edge is making a guarantee you will outdrive your current fairway wood by 20 yards. Those yards don't come cheap. The lowest price I can find is $350. Has anyone tried this baby and is it worth three-and-a-half bills?

Just a quick follow-up ... I noticed that the new Cobra Baffler Pro series has a longer hosel to allow for more lie adjustments. Not sure how many degrees it can be bent, but that's definitely a nice feature.

The difference is especially noticeable around the greens (BIG difference in spin) and particularly when putting. The V1x gives you a little bit of a CLICK coming off the face, which is what I prefer. The regular V1 is like putting a super ball -- you can barely tell when you've made impact. This feature is often referred to kindly as FEEL, but as far as I'm concerned it is the ABSENCE OF FEEL, and one of the reasons I prefer the V1x and also the Callaway HX Tour.

Aquacooled ... Just wondering if Taylor Made bent your hybrid for you or if you did it elsewhere (or yourself). Thanks.

I recently hit a newly purchased hybrid club off of a lie board and found that I am making contact way out on the sole of the club -- i.e., the club's lie angle is too flat. This is not a problem with my irons, which are bent 2 degrees upright. I never hear anyone talking about club fitting with hybrids, but is this somethig any of you have done or know anything about? I spoke with someone at Adams and they said they could bend a hybrid head about one degree up. Even if I do this, I'm thinking it still won't be upright enough. But I'm wondering if it will really influence impact in the same way as a too-flat iron would. Hybrids are no doubt more forgiving with the wider sole, but how much more forgiving? Any thoughts?

Yes! But you can't swing it like a weenie. The lob wedge will make a chump out of you if you let it. Just take your normal swing and let the club do the work. If you make it your BEE-ACH, you won't know how you got along without out. But if you play scared with it (look up, flip your wrists, shorten your follow through) you'll be unloading it on eBay as quick as you can say "SKULL!"

There is one more important reason (other than feel or workability) that some players might prefer blades or musclebacks: OFFSET. If you are a player whose misses are left (like Erik and myself) the offset on most iron sets works against you. It is very difficult to find a set of irons that has low offset AND any of the normal game-improvement features (thicker sole, low cg, etc.). So, there are many reasons why someone might prefer blades or musclebacks to other iron sets. Still, I think that for most players -- including most good players -- there is more to be lost than gained with blades.

The idea that Tiger plays against weaker competition is one of the most persistent myths in the Tiger-Jack debate. It is true that Jack's principal rivals were legends of the game (Palmer, Watson, Player, Trevino), but Tiger plays in fields that are solid from top to bottom. The worst players on the tour today would have been elite golfers in the 1960s and '70s. In Jack's day, there were only a handful of golfers in each event, particularly the majors, who had a reasonably good chance of winning. Today, just about anyone on tour has the ability to win if they can string four good rounds together (E.g., Chad Campbell, Rich Beam, Ben Curtis, Michael Campbell, Todd Hamilton, Paul Lawrie, Shaun Micheel). Also, the argument that Tiger plays against guys who haven't won majors is also false. Ernie, Vijay, Retief, Jose-Maria, Phil, Jim F., Freddy -- these are guys who have proven their talent on the big stage and provide just as much competition as Watson, Kite, Miller and the other guys Jack played against on a regular basis. (Also, one of the reasons these guys don't have more major wins is because Tiger keeps winning them. Ernie would have won 5 or 6 majors by now if not for Woods). Yes, it's too early to tell who is the best, but Tiger is on pace right now to blow Jack away. I predict 100 tour wins (plus 30 more worldwide) and 24 majors. And I think he will retire when he's in his early '40s and will never tee it up on the Champions Tour.

For anyone who is not a low single digit handicapper (and even for most of them), I don't think there is anything to be gained by choosing blades or muscle-backs over cavities. Most players -- even most GOOD players -- are not able to work the ball consistently and precisely enough for it to be an advantage. And if you DO have the skills to work the ball, you should be able to move it reasonably well with any iron (excluding some of the most goofy "game improvers"). None of the pros would use cavity-backs if they could not move the ball, yet most of them DO NOT use blades. I think most golfers who like to work the ball have selective memory. They remember the one time they cut their 6-iron 180 yards into a guarded pin to make birdie, but they forget the other times they bladed it, mis-hit it and ended up short of the green, or overworked the ball off into a bunker.