Jump to content

jmck

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    4,858
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

280 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

230 profile views
  1. If you like them keep playing them. There's plenty of life left in those. Over the years I've played several different sets of irons much further down to the bone than those are--like until the sweet spots started feeling a little concave when you'd run a finger over them. On full shots, with clubs under 50*, the type/quality of the strike and the ball you're playing have a bigger impact on spin than grooves do, IMO.
  2. Not sure if it's mentioned in those linked threads or not, so apologies if this is a duplicate, but there's a Joe Kwok tip that's really helpful, especially if you're new to grinding. Use a marker to draw grinding lines on whatever you're grinding. Like draw the shapes/contours you have in mind, then grind to them. In addition to helping you keep your grinding true to the shaping you have in mind, the lines also help you keep track of how much material you've removed from where. Not sure I'm doing a great job explaining it, but it'll make sense once you see it in action.
  3. All I know is if I mishit driver by a full inch it doesn't have any impact on my score whatsoever. It’s the only club in my bag I can say that about.
  4. Nah. This is like watching Nike create magical rocket shoes which increase everyone's vert by 24", then insisting that everything's fine with the NBA despite the magic shoes and anyone who says otherwise--or dares suggest that the rim should be raised!--is just being a complainer. Bryson could keep going until he looks like a young Schwarzenegger, but take modern equipment away from him and he's SOL with his current swing/game plan. The equipment is the chicken here, Bryson is the egg.
  5. Yes sir. Or flip your last paragraph the other way. If they froze equipment in 1997, TW would've won a lot, and I mean a lot, more. There's a reason that Nicklaus et al were predicting he'd win 40 majors and 200 tournaments back in '97. He was that much better than everyone else. The equipment from 2000 on neutralized a not insignificant portion of his advantage. Which speaks to Fitzpatrick's point.
  6. Honestly I think the whole thing entirely hinges on what Augusta feels like doing. Fred Ridley said as much, in a press conference back in the pre-COVID times. Basically verbatim: 'well we'll see what the USGA report on distance says, but we reserve the right to act unilaterally.' It's impossible to underestimate how much water Augusta draws, and how much change they can affect if they so choose. They simply don't have the workaday concerns that the USGA/R&A have, lawsuits and such. If they put their foot down and say that anyone who wants to play in their little invitation
  7. Very fair points. In Fitzpatrick's defense, trying to put myself in his shoes, I guess I'd say it's hard to rise above it. Bryson (and his "brand" lol) have sucked a bunch of oxygen out of the room in what's otherwise been a slow season. It's like when Tiger was at his peak, and they'd go to interview someone who got paired with Tiger after their rounds. Didn't matter who shot what or how, the questions would all be like "what was it like to play with The Legend, Mr. Tiger Woods?!?!?!" At some point, you get tired of trying to give a nuanced answer about the evolution of equipm
  8. Well the problem is that in '97 Tiger was able to separate himself from the rest of the field with his singular skill. Since '97, technology has gifted most every golfer on tour that skill. ONE guy hitting wedge into 15 isn't a problem--that guy's earned it. The problem is when EVERY guy is hitting wedge into 15. If it's just one guy, good for him, there isn't any sort of fundamental problem that's changed the nature of the hole/game. If it's every guy, well then maybe it's time to do something about it. So you either change the 5 to a 4 on the scorecard and poor Bobby Jones spins in his
  9. Dude you can't even keep your own point straight. Is it "extra houses" or "more golf front lots"? Those are two very different as I've TRIED to point out to you. Anywho, I'm done here. You're free to strongly believe whatever you want, no matter how wrong it is. I'm comfortable in who I am and what I know. You've been led to water...I'm not wasting any more time trying to make you take a drink. If you want to call me a liar, here's today's junk mail folder. What's in yours? Bed Bath and Beyond coupons? I'm certainly not going to bother going through your 'gotch
  10. lol, that article was written by someone I've worked with professionally. He's not in the golf course development business, he's in the golf course UN-development business. He takes failed/failing courses and turns them into stream restoration and nitrogen/phosphorus/CO2 abatement tax credits to be sold. Plus the occasional shopping center I suppose. Let me try it again, because you're really hanging onto something which you're totally dead wrong about. How much value does a "golf front" lot add over a similar lot in the same development that isn't "golf front"? May
  11. I'm not going to bother with a point by point refutation of your whole post, but I wish you knew how absolutely ridiculous this one particular point of yours sounds to those of us know actually know how these things work. You keep bringing this point up as proof positive of some vast conspiracy theory among course architects/developers to make courses longer than they need to be, but it's just so so so backwards. Take it from someone who's actually involved in the actual building of actual courses, including many with a housing component. Anyway, let me try to make this simple fo
  12. Huh? Enormous and drastic change? Which one is that again? The 'let's take something that weights 1.62 oz. and reduce the distance it flies by 10 or 20%' version? Or 'let's take something that covers 200+ acres and increase its size by 10 or 20%' version? Your solution, in your own words: "Just build new courses." Reasonable people can disagree over whether or not there's a problem here that needs solving. But if there is a problem here that needs solving....BY FAR the easiest solution is rolling back the ball.
  13. Pretty sure the Ft. Worths were the last with pinned hosels, and the Channelbacks were the first without, so that puts the dividing line at 1993/1994. Of course that's for the US market stuff. No idea what their rest of the world stuff was up to at the same time.
  14. Thanks for this. Just picked up a TS Atmos Blue. As an FYI, out of curiosity I clicked over to their ebay store, just to make sure they weren't selling the same stuff for even less there, and they're not....but if you know anyone who needs a ladies/senior/regular flex shaft they seem to be blowing them out in their ebay store. Lots of softer flexes of Diamanas, Fubukis, Bassaras, etc., all in the $20-30 price range. http://www.ebaystores.com/Global-Golf/_i.html?rt=nc&_nkw=shaft&_sid=49999843&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1513&_pgn=1
×
×
  • Create New...