Jump to content

bigeasygator

Advanced Members
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

bigeasygator's Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. Thanks for that info very helpful. As I mentioned I was planning on Bayou Oaks or Audubon. Good to know that South is better. I just read that it was remodeled in 2018. Missed that before. Yeah, don't play the North (not if you're looking for anything decent anyway). There's a reason it costs about $15 to play! The South course renovation opened in early 2017 (Rees Jones) and the North and the South course aren't even close to being similar in terms of quality, layout, etc. TPC (Dye) and English Turn (Niklaus), personally, are my two favorite tracks in town followed by the South course at Bayou Oaks. I hear ya. I'm not excusing it or condoning it. Just saying there's a reason I don't play Lakewood with any kind of regularity and it has to do with a lot of what you described - a bit in disrepair, underwhelming facilities, a general feeling that it isn't a very tightly run ship, etc. I'm not surprised to hear it was a ghost town. If you were hoping to play with someone, I think Audubon would have been your best bet as it gets the most play. TPC and English Turn are top notch as far as amenities and facilities and you won't get anything but a solid rental set.
  2. Living here, I wouldn't call NOLA a golf town either. That said, if anyone is sending you somewhere other than TPC Louisiana, Bayou Oaks (South), English Turn, or Audubon then you very well may get the treatment you just described. I wouldn't send anyone anywhere other than the four courses I just mentioned. Those courses are far and above the best in this area in terms of layout, upkeep, amenities, and customer service and while it's not a golf town, those four are more than adequate and I'd put them above many courses I've played in my life in so-called golf towns.
  3. Hi friend. At our swing speed, we need at least 2,500 spin to get the most distance. Yup. That's why the TS3 didn't work out for me and the G400 was beating it (16 deg LA, ~2000 spin). Haven't hit the TS2 on the LM yet but plan on doing so today and will report back with some numbers, but on the range it didn't seem to offer me much more in the way of launch and spin than the TS3 did. Right now the G400 Max is tough to beat and the stock Alta CB 55 in it has been the highest spinning shaft for me.
  4. Ping driver, TM fairway, Callaway irons and hybrids, Titleist wedges and balls, Scotty Cameron (Titleist) putter. So 4 or 5 depending on what you call a brand.
  5. Silly question but why didn't you try TS2 in the store? What loft did you try in TS3? I'm also a lefty with very similar speed They didn’t have a lefty TS2 at the time and I’m impatient made the swap this morning (kept the shaft the same). Gonna get it on the LM and the course in the next few days and post back, though I did just get a quick range session in. It was hard to see much fdicfwrence in the performance of the TS2 from what I saw in the TS3 and my G400 “seemed” to still be outlaunching and outcarrying the TS2 but it was hard to tell and I was hitting garbage range balls. A LM session and direct comparison on the course with some quality balls will make a better dataset. I went with a 10.5 deg head in both clubs (it’s what I play in my G400). I also maxed out the loft on the settings of both the TS2/3 and G400.
  6. Thought I'd weigh in with my experience. I'm certainly not the longest player in the world - I'm 39 with a swing speed in the 90-95 range depending on the day. I tend to hit a very low spinning, low launching ball so I'm always looking for a driver/shaft combo that will give me launch and spin to help with my carry distance. My current gamer is a G400 Max w/ a stock Ping Alta CB 55 R-flex. With this combo I'm launching my driver with about 16-18 degrees of launch, ball speed in the low to mid 130s, spinning around 2000 rpm and I end up carrying the ball around 220-230 with rollout to 245-260 depending on the conditions. Picked up a TS3 after hitting one a few times at an Edwin Watts. Loved the sound and feel off the face and the overall aesthetics waaay more than the G400. The numbers on the launch monitor were reasonable enough that I thought I'd order one and take it for a spin to see how it stood up. It finally came in the other day, and I was able to get some better numbers on the LM and game it for a round. I went with the Kuro Kage Black Dual Core TiNi 50 with R-flex again to help with launch. Went and hit it on the LM at Golftec first. First thing I noticed was that my swing speed and ball speed picked up about 2-3 mph on the Ping fairly consistently. That said, the launch was consistently in the 11-14 degree range with lower spin than the Ping (closer to 1000-1200). When comparing it to the Ping, I was getting 10 yards less carry distance, but would see around 5 yards more total distance do to the roll out. Dispersions were pretty good - my Ping tended to fly straighter and the TS3 tended to fly with a fade. Decided to take them out for an on course comparison later in the day. When I got to the course, most of what I saw on the LM held true. The TS3 definitely launched lower and carried less, and I didn't see the fade that I was seeing on the LM. We've had a lot of rain here in South Louisiana as of late, so I wasn't seeing much roll out. For most of the holes, I could almost throw a blanket on top of the drives from both drivers. But the one that seemed more consistent and consistently longer was the Ping - even when I was hitting into the wind. Again, the TS3 looked, felt, and sounded great and was pretty damn close to the G400 in terms of the performance, but my Ping still has the edge and I don't think the TS3 is for me. That said, I'm dying to go try a TS2 (they didn't have a lefty in stock when I went to Edwin Watts but they do now). If it truly is higher launching and higher spinning and I can get similar launch and spin as my G400 w/ consistently higher swing and ball speeds it might prove to be a winner. Gonna go there now and see about swapping the TS3 out :)
  7. Thank you! That's giving me more assurance that I can do this! I would hate to find out that my bag can't be checked in at the airport because I had too many clubs in my bag. Don't believe there's a dedicated USGA member check-in at the airport, so you should be fine. That made me chuckle. You can put as many clubs as you want in that bag. The only restrictions are on size and weight - you can put as many or as few clubs as you want as long as you stay under the weight and size restrictions (the weight restriction is the one that will get checked).
  8. I’m about 40 days out (wooo hooo!) from our group trip (16 of us!) to Bandon (Nov 7-11). As such, I’ve been reading (on, re-reading) every thread on Bandon out there to pass the rest of the time. While there are a lot of great food advice, I have a specific question that I don’t know I’ve seen addressed. We are playing Old Mac Thursday, Trails followed by the Preserve Friday, BD Saturday, and closing out with PD Sunday. To accommodate the group being able to tee off in consecutive tee times, we were fairly limited on what was available. In short, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday our first tee times are between 10:30 and 11. On Friday the tee time at Trails is early (first tee time is at 8AM), but the follow up round at Preserve (first tee time at 1PM) won’t leave much downtime. In short, that means for most days typical lunchtime will be right in the middle of the round. With that said, what type of recommendations do you guys have for food (particularly lunch). Are their options at halfway houses or making the turn on all the courses? What about the day we have the short window between Trails and Preserve. I’m thinking most of the group will do a later breakfast and any lunch will be light anyway. Just looking for some advice from those that have been there with what you would do!
  9. Managed to pick up everything this time! First bag on a release! It will be my 4th of July set-up :)
  10. Sure, if you take an agressive line and your miss-hit brings trouble into play. But there's also the possibility that a miss-hit is perfectly fine. And without the width, there's less decision making. I'm paraphrasing dhc1, but to me the point seemed to be that width is boring because it devalues a tee ball (correct me if I'm wrong). In my view, the width is what makes this hole more interesting given the options it brings into play. given that the width on this hole is between 35 yards (at the point AB and CD) and 45 yards at the widest point, I can agree that it doesn't need to be narrower. If they double the width, it would make the hole worse. Do you acknowledge that even at 35-45 yards fairways, you can still have all the strategic alternatives you can realistically want? I would contend that you can have decisions to make with fairways narrower than 35-45 yards, but that having fairways wider than 50 yards can create additional alternatives. I don't know how to answer the question related to "all the strategic alternatives you can realistically want." I've never approached a course or hole with a number in mind. Is additional width going to mean anything to a scratch golfer? Probably not...the guys I know hit the ball pretty consistently and often take the more aggressive play regardless. As a 6-7, it does provide me with more choices and decisions and maybe that's why I'm biased in that direction. I looked at my Arccos stats...I hit the fairway 50% of the time (which seems to be consistent for handicaps in the 5-10 range. I play a variety of courses with wide and narrow fairways. So it's certainly not a foregone conclusion that I can put the ball in an area +/- 20 yards as a given. What I like about #12 at GCoH and holes that are like it is that, IMO, it offers something for everyone and I feel you can't get that without having a reasonable amount of width (no, it's not 60 yards wide but for a hole that plays 300 yards long, I would consider a 45 yard fairway pretty generous).
  11. Sure, if you take an agressive line and your miss-hit brings trouble into play. But there’s also the possibility that a miss-hit is perfectly fine. And without the width, there’s less decision making. I’m paraphrasing dhc1, but to me the point seemed to be that width is boring because it devalues a tee ball (correct me if I’m wrong). In my view, the width is what makes this hole more interesting given the options it brings into play.
  12. I think the Example 1 at the friedegg link (here) posted yesterday resonates most with me and does the best job of showing why I personally like width. It discusses strategy in context of the two holes in the photo (from the GC of Houston, #12 a short par 4 with a wide fairway not entirely unlike the hole we've been discussing, and #11 a longer par 4 with a narrow fairway). You can see the various options that come into play (A, B, C, D getting riskier as you go from A to B). My point in discussing the hole in 477 is that I'd likely choose between B and C - either play driver up the left side but have a shorter shot that presents its own challenges or I'd lay back on a slightly more aggressive line. If you lost half the fairway it eliminates options A and C. Like I said, the only strategy is really how much I want to leave myself coming in as I'm likely not going to take on any risk I deem as unnecessary. The width provides options and choices, each with their own unique set of risk/reward. The other hole in the link, #11, to me is even worse from a strategic perspective. It is certainly the hole that places the most value on a tee shot, but the value is entirely execution oriented. You're going to hit something long because the holes length necessitates it - but you better hit it well. There's basically no strategy involved.
  13. I'd say somewhere around 60 yards is a wide fairway. I think the amount of trouble depends on the hazards that are present. Rough is not created equally. Neither are bunkers. Some are more penal than others, and this will influence how "aggressive" a line I'd take. Yes, that's what I'm saying. But my point is that with my ball flight and my miss tendencies on the hole in question, with a driver I personally would be taking a more conservative line to the wider part of the fairway to minimize the effects (either from the rough or the OB) of my normal miss. This means I'd likely end up on the left portion of the fairway given my normal shot. If the hole was short enough that I felt hybrid would give me a reasonable scoring chance (I wasn't too far out), I would play for the ball to land on the right half of the fairway. Depends on how much trouble there is outside that 30-40 yard landing area and what else is happening with my game (how I'm hitting the ball, do I need to score for some reason, etc). But yeah, unless it's a 400 yard plus hole, there's a good chance that if the driver landing area is tight and there is lots of trouble around there's a good chance I'm playing away from it.
  14. I don't view rough as necessarily having no danger. I've played plenty of courses where the rough (for me) is closer to a stroke penalty (or even worse). My typical ball-flight is a draw with maybe 10-20 yards of turn. But my miss is a usually a smother hook or big toe hook that can curve 50+ yards. I rarely ever miss the ball left. So yea, even on a 60-70 yard fairway there's a good chance I'm playing up the left side even though my typical ball flight would be fine aiming up the middle of the fairway. If the hole was 400 yards wide with a wide fairway and no trouble then of course I'd hit driver. But that doesn't appear to be the hole in question. I wouldn't necessarily "want" my ball to end up on the left. I would play a shot so that my miss wouldn't end up OB (or even in the rough). There's a good chance that means it will settle on the left side of the fairway on this hole if I'm hitting driver and hit my "typical" shot.
  15. I am...it seems to be the thread that will not die haha I'm assuming you mean "the fundamental choices" still remain. I agree, though I kind of took your initial response as basically being with OB right, there isn't really a choice (it may exist - but you'd never take that option). You hit the ball left and the right side (if OB is in play) would never be challenged by a "reasonable" golfer. With rough on the right, it isn't as penal as the OB. So I think the fairway width brings more choices and strategy in play: Do you challenge the right side and emphasize a good tee shot at the risk of the rough in order to make your second shot easier Or do you play an easier shot to the wide part of the fairway knowing that you are definitely going to have a more difficult second shot. For someone who isn't a scratch golfer, a blind shot to an uphill green guarded by bunkers may be more difficult than a shot to a green you can see that is unguarded by bunkers even out of the rough. If you cut the fairway in half, there is no strategy IMO and then it all becomes execution. Are we talking about the hole that was drawn or the picture of the hole because I was thinking that your comments regarding the one that was drawn with the bunker. If it's the other one, I have a very different perspective Maybe I got the post numbers wrong. But I've been referring to the one that was a picture, not the hole that was drawn in most of my posts, though I did reference the drawn hole as well at times. Essentially I view them similar strategically. Both give you options and ask the question "how aggressive do you want to be." Without width in the hole that is a picture, there are no options and it becomes "how straight can you hit the ball." That's what I thought in reading your response. I'd like to ask a few questions wrt that hole with rough instead of bunkers on the right. 1. Would you consider hitting any other club than your longest? 2. Where are the alternatives you are considering aiming at if one assumes that the primary one is the the right hand side of the fairway (as right as reasonably possible to take nasty rough out of play)? 3. How is that choice altered if 20 of the 60 yards of the fairway on the left is removed? FWIW- I don't consider the two hole similar at all. There's a lot we don't know about the hole (eg, what is the total distance), but to answer your questions.... 1. Sure. I'm much more erratic with my driver, and I'd take a less aggressive line with it because of that. If I'm hitting driver with my ball flight, I'm aiming at the left side of the fairway. If this was a 375 yard hole, that would leave me a wedge or short iron in...to a blind green protected by bunkers in front. Something I might do depending on how much I got to warm up and how that went (keep in mind this is the first hole on the course), I might take something like my 3h that I hit about 220 yds and, generally, a lot more consistently and aim straight up the right side. This would leave me more of a mid-iron in (harder), but I could see the green and it would be more or less unprotected from that angle (easier). Depends on how penal the rough is as well. 2. I kind of answered this question above, but my primary aiming point would be the left side of the fairway with a driver, and the middle/right side of the fairway with a hybrid. 3. If part of the airway is removed, it's a simple calculation for me and it all depends on the total length of the hole and the ultimate width of the fairway. If the hole is 375 or less, I'm possibly hitting a hybrid as it gives me the best chance of being in the fairway and still having a score-able second shot of around 150-160 yds. If it's a 400 yard hole or longer then I'm just gonna bomb away and hope I catch the fairway. Either way, there isn't much of a choice for me - there's only one line and it boils down to execution. Any thinking I need to do on the tee is purely simple subtraction (ie, how far do I need to hit it to have a reasonable shot to the green based on lie and distance).
×
×
  • Create New...