Confessions 12 --- Exploding Heads

[DeNinny]

I will have to come back to relative flex later since, evidently, I have homework, lol. I think it is a side issue, though, that may or may not feed into the bottom line.

However, I did measure the thickness of the cavities of my irons. Rough without calipers, but two pencils and a ruler got me: G20 7mm (topline, had to assume even thickness due to badge), MP62 13mm, and Apex Plus 13mm (~13mm above sole). So, how many blades are >13mm thick? ...with those super thin soles...hmmm.

 

But, the bottom line is what is the dispersion of shots between a CB and blade for an "average" golfer (a muddier definition than "forgiving")? FWIW, I've never heard a manufacturer state that dispersion was identical between club types on center contact shots. Regardless, if there is a difference in dispersion, is it significant? If it is or is not significant, is there a bias? Again, just starting with center face contact and identical impact conditions, because that is where blades are supposed to shine.

No, manufacturers don't put out this data, but data goes both ways. If it is not available to prove an hypothesis, it isn't available to disprove it either. Some of their reasoning for not putting it out could be due to the cut-throat environment regarding patents in the industry.

 

If flex is a side issue that may or may not feed into the bottom line, then so is perimeter weighting and CG location. They are ALL interrelated physics. Challenging one part ends up being a challenge to all parts. For example if CG location and MOI are quantified relatively, then the very same challenge and questions as to how significantly they feed into the bottom line is also applicable. The reason the CG is lower is because the lower perimeter is weighted. The reason the face wall is thinner is because the mass that created the perimeter weighting had to be redistributed. The reason the sole is wider and has a higher chance of ground interference is also because of perimeter weighting.

 

Personally, and this is a 'bias' as an engineer, I cannot write off any one part of the physics over another as a "side note". I simply evaluate all the variables and then let the known data help guide me as to their individual significance. In my profession is VERY dangerous to make an assumption that some part of the science is insignificant or not. And when it comes to relative difference in face flex, it is KNOWN that all materials deform and that their deformation has simple relationships to the material shape and material itself. As stated, double the thickness, halve the face flex. Relatively speaking, a 2x change in how much a ball compresses (due to a face that flexes half as much) is pretty significant to me. With high confidence I know that calculation would prove it is a contributor to the bottom line (hence why I brought it up).

 

As to how thick a blade is, LOL that is something that my buddy Bigmean did for the Blade user's thread. And then I even graphed the data. I think the units are in inches. Anyhow, here is the post that has all the data:

 

http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry11447161

 

Also note that a blade's sole is still the widest part of the muscle. It is only "super thin" RELATIVE to the soles of SGI clubs. But with nearly all blade designs the sole is pretty thick if not the thickest part of the muscle.

 

LOL here is a good visual of my own 3i club soles:

 

 

 

That SGI sole of my MP-FliHi on the left is clearly significant compared to my MP-60, MP-67, and baby blade sole. And based on my 2 years of comparison testing of all my Mizunos on the course and on the range, that ginormous MP-FliHi sole most definitely and significantly was a detriment to both my fat and thin mishits. And yes even that slightly wider MP-60 sole had a VERY slightly but still significant enough to notice detriment compared to my MP-67.

 

And as to your bottom line question in terms of overall dispersion, in my experience, when taking into account all the ways I mishit and all the ways I hit good shots, there is no question that on average my dispersion was pretty much the same with my MP-60s and MP-67s and it was absolutely the worst with MP-FliHis. Also when my game was "on" and I was hitting it well, and no matter if I was a 16 index or a 9, my overall dispersion and proximity to hole was best with the MP-67s. And when my game was "off", and again at any index between 16 and 9, it really didn't matter what clubs I was using. I never was "saved" from tragic mishits by my more forgiving clubs. I also don't consider myself an abnormal or not average golfer either. So ultimately in my experience, blades most definitely shine the more accurate you are with them, but also they don't really hurt my game when I'm not accurate with them. Also, again they shone in terms of forgiveness with my vertical mishits too. Time and again, my MP-67s were VERY forgiving on a thin mishit and I hit less fat shots with them too. Ultimately my bottom line after 9 years of trying and switching between irons (all with the same Rifle 5.0 shafts), and at varying skill levels, is that blades had the best dispersion that manifested itself the most on my good ballstriking days.

 

As to manufacturers talking about center hits with blade and CB having the same dispersion, my source was a WRX club manufacturer who discussed it in a thread and also wrote a WRX article about it. (Please PM me if you want to talk more details about this.)

 

As to data from the manufacturers not being revealed, the way I see it is that *if* it were significant to prove a sale, in this case that the dispersion of a CB and blade are different, then absolutely that manufacturer would be pumping out "data" that proved the point. The data also could be revealed without any knowledge of the proprietary design. It's performance data vs proprietary design details. To me they are mutually exclusive, so I would call BS on any manufacturer that didn't want to share performance data, especially if it backed the marketing "science".

[CrabDaddy]

The relative measure of flex is what may be the side issue. What is central to the issue is the actual measurement, because 2x insignificant = insignificant.

So, the muscle of the blades measured in that thread had about the same thickness as the cavity of the MP62.

I'm skimming/drinking more than reading, so I need to adjourn until later.

[DeNinny]

The relative measure of flex is what may be the side issue. What is central to the issue is the actual measurement, because 2x insignificant = insignificant.

So, the muscle of the blades measured in that thread had about the same thickness as the cavity of the MP62.

I'm skimming/drinking more than reading, so I need to adjourn until later.

Then your same logic also applies to CG location and perimeter weighting. 2x perimeter weighting difference could very well be just as insignificant as 2x flex difference. Same goes for CG location. Same goes for bounce. Same goes for offset.

 

That comparison between your mp62 muscle and baby blades is precisely why I call nearly all player's CBs "MAWBBs". With that same exact muscle thickness, it Might As Well Be a Blade.

 

FYI this discussion actually ties back to our earlier statistics exchange and what you deemed as a worthless aside!

[DeNinny]

LOL to continue the worthless aside, unless you know the standard deviation of the data that determined both the mean heights of 264 mm and 263 mm, it is impossible to determine if their difference is statistically significant or not. Is the standard deviation of either mean +/-0.000001 mm or +/-10 mm? Knowing that makes a huge difference as to whether or not 264 vs 263 is statistically different. And the value of N for either mean simply puts a confidence level around how much you can "trust" that both the mean and standard deviation represent the same values...***AS IF***... they were based on N = infinity. As I understand statistics, the higher N, the lower the probability of the null hypothesis being true and thus the higher confidence that your data set represents the "truth" statistically in terms of mean and standard deviation.

The implication was that the standard errors were known, and that, if the data were normally distributed, the higher the N, the lower the estimate of SE, to the point where the estimated means become point estimates. In the example of the ducks, a <0.4% difference between means is meaningless (measurement error would account for more than that), so over-sampling would lead to a Type I error.

 

From my understanding of statistics (largely based on normal distributions: https://en.wikipedia...al_distribution and ANOVA or Analysis of Variance methods: https://en.wikipedia...sis_of_variance) is that the standard deviation, assuming the data is a Gaussian distribution or "bell curve", is that about 68% of all representative data that you would randomly collect on the measurement would fall between the range of the mean minus the standard deviation and the mean plus the standard deviation. And if you go to +/-3 standard deviations around the mean, then that will encompass 99.7% of all representative data points.

 

So in the case of those duck heights and their yearly difference, to me it absolutely matters to know the actual standard deviation value. Using my own example, if the standard deviation was 0.000001 mm then 99.7% of all normal data for a duck height of 263mm mean should fall between 262.999997mm and 263.000003mm. So then if the mean all of a sudden jumps to 264mm the next year, then absolutely there is a significant change in the data. The 1mm difference is orders upon orders of magnitude bigger than the normal deviation in this example.

 

But now if we assume the standard deviation was 10mm, then 99.7% of all representative data should fall between 233mm and 293mm. So in this example the next year average of 264mm is pretty insignificant.

 

Now how does this tie to our current discussion? You could treat mishits as a statistical problem and then in order for a "forgiving" feature to show a significant benefit, it would have to be something measurable that stands out beyond the normal variability of the golfer. This is why I mentioned for you to really try to compare your G20s and MP62s in as much side by side comparison testing as possible. And also to collect "more data points" for your MP62s and try to get used to them as much as your G20s. Get in the same amount of experience. I'm NOT saying that you haven't done this already to your own level of confidence to know that for sure the G20s are the best irons for you. All I'm really saying is that you may find some things about those MP62s that are actually great features that benefit you now, even at your supposed "lesser" skill level for them. And if not applicable to you personally, then what I'm saying as that there are golfers at both of our similar skill levels that have both of our real world experience with blades and CBs. In fact, just today there was a new post in the Blade user's thread about a guy that played G25s and went straight to blades no problem: http://www.golfwrx.c...0#entry13885178.

[jbhawx]

So I would argue that a smaller head would only improve your ball striking ability to an extent....

 

 

I found at a second hand sports store what is called the PSP Little One. I never heard of it before, or seen one. My first thought was if I can hit this...Just wait and see....

 

However; after ready a ton of reviews apparently it is really easy to hit, only helps on the focus and mental, and doesn't seem to help lower scores....But every review I read was by a 10 handicapper or better. So that is why I think a smaller head can help to an extent.

 

On the same note I've routinely heard the opposite. If you're so used to hitting smaller heads and less forgiving clubs, than going over to a bigger head, or more forgiving club can dramatically improve your game. My guess on this, is the same effect as above. By hitting clubs with smaller heads you have a smaller variance in consistency and therefore can maximize the benefits of a GI based iron...Crazy....

 

So makes me wonder....Is the PSP little one designed for the good player? I don't think it is. I would bet that if you gave it to a beginner and taught him how to golf with that as his training aid, he would then drop his score like crazy and be a better ball striker in far less time. Why? Because he doesn't have a consistent swing, is not used to swinging smaller club heads to begin with, and the added focus, and mental attention that the PSP little one requires, will also reinforce that side of the game as well...

[Matt J]

I've seen that training aid ^^^^^^. I think it's great. In my opinion it fits a very specific stage in player development. I think smaller clubs and that training aid are representative of how important it is to be aware of your ball striking. Some guys never develop that and are simply content if the ball ends up somewhere reasonably desirable. If you want to play great golf you have to control your golf ball and you can't do that on off-center strikes. Finding the center of the face is an early step in grooving a reliable move.

 

I was contemplating this great game last night over a smoke. What an odd journey full of twists and turns that really represent our own imperfections as men and the pursuit of perfection.

 

A few weeks ago I did what most golfers would only describe as idiotic and insane and started tinkering with equipment and parts of my golf swing in the midst of playing some of my best golf ever. Now, I'm almost down the rabbit hole far enough to lose daylight on both ends. I'm actually enjoying it, though. Call me a sadist, but it has brought passion back to my game.

 

I'm probably a week or two away from throwing up my hands and capturing it on video to send to Monte. All the while I have some confidence that I could simply fill my bag up with the samurai swords down in the basement, dust off my old early wrist set move, and shoot my old numbers. Haha, what a joke, I should test it.

 

I'm back to a gapping dilemma too since I dropped my 5 iron and added that 60 degree wedge. Now I'm reliant on the 60 around the green and don't want to take it out of the bag, so I'm considering dropping the 21 degree hybrid and trying to cover that gap with a choked down five wood. I need to try it on course and see if I can make it happen reliably. That would mean everything between about 180 yards and 215 or so needs to be hit with one club. Not ideal. Maybe dropping the 5 wood makes more sense, who knows? Something else to grind my gears about, haha.

[DeNinny]

Matt J changing variables (swing and/or clubs) is a learning experience. I would argue that it is the best time to learn their effects when you are playing well. (LOL just make sure you take some notes about why you think you are playing that way.) When you are playing well, that part of your game is the least variable, so the effects of changes, in theory, should be more evident. When you are playing poorly a change may not even be noticed or the effect not well understood due to too many other variables.

[jbhawx]

I love to tinker, but I had to learn how to revert back if something wasn't working right, otherwise I would end up way down the rabbit hole and my season would be lost. LOL. This leads me perfectly into my new confession...

 

I must say that I don't agree with the standard "how far away to stand from the ball". A typical response is where the arms naturally hang at address is where you should hold the club. For the driver further away, and for wedges closer. This seems to be universal believe and I don't agree with it. I think it depends on the person as well, and what works for them. For example, I ran across a video on the golf channel where they looked at a guys swing. the issue according to them was he was standing too far away from the ball and that added inconsistencies to his swing, which lead to accuracy and distance issues...Well as I looked at the guys setup I immediately thought "wow that is about how far away I stand, so I must be too far away. Without looking into it I started to tinker. I started standing closer to the ball and my game suffered. My stats also show the slump, without even revealing my score for each round. HAHA, love shot tracking. Stats are so easy to use now.

 

So for the stats I started with the first game I used my new shorter driver (If you want I can dive into those stats later to show how a shorter driver has helped my game). Anyways, before the change I played 12 rounds, a mix of 9 and 18 hole courses. Here are some notable stats that I look at to measure performance.

 

Before the change (12 games recorded)

Average GIR% per game: 24.6%

Average Fairways hit per game: 34%

 

Cumulative fairway accuracy over all games:

Fairway hit: 34%

Miss right: 34%

Miss left: 32%

 

typical drive: 229 (Typical drive is not the average)

typical shortest drive: 173

shortest overall drive: 56

 

During the change of standing closer to the ball with all clubs 5 total games were played.

 

During the change (5 games recorded)

Average GIR% per game: 8.8%

Average Fairways hit per game: 23%

 

Cumulative fairway accuracy over all games:

Fairway hit: 23%

Miss right: 49%

Miss left: 29%

 

typical drive: 214 (Typical drive is not the average)

typical shortest drive: 169

shortest overall drive: 59

 

Reverting back to old setup before the change (2 games recorded)

Average GIR% per game: 41.5%%

Average Fairways hit per game: 43% (One game at a record high 57%)

 

Cumulative fairway accuracy over all games:

Fairway hit: 57%

Miss right: 19%

Miss left: 24%

 

typical drive: 236 (Typical drive is not the average)

typical shortest drive: 187

shortest overall drive: 187

 

What I find most interesting is the huge drop in accuracy and GIR%. I can easily sit here and say the longest drive before was 311 yards, longest during the change was 289, and longest since going back is 281. So the factor of how far away you stand doesn't appear to affect the longest distance you see off the tee. I did see huge distance issues with all my irons, but don't feel like getting into those stats. I also know, only 2 games since going back isn't enough to draw a conclusion, but to see my stats go back to what I was seeing before the change, to me suggests the idea behind a prototypical distance from the ball, is not suited for everyone.

 

I'm not going to say that everyone will see the same results. For me the distance to the ball at address affects my typical yards seen off the tee, and significantly impacts my accuracy and GIR%.

 

So that is my confession, there is not universal distance to stand away from the ball at address. The only thing that I would consider universal is as the club gets longer, the farther away from you, you place the hands, and the shorter the club the closer the hands are to you. However; where that distance is, would be up to you to find what gives you the most consistency.

[DeNinny]

jb from a physics perspective, even if you set up with your hands the same distance from your body from club to club, the different weights and lengths of the clubs are still going to add variability to your swing. There is no avoiding it. The physics dictate that every club and thus swing will be slightly different, so there is no point obsessing that everything should be exactly one way. My take is that your setup should have some "gradual change" where the change to the next club up or down in the bag is just slightly different. For example (like you stated) as my clubs get longer I tend to set my hands slightly farther away. The physics support doing this because the longer the club (all other things equal), the more centripetal force will pull the club radially away from the body as you swing. "Reaching" a little more with the longer clubs helps to compensate for this variability.

 

And as to having an ideal set distance for any club, it will be highly subjective based on a lot of golfer variability. For instance, the more the golfer sets up with counterweight on the heels, the more he can "reach" and set his hands farther away from the body. Or if the golfer wants to put his hands at the exact same distance from club to club, then he will have to accept that the DTL angle formed by his forearms and club is going to change from club to club. It always boils down to where do you want to limit and take your variability.

 

And LOL you are a stats maniac. Have you ever thought of creating a trend chart over time for your stats and also incorporating the standard deviation of each? A lot can be learned about how your stats vary over time and how the variability itself changes. LOL it is statistical process control, or "SPC", for your swing and game.

[Gauchograd99]

If anyone out there is looking for some new shoes, seriously check out Amazon Prime! There are some epic golf shoe prices with the extra 30% off on the discounted prices. $240 Ecco Biom G2's are about $128 and the Matt Kuchar Sketchers are $70 instead of $130-140.

 

This will be an interesting experiment as I haven't worn Ecco shoes before. I wish the Sketchers would have fit... they are really comfy for about 95% of the shoe. I prefer my toes not crushed in by a rapidly narrowing toe box.

[Matt J]

I was on the road for work and my schedule changed requiring a quick shopping trip. Ended up at a department store buying a pair of Ecco loafers. Asked for my standard size 10 and they were too big, 9.5, too big, 9 same story, ended up in the smallest pair of shoes I've bought since grammar school in a 8.5. So, don't be surprised if they don't run true to size Gaucho.

 

As for distance from the ball, I do think it's important and should be checked frequently. For me, if I get too close or too far away I have common mishits, so as soon as I see those ball flights then I recheck. Too close and it's easy to stand up and lose spine angle which usually results in a thin slice for me. Too close and I come in real steep and chunk it or hit a lower trajectory that also wants to cut. Finding just the right spot where your shoulders can turn through the ball is like finding Goldilocks' porridge.

[DeNinny]

Matt J, LMAO re: Goldilock's porridge. Too true! I think a golfer starts to make significant swing progress once he starts really finding and trusting his swing 'bottom'. And tied to that is definitely how far away from the ball he stands. Often at the root of my bad ballstriking days is something in my swing that is changing my swing 'bottom'...I come out of my posture prematurely, I fear hitting it fat and don't let my arms fully extend, I try to swing too hard and then instinctively go to my tippy toes...this is just an abbreviated list too, but each one changes where the bottom of my swing is, and then adding the variability of how far away to stand compounds the issue.

[Matt J]

Hey fellas!

 

Broke a personal round best today...

 

I had been playing with this swing change, but also trying to integrate those Steelfiber MP-60's. Decided that I was just whacking it around too much and needed to play a more "serious" round and catch up with some old friends, so I headed over to my old club for our weekly skins match this morning. Threw the Miuras in the bag to try and score and it worked out pretty dang well.

 

I 3-putted the second green dropping a stroke, but then took it back on the first driveable par 4, flopping a little pitch to kick in range. Had a nice sand save on 6, but then dropped a stroke on 8 blowing one over the green I couldn't get close. Had another great sand save, more a good putt really on 9 to finish the front 1 over. Picked up another bird on 10 and finished the front only missing two greens, one I 3-putted for double and the other I saved, so ended up with two over. Pretty boring golf with 12 greens in regulation, 13 fairways, and 30 putts.

 

New swing change is gaining me about a club of yardage which is taking some getting used to, but I'll take it.

[BIG STU]

Hey fellas!

 

Broke a personal round best today...

 

I had been playing with this swing change, but also trying to integrate those Steelfiber MP-60's. Decided that I was just whacking it around too much and needed to play a more "serious" round and catch up with some old friends, so I headed over to my old club for our weekly skins match this morning. Threw the Miuras in the bag to try and score and it worked out pretty dang well.

 

I 3-putted the second green dropping a stroke, but then took it back on the first driveable par 4, flopping a little pitch to kick in range. Had a nice sand save on 6, but then dropped a stroke on 8 blowing one over the green I couldn't get close. Had another great sand save, more a good putt really on 9 to finish the front 1 over. Picked up another bird on 10 and finished the front only missing two greens, one I 3-putted for double and the other I saved, so ended up with two over. Pretty boring golf with 12 greens in regulation, 13 fairways, and 30 putts.

 

New swing change is gaining me about a club of yardage which is taking some getting used to, but I'll take it.

Great round there Matt. Seems like the swing changes are paying off for you and IMHO going back to the Miuras did not hurt the big picture any either. You get the putting stats down just a little and you will be under par. BTW I will take 2 a side from you :swoon:

[BIG STU]

Matt J, LMAO re: Goldilock's porridge. Too true! I think a golfer starts to make significant swing progress once he starts really finding and trusting his swing 'bottom'. And tied to that is definitely how far away from the ball he stands. Often at the root of my bad ballstriking days is something in my swing that is changing my swing 'bottom'...I come out of my posture prematurely, I fear hitting it fat and don't let my arms fully extend, I try to swing too hard and then instinctively go to my tippy toes...this is just an abbreviated list too, but each one changes where the bottom of my swing is, and then adding the variability of how far away to stand compounds the issue.

Ninja from my conversations over the past year or so it is evident you have a great mind good thing. But do not try to use it so much on the golf course especially over the ball let it rest do not over engineer or over think it

[Gauchograd99]

Matt J, LMAO re: Goldilock's porridge. Too true! I think a golfer starts to make significant swing progress once he starts really finding and trusting his swing 'bottom'. And tied to that is definitely how far away from the ball he stands. Often at the root of my bad ballstriking days is something in my swing that is changing my swing 'bottom'...I come out of my posture prematurely, I fear hitting it fat and don't let my arms fully extend, I try to swing too hard and then instinctively go to my tippy toes...this is just an abbreviated list too, but each one changes where the bottom of my swing is, and then adding the variability of how far away to stand compounds the issue.

Ninja from my conversations over the past year or so it is evident you have a great mind good thing. But do not try to use it so much on the golf course especially over the ball let it rest do not over engineer or over think it

 

That used to be me too... now I am too busy cursing at myself for the last idiotic swing/putt/hole to focus on a swing thought. :)

[Matt J]

Haha. Ironic I was given that talk on the course today. I grind, but let it go over the ball.

[mdgboxx]

So I would argue that a smaller head would only improve your ball striking ability to an extent....

 

 

I found at a second hand sports store what is called the PSP Little One. I never heard of it before, or seen one. My first thought was if I can hit this...Just wait and see....

 

However; after ready a ton of reviews apparently it is really easy to hit, only helps on the focus and mental, and doesn't seem to help lower scores....But every review I read was by a 10 handicapper or better. So that is why I think a smaller head can help to an extent.

 

On the same note I've routinely heard the opposite. If you're so used to hitting smaller heads and less forgiving clubs, than going over to a bigger head, or more forgiving club can dramatically improve your game. My guess on this, is the same effect as above. By hitting clubs with smaller heads you have a smaller variance in consistency and therefore can maximize the benefits of a GI based iron...Crazy....

 

So makes me wonder....Is the PSP little one designed for the good player? I don't think it is. I would bet that if you gave it to a beginner and taught him how to golf with that as his training aid, he would then drop his score like crazy and be a better ball striker in far less time. Why? Because he doesn't have a consistent swing, is not used to swinging smaller club heads to begin with, and the added focus, and mental attention that the PSP little one requires, will also reinforce that side of the game as well...

 

Hi guys,

 

Computer down and out of commission for over a week.

 

jb,

I still have my early 1990's Wilson 1200 GE (system 45) set. The metal driver head is more comparable to the size of a woman's fist than my own. I believe it's at ~200-250 cc, steel shafted at 44". The face is, at the highest (center) point, 1 3/8", and 3" at the widest heel/toe. The sole, from face to back reads 2 5/8".

 

Whenever my "gamer" decides to snooz on the job, I'll take them both to the range, hit 25-30 balls with the Wilson, then alternate every five shots.

 

So ya, hitting a smaller head, brings the concentration (along with tempo, etc.) level up quite a few notches, IMHO.

[DeNinny]

Matt J, LMAO re: Goldilock's porridge. Too true! I think a golfer starts to make significant swing progress once he starts really finding and trusting his swing 'bottom'. And tied to that is definitely how far away from the ball he stands. Often at the root of my bad ballstriking days is something in my swing that is changing my swing 'bottom'...I come out of my posture prematurely, I fear hitting it fat and don't let my arms fully extend, I try to swing too hard and then instinctively go to my tippy toes...this is just an abbreviated list too, but each one changes where the bottom of my swing is, and then adding the variability of how far away to stand compounds the issue.

Ninja from my conversations over the past year or so it is evident you have a great mind good thing. But do not try to use it so much on the golf course especially over the ball let it rest do not over engineer or over think it

 

Absolutely Sensei STU-san! There are way too many variables on the course and not enough time to "engineer" each and every shot or swing issue. I am only going in excruciating detail when I type and talk here. Often my own analysis and troubleshooting is happening when I am driving home from the round. On the course and I am a VERY simple "analyst". I come from a skateboarding background and although the moves are highly technical, you really just instinctively execute them at the moment of truth and to think of the details at that moment is BIG TROUBLE. Your brain will freeze your body if it is thinking too much. And I "see" and approach my golf much the same way as I do skateboarding or snowboarding. And honestly what makes it easier for me to be instinctive and a feel player is simply to have all that detailed analysis and engineering done offline and away from the game. I like to have all the knowledge as I possibly can but have it simply buried in my subconscious out on the course.

[Matt J]

STU, no way I'm giving you strokes LOL!

 

You and DeNinny give me Hammer and we play straight up, lefties vs. righties. Haha. One day...

[DeNinny]

STU, no way I'm giving you strokes LOL!

 

You and DeNinny give me Hammer and we play straight up, lefties vs. righties. Haha. One day...

If you get Hambooger, both of you play from the tips and STU and I play from the forward tees!

[BIG STU]

STU, no way I'm giving you strokes LOL!

 

You and DeNinny give me Hammer and we play straight up, lefties vs. righties. Haha. One day...

Got it I am game for anything as long as we are playing golf

[BIG STU]

Ninja--- I have a MD friend of mine I play golf with some he is a fellow member at my club. Now he is a brilliant heart surgeon and needless to say has a brilliant mind. Now he just took up golf a couple of years ago for relaxation. Now he studied up on the game and with his mind it stores and retains information like a sponge.He asked me to help him even though he knows I do not profess to be a golf instructor. As he put it he likes my grass roots approach to playing the game. I knew his problem all along too much info. I got him to quit watching instruction on the GC and when he gets golf magazines he is not to read them but put them directly in his reception room for his patients. I told him if my ticker kicks out and he is working on me I want all the information he has amassed when and if he has to work on me but on the course I want that brain turned off over the ball period. He plays for relaxation any how he likes being a regular old Joe on the course and he even dips tobacco the same kind I do for that matter. Love his general attitude on the course he says after all he is just a regular old guy loves the game. Now before working with me he struggled to break 100 from the mid tees. Now he does shoot in the high 80s and is happy because he hits some good shots during a round and that is all he cares about. He does not really care about the score. He also loves trick shots after he saw me do the left handed thing with a wedge on the toe one day. I also taught him the belly wedge trick from the fringe. Now he never belts balls because it is not fun to him and as he puts it he does not want to be that good. For a man of his talent and stature he is really a non prentintous guy. He plays an old set of Eye2s some patient gave him and a Nike driver 3 wood and 3 hybrid he bought on sale at our pro shop, never cleans his clubs and uses no covers. His office staff did get together last Christmas and bought him a Ping S series sand wedge. He cracks me up he buys those colored Wilson balls in the 48 count brick at Wal Mart and plays those. You would think a guy of his statue would drive the latest Mercedes or such hell no not him he drives a 10 year old sorta beat up Tahoe. My personal MD who has been a doctor for 30 years says that he is one of the best if not the best heart doctors he has ever seen period.

 

Main thing is I got him to stop thinking so much on the course and let his mind relax for important things like heart surgery and while on the course "Just hit the fricking ball" and have fun

[Fellaheen51]

Matt J, LMAO re: Goldilock's porridge. Too true! I think a golfer starts to make significant swing progress once he starts really finding and trusting his swing 'bottom'. And tied to that is definitely how far away from the ball he stands. Often at the root of my bad ballstriking days is something in my swing that is changing my swing 'bottom'...I come out of my posture prematurely, I fear hitting it fat and don't let my arms fully extend, I try to swing too hard and then instinctively go to my tippy toes...this is just an abbreviated list too, but each one changes where the bottom of my swing is, and then adding the variability of how far away to stand compounds the issue.

Ninja from my conversations over the past year or so it is evident you have a great mind good thing. But do not try to use it so much on the golf course especially over the ball let it rest do not over engineer or over think it

 

Ninz, remember the sage advice I was given at the Stu School of Golf. Lesson one...........

 

"Just hit the damn ball".

 

KISS imbedded forever.

[Matt J]

I think those MP 60’s will be on the bst here soon. I have not given up on Steelfibers and will probably build something else, but I committed to them and they don't work for me.

 

I need to get to a fitter with a trackman and sort a few things out. I'm close though.

 

I forgot to tell you guys...

 

I was in the local golf shop the other day talking to the owner's wife. She plays and enjoys the game, but isn't that "in" to the whole golf scene. I think I had mentioned that they had a mint set of Mac VIP's in there RH 2-PW. They were a good deal I even told some WRX'ers that I would box and ship them if they wanted to call the shop and buy them. So, she mentions that this guy buys them and asks that they be "booted and wrapped" for travel or shipping or something. Their credit card machine was down so he went and got cash and she prepared the clubs for him. She is laughing about how excited he was to have this pristine set of old blades and says, "yeah, he caddies at some club back east, here he left a business card, Pine something..."

 

"Pine Valley?"

 

"Yes, that's it, how did you know."

 

"It's a pretty well-known course, for folks like me that grew up back east." wink, wink. Or, really anyone. Haha.

 

So, a caddie from PV picked up a great set of VIP's. Good for him. Glad they went to someone who will appreciate them.

 

Another little yarn for the bored or those with excellent attention span...

 

I was showing that sandblast job off yesterday to my old playing partners and one of them get's this funny look on his face like a light bulb went off. "Oh, maybe that will work on this wedge!"

 

He pulls this club out of his bag, we're on the 8th hole, so he's carrying it around in a money match and it looks like it has been sitting out in the rain for two or three years. There's gotta be a quarter inch of rust all over the club. Sure enough, raw Vokey oil can 54.

 

He shoves it in my bag, "here, see what you can do when you get a minute." Haha. I kind of mutter under my breath, you could have hit it with some steel wool and oil once or twice in the last 5 or 6 years....

 

Here it is after a little steel wool, sandblasting, black ox, and a touch of white paint on the numbers for his old eyes (I should have taken a before picture, but it was bad, as bad as you can imagine)....

 

[BIG STU]

^^^ Matt good job but LOL I would have probably liked it the way it was before very rusty you know me right up my alley.

[Matt J]

Trust me STU it was too rusty.

 

Mulling over yesterday's stats it occurred to me how inaccurate stats can be.

 

Saves for instance can be rather mundane or fantastic. I hit 11 greens, but 2 were on the surface, but BAD shots, while 3 of the misses were pretty good and easy saves. 2 putts from 40 feet are a lot different than from 7 feet as far as momentum in a round goes, too.

 

So, confession and question: I've probably overemphasized stats, how important do you view them?

[BIG STU]

Trust me STU it was too rusty.

 

Mulling over yesterday's stats it occurred to me how inaccurate stats can be.

 

Saves for instance can be rather mundane or fantastic. I hit 11 greens, but 2 were on the surface, but BAD shots, while 3 of the misses were pretty good and easy saves. 2 putts from 40 feet are a lot different than from 7 feet as far as momentum in a round goes, too.

 

So, confession and question: I've probably overemphasized stats, how important do you view them?

I never have reviewed them as a whole on my game. I will replay a round good or bad and figure out where I gave up strokes or gained strokes. Now my old man before stats were the "in thing" he kept up with that stuff especially with me in tournaments. He was all about greens and fairways. I have shot low rounds and not hit many fairways or greens but putted and wedged the lights out. He just used to gall me with his stats. We were playing as partners one day in a big money match and he hit every green and fairway no joke I only hit like 5 fairways with the driver and maybe 7 or 8 greens but shot a lot lower score than he did and it chapped his butt raw. He used to say about my game that he did not understand it how a man could play golf for money and live by the 5 iron wedge and putter.

[DeNinny]

Matt J to me stats are not important enough to be worth the effort of tracking them. If you pay enough attention to your game and its issues, then you will know where to focus on improving without actual numbers.

 

Now all that said, I was touching on the value of stats earlier to jbhawx. I think if you are going to track and use stats, then you need to go all-in and trend your stats over time and evaluate the error of each stat too. With statistical evaluation, you could actually put control limits on certain stats and truly evaluate whether or not you are performing that stat either within or outside your statistical norm.

 

I would love to have all my stats tracked, but LOL it is way to much work. Anecdotal understanding of my tendencies and strengths and weaknesses is accurate enough for me.

[BIG STU]

Matt J to me stats are not important enough to be worth the effort of tracking them. If you pay enough attention to your game and its issues, then you will know where to focus on improving without actual numbers.

 

Now all that said, I was touching on the value of stats earlier to jbhawx. I think if you are going to track and use stats, then you need to go all-in and trend your stats over time and evaluate the error of each stat too. With statistical evaluation, you could actually put control limits on certain stats and truly evaluate whether or not you are performing that stat either within or outside your statistical norm.

 

I would love to have all my stats tracked, but LOL it is way to much work. Anecdotal understanding of my tendencies and strengths and weaknesses is accurate enough for me.

I like your way of thinking on that and IMHO you are putting the brain on overload paying attention to stats