3W vs Driver off the tee

[tsecor]

Many players are much more accurate with a shorter shaft in their driver or a 3 wood. Its just the way it is. When the driver is working, obviously you hit that as much as you can to gain the extra yardage. For me, the 3W is where its at for accuracy. for some real long hitters like matthewb who can hit the 9 iron off the tee. god bless him. I have a friend who can whoop me with a shovel and a bat like Tin Cup.

 

Fun thread you made here, huh? Anyway, i think we all now know where everyone stands. We have a group that has played a certain way for years and doesn't want to change. We also have a group that has been playing the way they thought was best, but now realize, due to Broadie's book, they were leaving strokes on the table (this group is beginning to incorporate Broadie's info into their game). Finally, we have a group that has been using Broadie's method for quite some time and are considerably passionate about it.

 

Here's where the problem arises, someone from either group 1 or 2 suggests playing a hole in a way that does not correspond with the way group 3 would play the hole. Group 3 immediately points this out and arguments ensue. Also some posts in the other direction, so no specific group is really at fault. Since there are always exceptions in interpretation, we all need to realize that and should keep it in mind when responding. There are also a myriad of variables when it comes to equipment and swings. All WRXers should obviously know that. I would suspect that the driver playing lengths of posters on this site probably vary from 48" to 43". One guys Dr/3w gap can be a LOT more than the next guys. Obviously, this falls into play during club selection, but it isn't always evident in the post. Same thing with swings. I have personally participated in several discussions with players that can not hit their driver in play to save their lives. Yes, they are working on resolving the problem, but it doesn't happen overnight and they still like to go out and play a round during the process. If they choose to play their 3w instead of their driver, they shouldn't get reamed here for doing it. Lastly, we aren't pros and our bodies (especially us older guys) give us very different results from day to day. The day I played with PSG in New Orleans, I had just jumped off a plane and rushed to the course. I HAD to get on the range and see just exactly what swing my body was gonna give me before playing. Thankfully, it was good and I was able to play the way I wanted. That is NOT always the case. Sometimes certain clubs just go haywire and I don't have time to figure out why. All I can do is adjust and hope for the best.

 

This and other discussions on Broadie's material have helped me, and others, considerably. However, I believe the quality of the discussion begins to deteriorate when the arguments start.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

BT

 

Good post BT. And you did indeed play very well that day! On a tough track too.

 

The issue, though is that it isn't all about Broadie. The 3 wood / driver debate also involves basic geometry. If you hit the ball shorter you will be more accurate. Period. Steve Stricker isn't all that accurate (Sorry). He's just short. If you took the long hitters and moved their ball back 30-ish yards on the same line, they'd be as accurate as Stricker is.

 

The "is it better to be long and sideways or short and accurate" debate is important, sure. No doubt. As I said to you on hole 6 (I think, the one where I pounded driver under the tree) "I wish i was 20 yards back in the fairway!" and we both laughed. And it was true. That was probably a stupid play on my part, and I paid the price with a chip-out, punch, running thing that didn't reach the green.

 

However, my major issue in this thread is confusing accurate and short. Cutting down your driver *might* make you more accurate. Maybe. However, it *will* reduce your clubhead speed, which will reduce your distance, which will keep you short of some trouble, which can fool you into *thinking* you are more accurate.

 

Its important to define what "Accuracy" means before we debate how important it is. If you don't adjust accuracy for distance, you skew the results. Tiger is known as a wild driver, but he was the longest the world had ever seen. If he hit it 240 he'd be unbelievably "accurate" by the definitions in this thread.

 

The debate here, IMO, isn't about Broadie. Its about how to evaluate an "increase" in accuracy. If you get "more accurate" by becoming shorter on an identical line, you arn't more accurate. Your just shorter.

 

No! NO NO NO!!

 

We're not arguing geometry. We understand that if we have a 10* +/- dispersion, our pattern with a shorter club will be tighter than with a longer club. That's irrefutable. What we keep trying to get through to you guys is that some peoples drivers/driver swings just suck. Either they aren't fitted well or they don't understand how they should swing the club. This is a REAL ISSUE with a LOT of people. Just look at the posts in these forums and there should be no doubt. THOSE are the people we are talking about. Not the ones who have properly fitted clubs and know how to swing them. Sure, these people need to do some serious work with their driver, no doubt. But they still like to get in a round every now and then, even if they haven't solved their problem. THAT'S when we say they should keep the driver in the bag and play the 3w.

 

BT

 

That's geometry BT. The driver isn't magic beans. Its the same swing, the driver just goes offline by more because it goes further. What you just said here is exactly what I said. The reason the 3w isn't devastating isn't because people swing better with it its because you can't miss a 220 yard club as bad as a 260 yard club. Geometry is central to this discussion if you are going to claim there is something inherently different about driver. What is different about it is how far it goes and how devastating (and offline) a driver can go. If you magically made that guy's 3 wood go 260 instead of 220, the 3w would be just as bad. The swing is the same. Its that errors are magnified because of geometry. That's why people "slice" their driver and hit "fades" with their 3 wood. Its the same shot, one just doesn't go far enough to look absolutely awful.

"offline" is so incorrect.

<----------->

<------------------------------------------>

 

these are exactly the same, so when you say geometry is central to the discussion, your base statement is way off.

 

"That's geometry BT. The driver isn't magic beans. Its the same swing, the driver just goes offline by more because it goes further"

 

this is inherently false by geometric standards.

 

In geometry a line:

• is straight (no curves),

• extends in both directions without end

 

so, did you hit your target or not? that's the question....

[Ri_Redneck]

Many players are much more accurate with a shorter shaft in their driver or a 3 wood. Its just the way it is. When the driver is working, obviously you hit that as much as you can to gain the extra yardage. For me, the 3W is where its at for accuracy. for some real long hitters like matthewb who can hit the 9 iron off the tee. god bless him. I have a friend who can whoop me with a shovel and a bat like Tin Cup.

 

Fun thread you made here, huh? Anyway, i think we all now know where everyone stands. We have a group that has played a certain way for years and doesn't want to change. We also have a group that has been playing the way they thought was best, but now realize, due to Broadie's book, they were leaving strokes on the table (this group is beginning to incorporate Broadie's info into their game). Finally, we have a group that has been using Broadie's method for quite some time and are considerably passionate about it.

 

Here's where the problem arises, someone from either group 1 or 2 suggests playing a hole in a way that does not correspond with the way group 3 would play the hole. Group 3 immediately points this out and arguments ensue. Also some posts in the other direction, so no specific group is really at fault. Since there are always exceptions in interpretation, we all need to realize that and should keep it in mind when responding. There are also a myriad of variables when it comes to equipment and swings. All WRXers should obviously know that. I would suspect that the driver playing lengths of posters on this site probably vary from 48" to 43". One guys Dr/3w gap can be a LOT more than the next guys. Obviously, this falls into play during club selection, but it isn't always evident in the post. Same thing with swings. I have personally participated in several discussions with players that can not hit their driver in play to save their lives. Yes, they are working on resolving the problem, but it doesn't happen overnight and they still like to go out and play a round during the process. If they choose to play their 3w instead of their driver, they shouldn't get reamed here for doing it. Lastly, we aren't pros and our bodies (especially us older guys) give us very different results from day to day. The day I played with PSG in New Orleans, I had just jumped off a plane and rushed to the course. I HAD to get on the range and see just exactly what swing my body was gonna give me before playing. Thankfully, it was good and I was able to play the way I wanted. That is NOT always the case. Sometimes certain clubs just go haywire and I don't have time to figure out why. All I can do is adjust and hope for the best.

 

This and other discussions on Broadie's material have helped me, and others, considerably. However, I believe the quality of the discussion begins to deteriorate when the arguments start.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

BT

 

Good post BT. And you did indeed play very well that day! On a tough track too.

 

The issue, though is that it isn't all about Broadie. The 3 wood / driver debate also involves basic geometry. If you hit the ball shorter you will be more accurate. Period. Steve Stricker isn't all that accurate (Sorry). He's just short. If you took the long hitters and moved their ball back 30-ish yards on the same line, they'd be as accurate as Stricker is.

 

The "is it better to be long and sideways or short and accurate" debate is important, sure. No doubt. As I said to you on hole 6 (I think, the one where I pounded driver under the tree) "I wish i was 20 yards back in the fairway!" and we both laughed. And it was true. That was probably a stupid play on my part, and I paid the price with a chip-out, punch, running thing that didn't reach the green.

 

However, my major issue in this thread is confusing accurate and short. Cutting down your driver *might* make you more accurate. Maybe. However, it *will* reduce your clubhead speed, which will reduce your distance, which will keep you short of some trouble, which can fool you into *thinking* you are more accurate.

 

Its important to define what "Accuracy" means before we debate how important it is. If you don't adjust accuracy for distance, you skew the results. Tiger is known as a wild driver, but he was the longest the world had ever seen. If he hit it 240 he'd be unbelievably "accurate" by the definitions in this thread.

 

The debate here, IMO, isn't about Broadie. Its about how to evaluate an "increase" in accuracy. If you get "more accurate" by becoming shorter on an identical line, you arn't more accurate. Your just shorter.

 

No! NO NO NO!!

 

We're not arguing geometry. We understand that if we have a 10* +/- dispersion, our pattern with a shorter club will be tighter than with a longer club. That's irrefutable. What we keep trying to get through to you guys is that some peoples drivers/driver swings just suck. Either they aren't fitted well or they don't understand how they should swing the club. This is a REAL ISSUE with a LOT of people. Just look at the posts in these forums and there should be no doubt. THOSE are the people we are talking about. Not the ones who have properly fitted clubs and know how to swing them. Sure, these people need to do some serious work with their driver, no doubt. But they still like to get in a round every now and then, even if they haven't solved their problem. THAT'S when we say they should keep the driver in the bag and play the 3w.

 

BT

 

That's geometry BT. The driver isn't magic beans. Its the same swing, the driver just goes offline by more because it goes further. What you just said here is exactly what I said. The reason the 3w isn't devastating isn't because people swing better with it its because you can't miss a 220 yard club as bad as a 260 yard club. Geometry is central to this discussion if you are going to claim there is something inherently different about driver. What is different about it is how far it goes and how devastating (and offline) a driver can go. If you magically made that guy's 3 wood go 260 instead of 220, the 3w would be just as bad. The swing is the same. Its that errors are magnified because of geometry. That's why people "slice" their driver and hit "fades" with their 3 wood. Its the same shot, one just doesn't go far enough to look absolutely awful.

 

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

[tsecor]

good post RI_

[pinestreetgolf]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

[chippa13]

These go to 11.

[Ri_Redneck]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

You said the driver is not "a magic bean and it's just another club". To which I agreed....for some people. However, as many posts in the very forums indicate, there are many for which it is not just another club. In my 40+ yrs of playing I have seen hundreds of these people. Yes, it's a swing flaw, but it only manifests with the driver. You don't see it with other clubs because they (for some unknown reason) swing them completely different. I have a friend of mine I've played with for close to 10 yes who does it. I point it out and he says he's tried many times to fix it, lessons and all, with no luck. It's a fact, not a misconception. My point on the whole matter is that even these players can benefit from Broadie's theory as long as they honestly assess their game. However, others should not call their hand on it if they have no proof that this individual player is actually incorrect.

 

BT

[pinestreetgolf]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

You said the driver is not "a magic bean and it's just another club". To which I agreed....for some people. However, as many posts in the very forums indicate, there are many for which it is not just another club. In my 40+ yrs of playing I have seen hundreds of these people. Yes, it's a swing flaw, but it only manifests with the driver. You don't see it with other clubs because they (for some unknown reason) swing them completely different. I have a friend of mine I've played with for close to 10 yes who does it. I point it out and he says he's tried many times to fix it, lessons and all, with no luck. It's a fact, not a misconception. My point on the whole matter is that even these players can benefit from Broadie's theory as long as they honestly assess their game. However, others should not call their hand on it if they have no proof that this individual player is actually incorrect.

 

BT

 

If I could wave a magic wand at one of these players where swing flaws only show up with the driver and make their 3 wood go 260, are you arguing their 3 wood would remain a reliable tee club at 260 carry, because the 3 wood swing and driver swing for these players are fundamentally different on a technical level? In other words, for one of these players who can hit 3 wood and not driver, if we put a tee where their 3 wood landed and then moved it forward 30 yards on an identical line, are you saying the resulting position would still be acceptable?

 

Do you think that same difference exists between 8 and 9 irons in some players?

[JeffreySpicoli]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

You said the driver is not "a magic bean and it's just another club". To which I agreed....for some people. However, as many posts in the very forums indicate, there are many for which it is not just another club. In my 40+ yrs of playing I have seen hundreds of these people. Yes, it's a swing flaw, but it only manifests with the driver. You don't see it with other clubs because they (for some unknown reason) swing them completely different. I have a friend of mine I've played with for close to 10 yes who does it. I point it out and he says he's tried many times to fix it, lessons and all, with no luck. It's a fact, not a misconception. My point on the whole matter is that even these players can benefit from Broadie's theory as long as they honestly assess their game. However, others should not call their hand on it if they have no proof that this individual player is actually incorrect.

 

BT

 

What is needed though is actual outcomes measured over a period of time. Without that, we are at the mercy of perceptions that clearly aren't accurate.

 

For example, someone who claims that they are always accurate off the tee with their 3 wood (which BTW they've only had for short a period of time per their own posts on this board) and that they always "hit their target," well, there's something that's clearly untrue about their claims. Further, when the same person claims on the same board that they've won long distance driving contests but then claim elsewhere that it's better for them to use 3W off the tee, well, again something's not true about their claims.

 

If there was real long-term data with believable dispersion and a truthful accounting of real results with both their driver and their 3W, then we might have something useful. Until then that type of person is trolling when they themselves see that or not.

 

In other words, what you are emphasizing is certainly fair and useful but without truthful claims it's impossible to take some posters seriously.

[pinestreetgolf]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

You said the driver is not "a magic bean and it's just another club". To which I agreed....for some people. However, as many posts in the very forums indicate, there are many for which it is not just another club. In my 40+ yrs of playing I have seen hundreds of these people. Yes, it's a swing flaw, but it only manifests with the driver. You don't see it with other clubs because they (for some unknown reason) swing them completely different. I have a friend of mine I've played with for close to 10 yes who does it. I point it out and he says he's tried many times to fix it, lessons and all, with no luck. It's a fact, not a misconception. My point on the whole matter is that even these players can benefit from Broadie's theory as long as they honestly assess their game. However, others should not call their hand on it if they have no proof that this individual player is actually incorrect.

 

BT

 

What is needed though is actual outcomes measured over a period of time. Without that, we are at the mercy of perceptions that clearly aren't accurate.

 

For example, someone who claims that they are always accurate off the tee with their 3 wood (which BTW they've only had for short a period of time per their own posts on this board) and that they always "hit their target," well, there's something that's clearly untrue about their claims. Further, when the same person claims on the same board that they've won long distance driving contests but then claim elsewhere that it's better for them to use 3W off the tee, well, again something's not true about their claims.

 

If there was real long-term data with believable dispersion and a truthful accounting of real results with both their driver and their 3W, then we might have something useful. Until then that type of person is trolling when they themselves see that or not.

 

In other words, what you are emphasizing is certainly fair and useful but without truthful claims it's impossible to take some posters seriously.

 

No, no, he said he "can always" hit it. That doesn't mean he does, in fact, always hit it. It means that he can always hit it.

 

(I have no idea what he means, but he seems pretty sure of it)

[Ri_Redneck]

You're honestly going to suggest that the driver is not a problem for many here, even with all the posts from those with driver problems? Yes, for you and me, driver is just another club. But for many, it's just anybody's guess where the thing will go on any given swing. Sorry we disagree on this, but I've personally seen it too many times to believe otherwise. Because of my job, I play in tons of corporate tourneys (scrambles usually) with some really horrible players. I SEE what they deal with on a regular basis. We're talking players who's handicaps overload the software when their TRUE scores are entered! Yet they enter with 18 or 24 as their hcp when they couldn't score that well from the junior tees!!!

 

Since you mentioned 9 at English Turn, you remember what I played? The pond on the right was 250 (hole was 350 from the tees we played that day), so I chose 3w to lessen the odds that I might end up in the water. Actually, there is water on BOTH sides (across the left trap too) and the distance between both was 50 yds, getting tighter the further you go. A bit tight for comfort with my driver. At any rate, I didn't maintain my proper posture on the 3w shot and hooked it in the trap leaving myself about 115 to the green. BTW, same swing with the driver would likely have put me in the left pond across the trap. I have good FW trap form, so I wasn't worried, but I ended up catching it a bit heavy and came up short. Pin was on the back and my pitch wasn't as good as it needed to be so I walked away with a 5. At 13, we both ended up in the right rough with driver (I got closer to the water than I wanted though). Due to my recent practice on "100 and in" shots, I was fortunate enough to put one on and get par to your 5.

 

As I've mentioned many times, I am using Broadie's theory in my game and seeing positive results. I've started making much more of an effort to properly diagnose the hazards on each hole I play to help me get the most out of my game. However, I believe the interpretation of "Stroke costing hazards" should lie with the individual golfer since we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We just have to REALLY take the time to find out what they actually are and not PRESUME as we always have.

 

BT

 

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. I didn't suggest driver wasn't a problem. I suggested driver was a problem because it goes so far. If driver went 180, those same swings would be fine. The point is that 3w isn't a better swing, its a shorter one. In terms of what to improve, that can deceive golfers.

 

I mis-remembered how you played 9, in that case. I think the landing area stays the same (the bunker pushes further left as the hole gets longer) but could be an optical illusion I guess. I always play that hole directly into the bunker. On 13, you are correct (I really wish I had that shot back, I was on a run!).

 

The point I'm making is that golfers only think they have a "driver problem" because of how far the ball goes with the driver (the errors show up much bigger and are much more damaging) but they actually have a golf swing problem, not a driver problem.

 

Golfer X is 120 out. He hits a pitching wedge to a green that is about 40 yards wide with a pin in the middle. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 22 yards right, and ends up on the right fringe. It is about an 18% miss.

 

Golfer X is on the tee. He hits a driver to a fairway with a bunker left and water right (#9) that is 50 yards wide, typically the golfer hits driver 240 (About 25 yards behind us, just for safeties sake in the analogy). He tees on the side of danger aims away. He hits it with a 5.5* open clubface. The ball goes 46.78 yards right directly into the water. It is an 18% miss, and it splashes.

 

In the first scenario, the golfer shrugs. Hit the fringe. Not great, but not bad.

In the second scenario, the golfer is furious. "i can't hit driver!" he exclaims, and shoves it back into the bag with anger, resolving to hit his 3 wood because he has "driver problems".

 

You (if I'm understanding you correctly, which I may not be) seem to be claiming there are people out there who have a mental issue where they swing their drivers completely differently than all their other clubs producing horrendous results. All I'm saying is that the swing flaws that are there with a wedge are there with a driver, you just don't notice because the ball doesn't go far enough. Now, when you are on the actual tee box, it doesn't really matter why - the golden rule is the golden rule. Hit the longest club in your bag that doesn't reasonably bring stroke costing hazards into play. However, when you are practicing or selecting equipment I think its important to know if you have some sort of mental block where you hit your driver 10* open and everything else well, or you just have a relatively poor golf swing that shows up most in the driver. I would be for 95%+ of people, its the latter (including myself - when I go to GolfTec, my driver stats are almost identical to my other stats it just goes further, because *its my golf swing*).

 

The driver being "wild" is mostly an optical illusion caused by how far the club goes. If the driver was the same exact club and you deadened the face so that everyone hit it 150 yards, it would be fine.

 

If I gave you a driver with the head of a 7 iron you'd be 10x better with it. Its not because your swing got magically better, its because the ball couldn't go far enough to be bad.

 

We fundamentally disagree that golfers' swing completely changes when you had them a club that is 1-1.5" longer and slightly lighter than their 3 wood. It just shows mistakes more (just like a 5 iron shows mistakes more than a sand wedge).

 

If I'm not understanding your position correctly (that adding an inch to an inch and a half and slightly lightening a club makes the golfer a completely different person) then please correct me. But I just don't that's actually what is going on. If you measure each club, the path and.or face is off with all of them. The driver is just the most devastating (which is why every golfer should have a different evaluation of "reasonably brought into play" on the golden rule). When golfers tell themselves they are pretty good just with driver issues they are (almost always) lying to themselves. What that actually means is "I'm short enough that I can get away with nonsense until driver at which point the mistakes actually really hurt me".

 

This knowledge should, IMO, inform practice and equipment choices.

 

Again, IMO.

You said the driver is not "a magic bean and it's just another club". To which I agreed....for some people. However, as many posts in the very forums indicate, there are many for which it is not just another club. In my 40+ yrs of playing I have seen hundreds of these people. Yes, it's a swing flaw, but it only manifests with the driver. You don't see it with other clubs because they (for some unknown reason) swing them completely different. I have a friend of mine I've played with for close to 10 yes who does it. I point it out and he says he's tried many times to fix it, lessons and all, with no luck. It's a fact, not a misconception. My point on the whole matter is that even these players can benefit from Broadie's theory as long as they honestly assess their game. However, others should not call their hand on it if they have no proof that this individual player is actually incorrect.

 

BT

 

If I could wave a magic wand at one of these players where swing flaws only show up with the driver and make their 3 wood go 260, are you arguing their 3 wood would remain a reliable tee club at 260 carry, because the 3 wood swing and driver swing for these players are fundamentally different on a technical level? In other words, for one of these players who can hit 3 wood and not driver, if we put a tee where their 3 wood landed and then moved it forward 30 yards on an identical line, are you saying the resulting position would still be acceptable?

 

Do you think that same difference exists between 8 and 9 irons in some players?

I KNOW they exist! And you don't need a magic wand. I've seen the same thing with FWs. Irons, they typically play worse as they get longer, but are reasonable with the short irons.

 

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

Take care,

 

BT

[JeffreySpicoli]

 

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

[pinestreetgolf]

True, but another issue is players making things up in their heads that don't actually exist. For example, hitting driver in warm-ups and concluding you "don't have it that day" and using 3w. That is really irrational behavior.

 

If an nba player has two free throws to shoot, his making or missing the first has zero bearing on making or missing the second. His season or career average controls. Similarly, there are no "off days" and "on days" with the driver. Your brain loves patterns and tries to see them everywhere, so it makes up a causal relationship between a bunch of clustered misses. This is called the free throw effect and has been studied ad nauseum in academia - "getting hot" doesn't actually exist. Having a bunch of good outcomes within your probability distribution clustered together exists, but the first doesn't cause the next. Just like if you flip a coin 1,000 times you'll get ten heads in a row doesn't mean your "hot", the eleventh has no new probability calculation. It doesn't exist. It's in your head.

 

It's irrational, score-increasing behavior to conclude your "cold" with the driver and put it away.

 

You should always hit the longest club that does not bring stroke costing hazards into play.

[JeffreySpicoli]

 

It's irrational, score-increasing behavior to conclude your "cold" with the driver and put it away.

 

 

Agreed. And the outcome of that behavior is something I don't care about unless I'm playing that person competitively. Then I welcome it.

[granite45]

The driver is not just another club in the bag anymore. The 1-wood was just another club in the bag, and like Jack said, you used the same swing for the 1-wood as the 9-iron.

 

You can't blame amateurs for the conjured mysticism surrounding the driver:

 

-taking the driver out of the matched set and selling separately

 

-enlarging the forgiveness area to make it harder to detect ball-striking flaws

 

-driver shaft length is no longer in balanced proportion to the rest of the set's lofts

 

-fitting launch point shafts to swings, therefore giving players a driver shaft that likely has a different launch point than their 9-iron (thus killing Jack's "same swing" philosophy)

 

-building launch pads that require 100% driver swings and eliminating pretty much all tree lined doglegs from any tour

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pinestreetgolf]

The driver is not just another club in the bag anymore. The 1-wood was just another club in the bag, and like Jack said, you used the same swing for the 1-wood as the 9-iron.

 

You can't blame amateurs for the conjured mysticism surrounding the driver:

 

-taking the driver out of the matched set and selling separately

 

-enlarging the forgiveness area to make it harder to detect ball-striking flaws

 

-driver shaft length is no longer in balanced proportion to the rest of the set's lofts

 

-fitting launch point shafts to swings, therefore giving players a driver shaft that likely has a different launch point than their 9-iron (thus killing Jack's "same swing" philosophy)

 

-building launch pads that require 100% driver swings and eliminating pretty much all tree lined doglegs from any tour

 

Path and face don't change. You might go from 8* launch to 10* launch because of some ill-fitting shaft, but you don't go from being completely unable to hit the ball to solid going from driver to 3 wood. Its ridiculous. Also, *you get to choose if you put some nuts shaft in your driver*. Everything on this list is under your control man. You don't have to do any of this. I play a driver from 2005 with significant offset and a 445cc head. It fits my "iron swing" (<- ugh.). If you don't do well with it, don't use it. Its not rocket science.

 

This argument is like saying that you chunked a few 7 irons on the range, so your going to purposefully hit 8 ten yards short of the green and hit a pitch. Its nuts. There is an optimal landing spot for your game for each hole. The club in your bag that is most likely to hit that spot should be chosen. A sub-optimal landing spot should not be chosen simply because of some internal narrative that you are "cold" or "not good with driver". If its the optimal target, and that club hits it that far, pull it. Otherwise, get the club out of your bag.

 

You will play according to the probability distribution of your skill. There is no scenario where it is good golf to have some sort of "feeling" that your "struggling" and just not hit it while its one of your 14.

[granite45]

 

Path and face don't change. You might go from 8* launch to 10* launch because of some ill-fitting shaft, but you don't go from being completely unable to hit the ball to solid going from driver to 3 wood. Its ridiculous. Also, *you get to choose if you put some nuts shaft in your driver*. Everything on this list is under your control man. You don't have to do any of this.

 

I don't think you realize we agree here. My post was a response to those who are referencing players with major mental issues (at least with the driver, not in life... well... )

 

Anyways, everything about marketing, COR limit, Tiger's original 975, course design, and television has made the "driver swing" about something other than good contact and loft.

 

We have the "choice" to do a lot of things in spite of marketing and advertising, yet plenty of people with breathing problems still smoke...

[gioreeko]

I see a lot of members talk about using a 3 wood off the tee because the driver isn't working.......with todays technology and "forgiveness", you would think drivers are much easier to hit than years past. The huge 460cc heads are supposed to inspire confidence (I hate them personally), but its funny how a smaller head 3W with a shorter shaft provides that confidence to a lot of amateur players.....maybe club fitting should be geared towards shaft length along with the other fitting parameters. I know it is somewhat, but what are your thoughts? It seems a lot of people like the 3w off the tee because it flies straight for them....but the heads are tiny compared to todays drivers and I know the shafts are shorter.....maybe that's the key to good fitting. Sure you lose some yardage, but if it flies down the middle and you are confident with the club, hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

I have a mini driver which is basically a deeper faced, strong lofted 3 wood. I can put an easy swing on it and it goes around 275-290. I rarely use my driver anymore. This club is really responsible for shaving at least 8 strokes off my scores. I highly recommend them!

[Ri_Redneck]

 

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

[JeffreySpicoli]

 

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

 

You're severely twisting things to state I don't accept outliers. Not sure why you insist on doing that.

[pinestreetgolf]

I see a lot of members talk about using a 3 wood off the tee because the driver isn't working.......with todays technology and "forgiveness", you would think drivers are much easier to hit than years past. The huge 460cc heads are supposed to inspire confidence (I hate them personally), but its funny how a smaller head 3W with a shorter shaft provides that confidence to a lot of amateur players.....maybe club fitting should be geared towards shaft length along with the other fitting parameters. I know it is somewhat, but what are your thoughts? It seems a lot of people like the 3w off the tee because it flies straight for them....but the heads are tiny compared to todays drivers and I know the shafts are shorter.....maybe that's the key to good fitting. Sure you lose some yardage, but if it flies down the middle and you are confident with the club, hitting it 240 down the middle instead of 260 into the rough may save you 5 strokes a loop.

 

What are your thoughts?

I have a mini driver which is basically a deeper faced, strong lofted 3 wood. I can put an easy swing on it and it goes around 275-290. I rarely use my driver anymore. This club is really responsible for shaving at least 8 strokes off my scores. I highly recommend them!

 

You can hit a strong lofted 3 wood 275-290 with more accuracy than a standard driver?

 

I like you.

[pinestreetgolf]

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

 

You're severely twisting things to state I don't accept outliers. Not sure why you insist on doing that.

 

Broadie allows for this. "that reasonably brings a stroke-costing hazard into play". "Reasonably" will change golfer-to-golfer, maybe because of the reasons you discuss. That's why we're having trouble understanding your objection. We arn't suggesting that there is one solution for all golfers. That would be insane. If I said "if you are in a race, you should run as fast as you can" you wouldn't say "BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE SLOW!". We know that. Its a hard and fast rule that is the optimal approach to the game but it is up to the individual golfer to apply it in their own game and be reasonable.

 

The key (and where many fail) is the "Reason" part of "reasonable", whether it be because they don't know how far they actually hit their clubs or because they've made up an internal narrative about being bad with only the driver. But its up to each golfer to decide what "reasonably" means within the context of their own games.

[TheBIIgCat]

The less loft that there is and the longer the shaft, the harder the club is to hit straight. It's not that a 3 wood is easier to hit, it's the fact that the shaft is shorter and the club head has more loft. I switched to a 43.5 inch driver shaft this year and I hit it further and straighter then I have with Any 45 inch drivee

[Newbs24]

Experimented with my old R9 by taking it down to 43.5 on a 8.5* and hit it fairly straight Friday... Looking to do the same to My 10.5 Aeroburner and see if I can't find some fairways with that as well... I just feel more confident with it in my hands

[tsecor]

a psychologist would have a field day with certain posters in this thread......

 

some people theorize all kids want to go to school and learn.....its not a fact.

 

I wonder how certain theories play out at Bethpage black from the 3 foot high rough

 

I just played 9 with my driver and 9 with the 3 wood.....both clubs working today....long irons not so much....short game good, putting not so much.....

 

PGATOUR.COM: Did collection of data impact your play or practice at all?

 

BROADIE: It helped in a number of ways. One, on certain holes I ended up using a different club from the tee because I could see what my shot pattern looked like. That’s just one thing that can come from looking at the data. Then, in analyzing risk and reward, on certain holes I was taking too much risk when there was, say, out-of-bounds on one side of the hole. It helped in a number of places.

Putting together a monthly strokes gained report has helped me. I remember the reports showing me that my short game was slowly deteriorating. It’s very easy as a golfer to remember your best shots and think, ‘I’m doing well because I remember this great shot I had,’ but when you have this somewhat slow deterioration, and then you get a report saying you’re losing two more shots per round in your short game than you were two months ago, then you realize you should practice it. It’s much easier to focus your practice time when you have this measure telling you where you’re doing well or where you’re not doing

[Ri_Redneck]

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

 

You're severely twisting things to state I don't accept outliers. Not sure why you insist on doing that.

 

My whole disagreement with PSG and you are about tee shots between 3w and driver (OP's topic too). The two of you insist that the 3w is no more accurate than the driver, just shorter. I, and others here, insist that that is not always the case. I, and others, have agreed that a 3w and driver hit in a straight line with the same deviation from target line are of the same angular accuracy. It's mathematically indisputable. In other words, we have accepted your argument. However, there has not been mutual acceptance that, due to face path differential, the driver can, at time or for some people, be FAR less accurate than the 3w. You seem to believe that it isn't an issue with any one or that they somehow are delusional. Even when a simple search of the phrase "can't control my driver" yields 1000 results in these very forums! Even when we have all seen discussion end with success when players change their driver and/or swing and get better results. Even when the majority of golfers are simply buying stock clubs that don't fit them, AND WE ALL KNOW IT!!

 

It doesn't matter to me if you guys ever accept this. But, IMHO, it greatly discredits your input in future discussions if you don't.

 

BT

[JeffreySpicoli]

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

 

You're severely twisting things to state I don't accept outliers. Not sure why you insist on doing that.

 

My whole disagreement with PSG and you are about tee shots between 3w and driver (OP's topic too). The two of you insist that the 3w is no more accurate than the driver, just shorter. I, and others here, insist that that is not always the case. I, and others, have agreed that a 3w and driver hit in a straight line with the same deviation from target line are of the same angular accuracy. It's mathematically indisputable. In other words, we have accepted your argument. However, there has not been mutual acceptance that, due to face path differential, the driver can, at time or for some people, be FAR less accurate than the 3w. You seem to believe that it isn't an issue with any one or that they somehow are delusional. Even when a simple search of the phrase "can't control my driver" yields 1000 results in these very forums! Even when we have all seen discussion end with success when players change their driver and/or swing and get better results. Even when the majority of golfers are simply buying stock clubs that don't fit them, AND WE ALL KNOW IT!!

 

It doesn't matter to me if you guys ever accept this. But, IMHO, it greatly discredits your input in future discussions if you don't.

 

BT

 

You're over the top here and again distorting your opponents' arguments.

 

Sure, lots of people claim that they are less "accurate" with their driver than their 3W. I agree with that. What I don't agree with is whether or not those claims are actually true--and, if true, how true--as they are anecdotal. I don't see anyone offering a reasonable set of empirical data. Just memories that we know are often far from objective reality.

 

You want us to agree with something that you don't have data to support. So you're actually the one being unreasonable here and it's your credibility that may be in question.

 

Another piece of this is that higher handicap golfers struggle with longer clubs--period. Your notion doesn't hold that there's a vast legion of golfers that will do well to hit 3W rather than driver off the tee. A 3W isn't that easy to hit for someone that's "wild" with the driver. If this wild driver doesn't learn how to hit longer clubs, he will be forced to move to shorter clubs--with a more narrow dispersion pattern due to loft--and Broadie has shown that this golfer gives up several shots a round.

 

At the end of the day, someone who can't hit driver either has a mental block or mental misconception, a physical limitation, and/or they aren't truly serious about improving their game. And this ultimately gets at why your attempts are at naught to champion this wild driver. He's generally a recreational golfer who either doesn't care or can't for some reason become a competitive golfer. And that's ok and there's no reason to spend one's time worrying about their game and club choices as they are not worrying about it themselves.

[tsecor]

why do a lot of non money making, weekend warrior golfers compare themselves to PGA players? that's what I call having a major mental block.

[pinestreetgolf]

Perhaps you just haven't had all the wonderful opportunities I have had to experience it. LOL. Anyway, it doesn't discredit Broadie in any way, they are just the exception to the rule sometimes.

 

 

Your last statement demonstrates why there's more misunderstanding than disagreement in this thread.

 

Broadie's work doesn't claim to establish any "rules." Rather Broadie a s providing statistical measures of central tendency--I.e., means and medians.

 

Those arguing against the application of Strokes Gained in this thread keeps stating "But there are exceptions!" as if that invalidates the previously referenced application. But we are not talking about exceptions. We are really talking about potential statistical outliers.

 

The first problem with this is that these potential outliers are not utilizing the Strokes Gained methodology and the offered proof has been anecdotal or non-comparable by using metrics like FIR.

 

The second problem is that even valid outliers do not invalidate means and medians. Statistics doesn't fall on evidence of outliers.

 

Ultimately, Broadie's work is comprehensive and peer-reviewed. Nothing in this thread has called into question the validity of Strokes Gained nor the application of it that has been explained ad nauseum.

I never said they invalidated it. Actually, I've repeatedly said the opposite. The argument is about YOU not understanding that we are simply stating that there are golfers out there that are outliers. You don't want to accept the fact that they have specific issues that cause them to apply Broadie's logic in a way that is not consistent with YOUR application. You seem believe that your application is the only right application. Their driver doesn't work because it is either a crap fitting driver for them or they are swinging it in the completely wrong way. They want to not hit it till the problem is resolved and you guys are just saying they're out of their minds. BTW, the guys I'm talking about would STILL be OB if they hit their driver 3w distance. Got it?

 

BT

 

You're severely twisting things to state I don't accept outliers. Not sure why you insist on doing that.

 

My whole disagreement with PSG and you are about tee shots between 3w and driver (OP's topic too). The two of you insist that the 3w is no more accurate than the driver, just shorter. I, and others here, insist that that is not always the case. I, and others, have agreed that a 3w and driver hit in a straight line with the same deviation from target line are of the same angular accuracy. It's mathematically indisputable. In other words, we have accepted your argument. However, there has not been mutual acceptance that, due to face path differential, the driver can, at time or for some people, be FAR less accurate than the 3w. You seem to believe that it isn't an issue with any one or that they somehow are delusional. Even when a simple search of the phrase "can't control my driver" yields 1000 results in these very forums! Even when we have all seen discussion end with success when players change their driver and/or swing and get better results. Even when the majority of golfers are simply buying stock clubs that don't fit them, AND WE ALL KNOW IT!!

 

It doesn't matter to me if you guys ever accept this. But, IMHO, it greatly discredits your input in future discussions if you don't.

 

BT

 

Lol. This post was fine until the "greatly discredits" part. Easy hoss.

 

I've said multiple times it might be less accurate, not that it will be. If you like I can go find them. They are around my post with the diagram.

 

For the last time BT nobody is suggesting this is true for all golfers. Nobody. I'm not sure how much clearer I can state this. They are general rules.

[JeffreySpicoli]

why do a lot of non money making, weekend warrior golfers compare themselves to PGA players? that's what I call having a major mental block.

 

Before I forget, welcome back, tsecor! I hope your long vacation was relaxing and refreshing.

 

We missed you but NYC243 was kind enough to keep us company while you were absent.

 

Fairways and greens!

 

 

[Ri_Redneck]

Like I said, It matters not to me.

 

BT