Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

118 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I talked to our pro shop about a set of Titleist T300's just yesterday. He said that the wait was 4-6 weeks and I got the feeling that was optimistic. dave
  2. Back when I was young (like early 60's) my index was a solid 5'ish in good weather. I mostly played 'players irons' - either WIshon 560MC or a WIshon MB/CB forged mix. These days I am older (wrong side of 70) and may or may not see another single digit index (currently 10.6). My ballstriking is not what it used to be, but is not really a disaster right now either. But I was considering going to 'full blown GI irons' as an experiment. Are GI irons really that much less controllable? I have hit a few at the range and that was not obvious to me, but I am guessing that my reaction mig
  3. I kind of envy people who can just "turn it all loose and make their best swing". My swing, when I 'turn it all loose', is a swing with issues. dave
  4. The RB's may well do a bunch of number crunching, but it is never shared. So its weight in a rational argument is dramatically reduced. Again I am not in the group that thinks the RB's have it wrong. FWIW, the most common argument that I am aware of "is too much (relative) weight given to distance vs. difficulty factors like hazards, etc.". dave
  5. I don't think that a bunch of folks think that the RB's are intentionally biasing the system. But many (not me, BTW) think that they are simply wrong in their judgments. dave
  6. IMHO, it varies by golfer and the right answer IS NOT to work on the part of your game that is the weakest. The answer is to find the part of your game that 'yields to practice'. I have seen driver swings that are so badly out of control that practicing these swings will yield little to no benefit, even though driver is the weakest part of said golfer's game. Give the guy/gal a clue as to what to work on, then maybe. But if you don't have a clue and have no path to get a clue, then find something else that 'will yield to practice'. dave
  7. It will do something else that is very useful - and that is knowing what kind of shots and problems that you face frequently vs. not so often. Like how often are forced (or do you choose) to hit LW from inside 30 yards. If that is a tough shot for you but you don't do it often, then fine. But if that is s tough shot that you are doing 5-6 times per round, maybe you should reconsider those shots. Lots of stuff like that. I did my own version of "Strokes Gained" starting back in 2003 (no longer do that simply because I am no longer a serious golfer). Sometimes 36 putts is terrible putting and
  8. FWIW, I once had a brief chat with a "Official Course Rater Person" about the fact that it seemed to me that what I would call severe difficulties on holes (other than pure yardage) seem to (IMHO) be under-reflected in the Scratch and Bogey rating #'s. His statement was that in the experience of the USGA "the members almost always figure out how to deal with that stuff". The interesting point here is that this statement implies the USGA Course Rating system assumes Scratch and Bogey golfers with lots of experience on whatever course is being rated. That does not seem unreasonable to me (and o
  9. There are also 'horses for courses'. I tend to be very straight, consistent, (assuming that I am playing well) but not very long. My brother is longer than me but much less consistent (particularly off the tee). The course that he plays is pretty open and frequently doesn't penalize wild tee. My courses are tighter and often penalize a wild shot. He shoots worse here than on his home course. I don't shoot any better at his course. dave
  10. Per this USGA document ( https://www.usga.org/articles/2015/11/an-inside-look--a-single-set-of-rules.html ) the 'final merger' between the USGA and R&A was in 1984. They got intentionally close in 1952, but they were not always the same as they are now. Until 1974 The Open (as in British Open) allowed the use of a ball that was illegal in the US Open (and PGA Tour in general). dave
  11. @cval I also think a a major sports league using an outside rules agency is bit odd as well. Here is one advantage to using that outside rules agency. I think that it is pretty obvious that the 'top of the food chain' WRT to the sport of basketball is the NBA. Yet when basketball is played in the Olympics it is played to rules that are different than they are in the NBA. Golf in the Olympics does not have that issue. dave
  12. With a DOB of 1949 I have seen my golf game (formerly mid single digit index) go downhill 'naturally'. On top of that I changed from being an almost daily practice or play type to more like once a week. Scoring worse than before was hardly a shock (even after moving up a set of tees to the 'senior tees'). But being absolutely 'lost with a club in my hand' really destroyed my enjoyment of the game. What I am referring to is persistent really bad impact (chunks, squirt off the toe, etc) with no idea what to do about that. To address that I changed to 'defensive golf' where my actions with a driv
  13. Thanks for all the comments. I believe that I will go with the concept that 'near my hands and eyes' is the best place for a scorecard so back pocket in a Scorecard Holder it will be. Lots of choices. dave
  14. I have started using the Covid-19 restrictions as an excuse to start walking (even though my playing partners typically are in single carts). Since I am usually one of the last to hit their 2nd shot, the mix works out OK. The question is what to do with the scorecard. Back pocket without a protector is a bad idea in hot weather (gets soaked). So the options seem to be one of those flip open things made for a scorecard (stored in rear pocket - very common), or some kind of something that hangs from your bag and holds a card and pencil (seems far less common). What do you 'been carrying my own
  15. Mr. Bean, Rogolf is saying (I think) that there is no issue with the fact that JR was not looking at the ball when it moved. This is being accepted as fact, and there is no substantive issue in that regard. dave ps. My wife saw this during the live coverage. She said (out loud) - that ball moved - is that a penalty? I was not looking at the screen at that time and said no, assuming that it was an oscillation. She just said "I think it actually moved". That was the end of the discussion at the time. Later she said that the TV picture was such that she could see enough of JR's body to know that
  • Create New...