Jump to content

dubbelbogey

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    1,082
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

dubbelbogey's Achievements

513

Reputation

  1. Real situation from this summer: 65+ year old gentleman with less than perfect eyesight playing with a 20-something - strong hitter, but not highly experienced. There's a group about 300 out from the tees. Younger player is waiting to tee off, but older guy pressured him into hitting. Ball flies full 300, and is definitely too close for comfort to the group in front. Older guy does the right thing, takes responsibility and quickly and profusely apologizes to the group in front - who were understandably miffed, but ultimately understood once it was explained. Lessons learned by all involved.
  2. Interesting responses. The ones that surprise me the most are those saying the 60* LW. I'm curious as to why you think that is? Does this apply to full swings, pitch shots, chips, or all of the above? If full swings, I'd probably lean towards saying that there's almost always a better (easier) club for that distance than a full swing LW. Sometimes not, but easily most of the time.
  3. Yup - I'm also in the no-brand / minimal brand camp. I've got one shirt that is identifiable as to the maker, but that is because it is also logoed with a local course that happens to be one of my favorite tracks. No golf brands on my hats - just some colleges. I only have one club mfr branded headcover, and I used it for years on a club that wasn't of that brand. Part of this is practical - a bit of theft deterrence with clubs that don't advertise themselves, and another part is just that I don't like brand names on things. They're not paying me, so I'm 100% the boss of what is visible. Yup - you could argue that having college or local golf course logos is no different, but I don't see it that way. Those entities have a lot more meaning to me in a way that a club mfr will never have.
  4. And here's that golf.com article: https://golf.com/instruction/every-shot-counts-short-game-big-bomber/
  5. I miss headcovers with a full knit "sock" for the shaft. Fundamentally more protection than what today's common covers provide.
  6. Warning: sweeping generalizations below, your mileage will likely vary... I agree with those that say that a 3w is not a beneficial club for many mid to high handicappers. Too often, I will see golfers in this skill range try to "drop down" to a 3w on the tee box when they're uncomfortable hitting driver, and proceed to skull, sky, or otherwise hit the edge of the 3w clubface to a result that is effectively a full lost shot, possibly two if OB is in play. It is not a reliable club for these players. The shaft is too long relative the compact clubface and is just plain hard to hit well for those reasons. But for players who actually practice with this club, and have a higher level of skill, it can be a very useful club. It makes a significant number of par 5s reachable, when they would not be with other clubs. This can save strokes for the player that has the skill to hit this club, even though it's only used a very limited number of times a round. Personally, I think a chip driver is easier to hit off the tee than a 3w, but that is a matter of preference since I do actually practice this skill. I can see others preferring a 3w off the tee when a shorter shot is demanded. Note, I don't think that a 3w has very much better dispersion than a driver. To me, this should be more about not blowing the tee shot too far downrange into trouble. As usual, the answer is it depends...
  7. You guys even remember being a kid or a teen or even in your 20s? Did you like it when somebody from the older generation told you what you should be wearing? I distinctly remember my HS sports days and the players griping about having to wear certain or not wear certain things for practices. Kids just don't like being told what to wear, period. They'll do it, if they have to (e.g. game days), but prefer to do their own thing otherwise. I see players from the local university and HS teams practicing on their own at a local course fairly often. Not an organized, official practice. 90% of the time in this situation, they're wearing t-shirts because they can and the course allows it. That's just what they prefer to wear. Most of these kids can well afford to wear fancier clothes - this is a relatively affluent community - so it's not about cost. Therefore, it's mostly about what they would want to wear. Recreational golf, perhaps, is the only recreational activity where dress codes are somewhat common even in public facilities. I can't think of another sport where this is true at public-access facilities (aside from practical concerns like disallowing sole materials that will mark up a basketball court). Sure, participants may choose to wear garb that is the "norm" for the sport, but it's not a written rule. Vail doesn't say "no blue jeans" to its skiers. (Private facilities are a different thing. They can do what they want, to their potential benefit or detriment, but its up to them.) Sure, I'll buy it's doesn't have to be about cost. But it sure isn't about golf having a "uniform" like team sports do. The Red Sox wear uniforms. Barca wears uniforms. Patrick Cantlay does not wear a uniform. So, golf stands alone in this regard. You can argue that's it's a good, wholesome, fine tradition and that golf should stick to being different here. Fine, but that doesn't mean it's not a deterrent for some wanting to get into the game.
  8. In the past, I've disagreed with Adam's position on a couple of different topics, but in this case, his argument for free fittings is 100% spot on, and he won that debate handily. A basic fitting for length, lie, (and sometimes, flex) is not difficult, does not demand decades of experience, and is comparable to getting pants with the correct inseam and waist size. Everyone should have pants that fit, and the same should be true for clubs. There's no reason that a 5'6" golfer with relatively long torso should have to suffer with long clubs or upright lies. Same for the 6'4" golfer with long legs. Adam was completely correct in that TXG and Club Champion serve the very tippy top of the market. Saville Row does that, too. Nothing wrong with that, but to argue all golfers should pay for a basic fitting is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with optimizing launch conditions through different heads, shafts, weights and grips, but that's a totally different tier of service and product that most golfers are not interested in and is not necessary to enjoy the game. (This forum's participants, obviously, are a different cohort altogether.) But if I'm buying a pair of standard, everyday jeans, I'm darn well going to buy those that fit. The thing is, unlike buying pants, 90% of golfers (probably higher, in reality) don't have a clue what their correct length and lie angles are. Just to throw another analogy out there, skis, boots and bindings are all "fit" to the skier. That's part of virtually every set of skis sold out there. It's not even considered optional. Sure, as one gets into the sport at higher levels, you can get the equivalent of high-end fitting and equipment optimizations done, and you'll (rightfully) pay for those, too. As the issue of growing the game. I don't actually have a strong opinion about that. My main point here is that for those that already play, let's not have their equipment be a major detriment to their enjoyment just because their clubs are the equivalent of pants that slide down to their knees.
  9. I don't get the grief being dished out on the glare argument. This is a real thing - especially for those of us who live in predominantly sunny areas. A raw, dark or even just a plain matte finish is far better than polished, shiny chrome. I used to carry a fully chromed 60* lob wedge and there were distinct times where the sun was directly bounced back into my eyes. Not fun. Sure it doesn't happen super often, and usually only on wedges with a lot of loft, but it's definitely a real issue that is easily solved with a non-chrome finish. It's certainly a more practical reason than rust imparting more spin. I don't buy into that particular argument, and I think those who've actually tested this confirm this is the case.
  10. Just FYI, lugless has specific rates for shipping golf clubs, too.
  11. Use lugless.com. Pretty sure you can get this done for under $45. I did a quick check and that's what it came up with. This is how I do a lot of my shipping these days.
  12. Over the years, I've had enough sets of irons, across the full spectrum of types, to come to this personal conclusion: once reasonably fitted for length, lie and flex, differences between brands and models don't make any statistical difference in scoring to my game. Therefore, I've eventually gravitated to clubs that I find appealing to my eye. The ugly ones were no better at scoring than the pretty ones, so I go with pretty. I'm much less picky about looks when it comes to drivers, fairway woods and hybrids. I've always had a mix there. The "looks" I don't like in these clubs are offset (once a trend in woods, seemingly less so these days, thankfully) and those that sit noticeably closed. Other than that, shape and color don't mean anything to me in those clubs. I've got one hybrid I've stripped the paint off and it's just bare metal.
  13. During Fall leaf season, I'll use a pink or orange ball. (Yellow's no good in the leaves that fall around here.) When winter comes, I'm also in the camp of using up my stash of balls I've found along the way during the past season. Sometimes our greens are frozen solid so balls can bounce like they hit a cart path. Not all the time, of course, but it's amusing when it does happen. No "soft" ball will make any difference in those conditions.
  14. Given the wide ranging bunker conditions I find in my rotation of courses, I like having two, very different bounce options. I have 60/4 and 56/14. I find that (admittedly, very wide) range of bounce options between those two clubs to be quite useful. Loft differences I can easily adjust for with swing length or a bit of de-lofting, but bounce is more difficult to mimic with swing technique manipulation.
  15. I don't disagree - a hot putter can go a long ways. Thing is, nobody is hot with their putter for a very long time. And while Spieth and Morkawa aren't the very longest, they're certainly not short and definitely long enough. The overall odds go with those consistently in the top-10 (or top-whatever) and that population set is generally excellent tee-to-green, while a mixed bag when it comes to putting over the long term.
×
×
  • Create New...